And Who, Disguised as Clark Kent

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

And Who, Disguised as Clark Kent

What the new Superman needs to do to succeed.

Read Full Article

Well, the trailer seems to give us some answers. And according to Imdb there will be

Just a small error in the article; Superman came out in 1978, not 1976.

Otherwise, great article, and I agree on a lot of the points.

If they are planning for a movie universe, my question is always "how are they gonna build it?"

Reading this I came to realization that the best portrayal of Superman in recent years was Neo in the Matrix films. Ignore the crap inherent to those films, Neo seems to be a Superman analog, with the obvious stuff being how he can fly, has super strength, and is bulletproof in the second and third movie, throw in the whole Messiah/Christ comparison subtext. Neo is killed and returns from the dead, like a certain Blue Boy Scout we know. Not to the mention the fight with Agent Smith in the last film that reminds me of Superman fighting Captain Marvel in Kingdom Come. In Reloaded Link explicitly says "He's doing his Superman thing again." I can't think of clearer way of pointing out the obvious. Throw in Trinity as a Lois Lane analog, Morpheus stading in for Jor-El, with Agent Smith standing in for Zod. For all it's faults, The Matrix trilogy went big for sure, not always in the right directions. Personally I think Superman would do well following that idea without being silly and pretentious

Exactly Bob. All you need is a super powered on atleast an equal level to Superman and have fun throwing each other through buses on into mountains. This is why Superman Returns sucked, nothing happened and that cost $250 million atleast. With all this special effects we have these days surely they could make an awesome movie with amazing stunts and show us things that could only ever be done in a Superman movie.

Also, no more Luthor, sick of him being in the movies. Maybe have him as a secondary villian pulling strings, but have a major strong villian. Bring in Darkseid.:-)

I'm just happy to see Superman with a bit of Snyder polish. Just hoping he can keep it thematically simple, last thing we need is an angsty man of steel.

Let's hope he's at least looked through All-Star.

And Bob, repeatedly stating that Amazing Spider-Man was crap isn't going to make it so. Leave the poor film alone, it had a hard production and a dissapointing box office, its gone through alot:(

I think they need to basically just do Superman as well.. Superman. The problem with handling characters like this is they try and "modernize" it too much and in the process wind up ruining the character. The new "metrosexual" superman from the last movie diaster was an attempt to make the character "relevent" in what the dicector/writer thought the real world was like. It was just pathetic in the overall effect it achieved.

The thing they have to remember is that Superman is bigger than life. Especially in starting a new franchise they also need to let him establish his credentials before they start introducing all of these obtuse human angles, constant challenges that are variations on "how will he overcome the Kryptonite this time", or running into things that are massively more powerful than he is. I think even the comics and cartoons fall prey to these problems, and it's part of why I think so many people think Superman kind of sucks especially nowadays. Not just because of his "boy scout" mentality, but because Superman seems to be getting his arse kicked almost 24/7. How powerful something that superman needs help to fight is kind of loses proportion if you don't actually have an appreciation for how powerful Superman is supposed to be. This makes it kind of out of sync in the rare occasions when he does his thing at his full, unopposed, level of power, and easily forgettable when buried among the rest of the junk.

I also think that Superman needs to be understood as a paragon of old school, very basic values. Believe it or not I think an old crossover, Superman with Gen-13 believe it or not, once defined the point of Superman in a few statements, one of the most important I believe is that "Superman is the one thing, you can always rely on". See, no matter how bad things get the point is that Superman always wins, he always saves the day, if he shows up everything is going to be okay. Sure he might get battered, bloody, power sapped, slammed into other dimensions, but in the end he wins, not just for himself, but for everyone, and when it's over everything is okay. I think that's the essence of the character, he's the anti-dark, the anti-angst, the guy that needs to exist for dark, angsty, overly human characters and stories to be compared to. Without guys like "Superman" on the flip side, guys like "Batman" have nothing to really be compared to as being differant. Writers, in all media, who try and make Superman Dark, Angsty, and overly human miss the point, as do those who decide to have him grappling with failure. You do that and he's just another Generation X inspired superhero without much in the way of identity.

Antonio Torrente:
If they are planning for a movie universe, my question is always "how are they gonna build it?"

Well, that's the easy part actually, using Marvel's trick of teasers showing a rising metaplot after the credits as an obvious hitch would work.

DC has always been a more over the top universe than Marvel, which has sometimes made their crossovers painful, especially when trying to reconcile the fact that Gotham seems to pretty much exist in an entirely differant universe from say Metropolis, with both pretty much being thinly veiled analogies to New York City.

They pretty much need to come up with some kind of threat that would take more than one hero and build into it, probably having The Justice League being formed similar to "The Avengers". It would be a rip off on a lot of levels, but then again it kind of has to be to capture the essence since your dealing with very similar "super team" material that already gets compared all the time (and Marvel and DC even crossover with each other once in a while when they decide to stop slap fighting).

If I had to pick what they should do, in order to be a bit differant from The Avengers they should probably work on something where the defeated villains and kind of dusted off and "recruited" at the end of the movies. Instead of having one big bad like Loki/Thanos (which would probably be someone like Darkseid in DC), they might try and make things a little differant by having a "Legion Of Doom" type analogy. Have the Justice League form when individual heroes wind up getting gang banged. For the final slugfest they might use the old comics tradition of switching opponents. Have every villain show up perfectly equipped to counter their heroic nemisis in the final slugfest, so you have say Green Lantern take out the dude with all the Kryptonite, while Superman beats down the dude with the yellow power ring (assuming they decide to do a classic green lantern who is powerless against the color yellow).

That's just my thoughts, and the direction I'd be thinking in. Classics are classics because they work. :)

I think they do need to put some thought into how powerful Superman is, especially if they're going to try to do a Justice League Movie later. I had the opportunity to read the four volume trade that serialized "52" a while back(a weaving of storylines of a year without Superman, Batman, or Wonder Woman in the DC comics universe, not the new post-reboot "52") and at a certain point there was an overlap that looked something like this:

There's an alien race heading towards Earth that destroys worlds!

Oh yeah? Well, there's an extra-dimensional invader threatening who eats entire UNIVERSES!

Meanwhile, John Henry Irons is having trouble with his rebellious niece, and Lex Luthor is conspiring to take over Metropolis.

...

...WHO GIVES A FLYING @#$%?!

Superman can easily get to a point where it's hard to relate his reality to anything in our own. And like any fictional "magic", there's nothing like a story where literally anything can happen to make the audience tune out. I'll confess that Supes has never exactly been my favorite character, though some incarnations have had some interesting takes. But where Superman does work, I tend to think it's not so much "Gods vs. Titans", but either places where he has to make hard decisions that his superpowers don't make any easier (or put him in the position where he's the only one who can make those choices), or where seemingly either-or decisions are revealed to have a whole different dimension when taken on by a superbeing (in part revealing just how different his existence really is from our own.)

I thought superman normally avoided sex for saftey reasons

I think there are several potential dangers with the next Superman movie:

- It tries to be a sequel to Donner's movies. Seriously, that was the worst part of Superman Return. I get it, those movies were good, and Reeve was a beloved actor and person, but did they have to cast an unknown only because he looked like Reeve? Or disguise Kevin Spacey to look like Gene Hackman? Or go so far as to re-use the stupid evil plan of Luthor? Did they have to make him a comic relief, as well as the main villain, while trying to act as a serious threat? Or go so far as to bring Marlon Brando from the grave to replay his role? Everything in that movie talked about nostalgia, and the less they try to stay safe under the shadow the shadow of a 30 years old movie, the better. Unfortunately, I am not a fan of Snyder (his idea of adaptation is closer to "let's use the original as a carbon copy and shoot it frame by frame")...

- Why make it expensive when we can make it marketable The main issue with the Schumacher's Batman, was that it never deviate themselves from being a "kids movie". I have a great deal of respect for good kids movies, being Pixar and Gibli two of my favorite sources of entertainment (despite being on my 20s). This, however, refers to the other side of "kids movies"... the kind that underestimates their audience. The kind that think bright colors and merry tunes work better than good scripts and interesting characters. The kind that sees a movie and think "what can we sell to people from this". Snyder is not known for movies for kids, but he has being scorned before for it and WB has already said Watchmen was the last movie of that kind they where going to produce.

burymagnets:
I'm just happy to see Superman with a bit of Snyder polish. Just hoping he can keep it thematically simple, last thing we need is an angsty man of steel.

Let's hope he's at least looked through All-Star.

And Bob, repeatedly stating that Amazing Spider-Man was crap isn't going to make it so. Leave the poor film alone, it had a hard production and a dissapointing box office, its gone through alot:(

The Amazing Spiderman has made over $743 million if that's a disappointing box office then both Ironman's, Thor and Captain America were total disasters!

I'm still waiting for a writer who gets the relationship of humanity and superman right.

ie, we'd force him to become our God-King or destroy us all.

The only reason anybody on earth in a "Superman exists" universe is alive is because Superman doesn't want them dead. Does anybody really think humanity would not react with extreme force -- absolutely everything at our disposal -- to destroy him?

There'd be fucking religions devoted to him, praying to him for mercy, while at the same time legions upon legions looking for some way to get rid of him. The only way he'd stop the attacks on him -- and us hurting ourselves -- is if he became some sort of global overlord.

As much as it pains me, because I got into comics because of the Superman films, but I agree with Bob. I think the new film will be better if it ignores the old ones. I don't think they need to go over Superman's origins at length, but they do need to firmly re-establish him.

I also agree about going big, no one reads a Superman comic for the romantic sub-plot. One of the best scenes in Superman Returns was the plane sequence, it was Superman being Superman. Superman fighting Zod and his pals in Superman 2 was great, do it with 21st century effects and it should be freaking awesome. After all, if you can't make a great fight scene out of two guys who can fly, punch holes in mountains and shoot lasers out of their eyes, then you don't deserve to be making films.

and revisiting Spider-Man's turned out to be a complete disaster.

*Cough* It made over three quarters of a Billion dollars, Bob. It was not in any ways a disaster, and your wishful thinking isn't going to warp reality. Face it, it was a good and popular movie and I am personally glad that they fired Raimi's lame ass. When the men who hold the purse-strings tell you what they want in their movie, you don't fucking sabotage your own production and expect to be kept around for another.

A few points:

- When you relaunch a movie series after time has passed on the previous one, you need an origin story. It just seems right for a new audience. So I disagree there.

Also, the Superman Animated Series proved you can have foes that can compete with Superman on a physical level and have it be interesting. The Christpher Reeve-era movies had Lex Luthor, Lex Luthor and Zod, Not-Lex-Luthor, and Lex Luthor and Not-Superman-Clone (oh, and Bryan Singer gives us Lex Luthor AGAIN!) Just like Batman isn't all about the Joker, it'd be nice if they gave us more villains like the Parasite or Toy Man or Darkseid or even Doomsday.

I'm not sure if you agree or disagree on that point, exactly, but that's my two cents on the matter.

- Please don't let this be the start of something ugly, Bob. I don't want to be reading your review of the next Superman movie and then have you wonder why there's so much backlash. You're dissecting this film right now, Bob. People are going to remember. Keep that in mind when you review it.

- Finally, be honest here, Bob. Sucker Punch has a RT rating of 23%. It failed both critically and finacially. Yes, you disagree. You've talked about this at length. But at least acknowledge that your opinion is in the critical minority.

1) No more scrawny talentless actors to play a neurotic, borderline Woody Allen-esque Clark Kents and smug, patronizing Supermen who seem to be self-conscious about their nipples poking through their costumes. The animation showed you can have a 6 foot something Clark Kent still seem awkward, well-meaning but naive without being a stereotypical nerd from the 80's.

2) Enough with Lex Luthor. Gene Hackman played Lex as the over the top cartoon character he was in the earliest Superman comics, and it was good for a quick larf, but it started grating around the 30 minute mark of the first movie. Kevin Spacey turned him into a slightly less over the top quietly disturbing villain, but even then he ends up on a beach thinking about eating a small dog.

3) You don't HAVE to copy some popular plotline from the comic books. I would like to see another villain besides Luthor, Darkseid or Doomsday.

JaredXE:
and revisiting Spider-Man's turned out to be a complete disaster.

*Cough* It made over three quarters of a Billion dollars, Bob. It was not in any ways a disaster, and your wishful thinking isn't going to warp reality. Face it, it was a good and popular movie and I am personally glad that they fired Raimi's lame ass. When the men who hold the purse-strings tell you what they want in their movie, you don't fucking sabotage your own production and expect to be kept around for another.

I cannot comment on the movie as I did not see it but you cannot say it made X amount of money so it is good. Final Fantasy XIII sold well but I, like many others, hated it. I know 3 people who went to see Spiderman and hated it.

But I agree with you about Raimi. Him being gone is a good thing.

Therumancer:

If I had to pick what they should do, in order to be a bit differant from The Avengers they should probably work on something where the defeated villains and kind of dusted off and "recruited" at the end of the movies. Instead of having one big bad like Loki/Thanos (which would probably be someone like Darkseid in DC), they might try and make things a little differant by having a "Legion Of Doom" type analogy.

That's not a bad train of thought at all. It could be used as a common theme for any movies for any of the other future Justice League members.

Superman begins with Doomsday somehow being unleashed on the world. (Where did he come from?)

Wonder Woman is faced with the fused spirit of an technological industrialist and Ares-God of War now known as Warmaster. And has to face a plethora of technological menaces. (Given organizational support from where?)

Batman. Having finally quelled the big baddies in Gotham City, Bruce Wayne must now come to the realization that there are dangers out in the world threatening not just Gotham alone. (I can't think of a plot for his movie "re-boot").

Thing is all the above could possibly tie in to a Legion of Doom type organization, but I'm not sure how such an organization could form, or what their goal might be other than Take-over-the-world ®

That's why I'm glad they're going with Zod as opposed to Luthor. This way they can focus on creating the Superman character that fans love while also dispelling this notion non-fans have that Superman's too strong. Zod can kick Supes' ass up and down the Galaxy. They have the same powers but one's a trained warrior and the other's a farmer. So maybe the non-fans can get over their preconceptions (Superman's only over powered if you ignore that his villains punch in or over his weight class) and then be introduced to the things that make Superman interesting.

sleeky01:
Batman. Having finally quelled the big baddies in Gotham City, Bruce Wayne must now come to the realization that there are dangers out in the world threatening not just Gotham alone. (I can't think of a plot for his movie "re-boot").

One thing I'd say for Batman is they need to avoid the temptation to go for his better known villains like Riddler, Joker or Penguin. They should go with someone like Clayface or Killer Croc. Just to have him established as part of a more super powered universe.

Green Lantern I think they might be better off going with John Stewart just to separate it from the Ryan Reynold's movie.

*deleted*

Therumancer:

Antonio Torrente:
If they are planning for a movie universe, my question is always "how are they gonna build it?"

Well, that's the easy part actually, using Marvel's trick of teasers showing a rising metaplot after the credits as an obvious hitch would work.

DC has always been a more over the top universe than Marvel, which has sometimes made their crossovers painful, especially when trying to reconcile the fact that Gotham seems to pretty much exist in an entirely differant universe from say Metropolis, with both pretty much being thinly veiled analogies to New York City.

They pretty much need to come up with some kind of threat that would take more than one hero and build into it, probably having The Justice League being formed similar to "The Avengers". It would be a rip off on a lot of levels, but then again it kind of has to be to capture the essence since your dealing with very similar "super team" material that already gets compared all the time (and Marvel and DC even crossover with each other once in a while when they decide to stop slap fighting).

If I had to pick what they should do, in order to be a bit different from The Avengers they should probably work on something where the defeated villains and kind of dusted off and "recruited" at the end of the movies. Instead of having one big bad like Loki/Thanos (which would probably be someone like Darkseid in DC), they might try and make things a little different by having a "Legion Of Doom" type analogy. Have the Justice League form when individual heroes wind up getting gang banged. For the final slugfest they might use the old comics tradition of switching opponents. Have every villain show up perfectly equipped to counter their heroic nemesis in the final slugfest, so you have say Green Lantern take out the dude with all the Kryptonite, while Superman beats down the dude with the yellow power ring (assuming they decide to do a classic green lantern who is powerless against the color yellow).

That's just my thoughts, and the direction I'd be thinking in. Classics are classics because they work. :)

I see where you come from, but let's be honest not all people are knowledgeable or savvy about comics like nerds, geeks, or people who appreciate and respect the medium.

Yes they can "emulate" Marvel's style of putting Easter Eggs in its movies to hint another movie. But if the general audience notices that they will call it rip off or no originality.

Another thing is the failure of GL so how are they gonna do it reboot or sequel?
As for its quality it's not as bad as Bob tell us since I already watched it more than five times and kinda appreciative it. If its shown before say Raimi's Spider-man or the X-men movies, it might be one of the best superheroes movies ever.

For the main villain, even you like or suggest that it must be Darksied, DC/WB can't use it now since Marvel is gearing up Thanos to be a villain in a future installment of the MCU which ironically is Darksied's expy.(even it's creator Jim Starling admits that his editor at that time wants Thanos to look as close as possible to Darksied) When you think about it Darksied has the forehead while Thanos has the chin. Huh?
So in my opinion the best villain for the Justice Leaugue to face is Brainiac who has not be shown in live action.(Can you make sure that he already appeared in Smallville? If so please correct me.)

Then there's Wonder Woman, adapting her in live action always end up in disaster except the Lynda Carter tv series(but today its kinda used as a punchline to jokes so there's that)
Did you know that Joss Wheadon already pitched a WW script to DC but some smart ass suggested that it's too cheesy and stupid, really a guy known for writing strong female characters in his shows and movies got his rejected. What's more painful for us and Wheadon is the script who he worked for two years is rejected the same time Firefly was canceled.(that's what I heared) Talk about double whammy.

Oh if you wanna know who the smartass who suggested that his script sucks is David E. Kelley, the same guy who tried....... "this" monstrosity, show, I don't know what to call it.

So that's just what I thought.

No, something new and risky is untested. They will use as much tried and true as they can cram in. Nothing original, everything we've seen before. Like you said, they are grasping to make sure the rights don't revert. You don't do new stuff when you're at risk of losing the biggest potential money maker.

I gotta say, I am really looking forward to this movie. The trailer with Jor‐El's voiceover was amazing. I just hope it doesn't turn out to be the only amazing thing about the movie.

Speaking of the trailer, I love that effect when he breaks the sound barrier, and it gives me hope for the visuals of the movie in general.

burymagnets:
Let's hope he's at least looked through All-Star.

Now that would be awesome.

And Bob, repeatedly stating that Amazing Spider-Man was crap isn't going to make it so. Leave the poor film alone, it had a hard production and a dissapointing box office, its gone through alot:(

Just how many alots, exactly? :-P

SnakeoilSage:
1) No more scrawny talentless actors to play a neurotic, borderline Woody Allen-esque Clark Kents and smug, patronizing Supermen who seem to be self-conscious about their nipples poking through their costumes.

Brandon Routh, scrawny and talentless? Hahaha. (Although I do think that what I've seen of Henry Cavill fits Superman's stature better-I've always felt that Superman should be gigantic-which is strange, given that Cavill is two inches shorter. Clever composition?)

I couldn't find the article yesterday as the website was playing up, but this interview on comic vine with Scott Lobdell answers the criticism of Superman being boring and unrelatable.

http://www.comicvine.com/news/interview-scott-lobdell-on-superman-existing-villains-and-catching-speeding-bullets/145039/

Antonio Torrente:

Therumancer:

Antonio Torrente:
If they are planning for a movie universe, my question is always "how are they gonna build it?"

Well, that's the easy part actually, using Marvel's trick of teasers showing a rising metaplot after the credits as an obvious hitch would work.

DC has always been a more over the top universe than Marvel, which has sometimes made their crossovers painful, especially when trying to reconcile the fact that Gotham seems to pretty much exist in an entirely differant universe from say Metropolis, with both pretty much being thinly veiled analogies to New York City.

They pretty much need to come up with some kind of threat that would take more than one hero and build into it, probably having The Justice League being formed similar to "The Avengers". It would be a rip off on a lot of levels, but then again it kind of has to be to capture the essence since your dealing with very similar "super team" material that already gets compared all the time (and Marvel and DC even crossover with each other once in a while when they decide to stop slap fighting).

If I had to pick what they should do, in order to be a bit different from The Avengers they should probably work on something where the defeated villains and kind of dusted off and "recruited" at the end of the movies. Instead of having one big bad like Loki/Thanos (which would probably be someone like Darkseid in DC), they might try and make things a little different by having a "Legion Of Doom" type analogy. Have the Justice League form when individual heroes wind up getting gang banged. For the final slugfest they might use the old comics tradition of switching opponents. Have every villain show up perfectly equipped to counter their heroic nemesis in the final slugfest, so you have say Green Lantern take out the dude with all the Kryptonite, while Superman beats down the dude with the yellow power ring (assuming they decide to do a classic green lantern who is powerless against the color yellow).

That's just my thoughts, and the direction I'd be thinking in. Classics are classics because they work. :)

I see where you come from, but let's be honest not all people are knowledgeable or savvy about comics like nerds, geeks, or people who appreciate and respect the medium.

Yes they can "emulate" Marvel's style of putting Easter Eggs in its movies to hint another movie. But if the general audience notices that they will call it rip off or no originality.

Another thing is the failure of GL so how are they gonna do it reboot or sequel?
As for its quality it's not as bad as Bob tell us since I already watched it more than five times and kinda appreciative it. If its shown before say Raimi's Spider-man or the X-men movies, it might be one of the best superheroes movies ever.

For the main villain, even you like or suggest that it must be Darksied, DC/WB can't use it now since Marvel is gearing up Thanos to be a villain in a future installment of the MCU which ironically is Darksied's expy.(even it's creator Jim Starling admits that his editor at that time wants Thanos to look as close as possible to Darksied) When you think about it Darksied has the forehead while Thanos has the chin. Huh?
So in my opinion the best villain for the Justice Leaugue to face is Brainiac who has not be shown in live action.(Can you make sure that he already appeared in Smallville? If so please correct me.)

Then there's Wonder Woman, adapting her in live action always end up in disaster except the Lynda Carter tv series(but today its kinda used as a punchline to jokes so there's that)
Did you know that Joss Wheadon already pitched a WW script to DC but some smart ass suggested that it's too cheesy and stupid, really a guy known for writing strong female characters in his shows and movies got his rejected. What's more painful for us and Wheadon is the script who he worked for two years is rejected the same time Firefly was canceled.(that's what I heared) Talk about double whammy.

Oh if you wanna know who the smartass who suggested that his script sucks is David E. Kelley, the same guy who tried....... "this" monstrosity, show, I don't know what to call it.

So that's just what I thought.

Well, the problem with doing Wonder Woman is that politics always intrude on it, instead of doing the character they decide they want to try and make it more "relevent" to the standing of today's women, which is itself a heavy topic of debate. A lot of super heroes suffer from this, but WW is a paticular victim.

It should be noted that Joss Whedon has a good eye for female talent, BUT how strong his female characters are has been a matter of debate. His success for doing such characters has usually been to cover his female characters in angst, while they do have a lot of strength in the fight scenes and everything, they inevitably wind up needing to hide behind or seek men as a crutch just to get through life in a somewhat dysfunctional way. There has been a lot of analysis of it in various places, you'll notice Buffy went from bad/dysfuntional relationship to bad/dysfunctional relationship and had a needy co-dependant fixation on pretty much anyone she was with from Angel to Spike, oftentimes wrecking whomever she was with (like Riley). River Tam was totally dysfunctional, yes she could fight like crazy, but was 100% dependant on men like Mal or he Brother for the simmplest things, the other female characters in the show followed the same pattern to a degree, even Gina Torres' character was pretty much dependant on Mal and her husband for her strength and to get through the average day. Probably the most independant woman Whedon has ever written in his well known works was a space geisha, which has invited some comparisons by the same guys who hate Frank Miller. The criticisms go on and on and also involve things like how Willow is unable to handle having real power (Yet Giles is able to handle it just fine when he takes on the power of an entire coven), and Faith who seems to be independant to begin with is actually off her rocker insane, even when she comes back to being a hero, needing men like Angel to prevent her from totally self destructing which she would do on her own.

I'm not saying that I totally buy into all of that (so no need to argue) but think about it for a second, and there is kind of a point there. I think it's a bit harsh of Whedon, but when I consider how flawed his characters are (which is the point more than any real dependance I think) I'm not sure if he could really do Wonder Woman, who is supposed to be a character without any real flaws except for maybe arrogance over how great she is. All comments about her bondage pin up origins, she's all about high camp, and her creator who was a wierd kind of female surpremist IRL apparently (despite being a guy) kind of created her to match an ideal. It's not Whedon type material, he'd want to make Wonder Woman flawed and angsty to the point where it wouldn't be the same character any more.

With Green Lantern, a reboot would be nessicary I admit, the issue there kind of starts with the way he looks which is a bit off, and I'm not sure if the over-CGIing would blend well with other characters that aren't done in the same basic "everything is computer" style.

That said, if they start with Superman and build from there over a few years, they could potentially pull it off. Rebooting Green Lantern would be quick but not impossible given the combination of both interest, and disappointment over the movie. We apparently have people already talking about re-booting batman now that Nolan's trilogy is concluded. Wonder Woman is more a matter of finding someone who really "gets it" and will content themselves with doing the character as she generally is in the comics.

There is no way that people AREN'T going to say this is a rip off, because no matter what they do, it really is. They will be doing a JLA crossover movie because Marvel did an Avengers movie. It's obvious enough where I don't think they need to deny it, and really I don't think most people who want to see DC characters will care. The biggest problem will be them making theirs a bit differant, which is why I thinking they should work on making the crossover movie more of a team vs. team throwdown rather than focusing on one big bad like Loki or Thanos.

I will also say that I think people are more aware of comics and super heroes than most people think. It works because I don't think you have to be a geek to know a lot of the big characters and what they are about. With DC they have kind of an advantage over marvel given that their iconic characters have been around a LOT longer.

Therumancer:

Antonio Torrente:

Therumancer:

Well, that's the easy part actually, using Marvel's trick of teasers showing a rising metaplot after the credits as an obvious hitch would work.

DC has always been a more over the top universe than Marvel, which has sometimes made their crossovers painful, especially when trying to reconcile the fact that Gotham seems to pretty much exist in an entirely differant universe from say Metropolis, with both pretty much being thinly veiled analogies to New York City.

They pretty much need to come up with some kind of threat that would take more than one hero and build into it, probably having The Justice League being formed similar to "The Avengers". It would be a rip off on a lot of levels, but then again it kind of has to be to capture the essence since your dealing with very similar "super team" material that already gets compared all the time (and Marvel and DC even crossover with each other once in a while when they decide to stop slap fighting).

If I had to pick what they should do, in order to be a bit different from The Avengers they should probably work on something where the defeated villains and kind of dusted off and "recruited" at the end of the movies. Instead of having one big bad like Loki/Thanos (which would probably be someone like Darkseid in DC), they might try and make things a little different by having a "Legion Of Doom" type analogy. Have the Justice League form when individual heroes wind up getting gang banged. For the final slugfest they might use the old comics tradition of switching opponents. Have every villain show up perfectly equipped to counter their heroic nemesis in the final slugfest, so you have say Green Lantern take out the dude with all the Kryptonite, while Superman beats down the dude with the yellow power ring (assuming they decide to do a classic green lantern who is powerless against the color yellow).

That's just my thoughts, and the direction I'd be thinking in. Classics are classics because they work. :)

I see where you come from, but let's be honest not all people are knowledgeable or savvy about comics like nerds, geeks, or people who appreciate and respect the medium.

Yes they can "emulate" Marvel's style of putting Easter Eggs in its movies to hint another movie. But if the general audience notices that they will call it rip off or no originality.

Another thing is the failure of GL so how are they gonna do it reboot or sequel?
As for its quality it's not as bad as Bob tell us since I already watched it more than five times and kinda appreciative it. If its shown before say Raimi's Spider-man or the X-men movies, it might be one of the best superheroes movies ever.

For the main villain, even you like or suggest that it must be Darksied, DC/WB can't use it now since Marvel is gearing up Thanos to be a villain in a future installment of the MCU which ironically is Darksied's expy.(even it's creator Jim Starling admits that his editor at that time wants Thanos to look as close as possible to Darksied) When you think about it Darksied has the forehead while Thanos has the chin. Huh?
So in my opinion the best villain for the Justice Leaugue to face is Brainiac who has not be shown in live action.(Can you make sure that he already appeared in Smallville? If so please correct me.)

Then there's Wonder Woman, adapting her in live action always end up in disaster except the Lynda Carter tv series(but today its kinda used as a punchline to jokes so there's that)
Did you know that Joss Wheadon already pitched a WW script to DC but some smart ass suggested that it's too cheesy and stupid, really a guy known for writing strong female characters in his shows and movies got his rejected. What's more painful for us and Wheadon is the script who he worked for two years is rejected the same time Firefly was canceled.(that's what I heared) Talk about double whammy.

Oh if you wanna know who the smartass who suggested that his script sucks is David E. Kelley, the same guy who tried....... "this" monstrosity, show, I don't know what to call it.

So that's just what I thought.

Well, the problem with doing Wonder Woman is that politics always intrude on it, instead of doing the character they decide they want to try and make it more "relevent" to the standing of today's women, which is itself a heavy topic of debate. A lot of super heroes suffer from this, but WW is a paticular victim.

It should be noted that Joss Whedon has a good eye for female talent, BUT how strong his female characters are has been a matter of debate. His success for doing such characters has usually been to cover his female characters in angst, while they do have a lot of strength in the fight scenes and everything, they inevitably wind up needing to hide behind or seek men as a crutch just to get through life in a somewhat dysfunctional way. There has been a lot of analysis of it in various places, you'll notice Buffy went from bad/dysfuntional relationship to bad/dysfunctional relationship and had a needy co-dependant fixation on pretty much anyone she was with from Angel to Spike, oftentimes wrecking whomever she was with (like Riley). River Tam was totally dysfunctional, yes she could fight like crazy, but was 100% dependant on men like Mal or he Brother for the simmplest things, the other female characters in the show followed the same pattern to a degree, even Gina Torres' character was pretty much dependant on Mal and her husband for her strength and to get through the average day. Probably the most independant woman Whedon has ever written in his well known works was a space geisha, which has invited some comparisons by the same guys who hate Frank Miller. The criticisms go on and on and also involve things like how Willow is unable to handle having real power (Yet Giles is able to handle it just fine when he takes on the power of an entire coven), and Faith who seems to be independant to begin with is actually off her rocker insane, even when she comes back to being a hero, needing men like Angel to prevent her from totally self destructing which she would do on her own.

I'm not saying that I totally buy into all of that (so no need to argue) but think about it for a second, and there is kind of a point there. I think it's a bit harsh of Whedon, but when I consider how flawed his characters are (which is the point more than any real dependance I think) I'm not sure if he could really do Wonder Woman, who is supposed to be a character without any real flaws except for maybe arrogance over how great she is. All comments about her bondage pin up origins, she's all about high camp, and her creator who was a wierd kind of female surpremist IRL apparently (despite being a guy) kind of created her to match an ideal. It's not Whedon type material, he'd want to make Wonder Woman flawed and angsty to the point where it wouldn't be the same character any more.

With Green Lantern, a reboot would be nessicary I admit, the issue there kind of starts with the way he looks which is a bit off, and I'm not sure if the over-CGIing would blend well with other characters that aren't done in the same basic "everything is computer" style.

That said, if they start with Superman and build from there over a few years, they could potentially pull it off. Rebooting Green Lantern would be quick but not impossible given the combination of both interest, and disappointment over the movie. We apparently have people already talking about re-booting batman now that Nolan's trilogy is concluded. Wonder Woman is more a matter of finding someone who really "gets it" and will content themselves with doing the character as she generally is in the comics.

There is no way that people AREN'T going to say this is a rip off, because no matter what they do, it really is. They will be doing a JLA crossover movie because Marvel did an Avengers movie. It's obvious enough where I don't think they need to deny it, and really I don't think most people who want to see DC characters will care. The biggest problem will be them making theirs a bit differant, which is why I thinking they should work on making the crossover movie more of a team vs. team throwdown rather than focusing on one big bad like Loki or Thanos.

I will also say that I think people are more aware of comics and super heroes than most people think. It works because I don't think you have to be a geek to know a lot of the big characters and what they are about. With DC they have kind of an advantage over marvel given that their iconic characters have been around a LOT longer.

Never saw Buffy and its various spin offs since I was just 3 or 4 when it was shown. But regarding most of Wheadon's work when its comes to female characters you're right most of it are angst, angst, and angst but most of the time he gets away and got praised with it because of the strong writing(although your mileage may vary on this one).

In regards to WW, I still have a hard time finding balance between giving character justice on live action without pissing off those hardcore feminists because for all intents and purposes some people see WW as glorified masturbation aid(I don't agree with the people who say that).

As for Superman, directors always aspire, gets inspired or emulate the Richard Donner films. Its like they want let go and view that version as gospel in Superman movie mythos, I really want Man of Steel to succeed. But as always "Hope for the best, Expect the worse."

Green Lantern, I don't care in that department anymore if it's get a sequel or a reboot as long as it gives the source material justice and a good movie then I am sold.

Batman, ok here's the tricky one Nolan's trilogy is considered to be one of the greatest movie trilogies of all time. I won't argue with that, but rebooting it just for the sole purpose of including him in the JL movie? That's just offensive.

And last but not the least, they really really need a Kevin Fiege like figure, some who loves and respect the source materials. That's probably one of the reasons why WB/DC lacks any direction when it comes to Live Action. why don't they just get Bruce Timm? He made the DCAU and made it awesome. And part of many 90s and early 2000s kids' childhood.

I only agree with keeping the movie removed from Smallville if you mean to distance it from the television series. As for drastically altering his origin, Grace Randolph (Beyond the Trailer) has some VERY insightful things to say about those first two teaser trailers.

I totally agree with everything else, especially the idea that exploiting Superman's abilities would be satisfying blockbuster-style eye-candy. Some of my favorite action sequences involving super-powered characters are the ones in which the unique physical rules that govern them are leveraged. Fighting on the ceiling in The Amazing Spider-Man (or The Matrix Revolutions)? Why not? BAMFing in and out of existence to take out the Secret Service and deliver a "message" to the President? Nightcrawler can do that. He should do that.

Therumancer:
I should check my inbox

Hello :)
I guess you're not interested...
Would you prefer that we continue our discussion "in the open" with a thread, rather than in pm?

Aankhen:
Brandon Routh, scrawny and talentless? Hahaha. (Although I do think that what I've seen of Henry Cavill fits Superman's stature better-I've always felt that Superman should be gigantic-which is strange, given that Cavill is two inches shorter. Clever composition?

Sexy Devil:
I'm sorry, did you just imply that Brandon Routh is scrawny? The man is an absolute fucking beast, haven't you seen him in Chuck?

Brandon Routhe is an underwear model. And his acting was so wooden he was almost in the background. You only notice him because someone else is doing something in his direction and the movie wouldn't make sense if there weren't someone there. And the filmmakers even said they picked him for Superman Returns because they wanted a tall, skinny actor to remind people of Christopher Reeves' performance.

Brandon is an underwear model. He's sculpted butter, built for looks and not strength or stamina. So I have no idea where anyone gets "a fucking beast" from. "Beast" is Paul Michael Levesque. No, "fucking beast" is Brian Shaw. Men with muscles that are built to do more than just look good walking slowly in front of a camera.

Superman Returns was one of the most boring 2 and a half hours of my life. Superman, SUPERMAN, throws a total of ZERO punches in the span of 2 and a half hours. The only time some villain gets really hurt is when Superman's illegitimate asthmatic son throws a piano at one. The rest was creepy voyeur Superman spying on his ex-girlfriend, abandoning his parental responsibilities (how many years of child support did he owe?!), and fighting Lex Luthor. Again. With Kryptonite involved. Again.

Where is Parasite? Braniac? Metallo? Doomsday? Toy Master? Bizarro? Conduit? Darkseid? Even Mr. Mxyzptlk?

I hate the whole "Superman is too human, so we can't relate to him" crap. He's a blasted ALIEN FROM ANOTHER PLANET! We SHOULDN'T humanize him! He SHOULDN'T be "normal"! He should be SUPERman! Fly! Punch! Shoot friggin' laser beams from his eyes! Don't give him a kid, don't make him cry over his lack of "humanity", don't make him NOT be Superman... have him EMBRACE it.

Nobody likes a hero who doesn't like being a hero himself. We should WANT to be Superman, not be glad we don't have his train-wreck of a life (and film career).

Thing is, we saw Batman's origins before Batman Begins; we just saw them in flashback and only briefly. If what Bob's referring to is a chronological retelling of his origins, then I don't suppose he's in for a pleasant surprise.

Or is he?

For whatever charm and class to have graced the screen in these instances, most origins (especially within Marvel) follow the rigors of transformation. Predominantly, anyway. Batman Begins shook things up by laying down the foundation for the psychology, willpower, and training alongside the car, gadgets, and suit.

That's what I suspect we'll see in Man of Steel. Yes, it'll be an origin story, but it won't just be about Clark Kent finding the Fortress of Solitude, donning the cape, and saving Metroplisians. Remember, in the trailer they showed Clark working on a fishing boat, later hitchhiking. They showed him as a child, in a yard posing with a red cape like a hero, and it was all underscored by Howard Shore's music from The Lord of the Rings and poignant narration from either Pa Kent or Jor-El.

This will be about how Clark Kent the boy becomes Clark Kent the man, how he follows the examples of his father figures to become that "big blue boy scout" that decides to work as a reporter to keep a closer ear on criminal happenings.

Wait a sec....multiple father figures, the formation of characteristic ideals, guiding sets of principles passed on and learned from? I think we just found Nolan's contributions to the film.

burymagnets:

And Bob, repeatedly stating that Amazing Spider-Man was crap isn't going to make it so. Leave the poor film alone, it had a hard production and a dissapointing box office, its gone through alot:(

^This, Bob just can't go one video or article about superheroes these days without whining about how much Amazing Spider-Man sucks, despite it being one of the best and most faithful to it's source material superhero movies made yet.

As for Superman, the reason during the times that any media that has featured him has sucked is because they go the boring invincible superhero route and then usually the comic book/movie/video game/etc is up it's ass with messages, in other words, they're trying to show a Superman story with a villain that doesn't stand a chance against Superman on their best day, while filling up the rest of the time with irrelevant crap that long overstays it welcome, or they reverse it and weaken Superman to a ridiculous extent and have him get beat nearly to death by somebody that most versions of Superman could have beaten in 5 seconds.

The best Superman stories have always been the ones with maybe a little messages here and there, but mostly it's about a villain as strong or stronger than Superman vs. Superman and they both beat the crap out of each other the whole time and when they're both about 10 seconds from collapsing the villian keels over first. THAT is what I would like to see in this new Superman movie.

I know they'll probably go with Lex Luthor as the villain, but I'd like to see either Darkseid, Zod, or Doomsday as the villain, those 3 are some of the best Superman villains yet they so rarely end up in movies.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here