All-Star The Man of Steel (Superman) movie thread [Archive] - Page 2

666MasterOfPuppets

01-05-2008, 07:27 PM

He's always LOOKED human. Becoming it has only been shown in "Superman" partially and "Superman II". SR Superman was too perfect in one shot, and stalky in the next. That isn't human. Being human includes real struggle, and real feeling in what he does even if it results in his death. Fighting Darkseid and Doomsday would be the ultimate sacrifice. Lifting ships and people? No.

He was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in SR. Lifting a Kryptonite continent (a.k.a. New Krypton) and launching it into space, knowing that it could kill him, and being still hurt with a K splinter in his body looked exactly like what you describe. Not to mention the other aspects of the movie that were misunderstood, IMO.

I don't think it's a bad movie. Just not a particularily fun movie. It was just a missed opportunity to introduce Superman to a whole new generation. It felt like Superman V (which it sort of is). The whole tone is too dour (even the colors on the Superman costume are desaturated). Outside of the plane scene (which is an excellent action scene) I never really felt excited when Superman was doing what he was doing. Most of the set pieces seemed like an afterthought. The SFX looked great but it wasn't thrilling.

I know what you mean. It's just that I don't think that it's mandatory to see Superman hitting something in order to say that a Superman movie is good. Yeah, it would have been great to see, say, a fight between Superman and Brainiac or Darkseid, but the absence of said fight doesn't mean that SR was bad, which is what many people think. Anyway, I understand your POV.

666MasterOfPuppets

01-05-2008, 07:30 PM

Well, take it for what it's worth, but maybe Routh isn't out of the cape just yet.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35200

SEAN

Thank Rao Routh's still in.

666MasterOfPuppets

01-05-2008, 07:57 PM

Here's one case against Superman Returns. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rp2f2OcCpQ)

And here's another one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnHHDzQ4Axw)

It's more complex than just "Superman didn't punch anyone."

HILARIOUS!

But all I'm seeing those vids do is support the "SR's bad because Supes didn't punch anyone" theory.

Infernorhythm

01-05-2008, 08:48 PM

They better not get rid of Routh. For all the minor problems with Returns, he was right up there with Reeve. IMHO, his Superman/Clark was an Oscar worthy performance.

GRANT!

01-05-2008, 09:13 PM

I know what you mean. It's just that I don't think that it's mandatory to see Superman hitting something in order to say that a Superman movie is good. Yeah, it would have been great to see, say, a fight between Superman and Brainiac or Darkseid, but the absence of said fight doesn't mean that SR was bad, which is what many people think. Anyway, I understand your POV.

I think there is something carthatic about seeing the good guy wail on the bad guy. Of course Superman can't do this to Lex Luthor but it would have been nice to see Superman take a little bit of aggression out on Lex in someway.

Also wasn't the Lex/Superman story a bit disappointing. They really only have one scene together and that conflict is never really resolved in a satisfying way. Lex has a plan, Lex beats up Superman on the Kryptonite island, Superman gets better and thwarts plan and Lex gets stuck on a desert island.

GRANT!

01-05-2008, 09:15 PM

Whoever gets their movie out first will get the nods. Capote stands out over Infamous, for example.

Milk will be out first. It's already casted and I think they will start shooting soon. Singer is still working on Valkierie.

Captain_Video

01-05-2008, 09:20 PM

HILARIOUS!

But all I'm seeing those vids do is support the "SR's bad because Supes didn't punch anyone" theory.

There is also the logic of what it would look like to see Superman punch the level of opponents he had in Superman Returns ( normal people ), SPLAT their goes the guys head.

I can't see anything in Superman Returns that is textbook bad.

The costume colours as a fanboy bug me, they are a bit too dour, it being shot in Hi-Def ( to cut already astronomical production costs ) gave it a less than gorgeous look, so I can go along with dour there.

But I like its quality of sobriety, that also exists in the Donner movies, Donner had a lot of real pensive, Superman walking shots, Superman at the Fortress of Solitude.

In Superman Returns the shot of Superman and Lois slowly rising into a beautiful night sky was just brilliant, in a later sequence Superman in the sunny sky looked iconic, there is a lot of pure Superman in that movie, Singer absolutely "got" the character.

The we want fun note, OK this I agree with in theory, everybody wants some Superman fun myself included, but I also understand the dangerous reality of fans making those requests, when the studio is already trying to appeal to, lets face it without mincing words, the lowest common denominator, for maximum profit.

Because we have seen it before, time and time again, everytime the fans ask for villains and action you get something stupid and insulting.

On the Lex Luthor note, this is also the first time on film he has seemed truly evil and like the Lex we know from the comics, kicking a man when he is down.

Superman Returns really does seem to have "Hulk" syndrome, I honestly believe with a few years reflection it will be surprising to people that those two movies where not well received.

BYC

01-05-2008, 09:34 PM

Keep in mind, Superman Returns has lots of expectations. It might not have been a great movie, but it certainly didn't suck. Most review sites such as Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, and Metacritic has Superman Returns in the good range. Internet fans certainly didn't like it as much as others.

As I have said, the movie did run a bit long, and almost did too much trying to humanize Superman. Nonetheless, most people, including myself, thought the movie was good and enjoyed the movie (not the same thing).

IMDB 6.9/10

Metacritic 72/100 from critics, 5.7/10 from fans

Rotten Tomatoes 77/100

reta-winter soldier

01-05-2008, 09:37 PM

GRANT!

01-05-2008, 09:49 PM

Superman Returns really does seem to have "Hulk" syndrome, I honestly believe with a few years reflection it will be surprising to people that those two movies where not well received.

I've liked it better when I saw it DVD. But honestly after 20 years since the last Superman movie I was still underwhelmed.

Honestly I've yet to love any live incarnation of Superman.

nervmeister

01-05-2008, 09:59 PM

I wonder who the main villain in the sequel will be. I know that Lex will most likely remain in the picture, but what if another villain were to accompany him? Personally, I'm opting for Brainiac.

Captain_Video

01-05-2008, 09:59 PM

I've liked it better when I saw it DVD. But honestly after 20 years since the last Superman movie I was still underwhelmed.

Honestly I've yet to love any live incarnation of Superman.

I sort of agree, while I think Christopher Reeve IS Superman in film form, none of his movies, taken as a whole complete package have been definitive Superman to me, in the same way as the DC animated stuff has.

I actually do think Routh is capable of being an amazing Superman, but he does need to grow into the role over a period of time and then be given an amazing script to play with.

In this discussion I can sort of see where Superman fans are coming from with their wish list, but I am not naive enough to think that asking for action and villains and only action and villains, will lead to something horrible, studios especially WB still do not understand comic books and their tonality...only certain Directors seem to get it.

DWEarhart

01-05-2008, 10:06 PM

Not trying to derail the topic, but honestly, WB are some cheap, penny pinching s.o.b.s, as their choice of dvd distribution is, I think, one of the worst.

In my opinion, Routh did a fine job, the movie was good, but no, it didn't open up to the newer generation.

The Superman franchise could have been restarted without referring back to the previous films, but perhaps after another film some links to the past movies could have been made, but Singer, or whoever, chose to revitalize it as the official Superman III.

metalhead_dave743

01-06-2008, 03:21 AM

HILARIOUS!

But all I'm seeing those vids do is support the "SR's bad because Supes didn't punch anyone" theory.

It's not about "Supes didn't punch anyone" it's about noone is there to hit back. Noone to challenge Supes physically, noone to make him break a sweat. Okay lifting the Kryptonite mountain could kill him, that scene is completely dwarfed by the plane scene, no question. While he is in the hospital and people in the movie are thinking "is he going to die?" I was thinking, "that's it? He LIFTS something?"

Going to what Goblin said about developing his pumpkin bombs off screen, for those who saw the vids I posted, Lex could have made a Kryptonian weapon that could have had a tussel with Superman. Think about it, he spends all that time in the Fortress learning "EVERYTHING" about the crystals, and he says the Kryptonians made weapons from the crystals, Lex could have created something more exciting then a freakin mountain if you ask me. The tools were there and it could fit in the plot.

Actually, thinking about it, what I really didn't like about Superman returns was already stated by Grant.

Also wasn't the Lex/Superman story a bit disappointing. They really only have one scene together and that conflict is never really resolved in a satisfying way. Lex has a plan, Lex beats up Superman on the Kryptonite island, Superman gets better and thwarts plan and Lex gets stuck on a desert island.

666MasterOfPuppets

01-06-2008, 06:41 AM

I think there is something carthatic about seeing the good guy wail on the bad guy. Of course Superman can't do this to Lex Luthor but it would have been nice to see Superman take a little bit of aggression out on Lex in someway.

Also wasn't the Lex/Superman story a bit disappointing. They really only have one scene together and that conflict is never really resolved in a satisfying way. Lex has a plan, Lex beats up Superman on the Kryptonite island, Superman gets better and thwarts plan and Lex gets stuck on a desert island.

Of course there is something cathartic about seeing Superman kicking the bad guy's ass. It would have been nice to see a fight in SR, I don't deny it, but the fact that we didn't doesn't substract any merit the movie has, much less make it a bad movie. Not by any means, IMO.

And I reckon the Lex/Superman interaction was shown that way because it's supposed to continue in MOS.

666MasterOfPuppets

01-06-2008, 06:51 AM

There is also the logic of what it would look like to see Superman punch the level of opponents he had in Superman Returns ( normal people ), SPLAT their goes the guys head.

I can't see anything in Superman Returns that is textbook bad.

The costume colours as a fanboy bug me, they are a bit too dour, it being shot in Hi-Def ( to cut already astronomical production costs ) gave it a less than gorgeous look, so I can go along with dour there.

But I like its quality of sobriety, that also exists in the Donner movies, Donner had a lot of real pensive, Superman walking shots, Superman at the Fortress of Solitude.

In Superman Returns the shot of Superman and Lois slowly rising into a beautiful night sky was just brilliant, in a later sequence Superman in the sunny sky looked iconic, there is a lot of pure Superman in that movie, Singer absolutely "got" the character.

The we want fun note, OK this I agree with in theory, everybody wants some Superman fun myself included, but I also understand the dangerous reality of fans making those requests, when the studio is already trying to appeal to, lets face it without mincing words, the lowest common denominator, for maximum profit.

Because we have seen it before, time and time again, everytime the fans ask for villains and action you get something stupid and insulting.

On the Lex Luthor note, this is also the first time on film he has seemed truly evil and like the Lex we know from the comics, kicking a man when he is down.

Superman Returns really does seem to have "Hulk" syndrome, I honestly believe with a few years reflection it will be surprising to people that those two movies where not well received.

Agreed. Not only because the WB tried to appeal the lowest common denominator, as you said, but because it was a dramatic story. A serious story, I believe. Something quite different from what had been done before with the character in a live-action movie, except for those scenes in the original movies, which were nothing short of brilliant. For instance, yeah, Lex Luthor wasn't quite the same guy we had seen in the original Donner films. He looked really evil.

SR indeed has a lot of iconic shots with Superman, and Singer really got the character right there. And on top of that, it was a Superman showing human feelings, something that several of the fans asked 'til death. Now that it's given to them, they still complain. *sigh*

666MasterOfPuppets

01-06-2008, 06:54 AM

my god someone actually liked SR( dont want to sound insulting so this is true disbelief). I mean i have not found someone who actually liked the movie among the general public, i mean even little kids who liked B&R didnt like SR. I dont see what the fuss is about Routh, I mean the guy didnt suck but he did not seem to be superman to me. OH thank god and the new gods that singer is gone. THat was not superman, superman is supposed to be the single greatest hero, no faults nothing not a staulker

Count me in as someone who not only liked the movie, but LOVED IT.

And I can't bother myself by asking this question, thus entering dangerous waters, but here I go anyway: Why, in the name of Rao, do you think Superman is a stalker? I suppose you support this warped idea that he also is a "deadbeat dad"?

I mean, SUPERMAN, for god's sake.

666MasterOfPuppets

01-06-2008, 06:56 AM

I wonder who the main villain in the sequel will be. I know that Lex will most likely remain in the picture, but what if another villain were to accompany him? Personally, I'm opting for Brainiac.

I'm almost sure it will be Brainiac. After all, that was the pitch Ilya Salkind presented at the WB back in 1980.

666MasterOfPuppets

01-06-2008, 06:59 AM

It's not about "Supes didn't punch anyone" it's about noone is there to hit back. Noone to challenge Supes physically, noone to make him break a sweat. Okay lifting the Kryptonite mountain could kill him, that scene is completely dwarfed by the plane scene, no question. While he is in the hospital and people in the movie are thinking "is he going to die?" I was thinking, "that's it? He LIFTS something?"

Going to what Goblin said about developing his pumpkin bombs off screen, for those who saw the vids I posted, Lex could have made a Kryptonian weapon that could have had a tussel with Superman. Think about it, he spends all that time in the Fortress learning "EVERYTHING" about the crystals, and he says the Kryptonians made weapons from the crystals, Lex could have created something more exciting then a freakin mountain if you ask me. The tools were there and it could fit in the plot.

Actually, thinking about it, what I really didn't like about Superman returns was already stated by Grant.

Exactly my point. How could the absence of, say, Brainiac make this movie horrible? Again, it would have been nice to see Superman hitting someone, but the absence of this aspect doesn't mean it was bad. I think it's just that people had other expectations with the movie, rather than the flick being actually bad.

Captain_Video

01-06-2008, 04:15 PM

Exactly my point. How could the absence of, say, Brainiac make this movie horrible? Again, it would have been nice to see Superman hitting someone, but the absence of this aspect doesn't mean it was bad. I think it's just that people had other expectations with the movie, rather than the flick being actually bad.

Another irony that exists when you have people clamouring for Braniac for Superman to fight, is Braniac is even worse than Luthor as someone Superman can punch, the deal with Braniac is he is someone Superman can't just fight, he uses his brain, meaning Superman has to out-think a genius.

Of course he would have some form of Robot sentries or minions but Braniac would not give the fight blow off either, only Zod or Darkseid could work there.

Even Parasite can't really be fought with strength and fists, most of Supermans villains are based on that idea, its the only way to challenge Superman, fight him with home town advantage.

Also Braniac was set for the next Singer movie.

metalhead_dave743

01-06-2008, 04:18 PM

666MasterOfPuppets

01-07-2008, 05:24 AM

Another irony that exists when you have people clamouring for Braniac for Superman to fight, is Braniac is even worse than Luthor as someone Superman can punch, the deal with Braniac is he is someone Superman can't just fight, he uses his brain, meaning Superman has to out-think a genius.

Of course he would have some form of Robot sentries or minions but Braniac would not give the fight blow off either, only Zod or Darkseid could work there.

Even Parasite can't really be fought with strength and fists, most of Supermans villains are based on that idea, its the only way to challenge Superman, fight him with home town advantage.

Also Braniac was set for the next Singer movie.

And the deal with Darkseid is that it would bring almost the whole 4th World mythology with him. I think of him as a VERY complicated character to bring to the silver screen.

metalhead_dave743

01-07-2008, 06:49 AM

And the deal with Darkseid is that it would bring almost the whole 4th World mythology with him. I think of him as a VERY complicated character to bring to the silver screen.

What's so complicated about him? He's an otherworldy tyrant and genocidal maniac. He feels he is superior to everyone and everything and he would kill you just as soon as look at you. He has an entire futuristic army at his command and he wants to conquer earth. What's so hard about bringing that to the silver screen?

Nate Grey

01-07-2008, 06:56 AM

He was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in SR. Lifting a Kryptonite continent (a.k.a. New Krypton) and launching it into space, knowing that it could kill him, and being still hurt with a K splinter in his body looked exactly like what you describe. Not to mention the other aspects of the movie that were misunderstood, IMO.

Misunderstood by millions? What aspect is this exactly?

I know what you mean. It's just that I don't think that it's mandatory to see Superman hitting something in order to say that a Superman movie is good.

Likewise, I think Superman hitting someone (especially someone who can hit back) is. Now are those saying it isn't trying to say Superman isn't Street Fighter II? Cause I'm not saying that, either.

Yeah, it would have been great to see, say, a fight between Superman and Brainiac or Darkseid,

Curious why people keep bringing Darkseid into this. I guess it possible to simply have him and parademons, but it seems you couldn't have him without the ENTIRE fourth world characters.

Besides, Superman has many physical opponents of his own without have to "borrow" any.

but the absence of said fight doesn't mean that SR was bad, which is what many people think.

And did people "think" with their wallet and not make SR the success WB was hoping for? Seriously it sounds like wishful thinking to say SR didn't make it because there was no fighting, so is there a way you can quantify this? Got stats, polls, anything?

Nate Grey

01-07-2008, 06:58 AM

nervmeister

01-07-2008, 07:37 AM

Nate Grey

01-07-2008, 07:50 AM

I think its more than possible to "adapt" Darkseid to the silver screen and make him an awesome villain without pissing off too many of his fans. Give him a heartbreakingly cold personality and make him turn entire battalions into ash with the Omega Effect. Have him beat his own son, Orion
nearly to death to shock the audience with how cruel he is. Then have a pissed Supes deliver a speech to him about how he expresses love for his own bastard child (LOL) and why family should be cherished above all else. Darkseid unmoved by this basically tells Supes to fuck off and then the two proceed to wail on each other. After that, Im not sure what should happen next.

Okay that was kinda funny. :D Is Kalibak in this scenario too so Superman would have a preliminary fight? :D

Still, I think if they do this just have Darkseid, Apokalips (shown briefly to show where Darkseid is boom-tubing from), and parademons. Anything else, even his sons, can get crowded.

metalhead_dave743

01-07-2008, 07:51 AM

I think its more than possible to "adapt" Darkseid to the silver screen and make him an awesome villain without pissing off too many of his fans. Give him a heartbreakingly cold personality and make him turn entire battalions into ash with the Omega Effect. Have him beat his own son, Orion
nearly to death to shock the audience with how cruel he is. Then have a pissed Supes deliver a speech to him about how he expresses love for his own bastard child (LOL) and why family should be cherished above all else. Darkseid unmoved by this basically tells Supes to fuck off and then the two proceed to wail on each other. After that, Im not sure what should happen next.

It's simple, THIS should happen next

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1flEhacNaKY

Having this scene done live action would be orgasmic, and I could see Routh give off the pissed off presence that's required for it. In the Superman Returns video game, his doesn't just speak in the calm and collected tone that he did in the movie.

Nate Grey

01-07-2008, 08:02 AM

666MasterOfPuppets

01-07-2008, 11:13 AM

What's so complicated about him? He's an otherworldy tyrant and genocidal maniac. He feels he is superior to everyone and everything and he would kill you just as soon as look at you. He has an entire futuristic army at his command and he wants to conquer earth. What's so hard about bringing that to the silver screen?

I dunno. I feel that by making that jump, the WB could ruin it.

Misunderstood by millions? What aspect is this exactly?

Aspects, actually. Do the terms "deadbeat dad" and "Super-stalker" ring a bell?

Likewise, I think Superman hitting someone (especially someone who can hit back) is. Now are those saying it isn't trying to say Superman isn't Street Fighter II? Cause I'm not saying that, either.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Curious why people keep bringing Darkseid into this. I guess it possible to simply have him and parademons, but it seems you couldn't have him without the ENTIRE fourth world characters.

Besides, Superman has many physical opponents of his own without have to "borrow" any.

Borrow? Darkseid IS one of Superman's nemeses.

And did people "think" with their wallet and not make SR the success WB was hoping for? Seriously it sounds like wishful thinking to say SR didn't make it because there was no fighting, so is there a way you can quantify this? Got stats, polls, anything?

Huh? You're asking for things you know don't exist. As far as I know, anyway. Besides, you can see that kind of reaction all over the internet, including your own:
Likewise, I think Superman hitting someone (especially someone who can hit back) is.

No, it's not wishful thinking. There are many people who didn't like SR because Superman didn't hit anyone/anything. Like I said in a previous post, "I think it's just that people had other expectations with the movie, rather than the flick being actually bad."

metalhead_dave743

01-07-2008, 11:18 AM

I dunno. I feel that by making that jump, the WB could ruin it.

That's how it was done with TAS and it worked pretty well.

The Batman

01-07-2008, 11:26 AM

TAS had alot of time and space to build Darkseid and the Fourth World mythology up. Just introducing him into a movie as an otherworldly conqueror for Superman to beat on kinda robs Darkseid of alot of what made him appealling and transforms him into a generic and uninteresting villian.

Might as well use Mongul and Warworld, who actually is just an otherworldly conqueror, and leave Darkseid unspoiled.

Black Atom

01-07-2008, 12:00 PM

666MasterOfPuppets

01-07-2008, 12:00 PM

That's how it was done with TAS and it worked pretty well.

Adding to what The Batman said in the post above, you'd be bringing a fantastic character in a live-action movie. There are changes that would be made in order to make Darkseid fit in that world. That's where I believe things could get complicated.

BYC

01-07-2008, 12:43 PM

Speaking for myself, what made Superman Returns boring was not that Superman wasn't constantly punching shit, it was that the emotional conflict wasn't very compelling. Singer and co. manage to FUBAR the most humanizing element of the mythos, which is the relationship with Lois, by turning Superman into the "other man". I guess, instead of rooting for Superman to get the girl, we're supposed to pity him instead. Unless, of course, you take into consideration that HE'S the one that split for Krypton, leaving Lois (and Earth) high and dry. The problem really, is that Superman, in this movie, is kind of a douche. And even that would be okay if there was some kind of character growth arc (check out Superman 2, Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3--in each case the hero acts kind of douchey, gets his comeuppance and sort of learns a lesson) but there's really nothing for Singer-Supes to do but wallow in his own douchiness for 2 hours, to the point that you're kind of glad when he gets the boots put to him by some penny-ante thugs.

A lack of foresight seems to be the problem with Superman Returns. Singer introduces a lot of conflicts and offers no real resolutions. And maybe that was the point--to go the deconstruction route and give Superman complicated problems that can't be solved with super-strength or possibly even at all. That makes Singer a perfect candidate for Sentry: The Motion Picture, but not so great for a Superman franchise.

I agree with some of your points. I get the feeling that Singer and Co. are trying to convince Superman and the audience that although he may love and have relationships, his role as Superman comes first above everything else. This is reflected in the Reeve movies as well. In Superman, Jor-El tells Kal he shouldn't involve himself directly in their affairs. In Superman 2, Lara tries to convince Kal not to be a normal human. They were trying to show the audience Superman's conflict in choosing between Superman and Clark Kent.

However, in Singer's version, Singer chose Superman, last son of Kryton over Clark Kent. What's worse, is that Singer's decisions made it as if Superman came off of a one-minder stalker. I believe Krytonians in comics have been written as obessive over one lover, but I doubt Singer had that in mind, and especially when it wasn't explained or widely known.

Lord of Denial

01-07-2008, 12:52 PM

Something just dawned on me, since we're stuck on Darkseid at the moment: while he and Superman may be equal physically...Darkseid can't fly. What's stopping Superman from grabbing him during a scuffle and hurling him toward the sun as hard as he could?

The average movie goer is not going to think of that. There just going to sit there and be happy that Superman and a worthy foe are having one hell of a knockdown drag out fight.

Nate Grey

01-07-2008, 04:11 PM

Aspects, actually. Do the terms "deadbeat dad" and "Super-stalker" ring a bell?

How are people misunderstanding that? And how do you know for sure? How do you know they don't understand it just fine?

You're entitled to your opinion.

Thanks, I wasn't aware.

Borrow? Darkseid IS one of Superman's nemeses.

Created in Jimmy Olson, yes, but he his a whole mythology of his own plus Supes has plenty of original rogues he could use. I can go either way on this one, though.

Huh? You're asking for things you know don't exist.

Likewise, how do you know the abscence of a fight made it GOOD, when evidence (money) seems to point to the opposite? You implied that sort of thinking is wrong with your "which is what many people think" and I'm saying, prove it. I'm not asking for things that don't exist, I'm asking for you to quantify what you're saying as far a people being "wrong" or "thinking" whatever or "misunderstanding" on something other thant he strength of you liking the movie yourself.

No, it's not wishful thinking. There are many people who didn't like SR because Superman didn't hit anyone/anything.

And that's wrong because...?

Like I said in a previous post, "I think it's just that people had other expectations with the movie, rather than the flick being actually bad."

How do you know? Unless you count them expecting something other Superman simply being there as expecting too much?

Nate Grey

01-07-2008, 04:14 PM

The average movie goer is not going to think of that. There just going to sit there and be happy that Superman and a worthy foe are having one hell of a knockdown drag out fight.

But apparently the abscence of a fight is a GOOD thing, so I've been told, so...maybe not.

Still, maybe the Omega Effect would be a good equalizer regardless.

666MasterOfPuppets

01-07-2008, 05:28 PM

How are people misunderstanding that? And how do you know for sure? How do you know they don't understand it just fine?

So you're saying that Superman in SR was consciously portrayed as a deadbeat dad and a stalker? Because if people "understand it just fine" by doing it the way they do, is because Superman indeed is a deadbeat dad and a stalker.

Thanks, I wasn't aware.

Sarcasm doesn't suit you.

Created in Jimmy Olson, yes, but he his a whole mythology of his own plus Supes has plenty of original rogues he could use. I can go either way on this one, though.

Ah, but of course there are other rogues. A duo of villains would be great.

Likewise, how do you know the abscence of a fight made it GOOD, when evidence (money) seems to point to the opposite? You implied that sort of thinking is wrong with your "which is what many people think" and I'm saying, prove it. I'm not asking for things that don't exist, I'm asking for you to quantify what you're saying as far a people being "wrong" or "thinking" whatever or "misunderstanding" on something other thant he strength of you liking the movie yourself.

I could ask you the same thing. Prove the movie was indeed bad, when critics all over the net gave the movie GOOD reviews and it was NOT a financial failure, despite the fact it didn't meet the financial expectations the WB had. It's the strength of me liking the movie against the strength of you disliking it.

And you obviously misunderstood what I said. If there had been a fight in SR, it would have been nice. I've said that before (you can check it out whenever you want, if you want to). But I NEVER said that the absence of a fight MADE the movie good, as you so boldly stated. I said that the movie was good and that the absence of a fight didn't make the movie a bad movie, PERIOD. I also said, and I quote myself once more, "I think it's just that people had other expectations with the movie, rather than the flick being actually bad."

And that's wrong because...?

A misconception in my opinion, which I have the solemn right to voice whenever I want, as long as I do that respecting others, which I believe I have. Sorry that you apparently can't deal with that. If you disagree with it, it's fine. You'll pose your argument, and I'll pose mine. That's what civilized discussions are all about. We can also agree to disagree.

How do you know? Unless you count them expecting something other Superman simply being there as expecting too much?

Comments posted all over the net speak for themselves. I don't need "stats" or "polls" to know that. In any case, it's what I THINK. I posted that verb in the very same phrase you quoted. If you want/care to prove otherwise, or comment on it not being true IN YOUR OPINION, you're welcome to do so.

666MasterOfPuppets

01-07-2008, 05:32 PM

But apparently the abscence of a fight is a GOOD thing, so I've been told, so...maybe not.

Still, maybe the Omega Effect would be a good equalizer regardless.

I go with the "maybe not". Read more carefully other people's posts before making statements such as that one. Read my previous post carefully for more. If you want to, that is.

Captain_Video

01-07-2008, 05:32 PM

But apparently the abscence of a fight is a GOOD thing, so I've been told, so...maybe not.

Still, maybe the Omega Effect would be a good equalizer regardless.

The abscence of a pointless fight is a good thing.

Sean Whitmore

01-07-2008, 05:35 PM

The abscence of a pointless fight is a good thing.

What's a "pointless" fight?

Is it anything like a pointless space shuttle rescue, or...?

SEAN

The Zapper

01-07-2008, 05:36 PM

Pointless fights rule. Watch "They Live" for proof.

Nate Grey

01-07-2008, 06:01 PM

So you're saying that Superman in SR was consciously portrayed as a deadbeat dad and a stalker? Because if people "understand it just fine" by doing it the way they do, is because Superman indeed is a deadbeat dad and a stalker.

I'm saying people's reasons why they don't like the movie isn't wrong, which seems to be what you're saying.

Sarcasm doesn't suit you.

Prove it. ;)

I could ask you the same thing. Prove the movie was indeed bad,

I don't have to, I'm not the one acting like I know what other people think or saying what they think is "misunderstood" like I know better somehow.

when critics all over the net gave the movie GOOD reviews and it was NOT a financial failure, despite the fact it didn't meet the financial expectations the WB had. It's the strength of me liking the movie against the strength of you disliking it.

The net = every single person that saw the movie? Really?

And you obviously misunderstood what I said. If there had been a fight in SR, it would have been nice. I've said that before (you can check it out whenever you want, if you want to). But I NEVER said that the absence of a fight MADE the movie good, as you so boldly stated. I said that the movie was good and that the absence of a fight didn't make the movie a bad movie, PERIOD. I also said, and I quote myself once more, "I think it's just that people had other expectations with the movie, rather than the flick being actually bad."

And again I ask how do you know what people think? The net? Is that the end all be all? Or are you adding your friends/family too? :confused:

A misconception in my opinion, which I have the solemn right to voice whenever I want, as long as I do that respecting others, which I believe I have. Sorry that you apparently can't deal with that.

I can deal just fine, I'm not the one calling others "wrong" or "misunderstood" over a movie I happen to like that did didn't.

If you disagree with it, it's fine. You'll pose your argument, and I'll pose mine.

Thanks again, being new here and all.

Comments posted all over the net speak for themselves. I don't need "stats" or "polls" to know that. In any case, it's what I THINK. I posted that verb in the very same phrase you quoted. If you want/care to prove otherwise, or comment on it not being true IN YOUR OPINION, you're welcome to do so.

I never stated my opinion(s) was fact, not even hinted at it (well, the money thing). Your opinions seem to be phrased as "I'm right everyone else is wrong". If that's how you feel, cool, I was just wondering if there was something behind it to back it up. If its a case of "what I think", that's cool, too. Just wondering.

metalhead_dave743

01-07-2008, 06:22 PM

Pointless fights rule. Watch "They Live" for proof.

Nothing pointless about that. Nada needed him to wear the glasses.

GRANT!

01-08-2008, 12:41 AM

What's a "pointless" fight?

Is it anything like a pointless space shuttle rescue, or...?

SEAN

I know. Superman could have easily just flew into Metropolis and said "Wassup I'm back, yo."

Sean Whitmore

01-08-2008, 12:46 AM

I know. Superman could have easily just flew into Metropolis and said "Wassup I'm back, yo."

It would have been awesome if he ran into the same black guy from the first movie.

"Say, Jim--!"

"Excuse me. Again."

WOOSH!

"Man, I ain't never gonna get to talk to him."

SEAN

666MasterOfPuppets

01-08-2008, 04:48 AM

I'm saying people's reasons why they don't like the movie isn't wrong, which seems to be what you're saying.

Well, I do think it's a misconception, and I'm posing an argument to defend it. But hey, I know and understand that some people didn't like it. The reasons why they didn't like it it's what I'm talking about.

Prove it. ;)

Hehehe... That's a tough task.

I don't have to, I'm not the one acting like I know what other people think or saying what they think is "misunderstood" like I know better somehow.

Ah, but I'm talking about the people who didn't like it because there wasn't enough action or Superman was portrayed as a "deadbeat dad and a stalker". It was absolutely clear from the start that not everyone disliked the movie, and that not everyone disliked it for the aforementioned reasons. And I know there's people who has that argument because I've read their impressions on the movie.

The net = every single person that saw the movie? Really?

Again, see above.

And again I ask how do you know what people think? The net? Is that the end all be all? Or are you adding your friends/family too? :confused:

I can deal just fine, I'm not the one calling others "wrong" or "misunderstood" over a movie I happen to like that did didn't.

Is it really that hard for me to explain myself? Am I that bad at conveying my opinions? Because I've been pretty clear, I believe.

And again, I invite you to read paragraph number 6 (counted from top to bottom) of this post.

Thanks again, being new here and all.

You should make a living of your sarcastic comments. They seem to suit you, after all. ;)

I never stated my opinion(s) was fact, not even hinted at it (well, the money thing). Your opinions seem to be phrased as "I'm right everyone else is wrong". If that's how you feel, cool, I was just wondering if there was something behind it to back it up. If its a case of "what I think", that's cool, too. Just wondering.

Same here. I try to be careful about that, saying things like "in MY opinion" or "I think..." You might have heard of those expressions, or even read them in my posts.

shamone

01-08-2008, 05:44 AM

its been said before but the reasons Superman Returns was poor was it was a comic book character in amovie which took itself waaay too seriously.

It tried to be a character driven drama about loss and obsession. thats not Superman.

one other thing when he was floating in space and you could hear what he was hearing, ie the sirens, people shouting for help, babies crying, anyone else feel that it was a bit of a let down to find his next action being to prevent a bank robbery.

Surely it wasnt the most important thing going on in the world at that time

666MasterOfPuppets

01-08-2008, 06:33 AM

nervmeister

01-08-2008, 06:45 AM

Okay that was kinda funny. :D Is Kalibak in this scenario too so Superman would have a preliminary fight? :D

Still, I think if they do this just have Darkseid, Apokalips (shown briefly to show where Darkseid is boom-tubing from), and parademons. Anything else, even his sons, can get crowded.Maybe youre right. Kalibak should probably be the only other Darkseid relative in the picture. Though a brief cameo of the New Gods (in a flashback perhaps) might be necessary to quiet down die-hard fans.

It's simple, THIS should happen next

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1flEhacNaKY

Having this scene done live action would be orgasmic, and I could see Routh give off the pissed off presence that's required for it. In the Superman Returns video game, his doesn't just speak in the calm and collected tone that he did in the movie.That would work pretty damn well actually. Good call.

Captain_Video

01-08-2008, 10:03 AM

What's a "pointless" fight?

Is it anything like a pointless space shuttle rescue, or...?

SEAN

Yawn, Yawn, Yawn.

The point of the shuttle rescue was, to show his Return to earth in dramatic fashion, to make Lois be in that scene as a focal point with a logical reason, to show the effect of Luthors plan as it begins to unfold, this links all the main characters of the story together, without contrivance as it all makes logical narrative sense, the point is to further the story based on the actions of the characters in said story.

It was the end of the First Act, Superman has returned, now what does this mean for our established characters ?

So no, not pointless at all really.

What made you think it was ?

( The fight scene in They Live was also not pointless, excessive maybe but not pointless, he was trying to convince someone to see the world the way he sees it, no matter how much he had to beat sense into them ).

A pointless fight scene would be anything that stops the momentum of the story for the purpose of action, most Act One action scenes do this ( in the middle or beginning of act one, not at the end ), they are however commonplace because it is believed audiences are too stupid and impatient to sit through ten minutes without some action..this is of course, not true.

Sean Whitmore

01-08-2008, 10:08 AM

Yawn, Yawn, Yawn.

Exactly. That's why he should've fought someone.

So no, not pointless at all really.

What made you think it was ?

I didn't, I was just trashing your argument that a fight scene would've been pointless, as it could have served the exact same purpose as the shuttle scene.

SEAN

Toku King

01-08-2008, 10:47 AM

Something just dawned on me, since we're stuck on Darkseid at the moment: while he and Superman may be equal physically...Darkseid can't fly. What's stopping Superman from grabbing him during a scuffle and hurling him toward the sun as hard as he could?

Darkseid is stronger, more skilled in combat, and has the Omega Effect.

Sean Whitmore

01-08-2008, 10:49 AM

What's stopping Superman from grabbing him during a scuffle and hurling him toward the sun as hard as he could?

Well...he's Superman, for one. ;)

SEAN

Toku King

01-08-2008, 10:51 AM

Well...he's Superman, for one. ;)

SEAN

And the fact that Supes actually tried it before in the comics, only to get chucked into the ground. Like I said before, Darkseid is definitely stronger.

Black Atom

01-08-2008, 11:07 AM

I know I'm in the minority, but I don't really want to see a huge fight with tons of collateral damage in a Superman film. In fact, that's one thing that bothered me about Superman: Doomsday--Supes piledrives Doomsday into the middle of Metropolis, causing a huge atom bomb-like shockwave that conveniently kills no one. That seems really irresponsible on Superman's part.

I also agree that Darkseid would be a bad choice. Without the other 4th World mythology, the guy is basically Mongul anyway, so why not just use Mongul?

Captain_Video

01-08-2008, 01:02 PM

Exactly. That's why he should've fought someone.

I didn't, I was just trashing your argument that a fight scene would've been pointless, as it could have served the exact same purpose as the shuttle scene.

SEAN

Because, its ....boring...if we go five minutes without a fist being thrown ? In what way was Superman Returns boring ? Or without action ? It was a big budget epic with huge action set pieces, a man lifted a giant yacht in the air with his own super strength and then lifted a whole continent, this is after car chases, shuttle crashes, city saving, machine gun eye bullet stopping.

Also my favourite moment where he crushes the guys car with the Daily Planet globe, I really wanted a guy to walk in from stage right and say "MY CAR" !!! But that would have killed the momentum.

The Darkseid thing would be a pointless fight as Darkseid has no reason to come to earth logically without giant amounts of exposition and contrivance, unless you change the character, but you may as well use Mongol if you are gonna do that.

Luthor, Superman can't fight him, Superman would punch through his skull in seconds.

Braniac, Superman could fight him, but it seems hokey, if you are the most intelligent being in the universe with robot minions, why would you have a fist fight ?

The yawn thing was rude, I apologise, but it comes from frustration hearing people constantly complaining about how movies with some degree of thought put into them are "boring" whilst praising mindless drek just because it has "cool" slow motion action all the way through.

Superman Returns, like Hulk is retconned into being a poorly received bomb, which is not the case for either film ( Hulk got a great write up Sight and Sound ! they hate everything ).

666MasterOfPuppets

01-08-2008, 06:01 PM

Because, its ....boring...if we go five minutes without a fist being thrown ? In what way was Superman Returns boring ? Or without action ? It was a big budget epic with huge action set pieces, a man lifted a giant yacht in the air with his own super strength and then lifted a whole continent, this is after car chases, shuttle crashes, city saving, machine gun eye bullet stopping.

Also my favourite moment where he crushes the guys car with the Daily Planet globe, I really wanted a guy to walk in from stage right and say "MY CAR" !!! But that would have killed the momentum.

The Darkseid thing would be a pointless fight as Darkseid has no reason to come to earth logically without giant amounts of exposition and contrivance, unless you change the character, but you may as well use Mongol if you are gonna do that.

Luthor, Superman can't fight him, Superman would punch through his skull in seconds.

Braniac, Superman could fight him, but it seems hokey, if you are the most intelligent being in the universe with robot minions, why would you have a fist fight ?

The yawn thing was rude, I apologise, but it comes from frustration hearing people constantly complaining about how movies with some degree of thought put into them are "boring" whilst praising mindless drek just because it has "cool" slow motion action all the way through.

Superman Returns, like Hulk is retconned into being a poorly received bomb, which is not the case for either film ( Hulk got a great write up Sight and Sound ! they hate everything ).

Agreed 100%. In my opinion.

IamtheRock3

01-08-2008, 06:43 PM

all those good enough reasons in a comic

Darksiend shows up cause he want to take over the planet, and rule them...wrecking thier icon is a good step to that.

There...your exposition right there.

EZMOHR

01-08-2008, 07:03 PM

I agree, I don't know why the 4th World is considered the second coming of Tolstoy. Two Planets. One Good One Bad. Switch Sons. Good and Bad hate each other and fight. That is the 4th World people. It isn't astro physics folks.

shamone

01-09-2008, 05:19 AM

Hey shamone, welcome to the boards.

I understand your POV. Well, you can't please everybody, I guess. Reminds me of when Chuck Austen started to wite Action Comics. He introduced dramatic elements in his stories, which was something a group of fans clamored. And still he got kicked.

no one is looking for a mindless action fest, but if we want chick flicks then we will go to the latest meg ryan/etc snoozearama

as to my second point, this is superman, all powerful, and he uses his powers to prevent a bank robbery.

surely this is a mus use of power

666MasterOfPuppets

01-09-2008, 05:55 AM

nervmeister

01-09-2008, 09:16 AM

Get this: What if Superman"s bastard son actually turned out to be a synthetic life form created by Brainiac to spy on him? That would be perfect for the next film.

Black Atom

01-09-2008, 09:43 AM

all those good enough reasons in a comic

Darksiend shows up cause he want to take over the planet, and rule them...wrecking thier icon is a good step to that.

There...your exposition right there.

But why couldn't Mongul fulfill the same purpose? Why does it have to be Darkseid, if all you need is a brute to show up and pound on Superman? Or do what they did in Superman: TAS and have it be Kalibak, and keep Darkseid in the shadows to be revealed as an even worse badass later. I don't see why anyone'd want a situation where you establish Darkseid and have him defeated by Superman in the same film.

Agent Helix

01-09-2008, 09:50 AM

I don't see why anyone'd want a situation where you establish Darkseid and have him defeated by Superman in the same film.

Roughly 99% of the people that Warner Bros. would want to sell tickets to neither know nor care who Darkseid is.

BYC

01-09-2008, 09:57 AM

But why couldn't Mongul fulfill the same purpose? Why does it have to be Darkseid, if all you need is a brute to show up and pound on Superman? Or do what they did in Superman: TAS and have it be Kalibak, and keep Darkseid in the shadows to be revealed as an even worse badass later. I don't see why anyone'd want a situation where you establish Darkseid and have him defeated by Superman in the same film.

That sounds like a solid plan. In fact, it'd be really epic to setup a JLA trilogy based on Darkseid coming, kinda like Superman TAS' Legacy and JLU's Destroyer.

Start off with Wonder Woman fighting one of the Furies. Batman starting to find clues about aliens on Earth. Batman asks Superman to check out a satellite in orbit (or something like that). Superman discovers the threat, and faces off against Kalibak. Superman wins, but "the great darkness is coming". End of part 1.

Darkseid lands on Earth, owns Superman and Wonder Woman. Earth is taken over. Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman forms the Justice League to free Earth. End of part 2.

JL vs. Darkseid. Wonder Woman vs. Darkseid. Darkseid wins. Superman vs. Darkseid. Darkseid wins. Batman vs. er...somebody. Batman wins. Superman sun dips, and returns to Earth. Superman vs. Darkseid again. Superman pulls it out, and Darkseid is banished to the Source Wall (or just back to Apokolips). End of trilogy.

If they can pull it off, they can a movie off of each of the big 3, with cameos of each other in their own movies, all exploring different ways of discovering Darkseid is coming. And then a JL movie to finish all. Cause then we can get our Routh and our Bale, along with their own focus movies. And then JL can just be a pure action blockbuster popcorn flick. Too bad Hollywood sucks and can't do something logical like that.

ie, Wonder Woman is slowly losing her powers cause her connection to the Greek gods are being disrupted. She fights some Furies, and discovers Darkseid is channeling the small amounts of Greek gods' powers into him.

Batman is his thing in Gothem when he discovers cultists devoting themselves to the "Darkseid". After digging around, he discovers sleeper agents in high levels of government and military.

Superman is doing his thing when an alien shows up on Earth to cause trouble (Kalibak or possibly Doomsday). Superman stops him, and then discovers an alien fleet in orbit, about to invade Earth.

Black Atom

01-09-2008, 10:08 AM

Roughly 99% of the people that Warner Bros. would want to sell tickets to neither know nor care who Darkseid is.

Well, yeah, but they're soulless creeps. As fans who've seen how villains like Bane, Venom and, for God's sake, Galactus were treated, you'd think we'd know better.

nervmeister

01-09-2008, 10:11 AM

Is everyone ignoring my ingenious idea given above? (see my previous post, goddammit) :mad:

Agent Helix

01-09-2008, 10:12 AM

Well, yeah, but they're soulless creeps. As fans who've seen how villains like Bane, Venom and, for God's sake, Galactus were treated, you'd think we'd know better.

And we count for a tiny percentage of the box office, and given most of the utter tripe that the "fans" love, who cares what we think anyway?

nervmeister

01-09-2008, 10:18 AM

And we count for a tiny percentage of the box office, and given most of the utter tripe that the "fans" love, who cares what we think anyway?I wanted ROTSS Galactus to be a guy in a flamboyant purple suit, dammit! (sobs)

shamone

01-10-2008, 05:24 AM

I suppose that was the only thing happening at that exact moment that required his attention? And I suppose that, given the current world issues, perhaps Singer and Co. didn't want to mess too much with bigger problems (adding to the fact that later in the movie Supes was shown saving people all over the globe)? I don't know, just a wild guess I'm throwing out there.

right. the only thing happening at that time. unlikely

thats it kids being abused, elderly people being mugged, etc etc, but his priority is preserving welath.

I guess that must be him living up to the "and the American way" part of his motto

metalhead_dave743

01-10-2008, 06:16 AM

JL vs. Darkseid. Wonder Woman vs. Darkseid. Darkseid wins. Superman vs. Darkseid. Darkseid wins. Batman vs. er...somebody. Batman wins. Superman sun dips, and returns to Earth. Superman vs. Darkseid again. Superman pulls it out, and Darkseid is banished to the Source Wall (or just back to Apokolips). End of trilogy.

First off, I LOVE your idea. It's AWESOME. And make the movies different projects with different directors. There could be a director for each of the big three's movies and then one director doing the JL trilogy.

And I also think it's hilarious that you make Superman and Wonder Woman lose in their fights while Batman wins in his. Hilarious, but right.

Here's what I think Batman should do in his fight. He should lead the league to take on a shit load of parademons(maybe unveil a Batplane and do dog fighting with them) to stop some huge plan of Darkseid's which could be run by Virman Vunderbarr, Dessad, or Granny Goodness, or maybe Kanto if you wanted to see Batman throw down with somebody.

666MasterOfPuppets

01-10-2008, 05:49 PM

Is everyone ignoring my ingenious idea given above? (see my previous post, goddammit) :mad:

Sounds interesting. As a matter of fact, that's what some fans are proposing to get rid of Jason.

EDIT: Well, not that exactly, but something among those lines.

right. the only thing happening at that time. unlikely

thats it kids being abused, elderly people being mugged, etc etc, but his priority is preserving welath.

I guess that must be him living up to the "and the American way" part of his motto

Well, I pretty much doubt that you'd see a kid being abused in a Superman movie. Kids watching it and all...

shamone

01-11-2008, 05:45 AM

Sounds interesting. As a matter of fact, that's what some fans are proposing to get rid of Jason.

EDIT: Well, not that exactly, but something among those lines.

Well, I pretty much doubt that you'd see a kid being abused in a Superman movie. Kids watching it and all...

i agree dont show the kid being abused.

but if you are not going to show it, then dont imply it either.

when superman was hanging in space listening to the earth, there is a clear sound of a kid in distress.

nervmeister

01-11-2008, 07:36 AM

Im not saying Supes should beat up a kid, but I can picture something like this happening. Have Supes confront Brainiac who makes a gesture and has Jason come out from behind him. Superman shocked by this calls out to his (supposed) son but all he gets is a cold gaze from Jason in reply. Then Brainiac reveals the awful truth that Jason was never his son to begin with, but rather an artificially created Kryptonian made for the sole purpose of acquiring data on Superman. Superman drops to his knees devastated by the news.

666MasterOfPuppets

01-11-2008, 11:26 AM

i agree dont show the kid being abused.

but if you are not going to show it, then dont imply it either.

when superman was hanging in space listening to the earth, there is a clear sound of a kid in distress.

I'll have to listen to that part more carefully. However, that could mean nothing that required Superman's attention: the kid got a much-deserved spanking from their parents, or he just hurt himself playing or something. Or, if it's a baby's cry, it most likely was because the baby was hungry or uncomfortable.

666MasterOfPuppets

01-11-2008, 11:28 AM

Black Atom

01-11-2008, 11:39 AM

That sounds like a great idea, but...

...That would mean that some SR haters would, most likely, complain again, because there was too much drama and that "that's not Superman" or something.

I'm actually not opposed to this. I think it's a potential for interesting dramatic conflict that you wouldn't get otherwise. The only other option is have Superman mope around about how he can't be a real father to Jason, which is getting back to the problems with SR.

See, I don't think it's the presence of drama that bothered people in SR but the lack of interesting drama. Superman I and II both had lots of drama--at least as much as they had action--but are still highly regarded. I think it's because those movies put Superman/Clark in situations we could empathize with and relate to. In SR, it was easier to empathize with Lois, Richard and the people that Superman left behind. It made the dramatic conflict less compelling because we couldn't empathize with the hero . Furthermore, it made Superman look like a whiner (or "emo" as people have labled him). I think losing a son is an emotional conflict people could empathize with.

666MasterOfPuppets

01-11-2008, 11:57 AM

I'm actually not opposed to this. I think it's a potential for interesting dramatic conflict that you wouldn't get otherwise. The only other option is have Superman mope around about how he can't be a real father to Jason, which is getting back to the problems with SR.

See, I don't think it's the presence of drama that bothered people in SR but the lack of interesting drama. Superman I and II both had lots of drama--at least as much as they had action--but are still highly regarded. I think it's because those movies put Superman/Clark in situations we could empathize with and relate to. In SR, it was easier to empathize with Lois, Richard and the people that Superman left behind. It made the dramatic conflict less compelling because we couldn't empathize with the hero . Furthermore, it made Superman look like a whiner (or "emo" as people have labled him). I think losing a son is an emotional conflict people could empathize with.

Well, what nervmeister proposed does sound like a great idea, so I wouldn't mind seeing it myself.

EDIT: I can see some people not liking it, though: "hey, you give him a son just to kill him in the next movie??? WTF???"

As for your other comment, I understand, and agree... To an extent. I could empathize with Richard, Ma and even Lois, but I wouldn't say that it was that hard to empathize with Big Blue. Just my .02, though.

Captain_Video

01-11-2008, 01:01 PM

Interestingly enough the plans for the ( now probably not going to be made ) Singer sequel where to kill Jason, maybe they had planned for him to be a robo-clone or something, to me, I like Jason, I like the new aspect that brings to Superman who is, to be honest Fatherly at times...

I am intrigued by that idea, what force on earth could kill Supermans son without him destroying them first ?

I really like Returns in hindsight...I liked it at the time and on DVD but, the world really grows on me.

Captain Trips

01-11-2008, 01:44 PM

That sounds like a great idea, but...

...That would mean that some SR haters would, most likely, complain again, because there was too much drama and that "that's not Superman" or something.

My lack of affection for Superman Returns doesn't stem from the fact that he didn't fight anyone or that there wasn't enough action or that it was boring. My issues are that so much of this movie is rehashed:

• Superman saves a space shuttle and an airplane in SR. Superman saves a helicopter and Air Force One in Superman I.

• Kitty Kowalski is Lex Luthor's lady friend and partner in crime who really knows deep down how horrible a person Lex is and secretly wishes she could be with one of the good guys. Kitty actually ends up thwarting Lex's plans by throwing out the remainder of the Kryptonian crystals (that cause the creation of the land masses) onto the island that Superman hurtles into space in SR. Miss Teschmaker is Lex Luthor's lady friend and partner in crime who really knows deep down how horrible a person Lex is and secretly wishes she could be with one of the good guys. Miss Teschmacher actually ends up thwarting Lex's plans by freeing Superman of the kryptonite Lex had trapped him with, thus allowing Supes to propel the missile headed for New Jersey into space in Superman I.

• Lex Luthor schemes to destroy existing populated land masses and create a new continent that he owns and controls in SR. Lex Luthor buys up tons of worthless real estate in the west and plans to cause a massive quake that will cause the destruction of California that will result in his owning the new west coast in Superman I.

• Superman quells natural disasters that arise as a result of Lex Luthor's plot in SR. Superman quells natural disasters that arise as a result of Lex Luthor's plot in Superman I.

• Lex Luthor invades Superman's Fortress of solitude to learn Superman's secrets in SR. Lex Luthor invades Superman's Fortress of solitude to learn Superman's secrets in Superman II.

Personally, I thought it was a foolish idea to try and make SR a direct sequel to Superman II and completely ignore Superman III and IV. Singer was picking and choosing what parts of the story he wanted to keep, and that made the whole thing disjointed to me. Plus the fact that the two movies that come directly before SR in terms of story were made over twenty years prior although the characters (who have all been recast for obvious reasons) haven't aged a day. I just think a reboot would have been a better way to go. And a reboot doesn't need to be another origin story to work.

The fact that Superman would have a sexual relationship with Lois yet not reveal to her that he was also the guy who worked at the desk opposite hers everyday just made Superman out to be a pretty creepy guy. And if she didn't remember having sex with him because he erased it from her memory, what must she have thought when she figured out who the kid's father really was? The guy knocked her up, somehow made her forget that he did it, and then vanished for 5 years. Plus, if she wasn't having sex with anyone else around the time Superman left (and it must have been pretty close to right after she got pregnant because the kid is 5), how did she think it happened? That lack of sense behind Superman fathering Lois's child just makes the reveal of Jason as his son really silly. And that reveal is central to the movie because Superman left Earth in the first place to look for other survivors of Krypton because he is alone. Now that he has a son, he realizes that everything he was looking for is here on Earth.

I want to make clear that what I have written above are the reasons why I wasn't particularly fond of the movie. I am not saying my opinions are right. I am just saying they are my opinions, and I am not intending to imply that anyone who likes the movie is wrong.

BoosterBronze

01-11-2008, 03:53 PM

My lack of affection for Superman Returns doesn't stem from the fact that he didn't fight anyone or that there wasn't enough action or that it was boring. My issues are that so much of this movie is rehashed:

The fact that Superman would have a sexual relationship with Lois yet not reveal to her that he was also the guy who worked at the desk opposite hers everyday just made Superman out to be a pretty creepy guy. And if she didn't remember having sex with him because he erased it from her memory, what must she have thought when she figured out who the kid's father really was? The guy knocked her up, somehow made her forget that he did it, and then vanished for 5 years.

All excellent points. I agree with them all.

And yet I dug the flick. I guess I just like Superman a lot.

BYC

01-11-2008, 06:47 PM

First off, I LOVE your idea. It's AWESOME. And make the movies different projects with different directors. There could be a director for each of the big three's movies and then one director doing the JL trilogy.

And I also think it's hilarious that you make Superman and Wonder Woman lose in their fights while Batman wins in his. Hilarious, but right.

Here's what I think Batman should do in his fight. He should lead the league to take on a shit load of parademons(maybe unveil a Batplane and do dog fighting with them) to stop some huge plan of Darkseid's which could be run by Virman Vunderbarr, Dessad, or Granny Goodness, or maybe Kanto if you wanted to see Batman throw down with somebody.

Thanks for the compliments. It's kinda odd about the Batman thing, cause I'm solidly anti-BatGod/BatDick nowadays. But I think that's just because Batman seems to regularly beat guys over his level. I have no problems with Batman facing people near his level and overcoming. Losing to Darkseid isn't something to be ashamed of that's for sure. Maybe that part can be the big 3 taking on Darkseid, and losing, Superman needs to take the sundip, so WW does the delaying action. Didn't think about too much, since these are only wet dreams after all :)

666MasterOfPuppets

01-11-2008, 07:16 PM

My lack of affection for Superman Returns doesn't stem from the fact that he didn't fight anyone or that there wasn't enough action or that it was boring. My issues are that so much of this movie is rehashed:

• Superman saves a space shuttle and an airplane in SR. Superman saves a helicopter and Air Force One in Superman I.

• Kitty Kowalski is Lex Luthor's lady friend and partner in crime who really knows deep down how horrible a person Lex is and secretly wishes she could be with one of the good guys. Kitty actually ends up thwarting Lex's plans by throwing out the remainder of the Kryptonian crystals (that cause the creation of the land masses) onto the island that Superman hurtles into space in SR. Miss Teschmaker is Lex Luthor's lady friend and partner in crime who really knows deep down how horrible a person Lex is and secretly wishes she could be with one of the good guys. Miss Teschmacher actually ends up thwarting Lex's plans by freeing Superman of the kryptonite Lex had trapped him with, thus allowing Supes to propel the missile headed for New Jersey into space in Superman I.

• Lex Luthor schemes to destroy existing populated land masses and create a new continent that he owns and controls in SR. Lex Luthor buys up tons of worthless real estate in the west and plans to cause a massive quake that will cause the destruction of California that will result in his owning the new west coast in Superman I.

• Superman quells natural disasters that arise as a result of Lex Luthor's plot in SR. Superman quells natural disasters that arise as a result of Lex Luthor's plot in Superman I.

• Lex Luthor invades Superman's Fortress of solitude to learn Superman's secrets in SR. Lex Luthor invades Superman's Fortress of solitude to learn Superman's secrets in Superman II.

Personally, I thought it was a foolish idea to try and make SR a direct sequel to Superman II and completely ignore Superman III and IV. Singer was picking and choosing what parts of the story he wanted to keep, and that made the whole thing disjointed to me. Plus the fact that the two movies that come directly before SR in terms of story were made over twenty years prior although the characters (who have all been recast for obvious reasons) haven't aged a day. I just think a reboot would have been a better way to go. And a reboot doesn't need to be another origin story to work.

The fact that Superman would have a sexual relationship with Lois yet not reveal to her that he was also the guy who worked at the desk opposite hers everyday just made Superman out to be a pretty creepy guy. And if she didn't remember having sex with him because he erased it from her memory, what must she have thought when she figured out who the kid's father really was? The guy knocked her up, somehow made her forget that he did it, and then vanished for 5 years. Plus, if she wasn't having sex with anyone else around the time Superman left (and it must have been pretty close to right after she got pregnant because the kid is 5), how did she think it happened? That lack of sense behind Superman fathering Lois's child just makes the reveal of Jason as his son really silly. And that reveal is central to the movie because Superman left Earth in the first place to look for other survivors of Krypton because he is alone. Now that he has a son, he realizes that everything he was looking for is here on Earth.

I want to make clear that what I have written above are the reasons why I wasn't particularly fond of the movie. I am not saying my opinions are right. I am just saying they are my opinions, and I am not intending to imply that anyone who likes the movie is wrong.

Well, that lack of sense behind Jason's existence is indeed puzzling. I noticed it, too. But in all honesty, I chose to not pay much attention to it. In part, because I didn't want that to interfere with me enjoying the flick, and in part because there's the possibility that Lois knew that Superman is Jason's son from the beginning. It was never made clear, but it's a possibility.

As for the similarities, I see SR as a homage to the original Donner flicks, and I'm sure that we'll see something that will blow our socks off in MoS.

666MasterOfPuppets

01-11-2008, 07:31 PM

Some news on MoS (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117978919.html?categoryid=2526&cs=1). It's partly a rehashing of what we already know, but it has some new bits of info.

Paul Dee

01-12-2008, 01:25 PM

Some news on MoS (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117978919.html?categoryid=2526&cs=1). It's partly a rehashing of what we already know, but it has some new bits of info.

Just like Superman Returns eh?

boom boom etc

666MasterOfPuppets

01-14-2008, 05:13 AM

??? I talked about what we already know about MoS, not SR. :confused:

Sorry if I didn't understand what you meant, but I'm not quite awake yet, so...:)

Solaris01

01-14-2008, 10:58 AM

Because Singer's never been seen to improve a franchise with a sequel?

X-Men 2 as leaps and bounds better than the first. Why couldn't his next Superman movie potentially do the same leap in quality?

Agreed.
I LOVE SR, Jason and all, and I want to see a sequel to that story, because I think it has a lot of potential of epic proportions. I'm glad SR is not a mindless action generic flick, cliched, or with cookie-cutter characters. Singer gave me a Superman movie full of heart that returned The Hero of my childhood back into my life. But now it's time to introduce other elements (powerful supervillain, superfights, more original story) to the franchise that we have never seen before, and kick butt!! I have faith in Singer, he is a great director, IMO.

I also think that Superman Returns didn't make huge $$ because of the nature of the story (very sentimental, lacked hard action and was a little slow, not that that took away any enjoyment for me), not because it's a bad film. I think that today's audiences are too shallow and cynical to appreciate a film like this. It saddens me so much when I hear fans asking for a Superman film to be just like Transformers, which is so dumb, shallow, and generic. Not even the action was that great, I couldn't see who was fighting who. Terrible storytelling, oh, but it had awesome action so is mindblowing.... I want good storytelling for Superman most of all, he deserves it. But I know it's time to bring more hard action in order to make lots of $$$. And Singer knows it. Give him a chance. And let's remember that this film was just a reintroduction of Superman's world to new audiences, and not everything Singer is capable of.

And please, keep Jason alive. I like Superman as a father, it brings more depth to the character and makes him different to other superheros actually. But please I don't like the idea of Jason being evil or the whole of SR being a dream sequence done by Brainiac as some fans want, that'd ruin everything wonderful about SR for me. A good writer with IMAGINATION can make Jason work, I have no doubt.

Oh, and as far as I know, Brandon Routh is THE MAN OF STEEL of this generation! And anybody else just doesn't come close for me now, I won't buy it. Brandon won me over. He has the presence, the talent, the looks, and he is also a really nice and clean guy who is PROUD to wear the tights.

Singer/Routh 2010 :cool:

Solaris01

01-14-2008, 11:34 AM

There is no group clamouring for stalking it was a natural moment that came out of the story being told, it wasn't stalking either, does the Christian idea of god stalk the people who worship him ? Does Vincent in Beauty and the Beast ( the T.V show ) stalk Catherine ? Superman in that moment is watching over the people he cares about most in the world and realising they have ceased caring about him they have moved on, thats some tragic lovely storytelling, how must Superman feel that all these people he gives his life for, could care less and that he is ultimately alone.
I also disagree ( politely ) that I was generalising, as the number one request, on almost every Superman board is that he fight some form of giant robot in the movies, I agree this would be a powerful vision, but it has nothing to do with anything remotely interesting about the Superman character and as such those type of things only tend to happen in the first four pages of the comics.

There are obviously times when it is not in the first four pages, but I am sure you get what I mean.

What a lot of people seem to vocally want from a Superman movie has nothing to do with character or drama and everything to do with feats of strength and high octane action.

Superman is so powerful that the only real drama can be a human one, as we know he is going to stick the giant robot up Luthors ass.

Bryan Singer and Routh really understood the majority of what makes Superman compelling and it is shame they won't be coming based not on the films gross, or on how good\interesting it was, but based on the dumb idiots before them who ran up millions of production debt, they had recoup.

I wanted to see the sequel so bad, as it felt like the logical next step in the Superman cinematic story.

Perfectly said!
I NEVER had a problem with Superman spying Lois at her home, never, in fact, I love the scene because it was an act of desperation and concern by Superman for Lois and her new life. She is The Woman and love of his life, so he was shocked by all the sudden changes (he had been away traveling through deep Space and time passed much faster for him than for the people on Earth, therefore, he needed some time to adjust, IMO). Let's remember that as Clark he tried to talk to Lois several times, but she kept dissmising and ignoring him. This Superman really felt like the Superman I've always loved, just more fleshed out and real. And I never felt he had any bad intentions by doing that. I thought this was like an exception for Superman to do and not the rule. So, I forgive him, he had a moment of weakness, just like we all do. But he grows and learns from his mistakes at the end of the film, and also saves the world. Beautiful and compelling.
Also, if you pay attention to Superman's eyes during the scene, you will notice a deep sadness in them. I see it like if he wonders what if he hadn't left, maybe this family could be his instead. After all, the themes of alienation and the search for family were the central ones in this story. This movie is so full of subtext everywhere you turn that is amazing.

Solaris01

01-14-2008, 12:09 PM

He's always LOOKED human. Becoming it has only been shown in "Superman" partially and "Superman II". SR Superman was too perfect in one shot, and stalky in the next. That isn't human. Being human includes real struggle, and real feeling in what he does even if it results in his death. Fighting Darkseid and Doomsday would be the ultimate sacrifice. Lifting ships and people? No.

I disagree with you when you say that Superman was too perfect in SR. Maybe you need to pay more attention when you watch the movie, because there were several times when Supes and Clark showed through his face different types of feelings, like jelousy (Clark for Richard), anger (Superman when visits The Fortress), pride (when Supes gets up after being stabbed by Lex), contained anger (when he land on New Krypton and faces Lex. He sounds very pissed off when he talk to Lex, IMO), passion (the almost kiss with Lois), determination and courage (lifting NK up into Space), and more. Brandon emoted those emotions very well, but he is very subtle. Superman was still a really nice guy, but if anything, this film made him more human. He never felt cartoony to me. And the Spidey films are fun and all, but the teen drama is just too boring for me and it doesn't hold my attention. I much prefer the kind of drama that Singer puts into his movies. The first two XMEN and SR are great for me and very compelling.

And I also wanted to say that I disagree with those who think that people can't accept another guy as Supes other than Reeve. I love Reeve a lot, he was awesome in the part, but to me and many others I know, Brandon is just as good and he can be even better in MOS. Brandon is perfect as Superman, he nailed the role, IMO. Reeve is my childhood Superman, but Brandon is my adulthood Supeman. They both rock equally hard for me.

666MasterOfPuppets

01-15-2008, 05:52 AM

Great posts, Solaris.

I understand that you don't want to see Jason die in MoS. In all honesty, I liked the proposal of Jason really being a Brainiac clone or something.

But thinking it over, I think that would just get things more convoluted, especially for the general audiences.

And to this day, I swear to Rao that I still don't understand why Superman is seen as a "psycho-stalker". It was just a natural thing to do: Superman saw Lois had moved on, and he wanted to see what her new life was like. The meaning of that word is more sinister, I believe.

Titan76

01-15-2008, 10:17 AM

Because, its ....boring...if we go five minutes without a fist being thrown ? In what way was Superman Returns boring ? Or without action ? It was a big budget epic with huge action set pieces, a man lifted a giant yacht in the air with his own super strength and then lifted a whole continent, this is after car chases, shuttle crashes, city saving, machine gun eye bullet stopping.
Too much drama and not even entertainment for me. Yes I am one of those people who want action in a Superman movie and when I mean by action not some normal human thugs beating up Superman. I already know Superman can lift yachts, is bullet-proof, can save people from their cars cashing, and can catch planes out of the air. Nothing new here or exciting for a hero like Superman and shouldn't be the main action scenes in a Superman movie. Everything Superman did in this movie is something I have already seen in the previous four Superman movies, the Superman TV shows, etc. and its been done to death. With new technology a Superman vs oh lets say General Zod would look a hella lot better then it did over 20 years ago and it would provide much more suspense and excitement then Superman catching a plane.

That and when you use the same dam villain for every freaken Superman movie people just get tried and burnt out of it that a backlash is going to form. Which is what I think is happening with Lex Luthor. The guy is in every thing that is Superman and people are just tried of him because they want to see someone different and new. And since they have the technology now to use other Superman villains like Doomsday and Braniac there is no longer an excuse for not having villains like these show up and keeping Luthor OUT of a Superman movie.

I also don't mind drama and all that other stuff in a Superman movie but when I pay over $12 to see a Superman movie I expect to get my money's worth which imo I didn't get with SR.

Solaris01

01-15-2008, 12:12 PM

Captain_Video

01-15-2008, 01:55 PM

Too much drama and not even entertainment for me. Yes I am one of those people who want action in a Superman movie and when I mean by action not some normal human thugs beating up Superman. I already know Superman can lift yachts, is bullet-proof, can save people from their cars cashing, and can catch planes out of the air. Nothing new here or exciting for a hero like Superman and shouldn't be the main action scenes in a Superman movie. Everything Superman did in this movie is something I have already seen in the previous four Superman movies, the Superman TV shows, etc. and its been done to death. With new technology a Superman vs oh lets say General Zod would look a hella lot better then it did over 20 years ago and it would provide much more suspense and excitement then Superman catching a plane.

That and when you use the same dam villain for every freaken Superman movie people just get tried and burnt out of it that a backlash is going to form. Which is what I think is happening with Lex Luthor. The guy is in every thing that is Superman and people are just tried of him because they want to see someone different and new. And since they have the technology now to use other Superman villains like Doomsday and Braniac there is no longer an excuse for not having villains like these show up and keeping Luthor OUT of a Superman movie.

I also don't mind drama and all that other stuff in a Superman movie but when I pay over $12 to see a Superman movie I expect to get my money's worth which imo I didn't get with SR.

See short of CGI stuntmen, I can't see how the Superman 2 fight with Zod could be improved, as CGI stuntmen are years away from being close to fooling the human eye, I do not see a big budget superfight looking that much better than Superman 2.

Superman has fought superpowered villains in three of his movies ( if we count the robot braniac thing as a superpowered villain and evil Superman ) the minority of movie appearances is Superman facing human foes.

Doomsday would be a big blow out fight for sure, but how do you write a compelling story around that character ? There is nothing to him, he is just a vehicle for a fight scene.

Braniac, again, has sort of been done with the robot computer and as a character is not defined by fight sequences.

Even Bizarro a character I absolutely love would not be compelling for a movie ( and again Nuclear Man had things in common with Bizarro, so would not be too original ).

Parasite or Metallo would be new but this is getting into dangerous territory as they can easily be ruined ala Mister Freeze, or just come off as a bit uninspired.

I am honestly interested in the "moneys worth" rationale, because I do seem to be out of touch with a lot of cinema goers, what is it about these action sequences that make them valuable ? What makes Superman lifting a yacht and saving a plane, less interesting than him punching Doomsday in the face ?

Superman saving a plane is heroism, Superman having a fight is violence, Superman will not fight unless he has to, unless there is no other choice, because he is a hero, violence is almost never heroic.....it is important in this day and age that we remind particularly children that violence is not the answer, because they are bombarded with violence almost constantly, it has become so acceptable and Superman is a force of reason, hope and idealism...truth justice and the american way.

I guess I don't understand how a fight is better than dramatically justified epic sequences in which Superman saves a city from destruction, he should prevent chaos not create it.

shamone

01-16-2008, 05:55 AM

Thanks. And on the "stalker" thing, I think it tells you MORE about other peoples state of mind than about Superman's act, IMO.

Huh

I think it says more about your state of mind, if you thinks its normal to hang around outside a woman's house you havent seen in years.

metalhead_dave743

01-16-2008, 06:46 AM

See short of CGI stuntmen, I can't see how the Superman 2 fight with Zod could be improved, as CGI stuntmen are years away from being close to fooling the human eye, I do not see a big budget superfight looking that much better than Superman 2.

Superman has fought superpowered villains in three of his movies ( if we count the robot braniac thing as a superpowered villain and evil Superman ) the minority of movie appearances is Superman facing human foes.

1. All those fights SUCKED! Well the Supes/Zod and friends fight was okay. But there was no OOMPH to any of those fights. None of the Superman movies have given us a good hard hitting Superman fight the way TAS, JLU, or Superman/Doomsday have delivered.

2. As I stated before, the only thing I give credit to in the Matrix is the final fight between Neo and Smith where they are flying and destroying things. It looked pretty damn real. And also, one thing I LOVED about Superman returns was the fact that via CGI or anything else, Superman looked great while flying. And if this Hulk movie coming out has us see Hulk and Abomination smashing each other and everything else in a fucking awesome manner that looks believeable that two powerhouses are tearing shit apart, I'm going to hammer this point down to you AGAIN.

3. So as far as I'm concerned, a hard hitting fight where the blows between two powerhouses are enough to sound like miniture explosions and are enough to knock each other back one hundred feet and destroy, can be very doable and will look fucking AWESOME on the silver screen.

Doomsday would be a big blow out fight for sure, but how do you write a compelling story around that character ? There is nothing to him, he is just a vehicle for a fight scene.

Braniac, again, has sort of been done with the robot computer and as a character is not defined by fight sequences.

Even Bizarro a character I absolutely love would not be compelling for a movie ( and again Nuclear Man had things in common with Bizarro, so would not be too original ).

PLEASE don't compare Bizarro or Brainiac to the Nuclear Man or the "Supercomputer." Again I go to TAS, if they make brainiac the way he was in TAS, a cold sentient computer who's mission is to gain all the knoweledge of the universe and "delete" where he got the knoweledge from, he would make a compelling bad guy.

For Bizarro, he's a semi retarded clone of Superman trying to find his place in the world. He can be easily manipulated by Luthor and co, and he can meet his demise by saving the world after Superman gets to him... which would take place after a huge superpowered brawl.

I am honestly interested in the "moneys worth" rationale, because I do seem to be out of touch with a lot of cinema goers, what is it about these action sequences that make them valuable ? What makes Superman lifting a yacht and saving a plane, less interesting than him punching Doomsday in the face ?

As I said before, it's not the fact that Superman gets to punch Doomsday in the face which is interesting... it's the fact that Superman will get punched back. That he's in for a real fight and that he might not make it out of this. That he's gotta overcome something that's able to take his best shots. That, and having Supes and enemy knock each other through the city or through the sky or even in space, with a fight that makes the punches as powerful as sonic booms, would be fucking awesome.

As I said before, I dare you NOT to Mark out if you see Supes punch and enemy which sends him through 5 skyscrapers and then see Supes speedfly all the way to the other side of where the enemy is flying, to axehandle him into the ground. If they did that live action, it would be fucking incredible... no shit.

That's your money's worth right there.

Superman saving a plane is heroism, Superman having a fight is violence, Superman will not fight unless he has to, unless there is no other choice, because he is a hero, violence is almost never heroic.....it is important in this day and age that we remind particularly children that violence is not the answer, because they are bombarded with violence almost constantly, it has become so acceptable and Superman is a force of reason, hope and idealism...truth justice and the american way.

I guess I don't understand how a fight is better than dramatically justified epic sequences in which Superman saves a city from destruction, he should prevent chaos not create it.

Yeah well if there is somebody with the same amount of power as Superman to cause destruction, Supes is going to have to fight him to stop his reign of distruction. There is the no other choice for you right there... Superman won't talk somebody like Brainiac or Doomsday out of their plans to destroy shit, he will have to stop them by any means, and usually if the bad guy is bent on destruction and can take the fight to Supes, it's going to lead to a fight.

And in this day and age, where movies about comic book heroes have become the new trend, the movies both good and bad have the hero go toe to toe with his enemy, or some enemy.

Spidey fought Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus, Sandman and Venom.
Daredevil fought Kingpin and Bullseye.
Batman fought Ra's Al Ghul and he'll be fighting the Joker.(Sucks he's the only DC one)
X-Men fought Magneto.
Fantastic Four fought Dr. Doom(talk about alliterations there),
Ghost Rider fought Blackheart.
Hulk is fighting Abomination.
Punisher is fighting Jigsaw.
Ironman is fighting Manderian.

Why can't Supes fight Doomsday, or Metallo, or Conduit, or Brainiac, or hell even Mxy or Toyman. Somebody besides Luthor or a made up hack villain like Nuclear Man. The Donner Superman was great for what it was, by why not delve a little more into the comic mythology with the villains the way other comic book heroes are doing.

Titan76

01-16-2008, 06:51 AM

See short of CGI stuntmen, I can't see how the Superman 2 fight with Zod could be improved, as CGI stuntmen are years away from being close to fooling the human eye, I do not see a big budget superfight looking that much better than Superman 2.
The fight scenes in Spider-Man 2 were 10 times better then the ones in Superman 2. Yes CGI will make a huge difference.

Superman has fought superpowered villains in three of his movies ( if we count the robot braniac thing as a superpowered villain and evil Superman ) the minority of movie appearances is Superman facing human foes.

Doomsday would be a big blow out fight for sure, but how do you write a compelling story around that character ? There is nothing to him, he is just a vehicle for a fight scene.

Braniac, again, has sort of been done with the robot computer and as a character is not defined by fight sequences.

Even Bizarro a character I absolutely love would not be compelling for a movie ( and again Nuclear Man had things in common with Bizarro, so would not be too original ).

Parasite or Metallo would be new but this is getting into dangerous territory as they can easily be ruined ala Mister Freeze, or just come off as a bit uninspired.
The Scarecrow is a crappy villain yet Nolan was able to turn him into a great villain in Batman Begins. All it takes is a creative mind and the right person to play the part.

I am honestly interested in the "moneys worth" rationale, because I do seem to be out of touch with a lot of cinema goers, what is it about these action sequences that make them valuable ? What makes Superman lifting a yacht and saving a plane, less interesting than him punching Doomsday in the face ?
Because Superman fighting Doomsday has more intensity and suspense in it then Superman lifting a yacht. We know Superman will lift the yacht and save everyone with little to no trouble and without a breaking a sweat. We want to see Superman challenged and actually defend the people he loves and will die to protect. This have much better drama and suspense then him lifting a yacht.

Superman saving a plane is heroism, Superman having a fight is violence, Superman will not fight unless he has to, unless there is no other choice, because he is a hero, violence is almost never heroic
Oh get real. Superman isn't Jesus for crying out loud. Superman has been in fights since he was first created and was even fighting bad guys in the old "Super Friends" cartoon. Comic book heroes fight villains and save the day, its common knowledge 101. Superman defending innocent people from evil men/creatures/etc is also heroism and is what he is known to do.

Superman also saves planes but saving planes isn't what people pay to just see. People like and want to see the old fashion hero vs villain battles as well as a good dramatic story to go with it.

.....it is important in this day and age that we remind particularly children that violence is not the answer, because they are bombarded with violence almost constantly, it has become so acceptable and Superman is a force of reason, hope and idealism...truth justice and the american way.
Thanks Dad.

I guess I don't understand how a fight is better than dramatically justified epic sequences in which Superman saves a city from destruction, he should prevent chaos not create it.
No ones has said they want Superman to create chaos or destroy cities as a side effect of his battles. We know that when Superman gets into a battle the first thing he thinks of is to keep the fight as far away from the people as possible so that no innocent bystander gets hurt.

Fight scenes just provide the extra entrainment that people want to see. We know its not real and that we will never be able to fight or fly like Supes so there's no harm done. Hell do you complain this much when Disney cartoon movies have the type of stuff in them?

metalhead_dave743

01-16-2008, 06:59 AM

Fight scenes just provide the extra entrainment that people want to see. We know its not real and that we will never be able to fight or fly like Supes so there's no harm done. Hell do you complain this much when Disney cartoon movies have the type of stuff in them?

I actually enjoyed that final fight scene in the Sky High movie.

Titan76

01-16-2008, 07:01 AM

metalhead_dave743

01-16-2008, 07:07 AM

Metalhead Dave743 I agree with you that the battles they could have Superman in would look a hell of lot better then they did 25 years ago but I disagree with you in saying Supes would be punching enemies through skyscrapers and such. That is way out of character for Superman who's main focus is to protect lives not put them in harms way.

Well I don't know about that. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujnq2D4PtvI)

But I'm just using the Darkseid scene as an example of what they could do. You don't like the city streets, the fight could be in the sky, or in the desert where Supes can punch an enemy through a mountain or something.

Titan76

01-16-2008, 07:17 AM

Well I don't know about that. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujnq2D4PtvI)

But I'm just using the Darkseid scene as an example of what they could do. You don't like the city streets, the fight could be in the sky, or in the desert where Supes can punch an enemy through a mountain or something.
While that was a cool fight it was not in character for someone like Superman. Superman;s job is to protect life, how in the hell is he protecting life if he is fighting one of his most deadliest enemies in the most populated city in the DCU. Let's say its not a cartoon and this is a live action movie, do you honestly believe that there's going to be no one in the building he is punching Darksied through, especially during the day? Do you really think destroying cites is a heroic thing to do?

Superman wouldn't be look at as hero if he did all those things but as someone who causes trouble and gets people killed in his battles. That's not the type of hero Superman is. Superman protects people and tries his best not to make them homeless. I would not support a Superman movie if they did it like that Darkseid fight or the fight he had with Doomsday in the Superman/Doomsday movie.

metalhead_dave743

01-16-2008, 07:53 AM

While that was a cool fight it was not in character for someone like Superman. Superman;s job is to protect life, how in the hell is he protecting life if he is fighting one of his most deadliest enemies in the most populated city in the DCU. Let's say its not a cartoon and this is a live action movie, do you honestly believe that there's going to be no one in the building he is punching Darksied through, especially during the day? Do you really think destroying cites is a heroic thing to do?

Superman wouldn't be look at as hero if he did all those things but as someone who causes trouble and gets people killed in his battles. That's not the type of hero Superman is. Superman protects people and tries his best not to make them homeless. I would not support a Superman movie if they did it like that Darkseid fight or the fight he had with Doomsday in the Superman/Doomsday movie.

Well that Darkseid episode had that huge invasion where Parademons and other minions of Darkseid were wrecking shit. I'd be out of the city by the time Supes and Darkseid got that that point. But maybe it is a little over the top.

But the thing is though if some super powerful being shows up in the Metropolis to cause havoc and said being is as powerful as Superman, what is Superman going to do? I guess going by what you're saying as Supes being a protector, he'd try to freeze breathe him, or grab him and go for flying out of the city right(which is probably what he should have done for Doomsday earlier).

But say it doesn't work(and via the movie they could do that), you've still got a mean motherfucker just as powerful as Supes willing to destroy shit and kill people. If I were Supes, I'd do anything I could to stop him. Supes can try to save people, he can try to keep the damage as minimal as possible. But shit is still going to be wrecked.

Maybe if the badguy punched Supes through a building to destroy it and Superman had to save the people who were occupying the place before throwing down with the enemy again... would that be acceptable?

Solaris01

01-16-2008, 11:39 AM

The fight scenes in Spider-Man 2 were 10 times better then the ones in Superman 2. Yes CGI will make a huge difference.

The Scarecrow is a crappy villain yet Nolan was able to turn him into a great villain in Batman Begins. All it takes is a creative mind and the right person to play the part.

Because Superman fighting Doomsday has more intensity and suspense in it then Superman lifting a yacht. We know Superman will lift the yacht and save everyone with little to no trouble and without a breaking a sweat. We want to see Superman challenged and actually defend the people he loves and will die to protect. This have much better drama and suspense then him lifting a yacht.

Oh get real. Superman isn't Jesus for crying out loud. Superman has been in fights since he was first created and was even fighting bad guys in the old "Super Friends" cartoon. Comic book heroes fight villains and save the day, its common knowledge 101. Superman defending innocent people from evil men/creatures/etc is also heroism and is what he is known to do.

Superman also saves planes but saving planes isn't what people pay to just see. People like and want to see the old fashion hero vs villain battles as well as a good dramatic story to go with it.

Thanks Dad.

No ones has said they want Superman to create chaos or destroy cities as a side effect of his battles. We know that when Superman gets into a battle the first thing he thinks of is to keep the fight as far away from the people as possible so that no innocent bystander gets hurt.

Fight scenes just provide the extra entrainment that people want to see. We know its not real and that we will never be able to fight or fly like Supes so there's no harm done. Hell do you complain this much when Disney cartoon movies have the type of stuff in them?

It's hard for me to understand how some people think the plain rescue and the yacht rescue are nothing special, really, and it's sad. Superman is soo powerful that it's very hard to challenge him, IMO. The Superman action scenes are more about the set up than the actual time Superman is in action. We all know he is almost invincible, that is why you need to challenge him mentally and morally as well, in order to make the scenes really compelling and work on a higher level and not feel cartoony.
During the yacht rescue, it was the set up that makes the scene wonderful (to me and many others). The suspense is when Lois and fam. can die if Superman doesn't rescue them on time. You need to buy their feelings of desperation and anxiety because they just know there is No hope for them. But then Superman shows up in such an unexpected and inspiring way with the music blasting that I can't help but feel inspired and amazed by this awesome Superman. In this scene Superman personifies HOPE, one of his most important attributes. Plus the fact that Superman had decided to save Metropolis first instead of Lois makes the scene the most compelling, because Superman Loves Lois so much and has a very hard time making the decision to save the city first. That's very inspiring. I guess I prefer character moments that develop the character over mindless action. Although I know that in order to make more cash, a sequel needs superfights and a powerful villain. I just want it done in a justified way to actually advance the story and develop the characters.

And the plain rescue is plain awesome for me as well, IMO. I love it. It's this powerful god making miracles. And again, it's more about the set up of the scene, that's why Lois was in the plain to make it more compelling, plus the desperation and knowledge the passengers had that they were certainly going to die. I think Brian did a great job with this scene. It's exciting and inspiring through and through, plus we had never seen it this way in live action. Brian wanted to make a Pure Superman movie, that was well actually about Superman, and I love it. I wasn't a fan like people here are, I just remembered Superman from the movies and cartoons I watched as a child many years ago, but this film got me back to him to rediscover him and appreciate him, and I can't help but love him now. I even started reading the comics, something I thought was for children.

And I think the Scarecrow was decent at best, IMO. He was underused. In fact, I think BB is overrated. I like it but it's not really that exciting, I guess I was never much into Bats.

Alex

01-17-2008, 01:04 AM

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=77788

Let the weeping and gnashing of teeth begin.

I don't buy the introducing the cast bit.
He did very little to introduce the cast in that movie, working under the assumption that we all knew the characters. So, if he's using that as an excuse of why the movie got less than an amazing reception, it doesn't fly.

Ruthless_Pryde

01-17-2008, 01:43 PM

It's hard for me to understand how some people think the plain rescue and the yacht rescue are nothing special, really, and it's sad. Superman is soo powerful that it's very hard to challenge him, IMO. The Superman action scenes are more about the set up than the actual time Superman is in action. We all know he is almost invincible, that is why you need to challenge him mentally and morally as well, in order to make the scenes really compelling and work on a higher level and not feel cartoony.
During the yacht rescue, it was the set up that makes the scene wonderful (to me and many others). The suspense is when Lois and fam. can die if Superman doesn't rescue them on time. You need to buy their feelings of desperation and anxiety because they just know there is No hope for them. But then Superman shows up in such an unexpected and inspiring way with the music blasting that I can't help but feel inspired and amazed by this awesome Superman. In this scene Superman personifies HOPE, one of his most important attributes. Plus the fact that Superman had decided to save Metropolis first instead of Lois makes the scene the most compelling, because Superman Loves Lois so much and has a very hard time making the decision to save the city first. That's very inspiring. I guess I prefer character moments that develop the character over mindless action. Although I know that in order to make more cash, a sequel needs superfights and a powerful villain. I just want it done in a justified way to actually advance the story and develop the characters.

And the plain rescue is plain awesome for me as well, IMO. I love it. It's this powerful god making miracles. And again, it's more about the set up of the scene, that's why Lois was in the plain to make it more compelling, plus the desperation and knowledge the passengers had that they were certainly going to die. I think Brian did a great job with this scene. It's exciting and inspiring through and through, plus we had never seen it this way in live action. Brian wanted to make a Pure Superman movie, that was well actually about Superman, and I love it. I wasn't a fan like people here are, I just remembered Superman from the movies and cartoons I watched as a child many years ago, but this film got me back to him to rediscover him and appreciate him, and I can't help but love him now. I even started reading the comics, something I thought was for children.

This is spot on!!! These scenes were not about if Supes could lift the yacht or save the plane, you know he could. But watching him do is where only part of the excitement comes from. It's watching the water go over the porthole and and seeing the galley flood in the Yacht scene. thge drama and suspense have to be built up first. Smae for the plane scene. When Lois looks out the window and see's Superman fly by, I was in the movie theartre and I got a tingle. My wife squeezed my hand because she was excited to see him.

All of the talk about about a, "bang pow zowie" movie is intresting but no really grounded in reality. For me that movie would have been great if the Kept Lex as a billionaire bad boy not some mad scientist, did a total reboot instead of a sequel for a 27 year old movie.

Comic book movie fans split into 2 categoires: those that like movie adaptions and those that want to see a live action version of the comic.
Those expecting a live action version of the comic book will be sorely disappointed almost eery time. The BEST they can do is something like Spiderman, and even Spiderman purists weren't happy with it.

Superman should have been a reboot instead of sequel, it would have just made more sense to the general movie going auidnece and those only familiar with Superman through Smallvilee and the cartoons. When I left the thearte most peolpe were talking about where did the kid come from.

If you leave all of the action scenes in the movie and throw out the kid, then you have the making of a very good origin movie.

I beleive that metallo, brainiac, or darkseid or even doomsday could be done, but the movie has to be more about the story and development of it and not just some special effects extravaganza. Star wars, the first triology from the 70's is about the story, not the efects. Same for Lord of the rings, it's the story not the effects that make it great. Don't get me wrong, the effects help to tell the story, but they should not be used to replace it.

marshal99

01-31-2008, 09:24 PM

Is it me or does that guy in the show Damages looked like Brandon Routh ?

http://images.hollywood.com/cms/120x150/3498829.jpg
http://www.broadway.com/site_images/557331.jpg

Routh has a more slender jaw but first time i saw that guy in damages , i thought it was routh.

Preus

02-01-2008, 01:34 PM

They do resemble each other a lot except the other guy has different shaped teeth.

Btw, I heard that the Man of Steel movie had been cancelled. Is that true?

666MasterOfPuppets

02-01-2008, 07:08 PM

They do resemble each other a lot except the other guy has different shaped teeth.

Btw, I heard that the Man of Steel movie had been cancelled. Is that true?

BLASPHEMY!!!!!:eek:

;)

No. As far as I know, MOS is still scheduled to go into production.

Solaris01

02-21-2008, 12:43 PM

Solaris01

02-21-2008, 12:53 PM

:) Recent new,

According to L.A. Times on February 15...

Warner Bros. is looking to hire writer for "Superman 2."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...=true&ctrack=1

Also,

At the same time, we also been hearing sources at WB Burbank who believe that the Man of Steel is picking up speed and since the strike ended various "A" list writers have gone in with promising pitches. Bryan is still attached and the studio's big wigs are still counting on him directing.

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option...4357&Itemid=99

P.S. They moved the article, but you can find it at the left side under "Common keeping Justice League Hope Alive." Look for the last paragraph.

The Batman

03-11-2008, 06:38 AM

IESB is saying that Singer is confirmed to be on back on board and things are slowly moving forward.

Superman: Man of Steel Updates!
Written by Stephanie Sanchez
Monday, 10 March 2008
Update on the status of the Superman sequel Man of Steel!

I had a major case the "coincidencies" (yes I just made that up) today! Literally maybe 15 minutes after receiving an email from IESB's Robert Sanchez with details of a story to post from ShoWest, I checked email and received a question from a reader inquiring about the project I was instructed to write about…like I said "coincidencies!"

Ok, here's the big news, Robert has informed me that he has confirmed that yes, Bryan Singer is 100% on the sequel to his 2004 revamp Superman Returns. He has since confirmed this with studio sources so take this one to the bank.

But, with Superman Returns writers Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris out, who will be penning the film?

Word is Transformers/Star Trek scribes Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman are considering being behind the project. This gives Superman fans hope after Returns' mild disappointment amongst fan boys. The pair are apparently in talks and have had "several meetings" regarding the film. No need to worry about a lack of action from these two!

Stay tuned for more Superman updates from the IESB!

Check it out here. (http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4497&Itemid=99) Make of this what you will.

Toku King

03-11-2008, 09:50 AM

Well, that sucks. Unless he goes all X-2 on it, this one will be like the last one. And imo "Returns" sucked.

The Batman

03-11-2008, 02:34 PM

Singer talks to Empire Magazine.

11 March 2008
Singer Talks Superman Returns Sequel
Exclusive: Director confirms development

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earlier today, IESB reported that there was a strong rumour that Bryan Singer was working on a sequel to Superman Returns and that Transformers' Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman would be writing the script. Well, we've spoken to Singer and, though we have no news on whether the Orci/Kurtzman story is true, he's confirmed that work's under way on the film that some said would never happen because the first was perceived as a flop.

"That movie made $400 million!" Singer says incredulously. "I don’t know what constitutes under-performing these days...Look, I can understand, I suppose, what some people mean. Perhaps some people went in with the expectation of it being like an X-Men film, and Superman is a tougher character than that. Especially bringing him back. It really goes back to the fact that you can only please some of the people some of the time. But, yes, I’m just getting back with writers after the strike. We’re just in the development phase. I’m starting to develop a sequel...with the intention of directing it."

Singer knows that there was some negative reaction to the fact that the first film focused more on story at the expense of action and is looking to redress that next time.

“The first one was a romantic film and a nostalgic film,” he says. “I’ll be the first person to own up to that without making any apologies for it. I knew it was going to be that from the outset. And now that the characters are established, there’s really an opportunity to up the threat levels...Clearly there’ll be a body count [laughs]. From frame one, it will be unrelenting terror! All those teenage girls who found the movie and mooned over James Marsden or Brandon? Well, I’m going to wake them up!” He may be joking about the unrelenting terror.

We have to say, we actually enjoyed a huge amount about Superman Returns. Brandon Routh made a terrific Superman and Clark Kent and Singer clearly cared about the characters. It was light on action, so it would be great to see a sequel in which we get to actually experience what Supes can really do.

What do you think? Do you want to see Superman return again?

For more of our exclusive interview with Bryan Singer, pick up the next issue of Empire, on sale March 28.

Read it here (http://www.empireonline.com/news/feed.asp?NID=22165).

666MasterOfPuppets

03-11-2008, 04:36 PM

Singer talks to Empire Magazine.

Read it here (http://www.empireonline.com/news/feed.asp?NID=22165).

*does the Ren & Stimpy "happy happy joy joy" dance*

Yep, I'm happy.

And IMO, Superman Returns kicked MAJOR ass.

I'll see if I can put my hands on that mag...

BYC

03-11-2008, 04:45 PM

I have no hopes one way or another until the movie starts filming.

Black Atom

03-11-2008, 04:46 PM

"That movie made $400 million!" Singer says incredulously. "I don’t know what constitutes under-performing these days...Look, I can understand, I suppose, what some people mean. Perhaps some people went in with the expectation of it being like an X-Men film, and Superman is a tougher character than that. Especially bringing him back. It really goes back to the fact that you can only please some of the people some of the time. But, yes, I’m just getting back with writers after the strike. We’re just in the development phase. I’m starting to develop a sequel...with the intention of directing it."

Right, Bryan. People went to a Superman film expecting it to be like an X-Men film. That was the problem.

The guy doesn't get it. He never got it and I don't think he ever will get it, so I'll sit this one out, thanks. I have no interest in ever seeing another Singer-helmed Superman film.

Dr. Banner

03-11-2008, 04:56 PM

Well, that sucks. Unless he goes all X-2 on it, this one will be like the last one. And imo "Returns" sucked.

He DOES have completely different writers now. Coupled with every thing he seems to be saying, he's going for a completely different tone and movie.

He's not just a one trick pony.

Dr. Banner

03-11-2008, 05:01 PM

The guy doesn't get it. He never got it and I don't think he ever will get it, so I'll sit this one out, thanks. I have no interest in ever seeing another Singer-helmed Superman film.

Guy with super powers comes to earth, grows up in Smallville, throws on primary coloured tights when not acting as mild mannered reporter, lives in Metropolis, does the right thing and fights for truth, justice, and all that.

That seemed to be in the movie I saw.

GRANT!

03-11-2008, 07:03 PM

CHUD (http://chud.com/articles/articles/13980/1/CHUD-EXCLUSIVE-LEARN-WHO-ISN039T-WRITING-THE-NEXT-SUPERMAN-MOVIE/Page1.html) and AICN (http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/node/35964) says Orci and Kurtzman are NOT writing Superman Returns Again.

Black Atom

03-11-2008, 09:58 PM

Guy with super powers comes to earth, grows up in Smallville, throws on primary coloured tights when not acting as mild mannered reporter, lives in Metropolis, does the right thing and fights for truth, justice, and all that.

That seemed to be in the movie I saw.

That's funny, 'cause none of that was in the movie I saw. Hell, even the primary colors part is arguable.

Bored at 3:00AM

03-11-2008, 11:01 PM

That's funny, 'cause none of that was in the movie I saw. Hell, even the primary colors part is arguable.

What the &#@ are you talking about?

"Guy with super-powers comes to Earth" ...this was the third scene in the movie.

"Grows up in Smallville" ....the flashback of how young Clark learned to fly.

"Throws on primary coloured tights when not acting as mild mannered reporter" ...yes, they muted the colors slightly. Oh, the horror....

"Lives in Metropolis" .....check.

"Does the right thing and fights for truth, justice, and all that." .....double check.

Look, I didn't care for Superman Returns much either, but to argue that it didn't contain any of these elements is just ridiculous. If you're going to criticize the film, at least do it with arguments that are based in reality. Otherwise, you'll just come of as some crazed fanboy with an axe to grind.

666MasterOfPuppets

03-12-2008, 04:00 AM

Right, Bryan. People went to a Superman film expecting it to be like an X-Men film. That was the problem.

The guy doesn't get it. He never got it and I don't think he ever will get it, so I'll sit this one out, thanks. I have no interest in ever seeing another Singer-helmed Superman film.

Well, that does seem to be the problem for a lot of fanboys out there. I'm not saying you're in that group, but yeah, I'd say that's the problem for those people.

I think SR was an awesome movie. Beautifully made, and IMO, it showed Bryan and Co. cared for the characters. Hell, a Superman movie doesn't have to be a slugfest in order to be good. Again, IMO.

Black Atom

03-12-2008, 01:22 PM

Look, I didn't care for Superman Returns much either, but to argue that it didn't contain any of these elements is just ridiculous. If you're going to criticize the film, at least do it with arguments that are based in reality. Otherwise, you'll just come of as some crazed fanboy with an axe to grind.

My arguments for why I didn't enjoy the movie are well-documented enough that I don't want to derail this thread with them. Suffice to say, if making good Superman films was as simple as getting the names of cities right, then I imagine there'd be a lot less people displeased with Superman Returns.

Black Atom

03-12-2008, 01:45 PM

Well, that does seem to be the problem for a lot of fanboys out there. I'm not saying you're in that group, but yeah, I'd say that's the problem for those people.

So you think that people went to a movie about Superman hoping it would be like Singer's X-Men movies? You don't think it's possible some people might've independently developed some sort of expectation of what a movie about Superman should be like and were disappointed when Superman Returns failed to meet those expectations?

I think SR was an awesome movie. Beautifully made, and IMO, it showed Bryan and Co. cared for the characters. Hell, a Superman movie doesn't have to be a slugfest in order to be good. Again, IMO.

I agree. The original Superman movie wasn't particularly heavy on action, which people seem to forget, and it's among my favorite superhero movies. Still, Superman Returns is among my least favorite. It would take some pretty dramatic developments to spark my interest in a Singer-helmed Supes flick.

Bored at 3:00AM

03-12-2008, 07:22 PM

My arguments for why I didn't enjoy the movie are well-documented enough that I don't want to derail this thread with them. Suffice to say, if making good Superman films was as simple as getting the names of cities right, then I imagine there'd be a lot less people displeased with Superman Returns.

But that's not what your earlier post said. You said "none of that was in the movie I saw" when it clearly was. Again, I didn't much care for Superman Returns either, but your earlier post doesn't make a lick of sense.

Whether you liked Superman Returns is beside the point, they did get the basics of the character right. Did they screw up in regards to plot, pace and tone? Sure.

metalhead_dave743

05-30-2008, 11:10 AM

Supposedly in Man of Steel, Superman is going to have a new love interest that is an indian scientist?

http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=445568&sid=ENT&ssid=1

Priyanka Chopra to turn Superman’s super-girl?

Mumbai, May 28: Looks like Priyanaka Chopra’s career is going great guns as Hollywood comes calling. The sultry beauty is the latest Indian sensation after Aishwarya Rai Bachchan to have caught foreign attention as she prepares to romance none other than Superman.

And no we aren’t joking. Priyanka Chopra is likely to play Superman’s love interest in the flick’s upcoming sequel.

According to our sources, Priyanka has been offered the role of Superman’s leading lady in the latest sequel and she has almost given her final nod though the official statement is yet to be released.

Speaking to Spicezee, a source said, "The filmmakers had been looking for an Indian face for quite long as the role is of an Indian scientist. When they came to know of Priyanka shooting in the US for Dostana, the director of Superman went to the shoot to judge her work.”

Impressed by the sizzling beauty, Priyanka was offered the role. However, there is no official word out as yet.

So will we see Priyanka playing a scientist and romance the world’s best known superhero? Now that’s whats called beauty with brains.

I'm thinking this is kinda fishy.

Phil Clark

05-30-2008, 12:43 PM

It's no small wonder this woman is being cast as Kal El's love interest. :cool:

K26dp

05-30-2008, 01:00 PM

In Busiek's terrific Secret Identity mini-series, wasn't Lois of Indian decent?

That would make a terrific movie, BTW. Would never happen of course, because "the audience would get confused".

Black Atom

05-30-2008, 02:43 PM

In Busiek's terrific Secret Identity mini-series, wasn't Lois of Indian decent?

That would make a terrific movie, BTW. Would never happen of course, because "the audience would get confused".

Why would Lois being Indian improve the movie?

metalhead_dave743

05-30-2008, 03:16 PM

But Lois wouldn't be the one who's Indian. It's some "scientist"

stealthwise

05-30-2008, 07:27 PM

Well, that does seem to be the problem for a lot of fanboys out there. I'm not saying you're in that group, but yeah, I'd say that's the problem for those people.

I think SR was an awesome movie. Beautifully made, and IMO, it showed Bryan and Co. cared for the characters. Hell, a Superman movie doesn't have to be a slugfest in order to be good. Again, IMO.

I agree. Was it a bad movie? Objectively, I'd have to say no, despite some minor pacing problems.

Was it entertaining? Pretty subjective, and many people say no. Was it exciting? I feel it's fair to say no, not for the most part, and for many people, exciting = entertaining.

I didn't think it was that bad, it's just not something you'd want to watch over and over again, which kind of sucks for Superman fans.

666MasterOfPuppets

05-31-2008, 07:44 AM

Supposedly in Man of Steel, Superman is going to have a new love interest that is an indian scientist?

http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=445568&sid=ENT&ssid=1

I'm thinking this is kinda fishy.

Indeed fishy, Dave. Singer has just started development with the writers (whose names we don't know). It's pretty difficult to have them making casting choices at this stage.

666MasterOfPuppets

05-31-2008, 07:50 AM

I agree. Was it a bad movie? Objectively, I'd have to say no, despite some minor pacing problems.

Was it entertaining? Pretty subjective, and many people say no. Was it exciting? I feel it's fair to say no, not for the most part, and for many people, exciting = entertaining.

I didn't think it was that bad, it's just not something you'd want to watch over and over again, which kind of sucks for Superman fans.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying.

It had exciting moments for sure. It's not like it was a flick in which there were no action moments.

I'm with the minority here when I say that I still watch SR from time to time, and I still enjoy it.

David Walton

05-31-2008, 09:42 AM

I think SR was an awesome movie. Beautifully made, and IMO, it showed Bryan and Co. cared for the characters.

I'm sure he does care for the characters, but sometimes that results in a movie that has no justification for its existence except nostalgia. All the best moments from SR were taken almost verbatim from Superman 1 and 2...and the one thing Singer did add was catastrophic and leaves WB in quite a bind as to whether to proceed with the sequel or not. Anything else could have easily been written off, but the super-kid? You can't exactly "unofficial sequel" that revelation.

Hell, a Superman movie doesn't have to be a slugfest in order to be good. Again, IMO.

That's definitely true, but I do think that for a generation of fans whose definitive Superman moment was the battle with Doomsday there are certainly expectations.

At least I think you could have some great sci-fi Phantom Zone moments and things along those lines...

Plus when the original movies came out people were just thrilled that you could believe a man could fly. Not really a selling point in today's world. Yet another reason why Singer dropped the ball.

"You will believe a man can fight a manhole cover..."

Damiean Dark

05-31-2008, 10:25 AM

Routh was the best thing to come out of SR his clark was a reeve rip off in some ways,yes, but it was still good with plenty of humourus moments his Superman was better though imo it had heart especially as he relates his trip back to Krypton if the producers do ANYTHING for TMOS they must keep Routh as Superman.

Guts/Batman

06-04-2008, 09:57 PM

Hell, a Superman movie doesn't have to be a slugfest in order to be good. Again, IMO.

You are correct in this line of thought. One of the problem with it is that Superman is a hero who is based on action. Fighting with opponents who are close to Superman in terms of power, speed etc is essential. Yes, there does need to be a balance between the "slugfest" kind of action and other types of action.

Another problem is that I feel a superhero movie writers undersold themselves creatively because they didn't give the audience enough credit. The writers of the X-Men movies, which I hold an insane amount of hatred for, limited themselves by not creating a more diverse world for the X-Men to live in. I bet they did that because didn't think viewers would be able to say "Okay" after hearing that Juggernaut got his powers from some crystal instead of being a mutant. The writers of Superman Returns did this exact thing. They limited themselves creatively.

Sure Luthor can be there, but he can't be the all the time. I hope we get to see Brainiac next. I'd love to see Mxy be in a film but I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around how that would be possible in the movie medium.

I didn't like Superman Returns at all. It was entertaining in spots, but, like most movies, that was its big weakness. Seeing Superman save the plane was fun, but the plot dragged on and on. I hated the ending because it used the "is he dead?" thing. Definitely could have been used for a better purpose down the line, perhaps in a movie featuring Doomsday.

I'm not a big fan of the first movies, also. Just not my cup of tea.

666MasterOfPuppets

06-05-2008, 06:40 AM

I'm sure he does care for the characters, but sometimes that results in a movie that has no justification for its existence except nostalgia. All the best moments from SR were taken almost verbatim from Superman 1 and 2...and the one thing Singer did add was catastrophic and leaves WB in quite a bind as to whether to proceed with the sequel or not. Anything else could have easily been written off, but the super-kid? You can't exactly "unofficial sequel" that revelation.

Yeah, well, SR was mainly a homage to the Donner movies and an emotional movie. More than an all-out action flick, it was a movie that delved into the emotional end of the spectrum, rather than the action one. I know there were many moments taken from the originals, although I do agree with Singer when he says that there is no need to "reinvent" Superman's origin once more. What Donner and Puzo did was perfect, IMO.

As for the kid, I'm fine as long as they don't even think about translating that into the comics.

That's definitely true, but I do think that for a generation of fans whose definitive Superman moment was the battle with Doomsday there are certainly expectations.

At least I think you could have some great sci-fi Phantom Zone moments and things along those lines...

Plus when the original movies came out people were just thrilled that you could believe a man could fly. Not really a selling point in today's world. Yet another reason why Singer dropped the ball.

"You will believe a man can fight a manhole cover..."

Don't get me wrong, a good ol' fashioned fight would have worked wonders, but I honestly can't say SR was bad because there wasn't any. Like I said, it was a movie that, although it had its great action moments, hadn't "action" as its focus. It explored the emotional side of things, and emphasized the god-like, messianic status Superman possesses (which I loved, BTW).

But I do think that if there was a mistake, it was NOT including the Return To Krypton sequence.

666MasterOfPuppets

06-05-2008, 11:48 AM

You are correct in this line of thought. One of the problem with it is that Superman is a hero who is based on action. Fighting with opponents who are close to Superman in terms of power, speed etc is essential. Yes, there does need to be a balance between the "slugfest" kind of action and other types of action.

Well, yes and no, IMO. Yes, because it's true that the rogues gallery is a big part of the mythos, where one can find enemies like Brainiac, Doomsday, Bizarro and Darkseid. No, becuase it's equally as important the fact that he's a messianic, god-like figure, sole survivor of the most advanced civilization in the galaxy, who lives among us as a mild-mannered reporter and tries to lead by example as Superman.

Another problem is that I feel a superhero movie writers undersold themselves creatively because they didn't give the audience enough credit. The writers of the X-Men movies, which I hold an insane amount of hatred for, limited themselves by not creating a more diverse world for the X-Men to live in. I bet they did that because didn't think viewers would be able to say "Okay" after hearing that Juggernaut got his powers from some crystal instead of being a mutant. The writers of Superman Returns did this exact thing. They limited themselves creatively.

This could be true, given that the majority of the movie was based on the original Donner flicks. Not that I complain, mind you, but I think it would be nice to see something new.

Sure Luthor can be there, but he can't be the all the time. I hope we get to see Brainiac next. I'd love to see Mxy be in a film but I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around how that would be possible in the movie medium.

Agreed 100%. Luthor shouldn' be the main villain all the time. Given the fact that he will be in the sequel, I hope his role is not as prominent as the other villain's.

As for Mxy, you're right. It would be a very difficult goal to accomplish, and I'm sure some tweaks to the character would have to be made. In my case, I find myself thinking about how Darkseid would fit in a Superman live-action movie.

I'm also keeping my fingers crossed for Brainiac.

I didn't like Superman Returns at all. It was entertaining in spots, but, like most movies, that was its big weakness. Seeing Superman save the plane was fun, but the plot dragged on and on. I hated the ending because it used the "is he dead?" thing. Definitely could have been used for a better purpose down the line, perhaps in a movie featuring Doomsday.

I'm not a big fan of the first movies, also. Just not my cup of tea.

I understand, and you're not the only one who didn't like the original films.

Personally, I did like the ending (hell, I loved the whole movie, but that's just me). I saw the whole metaphor for the torture, crucifixion, death and resurrection right there, and I loved it. This effort to "humanize" Superman is, in all honesty, tiresome, and I think it's good that someone reminds us that Superman is not human, but an alien god that has come to Earth to protect us. Otherwise, he would be just another guy in tights and cape. My .02, of course.

Guts/Batman

06-05-2008, 12:06 PM

Well, yes and no, IMO. Yes, because it's true that the rogues gallery is a big part of the mythos, where one can find enemies like Brainiac, Doomsday, Bizarro and Darkseid. No, becuase it's equally as important the fact that he's a messianic, god-like figure, sole survivor of the most advanced civilization in the galaxy, who lives among us as a mild-mannered reporter and tries to lead by example as Superman.

This is definitely true. The Superman mythos is incredibly important and should not be ignored.

Agreed 100%. Luthor shouldn' be the main villain all the time. Given the fact that he will be in the sequel, I hope his role is not as prominent as the other villain's.

If Brainiac is the major villain, then Luthor will have a semi-prominent role because Brainiac and Luthor are allied in the comics.

As for Mxy, you're right. It would be a very difficult goal to accomplish, and I'm sure some tweaks to the character would have to be made. In my case, I find myself thinking about how Darkseid would fit in a Superman live-action movie.

I'm also keeping my fingers crossed for Brainiac.

I really hope they stay away from Darkseid at all costs because he, and the entire Fourth World, needs a standalone project. Superman is not in Darkseid's league. Mxy is problematic from his characteristic "funny" villain style to the fact that he is a 5-D Imp, with all the implications that carries.

I understand, and you're not the only one who didn't like the original films.

Personally, I did like the ending (hell, I loved the whole movie, but that's just me). I saw the whole metaphor for the torture, crucifixion, death and resurrection right there, and I loved it. This effort to "humanize" Superman is, in all honesty, tiresome, and I think it's good that someone reminds us that Superman is not human, but an alien god that has come to Earth to protect us. Otherwise, he would be just another guy in tights and cape. My .02, of course.

I understand the metaphor but the problem with the "Did he live or die?" ending is that technically speaking from a storytelling point of view only really works when the audience doesn't know the answer. I knew that Superman wouldn't die so it didn't have the effect it should have had.

666MasterOfPuppets

06-05-2008, 07:32 PM

This is definitely true. The Superman mythos is incredibly important and should not be ignored.

Yup.

If Brainiac is the major villain, then Luthor will have a semi-prominent role because Brainiac and Luthor are allied in the comics.

Not a bad thing in my books, as long as Brainiac is the main villain.

I really hope they stay away from Darkseid at all costs because he, and the entire Fourth World, needs a standalone project. Superman is not in Darkseid's league. Mxy is problematic from his characteristic "funny" villain style to the fact that he is a 5-D Imp, with all the implications that carries.

I can see where you're coming from with Darkseid. The Fourth World's a very complicated thing to bring to the Big Screen. Although I do think Superman is in Darkseid's league. A matter of opinions, I guess.

Also, agreed on Mxy. His style could be problematic when considering that he would be the main villain through the entirety of a movie. Unless he appears as a secondary villain...

I understand the metaphor but the problem with the "Did he live or die?" ending is that technically speaking from a storytelling point of view only really works when the audience doesn't know the answer. I knew that Superman wouldn't die so it didn't have the effect it should have had.

I see... Well, that's true. Perhaps the only purpose for that segment was to complete the "death/resurrection" metaphor I mentioned earlier, rather than creating that effect in the audience. But I totally see your point here.

Guts/Batman

06-05-2008, 07:46 PM

I can see where you're coming from with Darkseid. The Fourth World's a very complicated thing to bring to the Big Screen. Although I do think Superman is in Darkseid's league. A matter of opinions, I guess.

Also, agreed on Mxy. His style could be problematic when considering that he would be the main villain through the entirety of a movie. Unless he appears as a secondary villain...

Being a much bigger fan of PC Darkseid, instead of Post-Crisis Darkseid, I can't put Superman on that level because although Superman was ludicrously powerful he was nothing compared to Darkseid powerwise.

Mxy would have to be a secondary villain. I can't see him as a primary villain because he's too damned powerful.

666MasterOfPuppets

06-06-2008, 05:39 AM

Being a much bigger fan of PC Darkseid, instead of Post-Crisis Darkseid, I can't put Superman on that level because although Superman was ludicrously powerful he was nothing compared to Darkseid powerwise.

Mxy would have to be a secondary villain. I can't see him as a primary villain because he's too damned powerful.

Exactly. And besides him being reality-altering powerful, he would work as some sort of comedy relief in spots of the movie, given his mischievous nature.

Guts/Batman

06-06-2008, 11:37 AM

Exactly. And besides him being reality-altering powerful, he would work as some sort of comedy relief in spots of the movie, given his mischievous nature.

Absolutely. I would love to see Mxy get some movie time. I think it would be funny to see how Superman deals with a guy who he can only beat by getting him to say his name backwards for the first time.

666MasterOfPuppets

06-06-2008, 12:18 PM

Absolutely. I would love to see Mxy get some movie time. I think it would be funny to see how Superman deals with a guy who he can only beat by getting him to say his name backwards for the first time.

I remember that Mxy ep from STAS in which Superman made him go back to the Fifth Dimension five secs after he got out.

Yes, I can see it happening down the line...

Bored at 3:00AM

06-06-2008, 07:45 PM

GRANT!

06-06-2008, 08:36 PM

I'd just like to point out that Mxy is Warner Bros. Get Out of Jail Free Card in terms of the whole Jason White fiasco. If the next movie doesn't get the warm reception it so desperately needs from audiences, I could see Warner Bros. either doing a Hulk-style reboot or revealing that Richard White was Mxy all along and Jason wasn't real or somesuch.

It's be kind of a lame story. Why not just make a brand new Superman movie instead.

Bored at 3:00AM

06-06-2008, 11:56 PM

It's be kind of a lame story. Why not just make a brand new Superman movie instead.

Having Superman leave Earth for 5 years after knocking up Lois, who immediately jumps into another relationship with another guy, then lies to him about being the father of his child was kind of a lame story too, but that didn't stop them the first time:wink:

GRANT!

06-07-2008, 09:25 AM

Having Superman leave Earth for 5 years after knocking up Lois, who immediately jumps into another relationship with another guy, then lies to him about being the father of his child was kind of a lame story too, but that didn't stop them the first time:wink:

Which is why it's crucial you wouldn't want a lame movie following it. It's be like following Spider-man 3 with a movie version of One More Day. I never like continuity fix stories in comics why would I want to spend 12 bucks to see a two hour continuity fix movie when all I want is a good Superman movie?

Movies have the luxary and limitations of being more self contained then comics. Which is why we've got 6 James Bonds, 4 Batmans, a dozen Robin Hoods and like a 100 Draculas.

DonC

06-07-2008, 11:24 AM

I'd just like to point out that Mxy is Warner Bros. Get Out of Jail Free Card in terms of the whole Jason White fiasco. If the next movie doesn't get the warm reception it so desperately needs from audiences, I could see Warner Bros. either doing a Hulk-style reboot or revealing that Richard White was Mxy all along and Jason wasn't real or somesuch.

The best solution to the whole Jason White fiasco is to simply ignore his "existence." Or turn it into a joke, like on Married... with Children where they had a picture of Seven on one of those "Have You Seen Me?" milk cartons.

Dr. Banner

06-07-2008, 07:12 PM

The only solution is to restart this whole franchise from the ground up. I think that they should hand this over to someone like Favreau or even Chris Nolan. They've shown they can handle a superhero franchise.

Sean Whitmore

06-07-2008, 08:11 PM

Nolan would probably love to tackle a Superman movie because of all the father figures he has. Jonathon Kent, Perry White, Jor-El...he could go nuts with it!

SEAN

metalhead_dave743

06-08-2008, 04:08 AM

The best solution to the whole Jason White fiasco is to simply ignore his "existence." Or turn it into a joke, like on Married... with Children where they had a picture of Seven on one of those "Have You Seen Me?" milk cartons.

What if they turned him(and Richard) into an extension of Brainiac?

Yeah I know, Brainiac knocks Lois up and the kid is a machine would be a totally convoluted and complex plot and we'd have to come up to something equally convoluted to WHY Brainiac would knock up Lois in the first place. But it COULD undo the Jason White problem, right?:confused:

Then again, what the hell am I thinking?

The Batman

08-22-2008, 05:51 AM

Nevermind convoluted Brainiac plots to explain away Richard and Jason, WB, apparantly, wants to reboot it. And they want to reboot it dark.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219...googlenews_wsj

Warner Bets on Fewer, Bigger Movies
By LAUREN A.E. SCHUKER
August 22, 2008; Page B1

Emboldened by this summer's success with "The Dark Knight," Warner Bros.' movie studio is setting a new strategy.

The Time Warner Inc. unit, like some other Hollywood studios, is planning to release fewer films into the crowded marketplace. But the studio, known for making more big, expensive movies than most rivals, plans to make even more of those -- some centered on properties from its DC Comics unit, such as Batman.

Warner Bros. Pictures Group President Jeff Robinov wants the studio to release as many as eight such movies a year by 2011. "The long-term goal of the studio is to take advantage of what has become a very global market by focusing on bigger films that require a bigger commitment," he says. Warner Bros. films released last year grossed $2 billion internationally, about 42% more than their $1.4 billion domestic take.

Mining the comic-book franchise is central to the success of Warner Bros.' strategy. Its lineup of "tent poles" -- Hollywood-speak for big movies that are the foundation of a studio's slate -- has thinned. Warner Bros. has been slow to capitalize on DC, and it now faces a rival in Marvel Entertainment Inc.'s Marvel Studios, the company behind box-office gusher "Iron Man."

Superhero films based on comic-book legends, like "The Dark Knight," have emerged as some of the strongest players in the global market, in part because they're natural candidates for tie-ups with consumer products and games that can also be marketed globally.

"Superheroes are more global than ever in today's commercial world, existing in 30 languages and in more than 60 countries," says Paul Levitz, president and publisher of DC Comics. The characters are "a world-wide export," he says.
Marvel's 'Iron Man,' was a big success at the box office. Warner has been slower to capitalize on its DC Comics characters.

"Films with our DC properties have the opportunity to support other divisions in the company in a way that our other movies don't," Mr. Robinov says, for example, with products such as a Superman game or toys. By 2011, Mr. Robinov plans for DC Comics to supply the material for up to two of the six to eight tent-pole films he hopes Warner Bros. will have in the pipeline by then.

While big ambitions can result in a huge payoff, they can also end in huge losses. Warner's car adventure "Speed Racer" bombed at the box office in May. The film, said to have cost as much as $150 million, has taken in only $43.9 million in the U.S. Some other big-budget Warner films, such as spy comedy "Get Smart," also have failed to meet expectations.

Earlier this year, Warner Bros. shut its two art-house labels, Picturehouse and Warner Independent Pictures. The studio currently releases 25 to 26 films a year. By 2010, Mr. Robinov plans to pare production to 20 to 22 movies a year.

A movie referred to internally as "Justice League of America," originally said to be for next summer, was planned as one of the studio's major releases. With that film, starring a superhero team, Warner hoped to spark interest in DC characters like Green Lantern who haven't yet attained the level of popularity of Batman. But script problems, among other things, have delayed the movie.

The studio said last week that "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," originally slated for November release, would come out next July -- on the same weekend that "The Dark Knight" opened this year. The Batman sequel made more than $150 million in the U.S. that weekend. "We just needed a July movie," said Alan Horn, president of the studio, at the time.

Warner Bros. also put on hold plans for another movie starring multiple superheroes -- known as "Batman vs. Superman" -- after the $215 million "Superman Returns," which had disappointing box-office returns, didn't please executives. "'Superman' didn't quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to," says Mr. Robinov. "It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned." "Had 'Superman' worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009," he adds. "But now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman without regard to a Batman and Superman movie at all."

One of the studio's other big releases planned for 2009, "Watchmen," is the subject of a high-profile copyright lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by News Corp.'s Twentieth Century Fox.

Based on the premise that superheroes are real people grappling with their own problems, "Watchmen" is an apocalyptic vision of their world. Fox says it is seeking an injunction to enforce its copyright interest in the film. Last week, a federal judge ruled that it may have rights to the property. News Corp. is the parent of Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co.

With "Batman vs. Superman" and "Justice League" stalled, Warner Bros. has quietly adopted Marvel's model of releasing a single film for each character, and then using those movies and their sequels to build up to a multicharacter film. "Along those lines, we have been developing every DC character that we own," Mr. Robinov says.

Like the recent Batman sequel -- which has become the highest-grossing film of the year thus far -- Mr. Robinov wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as "The Dark Knight." Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.' DC properties. "We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," he says. That goes for the company's Superman franchise as well.

The studio is set to announce its plans for future DC movies in the next month. For now, though, it is focused on releasing four comic-book films in the next three years, including a third Batman film, a new film reintroducing Superman, and two movies focusing on other DC Comics characters. Movies featuring Green Lantern, Flash, Green Arrow, and Wonder Woman are all in active development.

Many of the studio's directors credit Mr. Robinov for taking Warner Bros.' films in a darker and deeper direction. Christopher Nolan, who directed "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight," says Mr. Robinov "really encouraged the logic of the villain" from "Batman Begins." That led to focusing heavily on the Joker in the sequel. "At the script stage, Jeff really wanted us to be very clear on the Joker's lack of purpose," he says.