What's so different, really?Originally Posted by Kurosawa
I think it's less the actors and more the characters. Not just the way the show was written, but the characters in general.The Clark/Lois relationship was okay but the actors were so corny it was hard for me to watch.
Yet, Superman does have a destiny in the comics. He inspired an age of heroes, he inspired the Legion and the world as it is all comes from his actions in the present. All the show did was make it part of the hero's journey.And if I had to hear about Clark's "destiny" one more time on that show I think I'd pull my hair out.
Clark becomes Superman because of Jonathan. He's never discouraged from using his powers to help others, in the show by Jonathan. The only thing Jonathan worried was Clark's safety because of the Luthors, because of Jor-El and because of the Kryptonite which could kill Clark. Or at the very least, be used to make him into something that he was not. That's why in the final season Clark finally begins to realize what it was that Jonathan wanted. First when he saw what happened moments before his heart attack. Then when he talked to the Jonathan Kent of Earth-2. And finally in the series finale when he imagined seeing Jonathan's ghost and he was able to reconcile his guilt and his past with his future.That may be so, but that doesn't mean that it's good. Superman should create himself with some help from his parents if he's Superboy first, and that's it, IMO. And Jonathan's attitude in both Smallville and maybe in MOS is wrong. Clark should become Superman because of Jonathan Kent, not despite of Jonathan Kent. To me, that's just another instance of Hollywood destroying father figures by making them morally weak. Jonathan Kent is not just any other dad, he's supposed to be of unusually high morals. Think back to Maggin's books. THAT is an inspirational Jonathan Kent.
Why does being a top ten show matter? "Superboy" and "The Adventures Of Superboy" were not top ten shows, but they did tell solid stories. Same with all the various animated series. "Superman: The Motion Picture" did not make the kind of money that "Batman" and "The Dark Knight" made, but it still did a solid job. The fact is that "Smallville" has it's place in the lexicon.Irrelevant. Those other shows were top ten shows. Much, much bigger than Smallville, and some of the actors from them have become movie stars. It's not even close.
What proof is there that a timid Clark is more popular than a normal guy? Superman's popular not because of that, but in spite of that.Well, I agree completely with Maggin's ideas on Clark. And Maggin's ideas on Clark come from Siegel and Shuster, and they created Superman, not Maggin, not Byrne, not Donner and not Gough and Millar. If Clark is not timid and meek, if he looks and acts and feels just like Superman, then there is no reason to even have Clark. The biggest loss in the 1986 revamp was the loss of Clark Kent. Clark is a persona that Superman created but over time he took on a life of his own, IMO. Clark represents Superman's vulnerable side and without him the character just lost too much fragility and humanity. The timid Clark was just as big a part of Superman's popularity as any of the superpowers.
And he was under Maggin, Weisinger and Bates.He was. He was very childish and naive. He was a Lil Abner hayseed under Byrne.
Tell that to Mark Waid, Jeph Loeb, Geoff Johns, Kurt Busiek, Nick Spencer and Sterling Gates. They were all either influenced by that show, or influenced the show's creation.That's the only reason I ever took any interest in it. It's not a big influence on Superman in general, certainly not on the level of the Donner/Reeve movies which is how the vast majority of the general public know Superman.
Comic book fan boys, you gotta repress the urge to slap them.Originally Posted by Lancerman
Ex: I'm not a fan of Nolan's Batman. I've had to wait through three movies spanning a decade. Who knows how long it will be till they relaunch the title and if so, if they will alter the film back into a Batman I like. So even though I dish out my paycheck every month for a book and merchandise, I can't enjoy the films. Its hard not to complain when this is one of a few chances in your lifetime to see your hero on the big screen.
Last edited by ABH-1979; 12-18-2012 at 07:41 AM.
DC: Action Comics - Batman and... - Batman - Justice League
Marvel: All-New X-Factor
The overwhelmingly positive reactions to the trailer prove one thing-people want a good superman movie.His icon status has a lot of good will.What the Mos trailer simply did was to present Superman without the things that turn the public off the character and of course the Public was more than happy to jump on it.BUT dont let that fool you though.The movie has to be good otherwise.....well lets not think about that.
You can't ask for more awesomeness than we received in the "Dual of the Fates" with Maul, Young Kenobi and Qui Gon Jinn; I still tear up watching that epic battle set to the backdrop of the John William's requiem playing in all it's glory. Although Attack of the Clones didn't flesh out the story as well as it could have as it way bogged down in a sappy romance all can be forgiven thanks to the excellent story fill-in that "The Clone Wars" is over on Cartoon Network. Revenge of the Sith is still tied with The Empire Strikes Back as my favorite Star Wars movie. ROTS took the prequel trilogy to dizzying heights with soaring visuals, killer emotions as Order 66 plays out and heartbreaking tragedy as Anakin falls like a thunderclap from grace, force choking his wife and lashing out in a dazzling lightsaber dual with Jedi Master Kenobi in the dark eye candy of the hellish Mustafar. Oh and who wouldn't be on the edge of their seats again and again as Yoda and Darth Sidious clash in the shadows of Coruscent's Senate Chamber?
The Star Wars Trilogy did for the dusty but beloved Galaxy Far Far Away what J.J. Abrams Star Trek revival has done for Kirk and Spock and that quite simply is "breathe new life into a stale franchise making it relevant again".
However, I definitely agree that Christopher Nolan's brooding and depressing Batman trilogy is the worst thing to have ever happened to the Cape Crusader. It's absolutely depressing but it's quite unfair to say that Zack Snyder's Man of Steel is treading in the same waters. The newest trailer has shown that Snyder's vision of The Last Son of Krypton is well placed. The trailer conveys something riveting, epic, soaring, heart clenching and spiritual. I think Snyder's Man of Steel is going to be a "Death and Birth of Superman" experience for both the saga itself and for Superman fans.
Last edited by RoyalTailor; 12-18-2012 at 08:20 AM.
EDIT: And calling them brooding and depressing is utterly ridiculous and makes me question whether you've ever watched the films. There's certainly no more brooding or depression than there is in the comics or even the Burton movies for that matter, which depicted him as an actual troubled person, he genuinely was a little crazy and frequently was seen just brooding alone in the dark. It worked for the kind of movies they were but calling the Nolan films brooding in comparison to that is ridiculous.
EDIT II: Wait, I just read the rest of your post and noticed you defend the SW prequels. Never mind.
Last edited by LoneNecromancer; 12-18-2012 at 09:52 AM.
I still don't know how Ian McDiarmid went from the evil Emperor in RotJ (he was straight up Satan), to the cartoon villainy of Sidious in RotS. That must have been the magic of being directed by a Lucas that's surrounded by "yes men."
So, if we're keeping track, we're mostly on the same page regarding Superman and Transformers, but in two different worlds when it comes to Nolan's Batman and the Star Wars Prequels.
DC: Action Comics - Batman and... - Batman - Justice League
Marvel: All-New X-Factor
@Namtab, I definitely agree with you regarding Palpatine. There are some definite continuity fragments between Palpatine in the "Classic Star Wars" movies and the Darth Sidious of the prequels. You are also right regarding "Anakin's Fall". Skywalker's fall is far better illustrated in the Expanded Universe materials. Now that I've had a chance to sit back and watch the films again and again on Spike TV over the years I have come to see that the prequels did rush through Anakin's decent into darkness instead of establishing "good" vs his "bad" personalities. Perhaps it is those reasons why a lot of critics are saying they prefer "Star Wars The Clone Wars" over the prequel movies. SWTCW certainly has done a far better job of flushing out the events that Attack of the Clones and ROTS failed to give viewers a better look into.
If you haven't seen The Clone Wars I definitely encourage you to watch the series Namtab.
ups wrong thread
Last edited by nebezial; 12-18-2012 at 11:38 AM.
Anyway, there was a stronger sense of hope and positive optimism. This film is taking place in the 1990's and early 2000's range, during the Smallville years. And as such the world is a different place, thus Jonathan has been written to reflect that. Just as the "Smallville" Jonathan was different from the "Lois & Clark" version. That's one of the things that adaptations do. The core concept of Jonathan remains true. What's changed is the world around him.
You got the wrong message about Batman if you thought all three films were depressing. The second film is the only one to really be that way. The third film alone was about hope which was evident in Bruce's recovery and ascension, as well as the whole finale when we learn that Bruce survived and passed the mantle of the Bat on to Blake. A city like Gotham has been for years portrayed as a city that will be swallowed up by it's evil, unless there is a Batman to keep that from happening. Even though it's still a futile effort short of nuking the whole city, to end crime. Metropolis, on the other hand, is the city of tomorrow and as such, the hope that Superman inspires brings out the best in its citizens.Originally Posted by RoyalTailor
It actually makes sense because Sidious just won over the Jedi. So he would gloat and boast about what he's accomplished. By ROTJ, he's trying to hold it all together. And he does laugh manically in ROTJ as he did in ROTS.Originally Posted by Namtab
I am curious. Was it not stated that a new Man of Steel movie trailer would be released with the premiere of the Hobbit? Or maybe, if I am wrong, was the trailer that was recently released the one that was supposed to be released with the Hobbit?
I haven't seen Hobbit yet, but I think that was the plan. Is the MoS trailer not there?