Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 138
  1. #76
    Elder Member Mat001's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AJBopp View Post
    I would deny it. That movie did not define the character. It epitomized the character that was already defined in other media.

    Ultimately, this probably represents the greatest risk for MoS. Every indication is that they are dispensing with giving the public the epitome of the character already defined and understood by the world. They appear to want to take him in a "new direction," and it remains to be seen how well the public will take to this. I would imagine that it is the answer to this, more than any other single thing, that have inspired WB to put a hold on Justice League until they know how MoS will do at the box office.
    Well, let's look at it like this. Batman was defined by Adam West for years until Michael Keaton changed that perception. Val Kilmer and George Clooney had a lot to live up to and then we had Christian Bale. So it is possible that Henry Cavil can be viewed in a different light from Christopher Reeve and be accepted.

  2. #77
    Senior Member AJBopp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mat001 View Post
    Well, let's look at it like this. Batman was defined by Adam West for years until Michael Keaton changed that perception. Val Kilmer and George Clooney had a lot to live up to and then we had Christian Bale. So it is possible that Henry Cavil can be viewed in a different light from Christopher Reeve and be accepted.
    I can buy that to some extent, but although Keaton's Batman was over-the-top and stylized, his character was much closer to the definition established in other media (darker, more violent). Kilmer and Clooney films strayed further away (granted they were unquestionably worse scripts in their own right) and they had increasingly disappointing sales figures. Christian Bale brought Batman back to the point where he epitomized the defined character, and sales went through the roof.

    So I would still suggest that WB is looking very carefully at how Superman is presented, whether the character strays too far from the "defined" character as the public perceives him, and how that affects the box office.
    In my opinion is implied in every post. Please make an effort to remember that.

  3. #78
    The Fastest Post Alive! Buried Alien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1996
    Posts
    9,935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AJBopp View Post
    I can buy that to some extent, but although Keaton's Batman was over-the-top and stylized, his character was much closer to the definition established in other media (darker, more violent). Kilmer and Clooney films strayed further away (granted they were unquestionably worse scripts in their own right) and they had increasingly disappointing sales figures. Christian Bale brought Batman back to the point where he epitomized the defined character, and sales went through the roof.

    So I would still suggest that WB is looking very carefully at how Superman is presented, whether the character strays too far from the "defined" character as the public perceives him, and how that affects the box office.
    That's an interesting thought; if the public doesn't embrace MAN OF STEEL because it departs too far from what they perceive to be Superman, can WB move back to a more familiar (e.g. Reeve-based) model? That's going to be interesting because SUPERMAN RETURNS provided a (relatively, compared to MAN OF STEEL) Reeve-based cinematic interpretation of the cinematic Superman and didn't work out so well, though that might be more because of SUPERMAN RETURN's own innate flaws rather than the concept of continuing with the Reeve-type Superman.

    Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)
    faze (v.): to cause to be disturbed or disconcerted; to stun

    phase (n.):
    a stage in a process of change or development

    Get it right, people.

  4. #79
    Paladin Kurosawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    344 Clinton St, Apt 3E
    Posts
    3,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buried Alien View Post
    That's an interesting thought; if the public doesn't embrace MAN OF STEEL because it departs too far from what they perceive to be Superman, can WB move back to a more familiar (e.g. Reeve-based) model? That's going to be interesting because SUPERMAN RETURNS provided a (relatively, compared to MAN OF STEEL) Reeve-based cinematic interpretation of the cinematic Superman and didn't work out so well, though that might be more because of SUPERMAN RETURN's own innate flaws rather than the concept of continuing with the Reeve-type Superman.

    Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)
    They also backloaded the budget of Superman Returns with the costs of the previous failed attempts, right? I wonder how successful it was without those costs factored in.
    Doomed Planet. Desperate Scientists. Last Hope. Kindly Couple.

  5. #80
    The Fastest Post Alive! Buried Alien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1996
    Posts
    9,935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurosawa View Post
    They also backloaded the budget of Superman Returns with the costs of the previous failed attempts, right? I wonder how successful it was without those costs factored in.
    That's dollars and cents, which is one thing, but I wonder if MAN OF STEEL doesn't quite set the world on fire the way we hope it does, if WB's next move is try once again with a Reeve-based Superman.

    Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)
    faze (v.): to cause to be disturbed or disconcerted; to stun

    phase (n.):
    a stage in a process of change or development

    Get it right, people.

  6. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AJBopp View Post
    I can buy that to some extent, but although Keaton's Batman was over-the-top and stylized, his character was much closer to the definition established in other media (darker, more violent). Kilmer and Clooney films strayed further away (granted they were unquestionably worse scripts in their own right) and they had increasingly disappointing sales figures. Christian Bale brought Batman back to the point where he epitomized the defined character, and sales went through the roof.

    So I would still suggest that WB is looking very carefully at how Superman is presented, whether the character strays too far from the "defined" character as the public perceives him, and how that affects the box office.
    You say that Keaton's Batman was 'much closer to the definition established in other media'...but the truth is that Keaton's Batman itself WAS the 'other media' that defined the darker and more violent Batman.

    While its true that the 'Dark Knight' reinvention of Batman started in 1986-7 with DKR and then Year One, its Keaton's 'Batman' that returned the character to its dark roots in the popular consciousness. Prior to this, the average non-comic book reader likely associated Batman with Adam West or with 'Superfriends' and other related Hanna-Barbera/Filmation cartoons.

    'Man of Steel' is in the position to transform the public perception of Superman, much like 'Batman' did almost a generation ago. The question is, whether it will be accepted as the definitive vision of the character thereafter. 'Batman' was, and paved the way for 'Batman: The Animated Series', a whole slew of similarly-themed animated films and video games, and eventually the Nolan reboot. Will MOS enjoy the same success?

  7. #82
    Senior Member rhymeswithparc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buried Alien View Post
    That's dollars and cents, which is one thing, but I wonder if MAN OF STEEL doesn't quite set the world on fire the way we hope it does, if WB's next move is try once again with a Reeve-based Superman.

    Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)
    I doubt it. I think, with Man of Steel, they got their best writers, one of their highest profile directors, and pretty great pre-release buzz especially regarding the new tone of the movie. So, to them, MOS is probably the best they can get out of a Superman movie and if it fails, he may become something of a Hulk property; if people like him in JL, we may get another Superman movie and if not then we probably won't.

  8. #83
    Senior Member PupsOfWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buried Alien View Post
    That's an interesting thought; if the public doesn't embrace MAN OF STEEL because it departs too far from what they perceive to be Superman, can WB move back to a more familiar (e.g. Reeve-based) model?

    Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)
    I don't think the general public has that rigid a sense of what proper Superman is, though.

    S' more a fandom thing.

  9. #84
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    The True North, strong and free!
    Posts
    2,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buried Alien View Post
    That's dollars and cents, which is one thing, but I wonder if MAN OF STEEL doesn't quite set the world on fire the way we hope it does, if WB's next move is try once again with a Reeve-based Superman.

    Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)
    That would be an incredibly stupid thing to do, given the abysmal failure of Superman Returns. Reeve is dead, the Silver Age is over.

    MoS is going to be Smallville the Movie, on steroids. If that doesn't set the world on fire, Superman's finished in hollywood.

  10. #85

    Default

    Man of Steel Superman will probably be some kind of 'caring sharing mangina'. Superman is Comicbook superhero top dog, Numero Uno Superhero. he may not be as popular as Batman or Spiderman but he is THE superhero, full stop. The man all the others aspire to. Now in this day and age of female empowerment crap rolling up in all our media, people expecting to see Chris Reeves Superman will be sorely dissapointed.
    Look at Superman Returns for instance. Superman was playing second fiddle to Lois Lane in his own film. She was the emotionally strong one, he was just some immature stalker who couldnt accept that this 'super woman' had moved on. This is a man who can change the course of mighty rivers and juggle tanks, but here you had some slip of a woman coming up with crap like 'does the world need Superman' and making HIM look like a loser and Her as some girl power heroine.

    What a lot of CRAP. Now i hear Superman is likely to get his ass kicked by a woman in the new film. Why is that? Obviously you have to give the women what they want, to hell that this is a film about the manliest hero of all time. Media nowadays is too scared to show men doing manly things. having a hero called Super-Man in a womans world obviously makes some film execs and marketing people nervous. I can see man of Steel going something like this :Superman will get the crap knocked out of him by Zod and his female lackey faora but Superman with some kind of 'you can do it' pep talk from Lois Lane or her endangerment will then proceed to kick ass, as he is obviously useless without the help of a woman's input and would probably die under a rock without Lois Lane as motivation.

    Superman should be unapoligetically ass kicking fighting machine. You wouldnt get Car chases and explosions in womens flicks like 'beaches' so why do we have to put up with soppy romantic 'touchy feely' nonsense in action films mainly for boys and men? Of course many female read comicbooks but nowhere near as much as males.

    Let Superman kick ass and not be some pussywhipped bitch of a mangina. Thats why Superman films fail, they are too scared to actually make him 'Super'.
    Last edited by blakkrussian; 02-12-2013 at 10:54 AM.

  11. #86
    Elder Member zryson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    12,019

    Default

    I think MOS will likely be over the top in spectacle. Maybe at the expense of the actors. But WB are so uncommited to their superhero movies, its hard to predict anything except they will probably be very slow in developing the big screen versions.

  12. #87
    Elder Member Mat001's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AJBopp View Post
    I can buy that to some extent, but although Keaton's Batman was over-the-top and stylized, his character was much closer to the definition established in other media (darker, more violent).
    Prior to Keaton and the DCAU, the only place to find a dark Batman was in the comics. The 40's movie serials weren't that dark and the cartoons prior to 1992 were very kid friendly. The novels started around the same time as the film. Otherwise, as far as the world outside of comic fandom was concerned, Adam West was it.

    Kilmer and Clooney films strayed further away (granted they were unquestionably worse scripts in their own right) and they had increasingly disappointing sales figures. Christian Bale brought Batman back to the point where he epitomized the defined character, and sales went through the roof.
    That was due to the studio receiving too many complaints from parents about the darkness of "Batman Returns" and McDonald's ending it's Happy Meal offer earlier than normal. Warner cared more about merchandise being sold, than making a really good and somewhat faithful film. It took "Batman & Robin" failing to make them realize the error of their ways.

    So I would still suggest that WB is looking very carefully at how Superman is presented, whether the character strays too far from the "defined" character as the public perceives him, and how that affects the box office.
    I'm sure they are, but they also have faith in Nolan and Goyer which is why they went with them to reboot the character.

    Quote Originally Posted by blakkrussian
    What a lot of CRAP. Now i hear Superman is likely to get his ass kicked by a woman in the new film. Why is that? Obviously you have to give the women what they want, to hell that this is a film about the manliest hero of all time. Media nowadays is too scared to show men doing manly things. having a hero called Super-Man in a womans world obviously makes some film execs and marketing people nervous. I can see man of Steel going something like this :Superman will get the crap knocked out of him by Zod and his female lackey faora but Superman with some kind of 'you can do it' pep talk from Lois Lane or her endangerment will then proceed to kick ass, as he is obviously useless without the help of a woman's input and would probably die under a rock without Lois Lane as motivation.
    Faora and subsequently Ursa were presented as dangerous threats equal to their male counterparts. That's why they were introduced into the lore. As to Lois giving a pep talk, that's pretty common in the lore all together. Not because of "giving what the women want", but it is part of Superman's relationship to Lois.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurosawa
    They also backloaded the budget of Superman Returns with the costs of the previous failed attempts, right? I wonder how successful it was without those costs factored in.
    True. But if WB went bonkers on this film, then it will be all for naught if it fails to break even or exceed the budget.

  13. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mat001 View Post
    yer which is why they went with them to reboot the character.



    Faora and subsequently Ursa were presented as dangerous threats equal to their male counterparts. That's why they were introduced into the lore. As to Lois giving a pep talk, that's pretty common in the lore all together. Not because of "giving what the women want", but it is part of Superman's relationship to Lois.
    That's what i am talking about. Why does a woman who is supposed to be good at something labelled as 'more dangerous or better than men'? Why not just say they are dangerous or skilled? Why bring up men into it? Anything a woman achieves in a film or a tv programme is always at the expense of the male, hardly ever other females. Would't Zod be more of a threat anyway? man its gonna hurt to seee Superman getting his arse kicked on celluloid by some slip of a girl, but that's how things are today i guess. So she will be more of a threat than Zod then? So in a film of a few superstrong kryptonians a woman will be the most powerful and dangerous? This film looks like a fail already. I won't mind if Superman gets beaten up by faora and later comes back to kick ass, but i reckon Superman will only be able to defeat her with some form of help. Lets face it, Superman beating up a woman in a film will look wrong to most people, so i can only see him beating her by trickery . And this is a guy who could turn BEAST and kick Hulk or Thor's ass in about 3 seconds according to most battle forums?


    As for Superman's relationship with Lois, but don't you think they went a bit overboard with Superman Returns?
    Last edited by blakkrussian; 02-12-2013 at 12:33 PM.

  14. #89
    Elder Member Mat001's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blakkrussian View Post
    That's what i am talking about. Why does a woman who is supposed to be good at something labelled as 'more dangerous or better than men'? Why not just say they are dangerous or skilled? Why bring up men into it? Anything a woman achieves in a film or a tv programme is always at the expense of the male, hardly ever other females.
    Faora was established as having a power that could control men, thus allowing her to control the other Phantom Zoners when she debuted in the 70's. The tension was would she be able to control Clark and ultimately, she couldn't because he had spent the majority of his life on Earth and thus his powers were at their peak. She and the others had been in the Phantom Zone more than they had been out of it. This was downplayed in her subsequent appearances. Ursa was established as being a deadly soldier who was skilled in combat, thus she could put up a fight against Superman, who was mostly a brawler.

    Besides, Batman's image wasn't hurt fighting Catwoman in "Batman Returns" and Wolverine was just fine after fighting Mystique and Deathstrike in the first two "X-Men" films.

    So she will be more of a threat than Zod then? So in a film of a few superstrong kryptonians a woman will be the most powerful and dangerous? This film looks like a fail already. I won't mind if Superman gets beaten up by faora and later comes back to kick ass, but i reckon Superman will only be able to defeat her with some form of help. Lets face it, Superman beating up a woman in a film will look wrong to most people, so i can only see him beating her by trickery . And this is a guy who could turn BEAST and kick Hulk or Thor's ass in about 3 seconds according to most battle forums?
    You're jumping to conclusions. Odds are that he'll get his ass handed to him by both Zod and Faora and then comes back to beat them.

    As for Superman's relationship with Lois, but don't you think they went a bit overboard with Superman Returns?
    No, that's par for course. I suggest reading some comics and watching the other media.

  15. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mat001 View Post
    Faora was established as having a power that could control men, thus allowing her to control the other Phantom Zoners when she debuted in the 70's. The tension was would she be able to control Clark and ultimately, she couldn't because he had spent the majority of his life on Earth and thus his powers were at their peak. She and the others had been in the Phantom Zone more than they had been out of it. This was downplayed in her subsequent appearances. Ursa was established as being a deadly soldier who was skilled in combat, thus she could put up a fight against Superman, who was mostly a brawler.

    Besides, Batman's image wasn't hurt fighting Catwoman in "Batman Returns" and Wolverine was just fine after fighting Mystique and Deathstrike in the first two "X-Men" films.



    You're jumping to conclusions. Odds are that he'll get his ass handed to him by both Zod and Faora and then comes back to beat them.



    No, that's par for course. I suggest reading some comics and watching the other media.
    It's not so much male heroes losing to females, i have no problem with that most of the time. What i am saying is that celluloid Superman is a loser because he hasn't been allowed to be a superMAN since the Reeves days. Bryan Singer acy=tually said Superman returns was a 'chick flick'. Why would you be making a Superman as a chick flick? who are you making the film for? We all know the answer. Now i hear that Man of Steel is going to get a major beatdown , worse ever from Faora. Not Zod, but Faora. Thats why Superman films are failing, they are emasculating him. We all know Clark is a softy boyscout at heart but we all know when it comes to fighting, he is supposed to be a beast. As long as comeback is a bitch for Zod and Co i'm fine with all that, but i really fear we are in for another chick flick at heart.

    don't be one of these guys talking about 'if you don't like it go elsewhere' because if you can't accept the fact i am having legitimate concerns about the films just take our own advice and skip my posts and read someone else's. The OP asked a question i am having my input on a messageboard. Any problems with that?
    Last edited by blakkrussian; 02-12-2013 at 10:45 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •