Green Lantern 2: Supergirl of My Dreams (was GL Update...Way Better than the Critics Say)
KalElFan
"... movie with Green Lantern and Supergirl..." mention...
> Huh?
Earlier in that GL Update thread, in a post on June 22 where I was
responding to clouddreamer, I ended with this:
"... When I was checking some facts and numbers on the GL page
at IMDb, I was surprised to see Laura Vandervoort was among
those at the GL premiere.
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm711638528/tt1133985
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3731471872/tt1133985
She wasn't in the movie obviously, but what a Karma-like
Clue that she should be playing Supergirl in the Green
Lantern sequel. It should NOT be as the Smallverse
Supergirl, but a reboot of the character in the GL-and
eventually JL-movieverse. It'd be a great marketing boost
for the GL sequel, and potentially gives them a better
relationship option for Hal. DC experts -- have GL and
Supergirl ever been a couple in... comic incarnations?"
And redhawk linked a modern-age Brave and the Bold
comic from a few years ago, where the two of them did
team up for at least that issue. Hal's thought bubble
has him thinking that she's 17 and reminding himself
he isn't Ollie, but as I said in a follow-up they could
write Supergirl as in her early 20s (Vandervoort's 26).
In a followup I also mentioned the Superman copyright
issue, saying that if Supergirl (the Kara version) is going
to be derivative of Superman under the court rulings
then that might be a problem. After making that post
I had the idea in the thread title, which gets around
potential obstacles and would I think be very successful.
Though I wouldn't recommend it, it would even work
well as a complete reboot of GL with an entirely new
cast, e.g. GL not played by Reynolds, and no Sinestro
or a new actor playing him without the teaser followup.
Vandervoort needn't play Supergirl either. Again, I
would want all those but for example maybe there
are cost or other issues preventing it. Assume it's a
sequel though, and consider the title:
"Green Lantern 2: Supergirl of my Dreams"
It occured to me, after getting the idea from seeing the
Vandervoort photos, that the nature of GL and the Ring,
when turbo-charged by some improbable event, would
allow Hal to conjure up a Supergirl. Think I Dream of
Jeannie, but also before that the very first DC Comics
Supergirl story in the 1950s where Jimmy Olsen had
basically conjured up a SuperGirl (I believe that's how
they spelled it, with the capital G).
Why would Hal do such a thing? It's trivial to write any
number of ways, but ideally it's a couple of years later
and Hal's long since split with Ferris. Maybe his techie
friend jokingly suggests he needs a new girlfriend after
they've been drinking, and it's subconsciously on Hal's
mind when the triggers or opportunity presents itself.
Poof, a living, breathing Supergirl. The GL-verse could
also be revealed to have a Superman via a comment
Hal makes like "Kal-El's gonna kill me...".
Is she a "permanent" construct, i.e., will she survive the
sequel and go on to appear in Green Lantern 3? Hell,
yes I say, but that's a big part of the story hook in 2 as
they develop a romantic relationship AND both team
up to defeat Sinestro or the Sinestro Corp. This Supergirl
would be a formidable partner but NOT of Krypton and
not vulnerable to kryptonite.
Optionally, Lively could also appear as Ferris but go the
villain route in the comics. Again this would be a couple
of years after she and Hal have split. So the movie starts
with that relationship, which didn't work anyway, long
out of the way and it becomes fun that she's a villain.
The title follows the Pirates and other sequel approaches,
but in this case the "Supergirl of My Dreams" part would
be a great marketing benefit. I think the movie would do
two or three times the box office of this good first effort,
which will by then have established a core base beyond
the 20 million or more worldwide who've seen it. With
the subsequent windows and DVD, there may well be 50
million who will be aware of GL, and Supergirl would in
all material ways (powers and so on) be the Kara version
in her 20s, or the female version of Superman.
The fact I've posted it is an issue, but as redhawk knows
so might Brainiac's Revenge have been. We ought to be
able to work a deal out. :-)
Duggy
> "Duggy" wrote in the GL Update thread, responding to my
> "... movie with Green Lantern and Supergirl..." mention...
>
> > Huh?
>
> Earlier in that GL Update thread, in a post on June 22 where I was
> responding to clouddreamer, I ended with this:
Don't care.
My personal feeling is that Supergirl films/shows should spin out of
Superman/Superboy/Smallville films/shows not Green Lantern films/
shows.
This is pretty basic.
===
= DUG.
===
KalElFan
from that. I'm using Duggy's response as a generic one that
any given core comic fan might post in response to any
suggestion:
> Don't care.
>
> My personal feeling is that...
Obviously that part is fair, and impenetrable, but it doesn't
further any discussion except to the extent of whatever may
follow. I would say this though. A critical problem Warners
has here is that the online core comics base is miniscule and
unrepresentative of the wider moviegoing audience.
For example, I've seen references to Green Lantern being a
successful comic (or comics) currently, and a blog and maybe
an article or two citing that as puzzling when looking at why
the GL movie hasn't performed well. But those GL books sell
only 40,000 copies or some such! The vast majority of even
those 40,000 are NOT the negativity-prone critics nitpicking
things online. To follow the kind of Inside GL "canon" that
some of these folks consider gospel would sink any remaining
chance DC has in an instant.
One of the most promising things about the Green Lantern
movie was that it DIDN'T foreshadow the Hal as Parallax story
from the comics. That story typified what's most wrong with
modern comics, and instead they've set up Sinestro to play
the Parallax followup in this movie series. It's encouraging
that they're willing to use what works and ditch what would
be character-destroying.
> ... Supergirl films/shows should spin out of Superman/
> Superboy/Smallville films/shows not Green Lantern films/
> shows.
>
> This is pretty basic.
Simple dogma like that being the main "objection" is a
compliment. Obviously DC's whole objective here is or
should be to establish their universe as Marvel has theirs.
Team-ups of all kinds are also a staple of comics and can
further that, but on the big screen it's not easy to do.
"Sidekick" heroes -- Batman and Robin -- can fail miserably.
Lesser heroes have trouble gaining traction in their own
movies. "Green Lantern and Flash" or "Wonder Woman
and Aquaman" pair reasonably well known heroes, but
arbitrarily with no obvious rationale for it. Not rationale
to some noisy negative online comic segment numbering
literally a few dozen, but to the tens of millions needed
for a theatrical movie. It has to be marketable to a very
wide market, not just a small segment of the comic store
market.
The title plays on "Girl of My Dreams" by adding the
Super part and the related Superman recognition.
It fills a void created by the failed relationship element
with Ferris in the first movie. This aspect of these kind
of movies is important and can be a tremendous box
office boost if done well.
GL's powers allow the new character to be created from
scratch and therefore successfully defended as legally
beyond the claim of the Superman estates or any others.
She can even be given a few power differences if need
be to ensure that.
If Warners/DC can work out the Superman copyright
issue, the Kara version of Supergirl could still be used.
But they've kind of ruined their chances there. The
Smallville Supergirl -- daughter of Krypto-Hitler -- was
the most dreadfully written piece of modern comic
crap I've ever seen, ruining Vandervoort's chances of
what should have been a no-brainer straight spinoff.
Fortunately hardly anyone was watching or paying
attention by then, but the 5 million (in the U.S. alone)
who saw Vandervoort's debut, and more who know
her from V, would be interested in a reboot via the
GL sequel. That core TV base -- more than 100 TIMES
the number reading GL comics -- would help. The
Smallville series was also widely viewed overseas.
Duggy
> > Don't care.
> > My personal feeling is that...
> Obviously that part is fair, and impenetrable, but it doesn't
> further any discussion except to the extent of whatever may
> follow.
I don't think it's a hurdle you could get most people to jump. You'd
struggle to find an audience. You first 2 weeks would be a disaster.
You may be lucky and have a "sleeper hit" but I wouldn't rely on it.
> I would say this though. A critical problem Warners
> has here is that the online core comics base is miniscule and
> unrepresentative of the wider moviegoing audience.
Anyone who read a comic as a kid, watch a Superfriends cartoon or
Smallville considers themselves a comicbook fan who knows what they
want to see.
The miniscule audience line up on the first day and bring friends.
They create word of mouth. They killed Catwoman stone dead.
It's cool to mock fanboys but you ignore them at your own cost.
> For example, I've seen references to Green Lantern being a
> successful comic (or comics) currently, and a blog and maybe
> an article or two citing that as puzzling when looking at why
> the GL movie hasn't performed well.
Fanboys have a mixed reaction. Some like it some don't.
That's bad word of mouth.
Fanboys will bad mouth your film before filming starts.
> But those GL books sell
> only 40,000 copies or some such!
That's 40,000 issues. And assumes that only 1 person reads each
issue, that digital copies aren't downloaded and that there aren't Hal
fans that last read a comic - any comic - 20 years ago but still call
themselves a fan.
> The vast majority of even
> those 40,000 are NOT the negativity-prone critics nitpicking
> things online.
Proof?
> To follow the kind of Inside GL "canon" that
> some of these folks consider gospel would sink any remaining
> chance DC has in an instant.
See Spider-Man. True to the comic doesn't mean faithful.
>> ... Supergirl films/shows should spin out of Superman/
> > Superboy/Smallville films/shows not Green Lantern films/
> > shows.
> > This is pretty basic.
> Simple dogma like that being the main "objection" is a compliment.
Yes. A lot of great films do badly at the box office. A lot of bad
films do well. It sucks but it's a fact of life.
Fact is the idea won't do well.
> Team-ups of all kinds are also a staple of comics and can
> further that, but on the big screen it's not easy to do.
True. Natural team-ups are the way to go.
> "Sidekick" heroes -- Batman and Robin -- can fail miserably.
Or can do well. Like any film.
> Lesser heroes have trouble gaining traction in their own
> movies.
Duh.
> "Green Lantern and Flash" or "Wonder Woman
> and Aquaman" pair reasonably well known heroes, but
> arbitrarily with no obvious rationale for it.
Green Lantern & the Flash for historical reasons.
Wonder Woman & Aquaman if you had a mythical island in the Atlantic
reason with a Greek myth storyline. But that may still seem forced.
All of those characters I'd first introduce in their own film.
> Not rationale
> to some noisy negative online comic segment numbering
> literally a few dozen, but to the tens of millions needed
> for a theatrical movie.
The vocal minority has more power than you think.
> It has to be marketable to a very
> wide market, not just a small segment of the comic store
> market.
Yes. Any you're pissing in the wider markets mouth and telling them
it is Champagne.
> The title plays on "Girl of My Dreams" by adding the
> Super part and the related Superman recognition.
Like the ultra-successful "My Super Ex-Girlfriend".
> It fills a void created by the failed relationship element
> with Ferris in the first movie.
Or it creates another failed relationship element. The makers of GL
didn't say "let's write a relationship element that fails." You're
assuming your relationship will work. Maybe it will maybe it won't.
> This aspect of these kind
> of movies is important and can be a tremendous box
> office boost if done well.
And a box-office fail if done badly.
> GL's powers allow the new character to be created from
> scratch and therefore successfully defended as legally
> beyond the claim of the Superman estates or any others.
> She can even be given a few power differences if need
> be to ensure that.
The name "Supergirl" puts it in jeapody. Any Superman powers
increases that. Any difference from the Supergirl the wider audience
expects will cause problems.
> If Warners/DC can work out the Superman copyright
> issue, the Kara version of Supergirl could still be used.
Maybe.
> But they've kind of ruined their chances there. The
> Smallville Supergirl -- daughter of Krypto-Hitler -- was
> the most dreadfully written piece of modern comic
> crap I've ever seen, ruining Vandervoort's chances of
> what should have been a no-brainer straight spinoff.
Happens.
> Fortunately hardly anyone was watching or paying
> attention by then, but the 5 million (in the U.S. alone)
> who saw Vandervoort's debut, and more who know
> her from V, would be interested in a reboot via the
> GL sequel.
Or not.
> That core TV base -- more than 100 TIMES
> the number reading GL comics -- would help. The
> Smallville series was also widely viewed overseas.
American is overseas.
===
= DUG.
===
Anim8rFSK
<f1247b0d-9bdd-4170...@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 5:07 pm, "KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> > "Duggy" wrote in the GL Update thread, responding to my
> > "... movie with Green Lantern and Supergirl..." mention...
> >
> > > Huh?
> >
> > Earlier in that GL Update thread, in a post on June 22 where I was
> > responding to clouddreamer, I ended with this:
>
> Don't care.
Nobody cares when someone responds to cloddreamer.
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
KalElFan
> ...
>
> Duggy wrote:
>
>> ... Natural team-ups are the way to go.
Here, a Superhero with a power ring that "turns thought
into reality" subconsiously conjures up a super-powered
girl of his dreams. It's the Ultimate Natural Team-Up!
Get Hal's relationship with the Ferris character out of the
way in the backstory and have her comic villain persona
become a second villain in the sequel.
On the main vilain side, go ahead with Sinestro and make
him the Parallax proxy (rather than Hal becoming Parallax
as they did, disastrously, in the comics).
I've seen a few complain that the teaser in the credits
negated the hero-like quality that Sinestro had, especially
for the 99% of the audience that knows nothing about
the Sinestro character going in.
That may be true, and I agree to some extent. It was part
of the appeal of the Sinestro character, and the way he
was played, that he came off as a strong hero/leader and
was on the right side. His story works as a bit like Anakin
in a way, as he's now turning to the Dark Side and perhaps
the Darth Vader of the GL-verse. Except that what we see
in the teaser in the credits provides no context for that.
It makes it seem like "poof" Sinestro decides to succumb
to the temptation.
But who says the "alien entity" like they eventually had
in the comics, as a retcon explanation for Hal as Parallax,
couldn't have happened here? So as we learn the full
story behind that teaser, perhaps we see that Sinestro
is likewise "possessed" (by Parallax or some proxy) to get
him to wear the yellow ring? It'd make for a much better
Sinestro character and story in the sequel I think. Not a
long setup, but just a short intro to that teaser scene,
where we see some Parallax alien proxy, a surpise attack
or what not that ends in Sinestro turning bad as we saw.
(There's a separate post, just under 100 lines I think,
which will follow on the rest of Duggy's response. It's
rather harsh on Duggy, but proportionate I think. There
are all kinds of challenges Warners and DC will face if they
proceed with a GL sequel, but an imaginary rule in Duggy's
head is not one of them.)
KalElFan
> Obviously that part is fair...
Now Duggy has come back with this in response:
>> I don't think it's a hurdle you could get most people to
>> jump. You'd struggle to find an audience. You (sic) first
>> 2 weeks would be a disaster. You may be lucky and
>> have a "sleeper hit" but I wouldn't rely on it.
I was responding to your opening words in your first
response, where you'd said "Don't care. My personal
feeling is that..." I was basically just conceding you had
an opinion and so what, because it wasn't based on
anything except an imaginary rule in your head that
Supergirl needed to be introduced a certain way.
So looking at your second round response above, and
parsing the discussion at this point, you were saying I
couldn't get people to jump the hurdle that you have
an imaginary rule in your head. It's ludicrous. Then
you go on with stuff like this:
> It's cool to mock fanboys but you ignore them at your
> own cost.
It's an if the shoe fits wear it kind of thing, and it depends
on the argument or lack thereof. I might mock you as
a Duggy Dipshit fanboy because of what you've posted.
It doesn't denigrate all fanboys, just the Duggy Dipshits
with idiotic imaginary rules, if they want to wear those
shoes.
You might think that's harsh, but all you had the first
round was an absurd "rule" that a DC character has to be
introduced in a certain way. Now you're extending that
to hordes like you who'll be demanding that Supergirl be
introduced in that certain way and not in a GL sequel.
And you're doing this even though -- wait for it -- you
seem to be too dirt stupid enough to have grasped that
she would NOT be *The* Supergirl that's Superman's
cousin. She'd be a construct created by GL, in part via
his subconsious knowledge of Superman. If there are
any rights issues preventing DC from using the word
or the character Supergirl in movie titles, then they
could use Powergirl as a proxy. The "Power" prefix is
arguably a better fit with the idea of Green Lantern's
"power" ring.
"But that wouldn't be Powergirl either!" your hordes
of fanboys might scream Well massive Duh! The story
makes clear that she's a GL creation. Besides, who is
DC's Supergirl or Powergirl? They've had Jimmy Olsen's
conjured up version of SuperGirl (the first), then Kara,
then there was pocket universe Supergirl, and Matrix
Supergirl spun off from that, then Peter David's version,
and an Aliens version of Kara mixed in there. And the
first Powergirl was Lois Lane, a one-shot story just like
the SuperGirl conjured up by Jimmy Olsen was.
In your "discussion" turned zombie thread with Phipps
(I've only seen bits of it), and in at least one discussion
I recall having with you prior to this, you'd also dig in
with some stupid position or objection and escalate.
You'd make it fact and suggest you spoke for all. You
did it again here, several times with stuff like this:
> Fact is the idea won't do well.
Now it's "fact" in your delusion, when even earlier in
your post you were conceding it might get lucky and
become a sleeper hit.
> Fanboys will bad mouth your film before filming starts.
You're in Australia and so inside negative fandom, here
on Usenet no less, that you're about as unrepresentative
as it gets in terms of how even the fanboys see it. SOME
fanboys will undoubtedly badmouth it, but if they don't
want to be pegged as a Duggy Dipshit like you they'd have
to have some REASON to do so before they had even seen
the movie. All you've imagined is some non-existent rule
in your head and a stream of assertions based on that. I
doubt you'll find 4 of the 40,000 Green Lantern comic
buyers who'll hang themselves with that.
It's even worse than Anim8r's No Shat No Show and every
other piece of negative crap he posts based on nothing
but what he blows out his arse. Star Trek 2009 was a
hugely successful reboot. There might have been MANY
reasons it could have failed, just as there may be many
that a GL sequel could fail. But No Shat No Show wasn't
it, and neither will the imaginary rule in your head.
Not.A.Maltisian
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>"KalElFan" wrote in message news:9784vv...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> ...
>>
>> Duggy wrote:
>>
>>> ... Natural team-ups are the way to go.
>
>Here, a Superhero with a power ring that "turns thought
>into reality" subconsiously conjures up a super-powered
>girl of his dreams. It's the Ultimate Natural Team-Up!
>Get Hal's relationship with the Ferris character out of the
>way in the backstory and have her comic villain persona
>become a second villain in the sequel.
>
Here YA go, knock you're self out.
Jeff Robinov
President Warner Bros. Pictures
Good luck!
I'm not role playing anymore.
Ken Wesson
> You might think that's harsh, but all you had the first round was an
> absurd "rule" that a DC character has to be introduced in a certain way.
> Now you're extending that to hordes like you who'll be demanding that
> Supergirl be introduced in that certain way and not in a GL sequel.
Aren't both of you forgetting something? Supergirl has ALREADY been
"introduced" to the big screen, in a poorly-received live-action flick in
the 80s or thereabouts. So any appearance in a forthcoming live action
superhero film would not be a debut so much as a reboot, or something. (A
direct sequel to the old film seems *highly* improbable, so very likely a
reboot.)
KalElFan
> On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 15:30:01 -0400, KalElFan wrote:
>
>> You might think that's harsh, but all you had the first round was an
>> absurd "rule" that a DC character has to be introduced in a certain way.
>> Now you're extending that to hordes like you who'll be demanding that
>> Supergirl be introduced in that certain way and not in a GL sequel.
>
> Aren't both of you forgetting something? Supergirl has ALREADY been
> "introduced" to the big screen, in a poorly-received live-action flick in
> the 80s or thereabouts.
Sure, and I remember and lived the whole era. Helen Slater was fine,
but the movie was mostly awful just like Superman III had been. By
the time Supergirl was released a year after Superman III, of course
the Salkind series was dead. They sold it, but Superman IV a few
years after that actually did no better than Supergirl did.
So Supergirl as a character can hardly be blamed. The Smallville
reboot with Vandervoot was seen by five million in the U.S. alone.
If they all brought a friend to a 3-D movie opeining weekend, it'd
gross $100M+ its opening weekend. Supergirl name recognition
is also huge. There've been songs by Hilary Duff, Miley Cyrus (as
Hannah Montana), there's one in Canada by Suzie McNeil, there
was another from Christina Aguilera that wasn't Supergirl in the
title but had it in the lyrics... there's enormous awareness and
potential here for a GL sequel and it can also skew young and
strengthen the female demo numbers.
> So any appearance in a forthcoming live action superhero film
> would not be a debut so much as a reboot, or something. (A
> direct sequel to the old film seems *highly* improbable, so
> very likely a reboot.)
Not even a reboot, for the character itself, because once again
Hal conjures her up. That's entirely in the spirit of SuperGirl's
first appearance in DC comics when Jimmy Olsen conjured her
up from some magic lamp or some such, but it's not Kara as
she was in the 1984 movie or in Smallville.
KalElFan
N.A.M. did it. I'll merge it if there's any followup]
"Not.A.Maltisian" wrote in message
news:rat11718ask1c2g42...@4ax.com...
Nah, I don't do phone pitches or meetings. I sign releases,
send the material by courier, and watch my stuff show up
in reverse-engineered bastardized versions anywhere from
a couple of years to a decade or two later. :-)
At least that's the way I used to do it, starting back in the
mid-80s. In this here 2011 Internet Age other approaches
would work better. Like start the next Facebook, IPO it,
and use part of the tens of billions in proceeds to buy the
whole studio. :-)
You raise the most interesting issue though, which is how
to make anything at all happen at this point. The list of
obstacles to DC movies beyond 2012, and potential worse
obstacles on the horizon, is long. I don't see a lot of vision
at DC or Warner Bros. when it comes to these movies or
even TV series. They own half The CW, which can run on
less than two million viewers an episode. Yet they can't
get Aquaman or Wonder Woman, failed pilots both, sold
on the TV side.
Nor can they settle the Superman lawsuit, a boycott issue
waiting to happen just in time for their Superman reboot
18 months from now. They have lots of time to sweat
about that and more, as they sink a half billion or more
into their 2012 tentpoles.
Did I mention the declining movie market for the first
time in 30+ years, and the collapsing DVD market?
Jeff doesn't need my phone call, he needs a crate full
of Pepto Bismol while the other Jeff (Bewkes) and the
Board are probably considering selling DC. The stock
market is near its peak, and they look at Bridesmaids
getting made by Universal for $32.5 million and here
it is grossing $150M+ domestic. Green Lantern will top
out at $120M domestic, but it cost 10 times as much.
It was a very good basis for moving forward though,
dammit, and they should but more cheaply.
Not.A.Maltisian
No, it's setteled, WB looses all rights to it in 2013.
> a boycott issue
>waiting to happen just in time for their Superman reboot
>18 months from now. They have lots of time to sweat
>about that and more, as they sink a half billion or more
>into their 2012 tentpoles.
>
>Did I mention the declining movie market for the first
>time in 30+ years,
Haven't been in a movie theatre since Star Child Returned.
While waiting for the film to start I was barraged with adds.
I was quite annoyed and quite loudly said,
If I wanted to watch fucking commercials, I'd stay at home!!
Aome of the audance cheered, some we're quite annoyed with me.
>and the collapsing DVD market?
>
Can you say torrent?
>Jeff doesn't need my phone call,
Good luck getting him on the phone.
>he needs a crate full
>of Pepto Bismol while the other Jeff (Bewkes) and the
>Board are probably considering selling DC. The stock
>market is near its peak, and they look at Bridesmaids
>getting made by Universal for $32.5 million and here
>it is grossing $150M+ domestic.
The world is getting even more stupid every generation.
> Green Lantern will top
>out at $120M domestic, but it cost 10 times as much.
>
>It was a very good basis for moving forward though,
>dammit, and they should but more cheaply.
I'm not role playing anymore.
Duggy
<Not.A.Maltis...@OA.planet.none.com.org.biz.exe.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 21:43:13 -0400, "KalElFan"
> No, it's setteled, WB looses all rights to it in 2013.
US rights to the half they don't lease from the Shuster hiers. They
still own 100% of the international rights.
And it isn't settled, they're appealing.
> While waiting for the film to start I was barraged with adds.
> The world is getting even more stupid every generation.
Can't get much stupider.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> It's an if the shoe fits wear it kind of thing, and it depends
> on the argument or lack thereof. I might mock you as
> a Duggy Dipshit fanboy because of what you've posted.
> It doesn't denigrate all fanboys, just the Duggy Dipshits
> with idiotic imaginary rules, if they want to wear those
> shoes.
Sure, I was refering to mocking their powering in determining the
success or failure of a fanboy film, you sexy, sexy man.
> Now you're extending that
> to hordes like you who'll be demanding that Supergirl be
> introduced in that certain way and not in a GL sequel.
Yes. Mock the hoards at your own cost.
> And you're doing this even though -- wait for it -- you
> seem to be too dirt stupid enough to have grasped that
> she would NOT be *The* Supergirl that's Superman's
> cousin. She'd be a construct created by GL, in part via
> his subconsious knowledge of Superman. If there are
> any rights issues preventing DC from using the word
> or the character Supergirl in movie titles, then they
> could use Powergirl as a proxy. The "Power" prefix is
> arguably a better fit with the idea of Green Lantern's
> "power" ring.
Yeah, see I was trying to ignore the really lame bit. Superhero fans
and romcom fans aren't the same audience.
See "My Super Ex-Girlfriend."
Oh, wait, nobody did.
> In your "discussion" turned zombie thread with Phipps
> (I've only seen bits of it),
Good for you.
> I recall having with you prior to this, you'd also dig in
> with some stupid position or objection and escalate.
It's called the truth. Live with it.
> > Fact is the idea won't do well.
> Now it's "fact" in your delusion, when even earlier in
> your post you were conceding it might get lucky and
> become a sleeper hit.
A sleeper hit won't make a Superhero budget back.
> > Fanboys will bad mouth your film before filming starts.
> You're in Australia and so inside negative fandom,
Huh?
> It's even worse than Anim8r's
You don't like anyone, do you?
===
= DUG.
===
KalElFan
news:03178b90-efba-46ad...@g3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> I was refering to mocking their powering in determining the
> success or failure of a fanboy film...
Again, this suggests that they're all some kind of monolithic
block, which they never are. But even if they were, the ones
reading comics number a small fraction of 1% of the viewers
that Smallville had early on. I was mocking 1 in 40,000 -- that
would be you -- for an idiotic rule you imagined in your head
and then dug in on.
[KalElFan wrote]:
>> Now you're extending that
>> to hordes like you who'll be demanding that Supergirl be
>> introduced in that certain way and not in a GL sequel.
>
> Yes. Mock the hoards at your own cost.
I'm mocking you, Duggy, for thinking there are hordes who
have your imaginary rule in their head that Supergirl has to
be introduced in a certain way. But then we perhaps draw
out the real objection here...
> Superhero fans and romcom fans aren't the same audience.
>
> See "My Super Ex-Girlfriend."
>
> Oh, wait, nobody did.
It's an even more idiotic point on the face of it, because "My
Super Ex-Girlfriend" is not the movie that anyone but you
would be likely to cite as a romcom, and no superhero movie
ever aspires to be nothing but a romcom anyway. So all
you've got is stupidity wrapped in a straw man argument.
What's settled is that the romance element, done well, has
and will always have a very positive result. The upside-down
kiss in Spider-Man remains iconic, the first two Reeve movies
had the romance front and center, lesser movies like Ghost
Rider and Hellboy have had it and spawned sequels, and
these are just superhero genre examples. Transformers
launched its franchise as well as it did because it had this
element.
In 1987, Superman IV had a budget of $17 million and had
a domestic gross of $15.7 million. Other than Nuclear Man
(bad) and Superman at the United Nations (meh), the most
memorable sop-travesty in it was arguably the one-scene
replay of the entire Superman-Lois relationship debacle.
They do the big fly-around after he kisses her and she
remembers, after which he gives her the amnesia kiss
again! It's like a bad SNL skit.
Also in 1987, a little movie called Mannequin cost only
$6 million and grossed 7 times that, $42.7 million domestic.
It grosses almost three times as much as Superman IV, for a
third the cost! A "romcom fantasy" would probably best
describe the genre, or perhaps romantic fantasy since
the comedy element was appropriately reined in. Yes,
there can and should be laughs in all these movies the
superhero ones included, but the key to the successful
romance ones is that the audience -- no joke -- actually
cares about the couple.
Hal & Carol I'd give a 2/10, 3/10 max. The highlight was
the scene where she quickly recognizes him as Hal when
she gets up close. Overall it didn't work, in part because of
the writing and partly Lively's casting. Off-screen it was
a Katie Holmes style Batman Begins disaster. Katie was
in the midst of marrying Tom Cruise when the movie
was released. Lively was making news having supposed
nude photos debunked and dating -- or something --
Leo DiCaprio. Reynolds had also broken up with ScarJo
a while back and that got press. So writing, chemistry,
reality, you name it it just didn't work well. Reynolds,
mainly, and one good moment salvaged it from being
a complete drag on the movie.
The Dark Knight recast and used the character for a
dramatic death. As part of the perfect storm that made
the movie a big hit, and because it's Batman, they got
away with that. Green Lantern can benefit from Ferris
going the villain route, but Green Lantern isn't Batman
and will need much more in a sequel.
Ryan Reynolds is wasted if they can't tap the power of
a good romance element, and the writing premise is
immediately a 10/10 when the character is conjuring
up the girl of his dreams and she has superpowers no
less, including flying. Lois & Clark, very successful
until it blew up the romance element with the clone
wedding, peaked at 22 million+ viewers with an
episode where Lois got super powers.
Add the casting of Vandervoort, who's had SF success
in both Smallville and V, and it would be much easier to
make the romance element work well. It wouldn't be
the ONLY element in the movie. DUH. Sinestro, and/or
the Sinestro Corps, the yellow-ring Parallax-like threat
and so on would work very well. Sinestro, the actor who
plays him, and the setup of that character in the first
movie are all strong going into the second movie, as
is the Oan mythology.
A GL sequel probably never gets made though. I hope
they've got the vision to do it, but I doubt they even
try a reboot (which wouldn't work anyway).
>> It's even worse than Anim8r's [no Shat no Show...]
>
> You don't like anyone, do you?
I like almost everyone just fine. Anim8r popped in for
no other reason than to take a shot at clouddreamer
and anyone who responds to her. He does it routinely
with anyone he doesn't like or says he has killfiled.
Me, I look at a post and if there's something in it I
can work off of I respond.
Anyway, kudos for identifying (or admitting) that the
romance element IS indeed the target of a small but
noisy segment of fandom. They hated L&C, were in
despair when the second Star Wars trilogy couldn't
unseat Titanic and so on. If a comic genre movie were
to become a pure chick flick, they'd have a point.
But name me a comic genre movie that's ever been
a pure chick flick. There's always the villain and the
threat and so on. Most of these movies need both
elements to work best.
Martin Phipps
snip
> But name me a comic genre movie that's ever been
> a pure chick flick. There's always the villain and the
> threat and so on. Most of these movies need both
> elements to work best.
Why are you arguing so emotionally about a movie that will never get
made? If you want to have Supergirl in a Justice League movie and try
to attract female moviegoers with a bit of romance between her and Hal
then that's fine but a movie about the two of them meeting and falling
in love just won't sell. As you say, you need a villain and a threat.
Martin
KalElFan
news:326dfd83-3602-4df9...@28g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
<snip silly blather part to get to the willfully ignorant straw
man part>
> ... a movie about the two of them meeting and falling in love
> just won't sell. As you say, you need a villain and a threat.
The relationship and villain/threat elements would all be there,
along with the good mythology backstory from the first movie,
action and effects and so on. Large segments of the male
population also like a good relationship story to be part of
these movies. They'd be interested in Supergirl as a superhero
as well, and consider Laura Vandervoort easy on the eyes.
If you have something less trivial to refute, feel free to post
it.
William George Ferguson
wrote:
>On Jul 4, 5:30 am, "KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>> And you're doing this even though -- wait for it -- you
>> seem to be too dirt stupid enough to have grasped that
>> she would NOT be *The* Supergirl that's Superman's
>> cousin. She'd be a construct created by GL, in part via
>> his subconsious knowledge of Superman. If there are
>> any rights issues preventing DC from using the word
>> or the character Supergirl in movie titles, then they
>> could use Powergirl as a proxy. The "Power" prefix is
>> arguably a better fit with the idea of Green Lantern's
>> "power" ring.
I don't see any of the Supergirls being romantically involved with Hal
Jordan.
As for Kara Zor-El being featured in a movie, who would you rather see
her
<http://superman.nu/supergirl/costumes/2004/>
(and isn't that kid's t-shirt appropriate for this thread)
But if you want a Supergirl who is a construct, you're better off going
with the fusion of a demon controlled druggie suicide and a protoplamic
blob from a pocket univers
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/Supergirl.PNG>
--
I have a theory, it could be bunnies
Duggy
> Again, this suggests that they're all some kind of monolithic
> block, which they never are.
I'm sorry if I suggested that.
> I was mocking 1 in 40,000 -- that
> would be you -- for an idiotic rule you imagined in your head
> and then dug in on.
The idea doesn't work for me. Get over it. And I'm sure it wouldn't
work for a lot of others. Supergirl comic readers. GL comic
readers. Comic readers in general, current and past. Superhero film
fans who don't read comics. And action film fans.
A large percentage of those want certain things and your idea and name
doesn't seem to deliver them.
> I'm mocking you, Duggy,
That's fine.
> for thinking there are hordes who
> have your imaginary rule in their head that Supergirl has to
> be introduced in a certain way.
If you actually making this film you'd have to listen. Research.
Market.
Just doing without knowing would be stupid. The makers of Catwoman
thought just saying "it's a different Catwoman" would excuse changes
and make the fans come it didn't.
You may be right. You idea may work. But without looking at the
question you risk shooting yourself in the foot.
I don't like your idea. It bores me reading the description. I
wouldn't go to your film. Not because of a rule. Because it is bad.
> But then we perhaps draw
> out the real objection here...
OK.
> > Superhero fans and romcom fans aren't the same audience.
> > See "My Super Ex-Girlfriend."
> > Oh, wait, nobody did.
> It's an even more idiotic point on the face of it, because "My
> Super Ex-Girlfriend" is not the movie that anyone but you
> would be likely to cite as a romcom, and no superhero movie
> ever aspires to be nothing but a romcom anyway.
"The Supergirl of My Dreams" is a romcom title.
> So all
> you've got is stupidity wrapped in a straw man argument.
OK. Your idea sucks. I don't like it. It doesn't interest me.
Maybe I haven't explained why well. I also thing may other won't like
it, but I have no proof of that.
> What's settled is that the romance element, done well, has
> and will always have a very positive result.
Proof?
> The upside-down
> kiss in Spider-Man remains iconic, the first two Reeve movies
> had the romance front and center,
Spider-Man and Superman 1 & 2 were big action films with romantic
subplots. They didn't have romcom titles.
Sure, romance is an important element in most action films and I'd
avoid making one without a romance subplot. But adding a cheesy
romcom subtitle. Yuck.
"Fantastic Four 2: To wed or not to wed"
> lesser movies like Ghost
> Rider
I know there was a romance subplot, but I couldn't watch the entire
film.
> and Hellboy have had it and spawned sequels, and
> these are just superhero genre examples.
Was it "Hellboy 2: The Golden Army" or "Hellboy 2: A Second Chance to
Get the Girl"?
Wait... the did a Ghostrider sequel?
> Transformers
> launched its franchise as well as it did because it had this
> element.
It had action and humour as well.
"Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen" or "Transformers 2: Hometown
Girl vs Co-Ed"
> In 1987, Superman IV had a budget of $17 million and had
> a domestic gross of $15.7 million. Other than Nuclear Man
> (bad) and Superman at the United Nations (meh), the most
> memorable sop-travesty in it was arguably the one-scene
> replay of the entire Superman-Lois relationship debacle.
> They do the big fly-around after he kisses her and she
> remembers, after which he gives her the amnesia kiss
> again! It's like a bad SNL skit.
I don't recall that. My fav bit of Superman IV was the double date
between Lois & Superman and Lacy & Clark.
I never said there couldn't be romance in superhero films.
Was it "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" or "Superman IV: The Quest
for a Threesome"?
> Also in 1987, a little movie called Mannequin cost only
> $6 million and grossed 7 times that, $42.7 million domestic.
So?
> It grosses almost three times as much as Superman IV, for a
> third the cost! A "romcom fantasy" would probably best
> describe the genre,
True. And the romcom fans loved it.
Don't think the Superhero fans were rushing to see it.
> Hal & Carol I'd give a 2/10, 3/10 max.
Hal & Carol has never worked for me.
<Snipped without reading because Roashow is refusing the release the
film for another month in this country.
> The Dark Knight recast and used the character for a
> dramatic death. As part of the perfect storm that made
> the movie a big hit, and because it's Batman, they got
> away with that.
Agreed.
It was "The Dark Knight," right, not "Batman in Love"?
> Green Lantern can benefit from Ferris
> going the villain route, but Green Lantern isn't Batman
> and will need much more in a sequel.
Probably.
> Lois & Clark, very successful
> until it blew up the romance element with the clone
> wedding, peaked at 22 million+ viewers with an
> episode where Lois got super powers.
Yes. They marketed it as a romcom to a romcom audience. The
Superhero audience ran hot and cold. Fair enough because I don't
think they had the budget to do a good superhero show.
And once the killed the romance audience off and didn't have a
superhero audience, well, things went to shit.
> Add the casting of Vandervoort,
Casting at this stage is crazy.
> It wouldn't be
> the ONLY element in the movie.
Just the thing the movie's named after.
> A GL sequel probably never gets made though. I hope
> they've got the vision to do it,
Who knows what goes on behind the scenes? We know that these people
lie about production costs to keep them high to screw people out of
royalties. We know that they spent some money on at least one GL
project in pre-production that failed and they add those costs into
cost of production. We know they realised the marketing campaign was
flaswed. The money it made may not be high enough for this film to
make money, but it may be high enough for them to OK a cheaper sequel
or a reboot. Or it may not. It depends on who they're going to blame
and who they bring in to replace them.
> but I doubt they even
> try a reboot (which wouldn't work anyway).
Reboot probably won't happen. AOL/Time/Warner own the entire DC
stable. If they want to make a superhero film for 2015 they'll find
out who is interested in something else.
The old Marvel thing where they'd leased rights to people meant that
they had to make a movie or they were losing money on the deal, so
reboots made sense.
Superman is slightly different because, well, they can make so much
off it (Returns had a huge Box Office even though it was hated) and
they want to tap into that again. GL is an unknown.
> > You don't like anyone, do you?
> I like almost everyone just fine. Anim8r popped in for
> no other reason than to take a shot at clouddreamer
> and anyone who responds to her.
I have no idea what that means.
> Me, I look at a post and if there's something in it I
> can work off of I respond.
Fair enough.
> Anyway, kudos for identifying (or admitting) that the
> romance element IS indeed the target of a small but
> noisy segment of fandom.
Too much focus on the romance is. What constitutes too much romance
differs from person to person, obviously.
I like romantic films, but I hate romcoms. But if I watch a action
film (which is becoming rarer) or a Superhero films (which I will
usually do even if I don't know/like/read the company/character/etc
out of some fanboy solidarity) I want action (and plot). Superman
Returns I felt had way too little action (and way too little
romance... I'm not really sure if you'd call the Lois/Clark plot
romance but it was badly done whatever it was).
> They hated L&C,
I didn't hate L&C. I was just bored by it. Especially once Lex
left. It was just a sequence of kids-Superhero show stories with
sitcom "will-they-won't-they" romance. Not my thing.
> were in
> despair when the second Star Wars trilogy couldn't
> unseat Titanic
Don't care what it did or didn't beat. Most of the films were just
bad and the romance worse.
> and so on. If a comic genre movie were
> to become a pure chick flick, they'd have a point.
Giving it a cheesy romcom subtitle goes a long way towards that.
> But name me a comic genre movie that's ever been
> a pure chick flick.
GL2: The Supergirl of My Dreams.
> There's always the villain and the
> threat and so on. Most of these movies need both
> elements to work best.
More than just those two. But there's a reason that the romance sub-
plot is called a sub-plot.
===
= DUG.
===
KalElFan
news:u0d4171tj62q7b3d3...@4ax.com...
> I don't see any of the Supergirls being romantically involved with
> Hal Jordan.
She wouldn't be any of the Supergirls, she'd be a GL construct and
effectively a new version of Supergirl in her own right. Because she
derives from Hal's subconscious, she's by definition right for him.
The writing challenge is to execute that premise and make it work
well -- to have it fulfill its very strong built-in potential.
> ... who would you rather see...
[snip Supergirl drawing]
> ... or her ...
[snip Power Girl drawing]
> ... But if you want a Supergirl who is a construct, you're better
> off going with...
[snip Matrix Supergirl drawing]
Again, she's a new construct so it isn't a question of choosing one
of those three incarnations. If it wasn't apparent from the posts
upthread, my preference is to pay as much homage as possible
to DC's Supergirl legacy. That's why I cited Jimmy Olsen's magic
lamp version of SuperGirl, which was the first of all versions. So
this GL-conjured version comes full circle, only better because we
don't invoke some genie but a long-established DC character as
the mechanism for it. GL's thought becomes reality.
Beyond that, the GL Supergirl as she may become known should
be indistinguishably human-looking, with no fake or demonic or
whatever other derivation. She'd be in her 20s and her powers
would be identical to Superman, but she would not have the
weakness to kryptonite.
I'd concede some points are arguable beyond that. Rather than
the S symbol, a Lantern symbol is arguably something Hal might
also subconsciously "alter" -- just as he removes any kryptonite
weakness, he chooses not to rip off Superman's family crest. In
all other respects she's Kryptonian, but not a blood relative of
Superman. I'd invoke the word "Matrix" as part of the brief
technobabble describing the process of her formation. So this
new cinematic version would pay homage to all three of the
versions you've described.
I might as well post what I think are some obviously "best"
approaches to having the story play out in the second movie.
Dramatically, villains and "threats" and events should place
not just Earth or its sector in jeopardy, but also Supergirl and
the relationship between her and Hal.
So soon after she's created for example, the story would
unveil the obstacle that she's probably going to expire.
This kind of event has rarely occurred in the past we learn
and the constructs have not been permanent. The process
this time was unique and therefore might buck that trend,
but it's not considered likely. Supergirl herself is aware of
this issue and expects she'll expire.
Meantime, Supergirl becomes intergrally involved with the
battle against the villain threat (Sinestro, Sinestro Corps,
the Ferris villain alter ego Sapphire et al). Since she thinks
she's going to expire anyway, I'd have Supergirl sacrifice
herself at a critical point when all looks lost, in order to
ensure defeat of the villain(s)/threat(s). Then I'd do a nod
to the Crisis cover where Superman is holding Supergirl's
body and have Hal do that. Perhaps even the funeral and
burial scene as part of a pre-epilogue.
Some writers might argue for leaving it that way, with the
option of pulling a Spock-style or some other resurrection
of Supergirl in the third movie. I wouldn't. I'd do it at the
end of the same movie, with Easter Egg foreshadowing
of it earlier on. Have at least three Lanterns -- Kilowog,
Tomar-Re, and perhaps a female Lantern introduced in
the sequel -- combine to reconstitute the Matrix; heck
have the entire GL Corps assist them doing it and send
the folks home happy.
Here's where those oblivious to how successful such a
movie would be can chime in with substantive reasons
why it sucks, right?
KalElFan
news:ca281455-a1ca-4783...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> The idea doesn't work for me. Get over it....
Getting over it is not an issue. You post, I use it as part of a
response. You seem to be under the mistaken impression
that your unsupported opinion matters to me beyond that,
when it doesn't. The thread is intentionally designed to be
a target and see what any *substantive* criticisms the usual
negative suspects around these parts might have.
This isn't substantive, it's pure assertion:
> And I'm sure it wouldn't work for a lot of others. Supergirl
> comic readers. GL comic readers. Comic readers in general,
> current and past. Superhero film fans who don't read comics.
> And action film fans.
Same here, only vague:
> A large percentage of those want certain things...
What things, and what makes you think they aren't in this
movie? I've just made a more detailed response to WGF
(William) on how the movie would approach it, and I
previously nuked Phipps in one paragraph on his straw
man argument.
> ... and your idea and name doesn't seem to deliver
> them.
It's far more than an idea at this point, in fact it's way
beyond what they could do without my at least signing
something. I mean they could, because I'm not suing.
But it's out there on Google and one assumes they
wouldn't want to just take it.
It's not clear what you mean by "name," are you referring
to the Supergirl name that I'm proposing? If so, that's
been addressed upthread. It's an enormously valuable
property compared to, say, Black Canary or something
obscure like that.
Since they used Supergirl in Smallville, I assume DC has
full rights on the TV side. I doubt Nolan/Snyder would
want any part of the character in their movie or in any
sequel plans. But if they did, they'd use genuine Kara,
Kal's cousin, and this isn't her. The main concern I have
is whether the old Supergirl rights the Salkinds had, or
whatever sales of those rights took place, haven't been
re-acquired by DC for theatrical. I seem to recall that as
late as 10 years ago or so there was still some problem
with those rights according to something I'd read.
I stopped reading your post here because it was 250+
lines, but I'll get back to it at some point to see if there's
anything substantive worth responding to.
KalElFan
> http://superman.wikia.com/wiki/Supergirl_(movie)
>
> Warner Bros. recently acquired the rights to the film and
> reissued it on DVD late in 2006 to coincide with the reissues
> on DVD of the other Superman films
I'm guessing that when they acquired these rights they also
reacquired rights to the future use of Supergirl theatrically.
I doubt the Superman copyright issue poses any problem,
so I'm thinking it's 95%+ certain Warners would have no
legal obstacle to using this new version of Supergirl in the
GL sequel.
Since Supergirl in Smallville only happened in 2007, I'm
also guessing that the TV rights were also encumbered
prior to the 2006 deal. It's like when the Salkinds had
the rights to the Superboy TV series as they did the
Superman movies, the Supergirl movie must have also
given them the rights to Supergirl on TV.
SInce it only got posted to rec.arts.tv I'm also adding this:
"KalElFan" wrote in message news:97f72l...@mid.individual.net...
> On rec.arts.tv only "David Johnston" wrote in message
> news:qco417h6b8c5cds2a...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 20:17:23 -0400, "KalElFan"
>> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "William George Ferguson" wrote in message
>>> news:u0d4171tj62q7b3d3...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> I don't see any of the Supergirls being romantically involved
>>>> with Hal Jordan.
>>>
>>> She wouldn't be any of the Supergirls, she'd be a GL construct and
>>> effectively a new version of Supergirl in her own right. Because she
>>> derives from Hal's subconscious, she's by definition right for him.
>>
>> Assuming what's right for Hal is his mirror.
>
> "The Ring never makes a mistake" will apply here too. Just as it can
> identitify the right GL, it'll be able to identify his ideal mate/partner
> in this rare confluence of events that leads to that. (Or what would
> be his ideal mate/partner, if she weren't set to expire -- Not! :-))
KalElFan
news:slr417dkonb1pgf2l...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 21:18:14 -0400, "KalElFan"
> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "David Johnston" wrote in message
>> news:qco417h6b8c5cds2a...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 20:17:23 -0400, "KalElFan"
>>> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "William George Ferguson" wrote in message
>>>> news:u0d4171tj62q7b3d3...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> I don't see any of the Supergirls being romantically involved
>>>>> with Hal Jordan.
>>>>
>>>> She wouldn't be any of the Supergirls, she'd be a GL construct and
>>>> effectively a new version of Supergirl in her own right. Because she
>>>> derives from Hal's subconscious, she's by definition right for him.
>>>
>>> Assuming what's right for Hal is his mirror.
>>
>> "The Ring never makes a mistake" will apply here too. Just as it can
>> identitify the right GL, it'll be able to identify his ideal
>> mate/partner
>> in this rare confluence of events that leads to that. (Or what would
>> be his ideal mate/partner, if she weren't set to expire -- Not! :-))
>
> If the ring never makes a mistake it won't be conjuring up imaginary
> playmates to screw up its possessor.
Of course not. She wouldn't be imaginary, she'd be much more than
a playmate, and far from screwing up the character she'd enable the
series to proceed and by extension the other characters and JL. Now
that I've restored the full paragraph you snipped above, there's also
further context for all to see, as opposed to your plaintive wail.
You're a notorious, assertion-manic waste of time David. So it's
inevitable a request for something substantive will yield nothing.
But for the record, what exactly is your problem with a strong
relationship element in the GL sequel? Do you have an imaginary
rule in your head like Duggy that it can't be Supergirl? I guess DC
never got the memo when they did that comic team-up issue. Do
you think they should recall that issue to set the David Johnston
Imaginary Rule record straight? Vague assertion means nothing
and that's all you've got.
Duggy
> "William George Ferguson" wrote in messagenews:u0d4171tj62q7b3d3...@4ax.com...
>
> > I don't see any of the Supergirls being romantically involved with
> > Hal Jordan.
>
> She wouldn't be any of the Supergirls, she'd be a GL construct and
> effectively a new version of Supergirl in her own right. Because she
> derives from Hal's subconscious, she's by definition right for him.
> The writing challenge is to execute that premise and make it work
> well -- to have it fulfill its very strong built-in potential.
You seem to be struggling.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Getting over it is not an issue.
Good to hear.
> You seem to be under the mistaken impression
> that your unsupported opinion matters to me beyond that,
> when it doesn't.
You just seem to get a little heated about it.
> The thread is intentionally designed to be
> a target and see what any *substantive* criticisms the usual
> negative suspects around these parts might have.
Good work.
> This isn't substantive, it's pure assertion:
You're not going to get substantive on a newsgroup.
> What things, and what makes you think they aren't in this
> movie?
Because it has a cheesy rom-com name and it doesn't have the Supergirl
I'd want to see.
> It's far more than an idea at this point, in fact it's way
> beyond what they could do without my at least signing
> something.
True. But the makers of GL1 have gone beyond that and have signed
something. They're getting first bite of that cherry or they're
getting told to go away.
> But if they did, they'd use genuine Kara,
> Kal's cousin, and this isn't her.
Exactly.
> The main concern I have
> is whether the old Supergirl rights the Salkinds had, or
> whatever sales of those rights took place, haven't been
> re-acquired by DC for theatrical. I seem to recall that as
> late as 10 years ago or so there was still some problem
> with those rights according to something I'd read.
The Salkinds rights were all over the place, if I recall.
> I stopped reading your post here because it was 250+
> lines, but I'll get back to it at some point to see if there's
> anything substantive worth responding to.
Thanks.
===
= DUG.
===
Martin Phipps
> "Martin Phipps" wrote in message
>
> news:326dfd83-3602-4df9...@28g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip silly blather part to get to the willfully ignorant straw
> man part>
Wow. Gee. Thanks. And here I was being nice.
> > ... a movie about the two of them meeting and falling in love
> > just won't sell. As you say, you need a villain and a threat.
>
> The relationship and villain/threat elements would all be there,
> along with the good mythology backstory from the first movie,
> action and effects and so on. Large segments of the male
> population also like a good relationship story to be part of
> these movies. They'd be interested in Supergirl as a superhero
> as well, and consider Laura Vandervoort easy on the eyes.
>
> If you have something less trivial to refute, feel free to post
> it.
Thing is, I did "refute" your argument so to speak. My point is that
even if a movie were made with Green Lantern and Supergirl it wouldn't
be "Green Lantern 2: Supergirl of My Dreams" it would be "Green
Lantern 2: The Wrath of Sinistro". It's all about marketing. You
don't try to appeal to female moviegoers and alienate male moviegoers
in the process. That was (one of) Singer's mistake(s) when he made
Superman Returns. Don't you think they are going to try to play it
safe next time and go all out action and just assume female viewers
will sit through it because it has Ryan Reynolds in it.
Oh and if you want Supergirl as eye candy then you don't have to wait
to see her on the big screen: you can watch Supergirl XXX: The Porn
Parody. It just came out.
Martin
Duggy
> I'm guessing that when they acquired these rights they also
> reacquired rights to the future use of Supergirl theatrically.
Not necessarily true.
They acquired the rights to DVD distribution of that film. The rights
to make a new film could have reverted years ago or could still be
with the Salkinds.
> Since Supergirl in Smallville only happened in 2007, I'm
> also guessing that the TV rights were also encumbered
> prior to the 2006 deal.
Maybe. It may just have been they didn't think of using her until
then.
> It's like when the Salkinds had
> the rights to the Superboy TV series as they did the
> Superman movies, the Supergirl movie must have also
> given them the rights to Supergirl on TV.
Actually, I think that they traded movie rights for 4 for TV rights or
something... I don't recall exactly.
===
= DUG.
===
Martin Phipps
> "William George Ferguson" wrote in messagenews:u0d4171tj62q7b3d3...@4ax.com...
>
> > I don't see any of the Supergirls being romantically involved with
> > Hal Jordan.
>
> She wouldn't be any of the Supergirls, she'd be a GL construct and
> effectively a new version of Supergirl in her own right.
That sounds sick. So she'll be a green blow up doll?
Martin
Duggy
> That sounds sick. So she'll be a green blow up doll?
It does sound a little sick. A little "Weird Science" too.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Do you have an imaginary
> rule in your head like Duggy that it can't be Supergirl?
Do you only deal with strawmen arguments?
> I guess DC
> never got the memo when they did that comic team-up issue.
Comic book team-ups are a different beast.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Aren't both of you forgetting something? Supergirl has ALREADY been
> "introduced" to the big screen, in a poorly-received live-action flick in
> the 80s or thereabouts.
Reintroduced, then.
===
= DUG.
===
Anim8rFSK
<1c2bd001-c955-4c9d...@r21g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
As well as wrong:
"Because she derives from Hal's subconscious, she's by definition right
for him."
I mean, how's that for a stupid statement?
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
Will Dockery
> On Jul 2, 5:07 pm, "KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Duggy" wrote in the GL Update thread, responding to my
> > "... movie with Green Lantern and Supergirl..." mention...
>
> > > Huh?
>
> > Earlier in that GL Update thread, in a post on June 22 where I was
> > responding to clouddreamer, I ended with this:
>
> Don't care.
>
> My personal feeling is that Supergirl films/shows should spin out of
> Superman/Superboy/Smallville films/shows not Green Lantern films/
> shows.
>
> This is pretty basic.
>
> ===
> = DUG.
> ===
Yeah, but his flight of fancy & series of connections was pretty
interesting, if unlikely.
--
Music & Poetry of Will Dockery & Friends:
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery
KalElFan
news:ANIM8Rfsk-2F1E8...@news.easynews.com...
> "Because she derives from Hal's subconscious, she's by definition
> right for him."
>
> I mean, how's that for a stupid statement?
Poor Anim8r, hoist on his own killfile. Let's help anyone like
the poor fellow out...
She derives from Hal's subconscious via the Ring, which never
makes a mistake. The reason for it being done that way is or
should be obvious. If Hal consciously, intentionally conjures
up a Supergirl sex toy that's the This Ain't Supergirl XXX movie
someone posted they (Hustler I assume) just made. If Hal
consciously, intentionally conjures up any kind of Supergirl,
whether as a girlfriend or anything else, it also raises all kinds
of ethical issues that reflect badly on him. We could have him
do it while he's stone drunk, but that too would reflect badly
on our central character Hal.
The specific circumstances and details go far beyond avoiding
that pitfall. The Ring itself would never just conjure up some
Supergirl for no reason, as a birthday present for Hal Jordan's
30th or whatnot. It is such a massive "Duh!" that there will
be, because there has to be, a creatively justifiable setup for
how and why the Ring will conjure up this Supergirl.
I've had the details for about two weeks now and I've already
alluded to much of it in general terms. Likewise to Johnston's
idiot-obvious point that this can't be routine. Duh again. As
I described it it's a *confluence* of events. There will have
been a few rare instances of similar occurrences in the past
in which the subject expired, i.e. was not permanent. If you
must know numbers, my suggestion is six times prior, and
this would be over the long history of the Corps.
Because of the specific circumstances in this 7th case, and
with the help of the three Lanterns I mentioned, and with
the further assistance of the entire Corps for even greater
effect in making the point this is not just rare, Rare, RARE
(David Johnston are you listening? :-)), it's -- wait for it, by
extension...
... UNIQUE! ....
... Ta da! ... that...
... Supergirl is not an expired construct at the end of the
movie, she's permanent.
KalElFan
news:90564c30-cd68-4146...@34g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
> Yeah, but his flight of fancy & series of connections was pretty
> interesting, if unlikely.
Why bless you Will, but you haven't even seen all the details
yet and look how it's had everyone buzzing! Their fervor has
persuaded me to satisy their curiosity and reveal more. Check
out my next response to he or she of the very long handle,
"supercali..."
David Johnston
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>"Anim8rFSK" wrote in message
>news:ANIM8Rfsk-2F1E8...@news.easynews.com...
>
>> "Because she derives from Hal's subconscious, she's by definition
>> right for him."
>>
>> I mean, how's that for a stupid statement?
>
>Poor Anim8r, hoist on his own killfile. Let's help anyone like
>the poor fellow out...
>
>She derives from Hal's subconscious via the Ring, which never
>makes a mistake.
it's also a bad idea to introduce a person or thing who never makes a
mistake.
KalElFan
follow in my response to Will.]
On rec.arts.tv, "supercali..." wrote in message
news:iuuknv$hk2$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On 05/07/2011 3:52 AM, Duggy wrote:
>
>> On Jul 5, 4:59 pm, "supercali..." wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/07/2011 11:32 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why is she real?
>>>
>>> Why is Kryptonite green? Why is the normal Stargate time limit 38
>>> minutes? Why is a Klingon bird of prey unable to fire while cloaked?
>>>
>>> Because the writers said so.
>>
>> And the viewers say "so?"
>
> Then those particular viewers probably shouldn't be viewing fiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Some_Days_Are_Diamonds_(album)#Some_Days_Are_Diamonds
What's Denver's song got to do with this thread?
The answer my friends, is all in my head. :-)
So I'll explain it...
I check in this morning and see there are a dozen or more new posts.
I expect nothing of substance. Funnily, I read one from Duggy saying
I won't get substance on Usenet. In another, Duggy asserts that
I'm struggling to deliver on the "challenge" bar I set for the writers
in executing this premise. He gave no substance or specifics of any
kind to address the rather extensive relationship sub-plot I set out,
and how that would be handled. He was just being Duggy, and self-
fulfilling his own prophecy that you won't find substance on Usenet.
Or maybe not! It may not have been intentional, :-), but all but
two of the posts (hi Anim8r and Seamus!) were a brilliant, sparkling,
metaphorical diamond of an illustration of why this movie would
be the perfect followup to the first one, and help establish a great
cinematic DC universe beyond that.
"Huh?"
See, that was Duggy and maybe all of you wondering how/why I
could possibly think it's all that. So again I'll explain. :-)
You're finally asking some excellent questions. Usenet used to
have that in it. The wider market would inevitably have that.
But dying Usenet also still has it, at least today it has. David
Johnston stumbles across it first -- "Why is she real?" -- and
supercali... gives the superficial answer "Because the writers
said so". Duggy points out the "So?" problem with that and
supercali... has the standard dismissive answer.
In another post, Martin Phipps makes an excellent point about
the movie's title, one that Duggy also characterized as purely
"romcom." Phipps said fanboys would balk and he suggested
the "Wrath of Sinestro" instead.
Such good questions and observations. Very expected, but
not necessarily here or so soon. Kudos! I feel like Kilowog. :-)
I train 'em well. :-) I've even got Duggy relegating his own first
"substantive" objection to straw man status. He no longer
asserts imaginary rules in his head, he just jumps to the
conclusion that this is "not the Supergirl [he] wants to see...".
And it may not be. Warners/DC can't win 'em all. Maybe Duggy
will hate it. But I think Duggy and everyone will concede that you
really know squat about all the details of the movie. You've got an
outline of one part of a treatment perhaps, the relationship sub-
plot if you will. And you know from the teaser that Sinestro is
probably the main villain, extended to the Sinestro Corps would
be an obviously good assumption. To the wider audience, it may
evoke a split from the 3,600 GL's -- a few, or a few dozen, or a
few hundred who side with Sinestro or come under his (or by
extension Parallax's / the Yellow Ring of Fear's) influence.
Now your rapid advancement (lucky or not :-)) leaves me with a
conundrum. You have, or have stumbled across, great questions
and observations. Although I have fairly detailed answers, I don't
particularly want to post every one. But let's start here...
"Because the writers say so..." is true but never good enough,
especially not in this case where we have a new version of a
character's (Supergirl's) origin story. It's not some technobabble
definitional thing, it's a character we want the audience to care
about. The issue is HOW do the writers say so, via their writing,
in establishing this character. They could have Tomar-Re say
"She's as real as you are, Hal," and yes that establishes it as
fact in the GL-verse. Simple and impenetrable, but would the
audience *FEEL* that?
Or will they, as I do the Matrix Supergirl version in the comics,
deride her as the gob of goo Supergirl. I've seen the other
subthread where Duggy, and I believe it was Phipps, were
doing that with this Ring-forged version. Calling her a blow-
up doll. Johnston also implies the same.
You've all hit on the same issue. "Why is she real?" as David
put it. Why should I care? Why should Hal care? Does she have
a soul? If so, how can that be? "Does she have memories" one
of you will ask soon enough. That'd actually be the key question
in this case, because the answer is a Big Yes. These were all
questions that were obvious to me, along with a range of
answers, on or about June 22 when as I later posted in
response to cloud dreamer:
"It occured to me, after getting the idea from seeing the
Vandervoort photos, that the nature of GL and the Ring,
when turbo-charged by some improbable event, would
allow Hal to conjure up a Supergirl...."
Hal can't consciously conjure her up for his own purposes
as I've said elsewhere. It has to be via the Ring and the
confluence of events has to have, and does have in my
preferred specific approach, a rationale for it.
Phipps would be right, and so would Duggy, about the
title if it were only what you're hell-bent on perceiving
it as. Here's what you're missing. I noted the "... girl of
my dreams" element of the title, several times. I still
think you're dead wrong about even that being overly
chick flick and fanboy-unfriendly. As I've said the vast
majority of the male viewership likes to have a strong
relationship element as part of a movie that any idiot
knows will also have the kick ass villain element and
action and effects and all the rest.
But you're missing the "Super..." part, for starters, and
then you're missing the context of that, which is that
she WILL be very real within the story. The Supergirl
character is being introduced to a movie series that
will also bring Flash, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and
a Justice League movie. If we had a movie title called:
Supergirl
The "romcom!" baloney (and fallacy, and ignorant
jumping to conclusions) wouldn't be available to
the negative ninnies. They'd probably be skeptical,
especially after the Wonder Woman TV pilot and
Smallville Supergirl writing debacle, that it'd work.
I'd be skeptical too, but I'd have no idea what the
movie plans were, not the story let alone script.
Here, you have one sub-plot element, but the fact
that it's also a Supergirl origin story escapes you.
"Nooooo! Not another hour spent on another
origin story!" No, that would be a fallacy and yet
another ignorant jumping to conclusions. I gave
a massive clue/hint upthread of how and why it
wouldn't be that, but if I highlighted it again here
I might have to give away even more specifics to pre-
empt anyone else guessing what I'd recommend.
It'd also answer all the other philosophical stuff
about why she's real and so on.
Ah, what the hell here's the hint. :-)
I said she was Kryptonian. How can that be? Why
would that be? Shouldn't she be, like, Lanteronian
or somethin'? Because she's nothing but a gob of
goo, right? Not real, no soul. Johnston sez so, on
Usenet, so it must be true, right?
Nope. I said she was Kryptonian. I meant it. No
gob of goo here. Want another clue? I already
gave it away a few paragraphs back, but to invoke
that word in the question you'd soon be asking
anyway...
Memories, all alone in the moonlight...
A real Kryptonian, with real memories, and I'll
add a singular not a composite character. She's
enhanced, but get your minds out of the gutter
I'm referring to the removal of her weakness to
kryptonite. The Ring makes that change -- the
ring that never makes a mistake, when given
the opportunity and mission and/or necessity
to Choose, as it would, uniquely, in this sequel.
More detail to follow in Part Deux...
KalElFan
"KalElFan" wrote in message news:97h45k...@mid.individual.net...
> A real Kryptonian, with real memories, and I'll
> add a singular not a composite character. She's
> enhanced, but get your minds out of the gutter
> I'm referring to the removal of her weakness to
> kryptonite. The Ring makes that change -- the
> ring that never makes a mistake, when given
> the opportunity and mission and/or necessity
> to Choose, as it would, uniquely, in this sequel.
The specifics beyond that, and the optional ways
those could be implemented, and potentially a
few changes here or there, would depend in part
on DC's policy, rights and so on. For example we
have Duggy pointing out there may still be legal
problems with Supergirl rights in the movies. So
maybe they have to go Powergirl. Maybe Nolan
or those associated with Superman 2012 balk at
her being Kryptonian. Fine, she's a Daxamite and
the Ring removes her lead weakness.
It's not the way I prefer though. She should be at
least a Kryptonian unrelated to Superman.
Now, a confession. I actually lied upthread, about
one thing. I thought of it as a white lie, for your
own good kind of misdirection. Like the magician
who won't reveal all until his students are ready,
or Obi-Wan not telling Luke all until he's ready.
Since most of you have now progressed to the Right
Questions and Observations, know this...
My preferred choice is that she's literally THE Kara
Zor-El, Superman's cousin. In this GL-verse (which
would be the cinematic Justice League universe as
well, again in my preferred choice), Superman is
the sole survivor to start. Everybody else died and
Kara never made it out. There's a confluence of
events here (in the GL sequel) that provide the
unique opportunity, and NECESSITY, for the Ring
to basically reconstitute Kara Zor-El.
Reconstitute? Transport? Construct? (As in a GL
construct?) Ressurect? Well, any of those but the
more important words in the last paragraph are
both opportunity and "necessity". I realized right
away that having Hal purely conjure up a girl for his
own purposes does not work. There has to be both
opportunity and necessity.
The Ring will do it because it has to. I gave a bit
of the scenario earlier where Hal might be talking
to his techie friend, and he's split up with Ferris
well into the backstory almost two years prior.
And after a night drinking his tech friend mentions
Hal needs a new girlfriend. I also said Superman
may have been invoked and on Hal's mind.
You ought to be able to fill in the blanks that the
Ring will not be doing it SOLELY because Hal is in
a funk. Honestly, the Ring doesn't give a frack and
would let him work it out however long it took him.
But...
::: ominous threat music :::
Remember we have a villainous threat developing?
And Hal Jordan is, like, the only Lantern with the
will to match Sinestro? And now there's a Sinestro
Corps developing, very early in the movie in fact.
So The Ring goes into double jeopardy once in a
universal lifetime emergency hypermode. There is
no Hal-level GL out there to replace him because
Dr. Bones McLanternCoy on Oa has certified him
unfit for duty due to funkdom.
Only one choice as The Ring interfaces with the
relevant Oan deities and Green Streams of All
That Is Right and Just and, uh, Sufficiently Willful.
Across time and space, that which never makes
a mistake chooses Kara Zor-El, with the added
purpose of providing another warrior in the
coming battle against Sinestro et al. Since any
Lantern worth his salt could conjure up a rock
of kryptonite, that weakness gets nixed. If it
didn't, Kara would be nothing but a damsel in
distress for Hal to get himself killed over.
See, all you doubters shouldn't have questioned
The Ring. The Ring knows better than you what's
needed, and knows what kind of gal Hal needs:
a Kryptonian, 20-something, low-maintenance,
kick-ass cousin of Superman.
The Ring even gave her the Fortress of Solitude
training program before materializing her, plus
the supersuit, and full briefing on the threat.
All condensed, but from her point of view it's
put a few year's distance between Krypton's
destruction and her ready-for-action arrival.
My suggestion for her first words:
Hal: "Who are you?"
Supergirl: "I'm the Supergirl of your dreams, but
it's not the main reason I'm here. C'mon..."
And off she flies at superspeed, Hal following, for
an update on the threat.
Did I mention she's played by Laura Vandervoort?
But Kara's dad on Krypton wasn't Hitler. None of
that Smallville baggage. She knows all about
Krypton though. She was actually older than
Kal-El as Krypton exploded, but now she'll be
younger of course. Superman being about the
same age as Hal or so.
Who's Superman in the GL-verse? The Cavill version?
A rebooted Welling version? The Routh version? A
new version? I can see any of them working actually.
Base it on the most marketing benefit available, given
the constraints.
For example, if Superman 2012 looks like it'll work,
and the universe created there isn't incompatible
with the one they now have established with GL,
Cavill could make a cameo as Superman in this GL
sequel in 2013. Yes, that means they'd have to have
Cavill signed for Justice League as they do Reynolds
(I believe I saw an option of some sort mentioned).
Nolan & Co. might have to agree.
If Superman 2012 is huge, the cameo would help the
GL sequel and the whole DC line of movies beyond
that. I'd have Cavill appear as Clark Kent, with Hal
on that night out with his tech friend. As Hal's tech
friend is off somewhere briefly, after the girlfriend
comment he makes, Hal goes on about how he thinks
his girlfriend would have to also be a superhero if it
were to work. He asks, because again he's a bit drunk,
if Clark has any cousins he'd like to set him up with.
Clark says he wishes he did.
Oops. Sorry, Hal realizes. Clark's whole planet exploded
and he's the only one left.
Does Cavill's Superman come back for a second cameo,
meeting his cousin? Maybe. At first, Hal has no idea
who this Supergirl is. Even after he learns that she's
Kryptonian, he won't necessarily suspect she also
just happens to be Superman's cousin.
"Of course not! It's an idiotic coincidence!"
Bullshit. Especially when it's in "Breaking News!" and
universal developing crisis mode, the Ring tends to pay
attention, eh? And even though Hal doesn't wear it
when he's drinking, it's in his possession. And he
looks at it as he's talking to Clark. You know, during
that conversation where Clark says he wished he did...
have a cousin he could set up with Hal. It's ike there's
a superhero cosmic consensus developing here, eh?
Don't question the Ring, especially not when it's in
a hypersensitive once in a universal lifetime mode.
It knows what it's doing way better than you do. :-)
Those online shmucks insisting "But Supergirl has
to be... [insert fanboy error here]" -- circumstances
in the Gl-verse, and the Ring, make that irrelevant.
She's 20-something and she's Kara Zor-El. Get over
it, Duggy & Co. :-)
If you must know, there's a u-Harmony algorithm
the Ring also ran it through, to ensure Kara would
be sufficiently compatible with Hal. She passed, and
vice versa. We probably don't find this out till the end,
when Hal asks (as he will have asked other questions
early in the movie -- some of the same good ones in
this here thread).
See, u-Harmony is the universal branch of e-Harmony.
Kilowog looks at the Ring's log to answer Hal's question
and that's how they find out Kara and Hal passed.
But only if e-Harmony ponies up a few... well, more
than a few bucks for the sponsorship, eh? The GL
sequel needs all the creative AND financial help it can
get. :-) It's bound to get a laugh right near the end
of the movie when it's most effective as one of the
send-offs. Maybe even one of those Reeve-style
flybys, with Hal, Supergirl, and Cavill's Superman to
end it.
If Nolan & Co. want to or have to remain insulated,
just adapt to other options. Right about now even
the most negative ninnies reading, whether they post
it or not, should be thinking "Frack! If Dockery wasn't
right before, he sure is now!" :-) It'd be interesting
and marketable as all heck. I'm sure there'd be some
discussion about the u-Harmony thing though.
Exec #1: Fanboys hate product placement.
Exec #2: Fuck 'em, it's a $15 million deal including the
commercials and the movie scene's funny.
I'm with Exec #2. :-)
P.S. to the most idiot negative ninnies. The above is
an explanation from a producer, writer, fanboy, etc.
perspective. Do not assume the words "universal
developing crisis mode" will be heard in the movie.
Nor that the movie has a Dr. Bones McLanternCoy.
Do not assume that stupid idiotic bastardizations
of anthing above, which you might imagine or jump
to the conclusion everyone involved will be helpless
in allowing, mean squat except to reflect your own
miserable mindset. If you are not or have ceased to
be a member of idiotic negative ninnies anonymous,
then thank you for your attention. :-)
KalElFan
> it's also a bad idea to introduce a person or thing who
> never makes a mistake.
More bullshit. Just an imaginary rule in your head. If
it were a recurring character or thing without limits
then sure. But the premise here is that the Ring rarely
acts, usually only to seek out the best possible new
GL after its owner dies. Not the perfect new one, the
best possible within the sector or whatever other
limitations -- i.e. it's "correct" and preserves its "never
makes a mistake" reputation.
Same thing here, in an exceptional circumstance. The
movie can't spend unlimited time explaining how the
ring is right in this case, but if they wanted to spend
some it goes something like this:
1. "Stealing" a living person is ruled out by the Ring.
It chooses to extend the life of a person who would
otherwise remain dead.
2. Because of the threat, it focuses immediately on
Kryptonians wiped out when their planet exploded.
It would have done this anyway, even absent Hal's
conversation with Clark. Kryptonite weakness has
to go.
3. Now it focuses on relatives of Clark. More than
one reason why this make sense even if Clark hadn't
had the conversation with Hal. Hal is or will become
associated with other heroes on Earth, again even
absent a Justice League. So friends, family, some sort
of connection that's pre-existing and enhances the
chances of the relationship, cooperation, teamwork
and so on.
4. Kara Zor-El is identified, would have first consented
after being given the scenario, then the training and
so on, before she materializes.
Ultimately, it's just a great way to introduce the cinematic
version of the best Supergirl, Genuine Kara Zor-El. Great
and necessary, because GL is pretty much toast without
something bright, shiny, new, and marketable for the
sequel. She's exactly what the sequel needs, and every
legitimate fanboy concern is addressed.
None of you is likely to have anything left at this point,
in terms of any serious nitpicks beyond personal ones
that don't matter in the bigger picture. But feel free to
try. There can be nuances and close calls on how to do
it, for sure, but for example your perception of her not
being real was wrong all along.
The bigger problem is Warners and DC and the politics
and legal and financial and other issues there. If the
Superman movie doesn't want any part of it, nixes
even Powergirl, we end up with Black Canary for six
months of development hell before somebody sees
that's suicide and nobody cares. Then the whole thing
gets mothballed except for Batman movies.
David Johnston
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>Not the perfect new one, the
>best possible within the sector or whatever other
>limitations -- i.e. it's "correct" and preserves its "never
>makes a mistake" reputation.
So we'll never seen the rings choose a guy with the character flaws
that will lead to him becoming a tyrant, and eventually become a
renegade wielding his own yellow ring against his former corps, right?
Duggy
> Yeah, but his flight of fancy & series of connections was pretty
> interesting, if unlikely.
My milage varied.
So... would you watch it as GL2, a new GL1, a new series with no
existing heroes used or not at all?
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Why bless you Will, but you haven't even seen all the details
> yet and look how it's had everyone buzzing!
Not a good buzz.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> So we'll never seen the rings choose a guy with the character flaws
> that will lead to him becoming a tyrant, and eventually become a
> renegade wielding his own yellow ring against his former corps, right?
Or a guy who would go mad, destroy the enter GLC and then try to
destory and recreate the universe.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> She derives from Hal's subconscious via the Ring, which never
> makes a mistake.
Never.
===
= DUG.
===
KalElFan
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 16:05:34 -0400, "KalElFan"
> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Not the perfect new one, the
>> best possible within the sector or whatever other
>> limitations -- i.e. it's "correct" and preserves its "never
>> makes a mistake" reputation.
>
> So we'll never [see] the rings choose a guy with the character
> flaws that will lead to him becoming a tyrant, and eventually
> become a renegade wielding his own yellow ring against his
> former corps, right?
For those (executroids or others :-)) who may not be up to
speed, we're talking about Hal in the comics, and hopefully
Sinestro and never Hal in the movies. In the comics they
tried to "correct" their mistake after the fact by explaining
that Hal had been possessed. They need to do the same
with Sinestro. If this GL that you mention turns evil that
way, then the doctrine that the Ring can't make a mistake
is preserved. It's simply that ANY GL (who might otherwise
have been chosen in that particular sector at least) would
have succumbed.
In fact I'd advocate Sinestro puts up the best possible fight
before he succumbs. It's an extension of the Parallax threat
that basically targets him, and then a Sinestro Corps is
built, in order to target Hal and his sector. This would
happen very early in the 2013 sequel.
If they don't do it that way, then I agree with you that the
doctrine is refuted or at least has its first exception.
I'm just going to address this from your other rec.arts.tv
post at the same time:
[KalElFan wrote]:
>> A real Kryptonian, with real memories, and I'll
>> add a singular not a composite character
>
> How would Hal Jordan's subconscious contain real
> Kryptonian memories?
I said she derives from his subconscious, but the context
has been everything else I was describing as well -- via
the Ring and so on. I don't think "deriving" in the biggest
picture sense requires some bit-for-bit copying from his
subconscious. You simply jumped to conclusions and
now that I've described what it really is I guess you're
excusing yourself.
At the time I didn't want to lock it in to any specific race,
not even Kryptonian, because it doesn't depend on that.
It'd be idiotic in my view if we couldn't make her that, but
Warners politics and legal and so on might conceivably
have promised Nolan & Co. there shall be no Kryptonians.
Duggy
> Phipps would be right, and so wouldDuggy, about the
> title if it were only what you're hell-bent on perceiving
> it as.
The world is full of producers, writers and directors who blame the
rest of the world for not getting what there film was supposed to be
about and how much better their film would have done if people would
have looked past A or not gone in expecting B, etc.
Happens all the time.
===
= DUG.
===
David Johnston
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>"David Johnston" wrote in message
>news:341717phm252f76qp...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 16:05:34 -0400, "KalElFan"
>> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Not the perfect new one, the
>>> best possible within the sector or whatever other
>>> limitations -- i.e. it's "correct" and preserves its "never
>>> makes a mistake" reputation.
>>
>> So we'll never [see] the rings choose a guy with the character
>> flaws that will lead to him becoming a tyrant, and eventually
>> become a renegade wielding his own yellow ring against his
>> former corps, right?
>
>For those (executroids or others :-)) who may not be up to
>speed, we're talking about Hal in the comics, and hopefully
>Sinestro and never Hal in the movies. In the comics they
>tried to "correct" their mistake after the fact by explaining
>that Hal had been possessed. They need to do the same
>with Sinestro. If this GL that you mention turns evil that
>way, then the doctrine that the Ring can't make a mistake
>is preserved.
I have never heard that the Ring is infallible before.
Duggy
> I have never heard that the Ring is infallible before.
I've never heard of a subconscious that was infallible before.
===
= DUG.
===
KalElFan
You haven't seen the movie then?
It's actually of central importance to the movie, and I think to
the Hal Jordan character as well. If the ring were to just choose
a random or first "passing grade" individual, such that Earth's
GL is now some average Joe even among humans, it becomes
more the joke story starring Jack Black. The punch line might
be to see how hilariously inadequate some of the other 3,600
among the Corps are.
These need to be special people, Jedi-type people where will,
and if not fearlessness then the ability to overcome it, puts
them right at the top. In Hal's case, he happens to be first or
second among even the 3,600 in terms of his inherent will and
ability to overcome fear. Right at the start he has a learning
curve so that might not be obvious, but by the end of this
first movie it is.
"The writers say so..." in this case via that line from Tomar-Re
to Hal: "The Ring never makes a mistake... it saw something in
you."
"The Ring is infallible" again has to be explained in context.
It's only in choosing/identifying the best possible candidate.
It also isn't "just" a Ring. It's a premise of the story that the
source of its power and design and so on are Oan, and the
Guardians and Oa harbor enormous advanced knowledge
and technology.
In the exceptional circumstances in this proposed sequel,
where the Ring identifies Kara Zor-El, there'd be a great
opportunity to depict that interfacing as the choice was
made. A 3-minute sequence including accessing Oa for
the necessary approval and use of its technology, then
the very quick Ring decision process, seeing it scan time
and space while it highlights elements of its decisions.
Then seeing Krypton's explosion in reverse and other
details. It accesses Kal-El's family tree, no siblings, looks
for cousins, screens Kara Zor-El against certain preferred
or necessary criteria (20-29, single, heterosexual... :-)).
Then perhaps it's depicted that she gets transported
out before getting killed. Her agreement to the selection
scene might start, but then cut to the villain threat
developing before returning to Kara for another minute
or two including fast-forwarding through her training
and finally materializing. There'd be a line in there to
explain how all this is condensed time-wise, but from
her point of view takes a couple of years.
The whole origin story sequence could hopefully be kept
to low seven figures at least, and maybe 5 minutes screen
time. Whatever bells and whistles are worth it because
it's the introduction of an important new character. A
Smallville-size budget of maybe $10 million for a double-
episode that's effects heavy can't be done in the movies.
But it ought to be do-able for something no more than
halfway between that and $200 million. So if it's $105
million I think $5 million of that would be well spent on
the Supergirl origin sequence. Smallville had some good
effects, not always theatrical quality but I don't think a
movie needs to be spending 10 times more or getting
10 times better.
KalElFan
news:dd81daf3-d27e-4061...@h25g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> The world is full of producers, writers and directors who blame
> the rest of the world for not getting what there film was...
The world is full of lots of things, including overly negative
and stubborn and even delusional individuals who think
their own unsupported opinions and misconceptions are
representative of a significant percentage of people.
Yesterday, there were some good questions posted, as well
as some good observations. I think a lot of the negativity
had been based on assuming the worst conceptually and
in terms of the details or semantics. I think it was already
unwarranted based on what I'd posted and filling in the
blanks should have been easy. But the "Is she real?" and
related issues (soul, memories, etc.) needed to be spelled
out I guess. It is important to understand that she's very
real within the story.
Making her THE Supergirl -- Kara Zor-El -- and introducing
her this way makes her all the more real in that context.
She's a character established in the late 50s and is iconic.
That was really the biggest surprise I don't think any of
you saw coming, because I did kinda cheat rolling her out
as a GL construct, girl of Hal's dreams. But that's just the
way she's introduced to the DC cinematic mythos in this
incarnation. There's nothing about her that's fake or
"made for Hal". She just's the one the Ring *Chooses*
for the looming battle and, perhaps, for Hal.
I say perhaps because again remember that permanence
is an issue. And if it's not clear, over the course of the
movie one objective of the writing is to have Hal increasingly
fall for her (and vice versa). But he doesn't know if she'll
die, in fact he thinks she will. Then the homage to that
Crisis cover when she does die. And there'll be several
other things in there I won't post, such that the audience
will *feel* this relationship and the movie ends in an
upbeat way.
I'd also make the Sinestro character sympathetic to the
extent he's pushed to the dark side. I think that makes
villains much more interesting, when they aren't black
and white. Lex Luthor can be that, Darth Vader was in
a sense, and I think Sinestro can be that too. I think he
really was an anchor of the first movie in a way. He
was played straight-ahead, serious, "real" in the whole
context of Oa, which was a place that could otherwise
very easily have spun too deep into fantasy/unreality.
We have to buy into it.
The effects and the voice work on the Guardians was
also very good in achieving that.
So maybe all that is sinking in a bit more for those who've
been reading and participating in the thread. I'm loving
the crickets sound, and/or the "Oh!" undertone, and/or
the one-liners, and/or Johnston crying foul because it's
not what his jump to conclusions can deal with. There
seems to be grudging or resentment over the Ring not
making a mistake when it chooses. It's like the negativity
is wanting to somehow bubble up with "Kara can Never
be right for Hal!"
Geez, what's with these fanboys who get so wrapped up
in the shipper, romo side of these movies? LOL.
Sorry, in this incarnation, the dialogue and circumstances
and the Ring would all say you're wrong.
Isn't there some rule in your head that even Genuine Kara
Zor-El can't be introduced this way cinematically because...
well... I'm sure you could come up with something, right?
It isn't personal, Duggy, but we're a microcosm here of
all that can be wrong with fandom. And all that can scare
the crap out of Warner Bros., because frankly they're a
bunch of wusses when it comes to this. They need to
have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to it. So part
of my goal here, in addition to putting it out there to
see what you all got, is to ultimately slam it down and
reveal it as moronic and make fun of it.
Not real, eh Johnston? What part don't you get now?
Romcom? Who the frack said it was a romcom? This
is Supergirl, and along with Wonder Woman that
makes two more great female heroes than Marvel
has, eh? These women kick ass. Romcom? WTF?
Duggy
> "Duggy" wrote in message
>
> news:dd81daf3-d27e-4061...@h25g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The world is full of producers, writers and directors who blame
> > the rest of the world for not getting what there film was...
>
> The world is full of lots of things, including overly negative
> and stubborn and even delusional individuals who think
> their own unsupported opinions and misconceptions are
> representative of a significant percentage of people.
Like yourself.
Just so you know... you posts are incredibly boring.
I usually give up after the second paragraph because they're nothing
but self-agrandising diatribes that have no point or substance.
If there is anything that you want me to reply to please put it in the
first paragraph, otherwise:
Don't care.
===
= DUG.
===
KalElFan
wrote in message news:iv38pj$e94$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Seamus? Who's that?
Given the aioe.org, quite possibly you, but I digress. :-) For any
genuine newbies, he's a poster referred to as Seamus by some,
but has typically used ever-shifting handles and aioe.org is one
of his favorite news service providers. Seamus can and does
post on-topic, makes some good observations, seems to be
a techie, and has an interest in and fairly good knowledge of
the SF genre. But sometimes, even mid-thread, he can morph
into his UPA (Usenet Performance Artist) shtick.
The shtick has at times been funny, but like anything else can
get old. He's done the "Where the Hell is..." shtick, and what
I'll call the Double I shtick, as in Increasingly Indignant. It's
a running flame shtick that starts up and goes back and forth,
in some cases both sides being a sock puppet of his. Part of
the shtick is also to deny his identity, the classic retort being
something like "Who is Seamus, Kal? [or whoever the poster
is he's responding to]. There is no poster here by that name."
And of course there isn't, and nobody can prove it's the same
poster. Seamus could be One, or Seamus could be Many as
I've said. It drives a few posters around here nuts, but it's
quite the good shtick IMO. Like any act, and especially since
it's free, we can't expect new material every month or even
every year. Henny Youngman's "Take my wife... please!" or
Rodney Dangerfield's "I tell ya I get no respect..." are iconic.
Maybe "Who is Seamus" will be one day too.
Or, as you adapted it. "Seamus? Who's that?" :-)
Now back to the main topic...
[KalElFan wrote]:
>> "Because the writers say so..." is true but never good enough,
>
> ... Sometimes it has to be because that's all the answer you'll
> get about some things.
Agreed, but its effectiveness depends on what it relates to and
here we're talking about the nature and origin story of a very
important character. I gave the example where Tomar-Re says
"She's as real as you are, Hal". That might have to do if she's
just a gob of goo (rhyme intended!). But the "Why is she real?"
question becomes "Why should I care?" and the like, if she has
no memories, arguably no soul and so on. So it was never an
option for me that she be anything other than a real person,
and shown to be that.
Kryptonian was the best choice and preferably Kara. The Ring
wouldn't be making her from scratch, it'd be finding the most
suitable candidate for a primary (battle with Sinestro) and a
secondary (compatible with Hal) purpose.
A separate post follows explaining how I'm handling the
kryptonite weakness being removed. Pretty soon you'll all be
able to put the whole thing together. You won't have to see
the movie, right?
I've considered that, but I have a Plan. :-) Doesn't mean it's
going to work, but I have one. Also think Harry Potter and
the books. The movie series has grossed billions, but much
of the core base already knows what happens before they
see the movie. It's a massively spoiled movie long before
it even gets made. Most of you in this thread, if this GL2
movie were made, probably couldn't resist going, and
recalling or comparing it to Google searches of "spoilers"
here. You don't even have to go to a bookstore. It'll be
great PR and buzz and audience-building in its own right.
Even any incorrect jumping to conclusions that the movie
is a romcom, if any of that's bold enough to put itself out
there after all that's been disclosed already. If it gets any
traction, then the extensive refutation of it also does.
Of course if it does get greenlighted and you or anyone
out there, websites or whatnot, want to share your inside
scoops, you should be using SPOILER warnings by then. :-)
KalElFan
wrote in message news:iv38pj$e94$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
{KalElFan wrote]:
>> She's enhanced, but get your minds out of the gutter
>> I'm referring to the removal of her weakness to
>> kryptonite.
>
> That's a bad idea, as then she'll just be unstoppably
> powerful and the bad guys no real threat.
That's definitely an issue, but it's been addressed and I'll
spill more beans. The Sinestro guys will still be a threat
because they can, and will, conjure up Kryptonian-forged
countermeasures and weapons. See, if she's vulnerable
to kryptonite it's too easy to defeat her in this dynamic.
So the kryptonite weakness has to go. She has a chance
against the countermeasures and weapons, because for
example she can use super-speed to avoid them and
also counterattack against them.
My plan was/is to use the genetic alteration -- i.e., her
immunity to kryptonite -- as a reason why she would
eventually expire anyway. Or that her "Matrix could
not be sustained" as the light technobabble will put it,
because I want to pay homage to the Matrix (or gob of
goo as I call her) Supergirl incarnation in the comics. I
gather they've thankfully abandoned that version, but
one of my selling points here, even in another meaning
of that "Supergirl of My Dreams" in the title, is that this
is really the Ultimate Respect-For-DC's-Heritage Supergirl
Incarnation.
That first story where Jimmy Olsen conjured her up magic
lamp style is particularly important. As David, I think it
was, pointed out, the GL's Ring antecedent is arguably
the genie's lamp, which of course goes back much farther
than the 1958 (Superman #123) Jimmy Olsen conjuring.
With Jimmy it wasn't a lamp but a totem, but very same
concept just completely random and unreleated to any
existing part of the mythos.
What a great way to adapt that if DC's own Green Lantern
Ring is the mechanism in this cinematic incarnation and
hopefully emerging series of movies. We introduce the
very best version of the character, but it has influences
going back to the very first Super-Girl story. Some will
cite a Superwoman story where it was Lois Lane, and a
Super-Girl story who was not super at all, just an anthlete
Superboy tricked people into thinking was capable of
some superstunts. But the 1958 story was a genuine,
intentional "pilot story" in a way, for the "real" cousin
Kara version they started up soon afterward because the
idea was well-received in the first Superman 123 story
with Jimmy.
Back to this GL2 story, Supergirl doesn't expire due to her
Matrix breaking down. She'll die before that in the battle
and it'd be one of the kryptonian-forged weapons that
gets her. Not before she takes out the end-of-battle
threat that would otherwise have won it for the Sinestro
Corps though. In disposing of that she has to let her
guard down enough with the evasive maneuvers that
she's mortally woulded. Another great opportunity, by
design, to pay homage to that iconic Crisis cover with
the Death of Supergirl.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crisis7.jpg
But here I propose GL Hal Jordan because the relationship
will have been well established, and he and the audience
would *feel* it rather than the writers just saying so. :-)
When she's reconstituted at the end (including current
memories as well), there's then the possibility of allowing
the kryptonite weakness back in. It would be written as
necessary for her to be permanent, because that's her
nature as a Kryptonian. I lean towards that. But I could
make an argument for distinguishing her from Superman
by giving her the immunity permanently. She's otherwise
smaller and less powerful than him. He and/or other DC
heroes could combine to deal with her if she ever turned
evil or whatnot. Some villains may also be more powerful
(like the Sinestro Corps that killed her), and there's the
weakness to "magic" or advanced tech.
But again I lean towards restoring the weakness and that
being necessary within the story. The second, permanent
reconstituting also goes through the "unique exception"
filter in the exposition of that decision, including a few
lines of dialogue. The Guardians and Corps could not
and would not be able to do it for anyone else again.
Unless future writers decide to say so of course. :-)
Quadibloc
> When she's reconstituted at the end (including current
> memories as well), there's then the possibility of allowing
> the kryptonite weakness back in. It would be written as
> necessary for her to be permanent, because that's her
> nature as a Kryptonian. I lean towards that. But I could
> make an argument for distinguishing her from Superman
> by giving her the immunity permanently. She's otherwise
> smaller and less powerful than him. He and/or other DC
> heroes could combine to deal with her if she ever turned
> evil or whatnot. Some villains may also be more powerful
> (like the Sinestro Corps that killed her), and there's the
> weakness to "magic" or advanced tech.
The trouble with making her permanently immune to Kryptonite is that
basically it would be something that new readers of her book wouldn't
be aware of. Crassly commercial considerations like that do tend to
trump interesting ways to develop the character.
I am glad that the real Supergirl is back - or perhaps I'd better say
*a* real Supergirl. Because the current Superman isn't even the Byrne
Superman, let alone the pre-Crisis Superman of Earth-1.
John Savard
Ken Wesson
> On Jul 5, 2:30 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> That sounds sick. So she'll be a green blow up doll?
>
> It does sound a little sick. A little "Weird Science" too.
There's nothing at all sick about lusting after either Laura Vandervoort
or Kelly LeBrock, nor any sufficiently realistic, sentient facsimile of a
human woman that looks a lot like either.
Quadibloc
wrote:
> But if you want a Supergirl who is a construct, you're better off going
> with the fusion of a demon controlled druggie suicide and a protoplamic
> blob from a pocket univers
If one wants a superheroine who is an angel, though, why not make a
movie using rights from a company that's actually struggling (well,
with _some_ of its product lines) instead of the highly successful DC
comics?
Two brothers, able to travel between parallel realities... the good
one designs an army of angels...
including the greatest of them all...
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/activity/170
(well, at least before Baneslayer came along).
However, the _original_ Supergirl, a real human (well, Kryptonian)
girl who liked horses and went to high school and so on would be a
more interesting character than any synthetic life form.
John Savard
KalElFan
news:c8c2896a-c72d-461e...@ct4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 4, 4:22 pm, William George Ferguson <wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>> But if you want a Supergirl who is a construct, you're better off
>> going with the fusion of a demon controlled druggie suicide and
>> a [protoplasmic] blob from a pocket [universe].
>
> ... the _original_ Supergirl, a real human (well, Kryptonian) girl
> who liked horses and went to high school and so on would be
> a more interesting character than any synthetic life form.
Even among the core modern comic market I think that's true,
and it's much more true for the the wider cinematic market. I
think Peter David did the best he could with that Matrix Supergirl
premise and series, but I don't think they could ever successfully
showcase that Supergirl in a live-action DC series of movies.
Also just a clarification or adjustment to your characterization
of what the "original" and "more interesting" Supergirl was, at
least what I think work's best. We already have Superman who
was essentially raised on Earth from birth. Supergirl works much
better as having arrived later, as a teenager or young adult I
think. It distinguishes her from Superman, it provides a link
back to Krypton's memory (better that than a chunk of it IMO),
and it makes her a bit more like a fish out of water when she
initially arrives on Earth. She discovers Earth for the first time
time later in her life, but while she's still quite young and at a
good age for what's usually the main target market to relate
to as well.
That's what the first 1959 Supergirl, cousin Kara, was. When
you say "...who liked horses and went to high school..." that
past tense might be misinterpreted as meaning a full child
background on Earth, from infancy, which she did not have.
She could have been in school and rode horses on Krypton
perhaps, and as a teenager in those comics carried those
experiences forward to her new home Earth.
On the "synthetic" part, I just want to clarify one thing that
came up in a response to the two "blow up doll" posts that
Duggy and Phipps had made. Those were before I spilled
the beans on my proposal actually being cousin Kara Zor-El,
but with the adapted origin and backstory and being in her
20s. I'm not sure, but that and yours and maybe one or
two other posts in the thread may still reflect some smidgen
of a doubt that this new version would still be a "fake" or
synthetic version of Real Cousin Kara.
No, No, not at all. :-) It may not have been clear when I
used "transported" in the list of optional words that were
all good. But she is *literally* THE Kara Zor-El who lived on
Krypton, and died there in the explosion in my origin story.
She's the proposed version of that Best Supergirl Version,
for this (hopefully) upcoming new series of DC movies. I
think Green Lantern is a great cosmic setup for that series,
and propose the series version of Kara be introduced in
the sequel as I've described.
So she's in her 20s, on Krypton, when the power of Oa and
the Guardians, via Hal's Ring, basically select, seek out and
then transport her through time and space just before the
moment of her death. Not to be Hal's synthetic blow-up
doll, which by definition she is nothing like. Romantic
compatibility is a secondary consideration, but the primary
reason is the looming battle with Sinestro and the Sinestro
Corps. She gets the briefing on what's happening, she then
agrees, including to the genetic alteration that removes the
kryptonite weakness and the risks of that. (The Guardians,
The Ring et al already knew she'd agree, eh? She's House
of El. They'd never turn it down. :-))
Then the Fortress Training program in real time from her
point of view, though she's got superspeed now. She then
materializes ready to go. She *IS* 100% the same young
woman who lived on Krypton. One could get into pointless
philosophical discussions about whether everyone who
went through the transporter on Star Trek was "real," and
Usenet being what it is maybe we will again now. :-) But
viewers have long since bought into the concept, and they
will here too. There's lots of good creative fodder that
will flow from her nature as that *real* person, with real
memories and so on. It's far far better than a gob of goo
version, when it comes to the wider market.