Mark Miller Attached To Next Superman Movie
Len-L
Posting on his blog, Miller had this to say about his involvement in
the next instalment of the Man Of Steel’s big screen adventures:
"In the interests of clarity (because I'm sure this will be picked up
somewhere) a very well known American action director heard about my
love of Superman, approached my and asked me to team up with he and
his producer to make a pitch for this. We've been talking for several
weeks now and, if this is going to happen, we'll know by Christmas. He
has huge pull at WB so fingers crossed. But this is nothing more than
a huge US name pulling me into his fold and making me part of a
package."
The story has indeed been picked up across the net, thanks to an
interview with The Daily Record, where Miller revealed that "I've been
planning this my entire life. I've got my director and producer set
up, and it'll be 2011. This is how far ahead you have to think."
Miller went on to say:
"Since I was a kid I've always wanted to reinvent Superman for the
21st century." Last year, he explained that "I have literally hundreds
of pages of notes and sketches just waiting for this opportunity. This
would be my dream gig and, as a fan, I know exactly what this project
needs to work. This has to be Superman for the 21st Century, keeping
everything we adore, but starting from scratch and making the kids
love it as much as the 30-somethings."
Marty
So, Millar is saying they're going to reboot Superman?
I'm not sure this will ever happen. Gawd I'm getting tired of Millar
and his empty hype.
Wanted (the film) was pure drivel. Loom of doom indeed.
Super-Menace
<1b6e2a33-bb4f-414b...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Marty <killha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
As of now, Bryan Singer is doing the next film. I think that even he
recognizes the deal is very shaky. The success of Iron Man put the lie
to the excuse that superhero movies just aren't doing well this cycle.
Warner wants a Superman movie that pulls like Iron Man and, presumably,
The Dark Knight.
That doesn't mean Millar's going to get Superman, either. I'll bet
Warner approaches Jon Favreau, because that's the way they think.
Eminence
<fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
>Warner wants a Superman movie that pulls like Iron Man and, presumably,
>The Dark Knight.
Then they'd better wake up and go back to the drawing board. Best
possible approach? Ignore ALL previous incarnations.
Personally, I'd love to see Peter Jackson's version of Superman circa
1938.
Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned
Super-Menace
<grey.e...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:16:50 -0400, Super-Menace
> <fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Warner wants a Superman movie that pulls like Iron Man and, presumably,
> >The Dark Knight.
>
> Then they'd better wake up and go back to the drawing board. Best
> possible approach? Ignore ALL previous incarnations.
>
> Personally, I'd love to see Peter Jackson's version of Superman circa
> 1938.
I once said they ought to do it as a period piece. Nazis. The
Ultra-Humanite. Cool, cool stuff. But did they listen? Nah!
Absent that, I agree they have to start fresh. Tear it up and start
over. I liked Superman Returns, and there are bits of it that I like
very much, but there are gigantic story problems that Bryan Singer and
his people just didn't care to solve. One is Superman's years-long
absence, which came off as self-indulgent and out of character. The
other is the kid, who'll be like twelve or thirteen by the time they
get the next one made and out, unless they recast the part and pretend
that no time has gone by.
grinningdemon
I thought Superman Returns was pretty awful...it kind of half-assed
continued from the Chris Reeves films but not really...aside from
being kind of boring, Superman seemed kind of cold and
disinterested...and I really didn't like what they did with the
kid...making it so Lois apparently didn't even know Superman was the
father (I didn't like all the memory-wiping in the original films
either)...or that was my impression at least...what, did she think it
was immaculate conception? Or did she run and jump that other guy the
second Superman vanished? Either way, it doesn't make Lois look all
that great.
I absolutely agree they need to start the franchise over like they did
Batman...making it a period piece set in the 30s actually sounds like
a cool idea but it makes tying the characters together for a JLA movie
difficult unless they do competing versions (and they tend to avoid
that)...personally, I would like to see a version that focused a
little more on the Clark Kent side rather than the alien side...I
thought Byrne got it right when he switched to emphasis and made Clark
the true identity rather than just an alias to hide behind.
YKW (ad hoc)
news:ok1574t1tc5u614l2...@4ax.com:
Easy fix: Supes is acknowleged as immortal -- or, at least,
extraordinarily long-lived -- right away in the JL flick. Flying guy in a
cape back in 1938? Who banged Nazi skulls in 1945? Who chased commies out
of the country in 1951? Who stood with King in 1965? Same guy. Been the
gold standard for what seems forever. Everyone's in awe of him --
everyone but this angry, upstart punk Batman. Hijinks ensue.
> ...personally, I would like to see a version that focused a
> little more on the Clark Kent side rather than the alien side...I
> thought Byrne got it right when he switched to emphasis and made Clark
> the true identity rather than just an alias to hide behind.
>
Yeah, but it made the ending of KILL BILL VOL. 2 incomprehensible to
anyone who'd read a comic in the previous twenty years. Small price.
--
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
|| E-mail: ykw2006 ||"The mystery of government is not how Washington||
|| -at-gmail-dot-com ||works but how to make it stop." -- P.J. O'Rourke||
|| ----------- || ------------------------------------ ||
||Replace "-at-" with|| Keeping Usenet Trouble-Free ||
|| "@" to respond. || Since 1998 ||
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
"DC, currently, is run from the top down in a way that makes Jim
Shooter�s aegis at Marvel look like a hippie commune."
- Chuck Dixon, COMICS SHOULD BE GOOD, 14 June 2008.
<http://tinyurl.com/5rxsvp/#comment-665962>
Super-Menace
<grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
I think Lois has always known who Jason's father was. Something that
bothered me a lot about the film was hearing Singer say, months after
SR had come out, that he had decided to ignore the fact that Lois had
ever known that Clark was Superman. This, he said, explained how Lois
could remember to tell Superman in the hospital that Jason was their
son. To me, this was backfilling of the lowest order, worthy of Mort
Weisinger in his prime. You can't tell an audience that your film
largely carries on from Superman II, and then say oh, wait, we decided
to ignore all the mindwipe stuff and not tell you.
You're also reminding me that I forgot to mention the biggest story
problem they have: Richard White. He's a completely decent guy who's
been caught in the middle of the Superman/Lois thing. No matter what
happens to him -- he leaves, he gets killed, he finds love with a
suddenly arrived Chloe Sullivan, whatever -- the audience is not going
to be happy. I'm glad that Singer avoided the cliche of making Lois'
boyfriend an asshole, though.
It'd surprise me a lot if Richard didn't know from the git-go who
Jason's father really was. He's not stupid.
> I absolutely agree they need to start the franchise over like they did
> Batman...making it a period piece set in the 30s actually sounds like
> a cool idea but it makes tying the characters together for a JLA movie
> difficult unless they do competing versions (and they tend to avoid
> that)...personally, I would like to see a version that focused a
> little more on the Clark Kent side rather than the alien side...I
> thought Byrne got it right when he switched to emphasis and made Clark
> the true identity rather than just an alias to hide behind.
As good an idea as it is, they'd never do Superman as a period piece.
Maybe a time-travel story?
M.O.R
> In article
> <1b6e2a33-bb4f-414b-8e20-d42224cb2...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
This story seems a little empty, no offence to Millar.
grinningdemon
<fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
It was a mess...you couldn't really tell what they carried on from the
older films and what they were totally ignoring...they should have
just done their own thing...it's been a long time since Chris Reeves
was Superman and those films should stand alone.
>
>You're also reminding me that I forgot to mention the biggest story
>problem they have: Richard White. He's a completely decent guy who's
>been caught in the middle of the Superman/Lois thing. No matter what
>happens to him -- he leaves, he gets killed, he finds love with a
>suddenly arrived Chloe Sullivan, whatever -- the audience is not going
>to be happy. I'm glad that Singer avoided the cliche of making Lois'
>boyfriend an asshole, though.
I really just can't see Lois in a traditional domestic situation like
that...it just doesn't really suit her character...I could believe her
as a single mom...although it would have made it immediately obvious
who the father was...and inserting James Marsden into Superman Returns
largely kept him out X-Men 3 and helped make that the spectacular
piece of crap we all know and loathe.
>
>It'd surprise me a lot if Richard didn't know from the git-go who
>Jason's father really was. He's not stupid.
>
>
>> I absolutely agree they need to start the franchise over like they did
>> Batman...making it a period piece set in the 30s actually sounds like
>> a cool idea but it makes tying the characters together for a JLA movie
>> difficult unless they do competing versions (and they tend to avoid
>> that)...personally, I would like to see a version that focused a
>> little more on the Clark Kent side rather than the alien side...I
>> thought Byrne got it right when he switched to emphasis and made Clark
>> the true identity rather than just an alias to hide behind.
>
>As good an idea as it is, they'd never do Superman as a period piece.
>Maybe a time-travel story?
They're doing Captain America as a period piece (and rightly so, in my
opinion)...if it works out then it might give the Superman people some
ideas.
Duggy
This is the line that I don't like:
> "Since I was a kid I've always wanted to reinvent Superman for the
> 21st century."
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> > Personally, I'd love to see Peter Jackson's version of Superman circa
> > 1938.
> I once said they ought to do it as a period piece. Nazis. The
> Ultra-Humanite. Cool, cool stuff. But did they listen? Nah!
To most people (an thus most successfully) this would work better as a
Captain Marvel story.
> Absent that, I agree they have to start fresh. Tear it up and start
> over. I liked Superman Returns, and there are bits of it that I like
> very much, but there are gigantic story problems that Bryan Singer and
> his people just didn't care to solve. One is Superman's years-long
> absence, which came off as self-indulgent and out of character.
Yes.
> The other is the kid, who'll be like twelve or thirteen by the time they
> get the next one made and out, unless they recast the part and pretend
> that no time has gone by.
Recasting happens. That problem is why they cast the leads so young,
though.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> I thought Superman Returns was pretty awful...it kind of half-assed
> continued from the Chris Reeves films but not really...
That was a real problem. They need to clear that up as much as
possible in the next film.
It's highly expositionary, but possible.
> aside from being kind of boring,
The sequel doesn't have to be.
> Superman seemed kind of cold and disinterested...
The question is how much of that was script, how much was direction
and how much was the actor?
> and I really didn't like what they did with the kid...
Well, the kid full stop,
> making it so Lois apparently didn't even know Superman was the
> father (I didn't like all the memory-wiping in the original films
> either)...or that was my impression at least...what, did she think it
> was immaculate conception? Or did she run and jump that other guy the
> second Superman vanished? Either way, it doesn't make Lois look all
> that great.
It doesn't. Either way the script doesn't look that great and the
fact that we have no idea which is it is another flaw in the film.
> I absolutely agree they need to start the franchise over like they did
> Batman...
At the same time, I can understand them not wanting to restart.
Superhero series seem to get 4 films tops, and you can't have
character growth in that. So, yeah, I get why they made this Superman
3. However the forced character growth of the child was a misstep.
> making it a period piece set in the 30s actually sounds like
> a cool idea but it makes tying the characters together for a JLA movie
> difficult unless they do competing versions (and they tend to avoid
> that)...
No, they don't. DC is going for competing versions. The JLA movie
featured competing versions, they have a TV Superman in Smallville and
have had competing TV and cartoons. They don't want a movie-universe.
Which isn't a completely stupid idea. Imagine tying Superman Returns
to Batman Begins means that they are tied to a bad Superman film in
the rest of that universe.
> personally, I would like to see a version that focused a
> little more on the Clark Kent side rather than the alien side...I
> thought Byrne got it right when he switched to emphasis and made Clark
> the true identity rather than just an alias to hide behind.
Works better on TV. Lois & Clark and Smallville covered that one
pretty well.
===
= DUG.
===
Joe Sewell
Len-L <l...@davlin.net> wrote:
> Miller went on to say:
>
> "Since I was a kid I've always wanted to reinvent Superman for the
> 21st century." Last year, he explained that "I have literally hundreds
> of pages of notes and sketches just waiting for this opportunity. This
> would be my dream gig and, as a fan, I know exactly what this project
> needs to work. This has to be Superman for the 21st Century, keeping
> everything we adore, but starting from scratch and making the kids
> love it as much as the 30-somethings."
DANGER, WILL ROBINSON! DANGER!
Joe Sewell
Super-Menace <fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
With all due respect to the idea, ditch the kid! Period!!!
Big Blue Boy Scouts don't knock up their girlfriends.
Joe Sewell
grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> I absolutely agree they need to start the franchise over like they did
> >> Batman...making it a period piece set in the 30s actually sounds like
> >> a cool idea but it makes tying the characters together for a JLA movie
> >> difficult unless they do competing versions (and they tend to avoid
> >> that)...personally, I would like to see a version that focused a
> >> little more on the Clark Kent side rather than the alien side...I
> >> thought Byrne got it right when he switched to emphasis and made Clark
> >> the true identity rather than just an alias to hide behind.
> >
> >As good an idea as it is, they'd never do Superman as a period piece.
> >Maybe a time-travel story?
>
> They're doing Captain America as a period piece (and rightly so, in my
> opinion)...if it works out then it might give the Superman people some
> ideas.
>
The problem is that Superman isn't a WWII hero in the eyes of most
people. Part of Cap's whole backstory is that he's a WWII hero thrown
into the future. You can play around with how that's done (wormhole,
time warp, or even something about ice ;) ), but it's a detail of his
history that survives.
Superman doesn't have it, especially not today's Superman. Yes, the
character was in WWII, but nobody really remembers that. Even the
Superman of the comics doesn't remember that. He has to be attached to
"today," relatively speaking, much like Spider-Man, Hulk, Iron Man, and
the like are.
YKW (ad hoc)
news:ultrajoe-A7D224...@isp5.newshosting.com:
> In article <3ni574pmuoml13lo3...@4ax.com>,
> grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> >> I absolutely agree they need to start the franchise over like they
>> >> did Batman...making it a period piece set in the 30s actually
>> >> sounds like a cool idea but it makes tying the characters together
>> >> for a JLA movie difficult unless they do competing versions (and
>> >> they tend to avoid that)...personally, I would like to see a
>> >> version that focused a little more on the Clark Kent side rather
>> >> than the alien side...I thought Byrne got it right when he
>> >> switched to emphasis and made Clark the true identity rather than
>> >> just an alias to hide behind.
>> >
>> >As good an idea as it is, they'd never do Superman as a period
>> >piece. Maybe a time-travel story?
>>
>> They're doing Captain America as a period piece (and rightly so, in
>> my opinion)...if it works out then it might give the Superman people
>> some ideas.
>>
>
> The problem is that Superman isn't a WWII hero in the eyes of most
> people. Part of Cap's whole backstory is that he's a WWII hero thrown
> into the future. You can play around with how that's done (wormhole,
> time warp, or even something about ice ;) ), but it's a detail of his
> history that survives.
That was only true of 1970s Cap. Every subsequent version has had him
firmly rooted in whatever "present" happened to be... present.
> Superman doesn't have it, especially not today's Superman. Yes, the
> character was in WWII, but nobody really remembers that. Even the
> Superman of the comics doesn't remember that. He has to be attached to
> "today," relatively speaking, much like Spider-Man, Hulk, Iron Man,
> and the like are.
>
That got us SUPERMAN RETURNS. Fresh, hip, with-it, ripped from today's
headlines, blah, blah, bleah. Didn't work out so well, either creatively
or (relatively speaking) commercially. Why =not= try something different,
but still vitally tied to what (your post notwithstanding) is in fact an
aspect of the character concept -- one that was just revisited within the
past few years, in fact, and may well be again relatively soon?
It's not all that different from making a CAPTAIN AMERICA flick set
during the war -- even though nearly all Cap stories read by still-living
non-pensioners have been set in a non-WW2 context. (Yes, notable
exceptions -- but the same applies to Supes, as well.)
Tom
So, uh, WB is now ok with Millar working for Marvel?
Last year, Millar offered to write the script to the next Superman
movie for free. WB showed some interest, but ultimately said no thanks
because of Millar's Marvel Comics work.
I'll believe this latest story when I see Millar's name in the opening
credits.
Tom
M.O.R
But Superman's timeless.
There were a number of scripts thrown about in the nineties, one
really great one involved Metallo. Then they got an idiot producer, a
former hairdresser (Gail Simone is a former Hairdresser also, but she
has an incredible ability to write, and is a true fan also) who had no
clue about the character. He didn't want the suit, he didn't want the
name Kal El used, he didn't want Superman to fly, he wanted Supes to
have a furry sidekick like Chewbacca "He needs a chewie", and he
wanted Superman to fight giant Spider creature, which he eventually
got in the awful Wild Wild West. The idea was brilliant, but he
wrecked it and the project got scrapped.
I think they should completely start over again. Ignore Returns,
maybe get Gail Simone to contribute on the script. She GETS the
characters, as well as the supporting cast. Only difficulty would be
trying to recast Superman, since it took so long to cast an actor for
the part, unless they decide to keep Routh.
grinningdemon
wrote:
I realize it would a radical interpretation but I still think it could
work...for me, setting the story in another time would make it all
seem more fantastic...and make it stand out a little more now that
blockbuster comic movies are a dime a dozen...and intentially setting
it as a stylized period piece (as Peter Jackson did with King Kong)
could help it hold up better down the line...I just watched the first
Superman movie again the other night and it all seemed rather
dated...and not in a good way.
grinningdemon
That wouldn't be as difficult if they'd stop insisting on a Chris
Reeves clone...Reeves was great and his version should be left to
stand on his own.
YKW (ad hoc)
news:gdc874hqc9r9j3ds5...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 19:50:01 -0700 (PDT), "M.O.R"
> <pred...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 8, 4:26 am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>>> On Jul 7, 1:02 pm, Len-L <l...@davlin.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is the line that I don't like:
>>>
>>> > "Since I was a kid I've always wanted to reinvent Superman for the
>>> > 21st century."
>>>
>>> ===
>>> = DUG.
>>> ===
>>
>>But Superman's timeless.
>>
>>There were a number of scripts thrown about in the nineties, one
>>really great one involved Metallo. Then they got an idiot producer, a
>>former hairdresser (Gail Simone is a former Hairdresser also, but she
>>has an incredible ability to write, and is a true fan also) who had no
>>clue about the character. He didn't want the suit, he didn't want the
>>name Kal El used, he didn't want Superman to fly, he wanted Supes to
>>have a furry sidekick like Chewbacca "He needs a chewie", and he
>>wanted Superman to fight giant Spider creature, which he eventually
>>got in the awful Wild Wild West. The idea was brilliant, but he
>>wrecked it and the project got scrapped.
Kevin? That you?
>>I think they should completely start over again. Ignore Returns,
>>maybe get Gail Simone to contribute on the script. She GETS the
>>characters, as well as the supporting cast. Only difficulty would be
>>trying to recast Superman, since it took so long to cast an actor for
>>the part, unless they decide to keep Routh.
>
> That wouldn't be as difficult if they'd stop insisting on a Chris
> Reeves clone...Reeves was great and his version should be left to
> stand on his own.
>
So to speak.
grinningdemon
Yes, but do you realize the ridiculous restictions they place on those
competing versions? Animated versions seem to largley get a pass but
Smallville, for instance, was not allowed to introduce Batman (because
of the movies) and they are not allowed to have Lois and Clark get
together (because of the movies)...hell, at one point there was even
talk of a Smallville-esque Batman show and it was killed because
Batman Begins was in development...and I will be highly surprised if a
JLA movie ever actually happens...development keeps getting
delayed...it if does ever get off the ground, it probably won't happen
until after the current film incarnations of Batman and Superman have
lapsed...incidentally, it will probably suck.
>
>> personally, I would like to see a version that focused a
>> little more on the Clark Kent side rather than the alien side...I
>> thought Byrne got it right when he switched to emphasis and made Clark
>> the true identity rather than just an alias to hide behind.
>
>Works better on TV. Lois & Clark and Smallville covered that one
>pretty well.
Why would it work better on TV? We've never seen in attempted in film
and, even though it has been done on TV (and generally well-received),
I still believe it is the superior interpretation...and, since we've
all ready seen them go the other route in film, why not give it a try?
grinningdemon
Duggy
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 03:54:43 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> >> little more on the Clark Kent side rather than the alien side...I
> >> thought Byrne got it right when he switched to emphasis and made Clark
> >> the true identity rather than just an alias to hide behind.
> >Works better on TV. Lois & Clark and Smallville covered that one
> >pretty well.
> Why would it work better on TV? We've never seen in attempted in film
> and, even though it has been done on TV (and generally well-received),
> I still believe it is the superior interpretation...and, since we've
> all ready seen them go the other route in film, why not give it a try?
Because films have less space for characterisation and focus more on
action (less Clark, more Superman) while television focuses on
characterisation and can't afford as much action (more Clark, less
Superman).
Not that it can't be done... but it works better on TV.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> There were a number of scripts thrown about in the nineties, one
> really great one involved Metallo. Then they got an idiot producer, a
> former hairdresser (Gail Simone is a former Hairdresser also, but she
> has an incredible ability to write, and is a true fan also) who had no
> clue about the character. He didn't want the suit, he didn't want the
> name Kal El used, he didn't want Superman to fly, he wanted Supes to
> have a furry sidekick like Chewbacca "He needs a chewie", and he
> wanted Superman to fight giant Spider creature, which he eventually
> got in the awful Wild Wild West. The idea was brilliant, but he
> wrecked it and the project got scrapped.
Spoken like a man who's spent an evening with Kevin Smith.
===
= DUG.
===
Eminence
Which was my thinking, also -- while the character has essentially
become timeless, I think a period treatment (if handled properly)
could work really well (and in the way I'm seeing it in my mind, this
wouldn't work at all with Captain Marvel, even though he's more of a
period character... and not just because he's less well known). HOW to
make that happen I'm not sure; time travel (but no "spinning the Earth
backward, please!) might be an option. I may be alone in this, but
ISTR that the "Time After Time" arc that ran through the Superman
books several years back was quite good (although that particular
story has too many DCU connections to work as a stand-alone film,
perhaps something similar would work).
Mostly I just wanna see Supes leaping 1/8 of a mile and busting up
Nazis. And, like Super Menace said, the Ultra-Humanite. Give Luthor a
rest.
Eminence
<pred...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
>On Jul 8, 4:26 am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 1:02 pm, Len-L <l...@davlin.net> wrote:
>>
>> This is the line that I don't like:
>>
>> > "Since I was a kid I've always wanted to reinvent Superman for the
>> > 21st century."
>>
>> ===
>> = DUG.
>> ===
>
>But Superman's timeless.
>
>There were a number of scripts thrown about in the nineties, one
>really great one involved Metallo. Then they got an idiot producer, a
>former hairdresser (Gail Simone is a former Hairdresser also, but she
>has an incredible ability to write, and is a true fan also) who had no
>clue about the character. He didn't want the suit, he didn't want the
>name Kal El used, he didn't want Superman to fly, he wanted Supes to
>have a furry sidekick like Chewbacca "He needs a chewie", and he
>wanted Superman to fight giant Spider creature, which he eventually
>got in the awful Wild Wild West. The idea was brilliant, but he
>wrecked it and the project got scrapped.
Someone should have said to that guy, "Hey, look, why don't you just
go make the f'd up version of Doc Savage that you've got in mind,
instead of trying to ruin Superman?"
Has anyone ever made a film version of "Gladiator"? (The Wylie novel.)
>I think they should completely start over again. Ignore Returns,
>maybe get Gail Simone to contribute on the script. She GETS the
>characters, as well as the supporting cast. Only difficulty would be
>trying to recast Superman, since it took so long to cast an actor for
>the part, unless they decide to keep Routh.
The casting director should be told to find Superman, instead of
trying to find someone who looks like Chris Reeve.
YKW (ad hoc)
news:m6f974dk55jd7bubf...@4ax.com:
> Mostly I just wanna see Supes leaping 1/8 of a mile and busting up
> Nazis. And, like Super Menace said, the Ultra-Humanite. Give Luthor a
> rest.
I wanna see a SKY CAPTAIN-styled live-action version of the Fleischer
'toons. Is that so wrong?
M.O.R
That was not Kevin Smith who wrote the Metallo script, Smith's script
didn't involve the Superman everyone knows and loves nor did it
involve Metallo, his script involved Braniac and Nicolas Cage. Smith
is too much of a Hollywood whore to think of something like that, and
his script caved to the producer's idiotic ideas. I really cannot
stand Kevin Smith, he's a guy with one idea (Jay and Silent Bob) and
nothing else.
Anyway, Alex Ford, is a screenwriter who wrote the Metallo script. I
had a chance to look at it, years back when some website hosted it,
and it was basically a live action version of the animated Superman
episode from the 90's, with some addtional time given over to Metallo,
showing his struggles with his powers, his condition, and being a
slave to Lex Luthor in his new body. It would have rocked, but a
producer named Jon Peters killed it, demanding increasingly idiotic
changes, to sell toys and merchandise. And he still wanted a
mechanical Giant Spider. Unfortunately, Peters is still part of
several projects, including the Superman franchise, and was a producer
on Superman Returns, which is one of the reasons why it had no heart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_film_series#Aftermath
(Info about the Alex Ford script)
http://www.impossiblefunky.com/archives/issue_15/15_superman.asp?IshNum=15
(Some information about the different scripts.)
M.O.R
>
> - Show quoted text -
Give him a load of the best comic book stories of Superman (from 1986
onwards) and then tell him to find Clark Kent/ Superman and all the
supporting characters that will appear in the film, and make sure they
are the right choices, not actors or actresses who will attract an
audience based on looks alone. And sack John Peters.
M.O.R
> Eminence <grey.emine...@suddenlink.net> wrote innews:m6f974dk55jd7bubf...@4ax.com:
>
> > Mostly I just wanna see Supes leaping 1/8 of a mile and busting up
> > Nazis. And, like Super Menace said, the Ultra-Humanite. Give Luthor a
> > rest.
>
> I wanna see a SKY CAPTAIN-styled live-action version of the Fleischer
> 'toons. Is that so wrong?
>
> --
always felt that the Daily Planet offices look kinda sparse, like
there should have been more employees besides Lois and Clark.
But check em out on Youtube and decide for yourselves if anyone
disagrees.
M.O.R
> grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote innews:gdc874hqc9r9j3ds5...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 19:50:01 -0700 (PDT), "M.O.R"
> > <preda...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
>
> >>On Jul 8, 4:26 am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >>> On Jul 7, 1:02 pm, Len-L <l...@davlin.net> wrote:
>
> >>> This is the line that I don't like:
>
> >>> > "Since I was a kid I've always wanted to reinvent Superman for the
> >>> > 21st century."
>
> >>> ===
> >>> = DUG.
> >>> ===
>
> >>But Superman's timeless.
>
> >>There were a number of scripts thrown about in the nineties, one
> >>really great one involved Metallo. Then they got an idiot producer, a
> >>former hairdresser (Gail Simone is a former Hairdresser also, but she
> >>has an incredible ability to write, and is a true fan also) who had no
> >>clue about the character. He didn't want the suit, he didn't want the
> >>name Kal El used, he didn't want Superman to fly, he wanted Supes to
> >>have a furry sidekick like Chewbacca "He needs a chewie", and he
> >>wanted Superman to fight giant Spider creature, which he eventually
> >>got in the awful Wild Wild West. The idea was brilliant, but he
> >>wrecked it and the project got scrapped.
>
> Kevin? That you?
>
of Lex Luthor and Braniac, Don't Ask!) and a giant Spider creature,
which was an amalgamation of Lexiac and a spider (I cannot make this
rubbish up).
The script I mentioned was written by Alex Ford, and was way beyond
Smith's one idea interpretation. For God's sake, Smith wanted to cast
Jason Mewes as Jimmy Olsen. JIMMY OLSEN!!!
"Look! Up in the Sky! It's a bird. It's a plane. It's...."
Jimmy Olsen "...A pink elephant. Oh, dude, this acid is da bomb!"
Alex Ford, a screenwriter and comic book Fan wrote the Metallo script,
which I managed to take a gander at years and years ago, when some
site hosted it, and that was cool. Like an extended episode of the
Metallo episode from the Superman series from the 90's, but with more
time given over to Metallo, his dilemma, and being the slave of Lex
Luthor, who made his body.
Did I forget to mention that Smith wanted Affleck for the Superman
role. That worked out really well for Daredevil, huh?
rwa2play, The Northern Lariat
It was already discussed on another post, so I won't give my reasons as
to why SR was such drivel. It also put WB in a *major* bind IMHO; you
can't just "go forward" from SR. You can't really do a "Batman Begins"
type story with Superman because it's already been done 30 years ago.
So what can you do? Unless you make it some type of scheme concocted by
Brainiac or something.
--
rwa2play, The Northern Lariat
grinningdemon
If you think Superman Returns focused more on the action then you saw
a different movie than I did.
Eminence
<pred...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
>Kevin Smith wrote a script involving Braniac, Lexiac (An Amalgamation
>of Lex Luthor and Braniac, Don't Ask!) and a giant Spider creature,
>which was an amalgamation of Lexiac and a spider (I cannot make this
>rubbish up).
<snip!>
>Did I forget to mention that Smith wanted Affleck for the Superman
>role. That worked out really well for Daredevil, huh?
I have to confess that Affleck impressed me with his work in
"Hollywoodland." But that doesn't let him off the hook.
Fallen
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:05:46 -0400, Super-Menace
> <fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <det474tu6d303vcg4...@4ax.com>, Eminence
>><grey.e...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:16:50 -0400, Super-Menace
>>><fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Warner wants a Superman movie that pulls like Iron Man and, presumably,
>>>>The Dark Knight.
>>>
>>>Then they'd better wake up and go back to the drawing board. Best
>>>possible approach? Ignore ALL previous incarnations.
>>>
>>>Personally, I'd love to see Peter Jackson's version of Superman circa
>>>1938.
>>
>>
>>I once said they ought to do it as a period piece. Nazis. The
>>Ultra-Humanite. Cool, cool stuff. But did they listen? Nah!
>>
>>Absent that, I agree they have to start fresh. Tear it up and start
>>over. I liked Superman Returns, and there are bits of it that I like
>>very much, but there are gigantic story problems that Bryan Singer and
>>his people just didn't care to solve. One is Superman's years-long
>>absence, which came off as self-indulgent and out of character. The
>>other is the kid, who'll be like twelve or thirteen by the time they
>>get the next one made and out, unless they recast the part and pretend
>>that no time has gone by.
>
>
Superman returns was a debacle from start top finish. There was one
single draw and that was the CGI/Set pieces and even those weren't as
good as other films with such spectatular stunts.
I can't even comprehend how a bunch of people sat around in a room and
came up with the premise never mind then going on to ok the plot.
It's a follow up to Superman 2, except it ignored random bits of
Superman 2 and it's also a remake of Superman 1.
They cast a slight lookalike of Chris Reeve as Superman but forgot to
bother ask if he could act at all.
They cast a 23yr old as Lois Lane. Who has a 5yr old child, a Pulitzer
prize and is supposed to tbe the same Lois Lane from Superman 2 who had
been working at the Planet for a reasonable length of time already. This
is not only stupid casting but makes Superman look like a statutory rapist.
They can't even decide 'in' the film whether or not Lois knows who her
kid's father is which just makes her look like a cheap slag who jumped
into Cyclop's bed ten minutes after Superman buggered off.
Superman leaves for 5 'years' and doesn't bother to tell the world he'll
be gone at all? One minute the world has a saviour for desperate times
the next it doesn't and he doesn't think they might want a heads up?
When he comes back he's petulant about an article entitled 'Why the
World doesn't need a Superman'. Uhm, you just left for five years you
moron, if they 'did' need a Superman that makes you a giant heel.
Oh and while away he's become some kind of Superstalker. Listening in on
private conversations and hovering outside their house.
Every film can be saved with an awesome villin though right? Shame then
that this film gets Kevin Spacey doing a bad Gene Hackman impression.
He's also somehow found a brand new Miss Tessmacher, complete with
strange retro outfits. Is there an internet site where I can find these
women?
Talking of Luthor, he wasn't in prison at the end of the standard
version of Superman II, he was stranded. He's only in prison if you use
the Donner cut with a second time reversal or a dvd extra where he's
picked up by arctic police. If it's the time reversal then there's no kid.
Oh and his magnificent plot to recreate a giant new continent seems to
create a tiny island that's most definitely not capable of killing
billions with tidal waves. It's also made entirely of spiky crystal so
how the hell is he planning on selling it as fantastic new land?
The whole film is like a bad joke and worse, it contains things that
can't just be fixed by having non retards make the follow up. Superman
is lumbered with a 5yr old child. Lois is lumbered with a bloke she
clearly doesn't want and a child with superpowers by a guy who she
doesn't even know. Cyclops is just shafted.
So add another vote for totally ignoring it and going with either a
reboot or no film at all.
I would much rather they spun off Smallville into Metropolis and started
it with a movie than have another Superman returns style disaster. Of
course they'd have to fire Kristin Kreuk.
Fallen.
Joe Sewell
Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I would much rather they spun off Smallville into Metropolis and started
> it with a movie than have another Superman returns style disaster. Of
> course they'd have to fire Kristin Kreuk.
I'd *almost* think that would be as bad as Superman Returns: The Sequel.
Joe Sewell
grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 03:54:43 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 8, 7:26 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> I thought Superman Returns was pretty awful...it kind of half-assed
> >> continued from the Chris Reeves films but not really...
> >
> >That was a real problem. They need to clear that up as much as
> >possible in the next film.
> >
> >It's highly expositionary, but possible.
> >
> >> aside from being kind of boring,
> >
> >The sequel doesn't have to be.
> >
> >> Superman seemed kind of cold and disinterested...
> >
> >The question is how much of that was script, how much was direction
> >and how much was the actor?
> >
> >> and I really didn't like what they did with the kid...
> >
> >Well, the kid full stop,
You missed this, GD. Your messages would be much easier to read if you'd
end your sentences with a single period instead of an ellipsis (...).
Welcome to the wonderful world of licensing, where everybody wants full,
*exclusive* access. Even Aquaman was off-limits when they were pitching
his Smallvile [sic] spin-off.
It makes little sense from a creative or viewer perspective, but it's
SOP for the business.
> >> personally, I would like to see a version that focused a
> >> little more on the Clark Kent side rather than the alien side...I
> >> thought Byrne got it right when he switched to emphasis and made Clark
> >> the true identity rather than just an alias to hide behind.
> >
> >Works better on TV. Lois & Clark and Smallville covered that one
> >pretty well.
>
> Why would it work better on TV? We've never seen in attempted in film
> and, even though it has been done on TV (and generally well-received),
> I still believe it is the superior interpretation...and, since we've
> all ready seen them go the other route in film, why not give it a try?
I think it could work very well. If nothing else we get to drop Luthor
and the threatening green crystal business. (Hey, Kryptonite can be a
green rock, ya know. :) )
Joe Sewell
<d4692b08-6e31-4460...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
"M.O.R" <pred...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
Since I haven't seen him in anything else, I'll assume he *could* do the
part, given a good script & direction. (And get rid of that asinine
plastic S and textured Spider-Man-remnants fabric! Or at least DO
something with it, like say that's what's helping him power back up ...
oops, too late now, he plowed through a whole island of Green K (about
time!), so he must be back up to speed.)
The problem, in my opinion, is that Christopher Reeve *nailed* the
character. Like Kevin Conroy with his voice work for B:TAS, he separated
Clark and Superman in a way nobody else has been able to equal. Yeah,
the character has changed, and I wouldn't mind seeing a less dorky
Clark, but nobody's going to match Reeve's skill! Acknowledge that going
in and things will work much better.
Joe Sewell
grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
Nit-picking time: George Reeves, Chris Reeve.
Easy to mix up.
M.O.R
> grinningdemon wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:05:46 -0400, Super-Menace
>
> >>In article <det474tu6d303vcg4aldbkqfgl0esek...@4ax.com>, Eminence
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just make the film while she is playing Chun Li in the new Street
Fighter movie. That movie, I can predict, will be utter trash.
M.O.R
>
The reason I said that is if she is already making the Streetfighter
movie, she cannot make the Superman one.
Duggy
> On Jul 9, 2:08 pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 12:50 pm, "M.O.R" <preda...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
> > >Then they got an idiot producer, a
> > > former hairdresser (Gail Simone is a former Hairdresser also, but she
> > > has an incredible ability to write, and is a true fan also) who had no
> > > clue about the character. He didn't want the suit, he didn't want the
> > > name Kal El used, he didn't want Superman to fly, he wanted Supes to
> > > have a furry sidekick like Chewbacca "He needs a chewie", and he
> > > wanted Superman to fight giant Spider creature, which he eventually
> > > got in the awful Wild Wild West. The idea was brilliant, but he
> > > wrecked it and the project got scrapped.
> > Spoken like a man who's spent an evening with Kevin Smith.
> didn't involve the Superman everyone knows and loves nor did it
> involve Metallo, his script involved Braniac and Nicolas Cage. Smith
> is too much of a Hollywood whore to think of something like that, and
> his script caved to the producer's idiotic ideas. I really cannot
> stand Kevin Smith, he's a guy with one idea (Jay and Silent Bob) and
> nothing else.
Snipping the Metallo part, all of the rest of what you said was
paraphrasing Smith's diatribe on the topic on one of the Evening With
Kevin Smith DVDs.
Which is why the Kevin Smith character in Superman: Doomsday made the
Giant Spider comment.
> It would have rocked, but a
> producer named Jon Peters killed it, demanding increasingly idiotic
> changes, to sell toys and merchandise. And he still wanted a
> mechanical Giant Spider.
And was still doing that when Smith got to the project.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> If you think Superman Returns focused more on the action then you saw
> a different movie than I did.
Exactly. SR tried to focus on character and not action and didn't
work.
===
= DUG.
===
Super-Menace
Sewell <ultr...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Nit-picking time: George Reeves, Chris Reeve.
>
> Easy to mix up.
Also easy to sort out:
George (6 letters)
Reeves (6 letters)
Chris (5 letters)
Reeve (5 letters)
It never sticks, but I keep trying. (At least people don't mix up
George and Steve Reeves anymore.)
Eminence
wrote:
>> I thought Superman Returns was pretty awful...
>
>Superman returns was a debacle from start top finish.
<snip!>
>They cast a 23yr old as Lois Lane. Who has a 5yr old child, a Pulitzer
>prize and is supposed to tbe the same Lois Lane from Superman 2 who had
>been working at the Planet for a reasonable length of time already. This
>is not only stupid casting but makes Superman look like a statutory rapist.
"There's only one 'p' in 'rapist', Lois!"
grinningdemon
wrote:
>In article <gdc874hqc9r9j3ds5...@4ax.com>,
My bad.
grinningdemon
It couldn't possibly be as bad as the first Street Fighter movie.
grinningdemon
Actually, I think you can drop the "statutory" part...I always thought
Superman's tendency in the films to mindwipe seemed kind of sinister.
grinningdemon
Why not? How many times has the story been re-told in comics? How
often does Hollywood do remakes? After 30 years, I don't see the
problem with starting over.
grinningdemon
wrote:
>In article <wPrdk.120334$AH5....@newsfe09.ams2>,
Even if they had competent people making the movie, they'd be
hardpressed to turn Smallville into anything resembling any version of
Superman we know...but I still think it could be better than another
Superman Returns.
grinningdemon
Right...but lack of action wasn't the biggest problem with Superman
Returns...it was that they focused on character and screwed it up
royally...there is a middle ground between the two...you CAN have
decent characterization without being boring.
Michael
> In article
> <1b6e2a33-bb4f-414b...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Marty <killha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 7 Jul, 04:02, Len-L <l...@davlin.net> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.joo-see.com/mark_miller_supes.html
>>>
>>>Posting on his blog, Miller had this to say about his involvement in
>>>the next instalment of the Man Of Steel’s big screen adventures:
>>>
>>>"In the interests of clarity (because I'm sure this will be picked up
>>>somewhere) a very well known American action director heard about my
>>>love of Superman, approached my and asked me to team up with he and
>>>his producer to make a pitch for this. We've been talking for several
>>>weeks now and, if this is going to happen, we'll know by Christmas. He
>>>has huge pull at WB so fingers crossed. But this is nothing more than
>>>a huge US name pulling me into his fold and making me part of a
>>>package."
>>>
>>>The story has indeed been picked up across the net, thanks to an
>>>interview with The Daily Record, where Miller revealed that "I've been
>>>planning this my entire life. I've got my director and producer set
>>>up, and it'll be 2011. This is how far ahead you have to think."
>>>
>>>Miller went on to say:
>>>
>>>"Since I was a kid I've always wanted to reinvent Superman for the
>>>of pages of notes and sketches just waiting for this opportunity. This
>>>would be my dream gig and, as a fan, I know exactly what this project
>>>needs to work. This has to be Superman for the 21st Century, keeping
>>>everything we adore, but starting from scratch and making the kids
>>>love it as much as the 30-somethings."
>>
>>So, Millar is saying they're going to reboot Superman?
>>
>>I'm not sure this will ever happen. Gawd I'm getting tired of Millar
>>and his empty hype.
>>Wanted (the film) was pure drivel. Loom of doom indeed.
>
>
>
> As of now, Bryan Singer is doing the next film. I think that even he
> recognizes the deal is very shaky. The success of Iron Man put the lie
> to the excuse that superhero movies just aren't doing well this cycle.
> The Dark Knight.
>
> Warner approaches Jon Favreau, because that's the way they think.
If Favreau had the love for Superman the way he does for Iron Man I'd be
all for that! As it is, IMHO, Singer had his chance to restart the
Superman Franchise and didn't do a very good job, bad enough that a lot
of people don't seem to be excited by thoughts of Singer returning to
the X-Characters he did really well with, so I could see a studio going
after someone who had a recent hit in the same genre.
Michael
Michael
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:05:46 -0400, Super-Menace
> <fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <det474tu6d303vcg4...@4ax.com>, Eminence
>><grey.e...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:16:50 -0400, Super-Menace
>>><fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Warner wants a Superman movie that pulls like Iron Man and, presumably,
>>>>The Dark Knight.
>>>
>>>Then they'd better wake up and go back to the drawing board. Best
>>>possible approach? Ignore ALL previous incarnations.
>>>
>>>Personally, I'd love to see Peter Jackson's version of Superman circa
>>>1938.
>>
>>
>>I once said they ought to do it as a period piece. Nazis. The
>>Ultra-Humanite. Cool, cool stuff. But did they listen? Nah!
>>
>>Absent that, I agree they have to start fresh. Tear it up and start
>>over. I liked Superman Returns, and there are bits of it that I like
>>very much, but there are gigantic story problems that Bryan Singer and
>>his people just didn't care to solve. One is Superman's years-long
>>absence, which came off as self-indulgent and out of character. The
>>other is the kid, who'll be like twelve or thirteen by the time they
>>get the next one made and out, unless they recast the part and pretend
>>that no time has gone by.
>
>
> I thought Superman Returns was pretty awful...it kind of half-assed
> continued from the Chris Reeves films but not really...aside from
> being kind of boring,
I didn't like that they played fast and loose with what was still "in
continuity" from the first two Superman films and what wasn't.
> Superman seemed kind of cold and
> disinterested
Not to mention idiotic lines like when he said to Lois (and I'm not sure
I can get the quote exact) "You sy the world doesn't need a saviour, yet
I hear people calling out for one every day."
> ...and I really didn't like what they did with the
> kid...making it so Lois apparently didn't even know Superman was the
> father (I didn't like all the memory-wiping in the original films
> either)...or that was my impression at least...what, did she think it
> was immaculate conception? Or did she run and jump that other guy the
> second Superman vanished? Either way, it doesn't make Lois look all
> that great.
No it didn't. Unless there was some sort of delayed reaction to the
pregancy, Lois looked REALLY bad.
> I absolutely agree they need to start the franchise over like they did
> Batman...making it a period piece set in the 30s actually sounds like
> a cool idea but it makes tying the characters together for a JLA movie
> difficult unless they do competing versions (and they tend to avoid
> that)...personally, I would like to see a version that focused a
> little more on the Clark Kent side rather than the alien side...I
> thought Byrne got it right when he switched to emphasis and made Clark
> the true identity rather than just an alias to hide behind.
That's pretty much what they did for Lois and Clark.
Unless you've got something really good to do with and origin story, I'd
drop that from a reboot altogether.
Michael
Duggy
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:36:11 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>
> >On Jul 10, 7:34 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> If you think Superman Returns focused more on the action then you saw
> >> a different movie than I did.
> >Exactly. SR tried to focus on character and not action and didn't
> >work.
> Returns...it was that they focused on character and screwed it up
> royally...there is a middle ground between the two...you CAN have
> decent characterization without being boring.
Certainly. The most of the characterisation they had was bad and most
of the action they had was bad.
And, yes, films can do characterisation... in fact I'm not a fan of
action films and prefer it and certainly don't think it has to be
boring. And action films can do both. Sometimes one is better than
the other because of acting, directing, whatever, ability and
sometimes one takes away from the other. And sometime one improves
the other.
Superman pretending to be Clark requires a lot less characterisation
than Clark pretending to be Superman (although, Chris put a lot of
good work into S ptb C). It could work and it could be done well, but
it has potential to fail.
You are correct. Lack of action wasn't the biggest problem with
Superman. But it was a big problem. And a big identifiable one. The
next Superman film has to be a good action film just because the last
one wasn't. Characterisation will have to wait, I'm afraid.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> I didn't like that they played fast and loose with what was still "in
> continuity" from the first two Superman films and what wasn't.
I think there's a general agreement on this point.
> That's pretty much what they did for Lois and Clark.
I think Dean Cain did a really human Clark and that really worked for
a Clark pretends to be Superman... however, they neededto have cast
someone who could develop a Superman personality over time.
Unfortunately, Dean couldn't do that.
> Unless you've got something really good to do with and origin story, I'd
> drop that from a reboot altogether.
Which, I think is why they went with a continuation rather than a
reboot. I've said it before, I understand exactly why they did the
things that sucked, but it was more the execution that screwed things
up.
===
= DUG.
===
Joe Sewell
Eminence <grey.e...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
The *only* way that would work today is to add a remark about the spell
checker being a requirement for her, and drop it.
grinningdemon
As does any approach...but I think switching to Clark as the true
persona would also help a new interpretation to stand apart from what
Chris did...it was great but it's time for something else.
>
>You are correct. Lack of action wasn't the biggest problem with
>Superman. But it was a big problem. And a big identifiable one. The
>next Superman film has to be a good action film just because the last
>one wasn't. Characterisation will have to wait, I'm afraid.
I definitely agree the next Superman film (whatever version it is)
needs a lot more action...Superman Returns was a huge disappointment
in this area because modern special effects have progressed to such a
point that they really could have done something magnificient and they
just didn't even try...they need a real super-baddie for the next time
around so we can finally have the super-smackdown we all want to
see...but that doesn't mean there's no room for some decent character
development along the way.
Duggy
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:08:35 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> >than Clark pretending to be Superman (although, Chris put a lot of
> >good work into S ptb C). It could work and it could be done well, but
> >it has potential to fail.
> As does any approach...
Not as much as this one.
> but I think switching to Clark as the true
> persona would also help a new interpretation to stand apart from what
> Chris did...it was great but it's time for something else.
I agree that it's the better interpretation, but it's a less film-
friendly one.
> >You are correct. Lack of action wasn't the biggest problem with
> >Superman. But it was a big problem. And a big identifiable one. The
> >next Superman film has to be a good action film just because the last
> >one wasn't. Characterisation will have to wait, I'm afraid.
>
> I definitely agree the next Superman film (whatever version it is)
> needs a lot more action......
And better action. A lot of the action that was in Superman Returns
was very... static.
> Superman Returns was a huge disappointment
> in this area because modern special effects have progressed to such a
> point that they really could have done something magnificient and they
> just didn't even try...they need a real super-baddie for the next time
> around so we can finally have the super-smackdown we all want to
> see...but that doesn't mean there's no room for some decent character
> development along the way.
True, but good character/action balance is harder the just straight
action. Just like I said in the post you replied to.
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 13, 8:42 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:08:35 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>> >Superman pretending to be Clark requires a lot less characterisation
>> >than Clark pretending to be Superman (although, Chris put a lot of
>> >good work into S ptb C). It could work and it could be done well, but
>> >it has potential to fail.
>> As does any approach...
>
>Not as much as this one.
I disagree...if anything, I'd say Chris Reeve's approach is far more
difficult to believably pull off.
>
>> but I think switching to Clark as the true
>> persona would also help a new interpretation to stand apart from what
>> Chris did...it was great but it's time for something else.
>
>I agree that it's the better interpretation, but it's a less film-
>friendly one.
Why? It would be no different from any super-hero movie where a
character adopts another persona to protect his identity...Spiderman
didn't get his spider-powers and suddenly forget he was really Peter
Parker.
>
>> >You are correct. Lack of action wasn't the biggest problem with
>> >Superman. But it was a big problem. And a big identifiable one. The
>> >next Superman film has to be a good action film just because the last
>> >one wasn't. Characterisation will have to wait, I'm afraid.
>>
>> I definitely agree the next Superman film (whatever version it is)
>> needs a lot more action......
>
>And better action. A lot of the action that was in Superman Returns
>was very... static.
>
>> Superman Returns was a huge disappointment
>> in this area because modern special effects have progressed to such a
>> point that they really could have done something magnificient and they
>> just didn't even try...they need a real super-baddie for the next time
>> around so we can finally have the super-smackdown we all want to
>> see...but that doesn't mean there's no room for some decent character
>> development along the way.
>
>True, but good character/action balance is harder the just straight
>action. Just like I said in the post you replied to.
Perhaps...but I think we can both agree that balance is the goal to
reach for.
Duggy
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:43:05 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>
> >On Jul 13, 8:42 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:08:35 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> >> >Superman pretending to be Clark requires a lot less characterisation
> >> >than Clark pretending to be Superman (although, Chris put a lot of
> >> >good work into S ptb C). It could work and it could be done well, but
> >> >it has potential to fail.
> >> As does any approach...
> >Not as much as this one.
> I disagree...if anything, I'd say Chris Reeve's approach is far more
> difficult to believably pull off.
> >That's an acting issue, we're talking story.
> >I agree that it's the better interpretation, but it's a less film-
> >friendly one.
> Why? It would be no different from any super-hero movie where a
> character adopts another persona to protect his identity...Spiderman
> didn't get his spider-powers and suddenly forget he was really Peter
> Parker.
We followed Peter through the change.
> >True, but good character/action balance is harder the just straight
> >action. Just like I said in the post you replied to.
> Perhaps...but I think we can both agree that balance is the goal to
> reach for.
A good film is the goal. Balance is a secondary concern.
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 13, 2:14 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:43:05 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>>
>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>> >On Jul 13, 8:42 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:08:35 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>> >> >Superman pretending to be Clark requires a lot less characterisation
>> >> >than Clark pretending to be Superman (although, Chris put a lot of
>> >> >good work into S ptb C). It could work and it could be done well, but
>> >> >it has potential to fail.
>> >> As does any approach...
>> >Not as much as this one.
>> I disagree...if anything, I'd say Chris Reeve's approach is far more
>> difficult to believably pull off.
>
>> >That's an acting issue, we're talking story.
>> >I agree that it's the better interpretation, but it's a less film-
>> >friendly one.
>> Why? It would be no different from any super-hero movie where a
>> character adopts another persona to protect his identity...Spiderman
>> didn't get his spider-powers and suddenly forget he was really Peter
>> Parker.
>
>We followed Peter through the change.
And? We saw Superman grow up in Smallville too...as Clark Kent...then
he visits his fortress and sees his dad's floating head and suddenly
Clark ceases to exist.
>
>> >True, but good character/action balance is harder the just straight
>> >action. Just like I said in the post you replied to.
>> Perhaps...but I think we can both agree that balance is the goal to
>> reach for.
>
>A good film is the goal. Balance is a secondary concern.
And I don't think you can have one without the other.
Michael
Except for the kid, something I don't think was a good idea at all, I
agree with you.
Michael
Michael
See Kill Bill Part 2.
:)
I think the Donner movie went with the traditional Silver Age view that
Superman/Kal-El was the real person and that Clark Kent was the
disguise, which was how it was until Byrne reworked Superman following
CoIE. I think Lois & Clark was a good example of that.
I'm not sure how things stand in that regard today.
>>>>True, but good character/action balance is harder the just straight
>>>>action. Just like I said in the post you replied to.
>>>
>>>Perhaps...but I think we can both agree that balance is the goal to
>>>reach for.
>>
>>A good film is the goal. Balance is a secondary concern.
>
>
> And I don't think you can have one without the other.
You can, but judging what is a good balance is very subjective and can
change radically from viewer to viewer. Further, a good movie doesn't
equal a popular money-making movie and vice-versa.
Michael
Duggy
> >We followed Peter through the change.
> And? We saw Superman grow up in Smallville too...as Clark Kent...then
> he visits his fortress and sees his dad's floating head and suddenly
> Clark ceases to exist.
Yes. I can see Smallville having that problem too.
Clark ceased to exist because it was Superman (disguised as Clark) in
those days. However, story wise, they would have needed to add story
at that point to do Clark (disguised as Superman), which would have
slowed down the film, etc, etc...
> >A good film is the goal. Balance is a secondary concern.
> And I don't think you can have one without the other.
You can. Lots of films have little or no action, some films are all
action. Some films try to do both and fail.
Balance and a good film are directly related.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Duggy wrote:
> > Which, I think is why they went with a continuation rather than a
> > reboot. I've said it before, I understand exactly why they did the
> > things that sucked, but it was more the execution that screwed things
> > up.
> Except for the kid, something I don't think was a good idea at all, I
> agree with you.
I understand why they added the kid (for character growth) but the
execution was wrong.
I hate the idea of the kid, but I understand *why* they did it.
===
= DUG.
===
Michael
Then you're one up on me. I don't understand why they did it at all.
Michael
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 15, 7:33 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >We followed Peter through the change.
>> And? We saw Superman grow up in Smallville too...as Clark Kent...then
>> he visits his fortress and sees his dad's floating head and suddenly
>> Clark ceases to exist.
>
>Yes. I can see Smallville having that problem too.
>
>Clark ceased to exist because it was Superman (disguised as Clark) in
>those days. However, story wise, they would have needed to add story
>at that point to do Clark (disguised as Superman), which would have
>slowed down the film, etc, etc...
I don't think you would have to add anything at all...in most
superhero origin films, the hero's persona doesn't completely change
the moment they put on a costume...if anything, I'd argue you need
more story to sell the idea of Superman being the real
persona...something they never bothered with in the original movie.
>
>> >A good film is the goal. Balance is a secondary concern.
>> And I don't think you can have one without the other.
>
>You can. Lots of films have little or no action, some films are all
>action. Some films try to do both and fail.
>
>Balance and a good film are directly related.
For this type of film (adventure/fantasy), I would say you can't have
one without the other.
grinningdemon
wrote:
This is all true...but the traditional Silver Age view (as you put it)
never really made sense to me in the comics (let alone the films)...in
my opinion, Byrne got it right when he switched the emphasis.
>
>I'm not sure how things stand in that regard today.
It actually seems to be gradually headed back toward the silver age
view (which kind of sucks)...Richard Donner has even been contributing
to the writing on Action Comics.
>
>>>>>True, but good character/action balance is harder the just straight
>>>>>action. Just like I said in the post you replied to.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps...but I think we can both agree that balance is the goal to
>>>>reach for.
>>>
>>>A good film is the goal. Balance is a secondary concern.
>>
>>
>> And I don't think you can have one without the other.
>
>You can, but judging what is a good balance is very subjective and can
>change radically from viewer to viewer. Further, a good movie doesn't
>equal a popular money-making movie and vice-versa.
It's true that finding a balance is subjective but, in certain cases,
it's blatantly obvious that they didn't even try to do so.
Duggy
For character/story growth reasons. Like making Rene Russo pregnant
in Lethal Weapon 4.
It was the wrong choice and the execution showed a complete
misunderstand of the character and created all of the continuity
issues.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> >Clark ceased to exist because it was Superman (disguised as Clark) in
> >those days. However, story wise, they would have needed to add story
> >at that point to do Clark (disguised as Superman), which would have
> >slowed down the film, etc, etc...
> I don't think you would have to add anything at all...
What about the first time he puts on the costume.
> in most superhero origin films, the hero's persona doesn't completely change
> the moment they put on a costume...
We rarely see that in Superman.
> if anything, I'd argue you need
> more story to sell the idea of Superman being the real
> persona...something they never bothered with in the original movie.
There were a whole lot of points in Smallville where I thought "hey,
they could add the glasses here" because the need to do it to create
to grow Clark. Smallville, however, is falling into the Superman
(disguised as Clark) trap because TV prefers geeky characters to
blossom, not hot characters to seem geekier.
> For this type of film (adventure/fantasy), I would say you can't have
> one without the other.
You can, but rarely. And you have to get the balance right.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> It's true that finding a balance is subjective but, in certain cases,
> it's blatantly obvious that they didn't even try to do so.
It's also clear that in Superman Returns that balanced or not, they
did the characterisation completely wrong.
What do you think of the "Superman"/"Clark Kent disguise"/Clark Kent
theory (like the "Batman"/"Millionaire Playboy Bruce Wayne"/"Bruce
Wayne" of Batman Begins)?
===
= DUG.
===
Michael
I agree. The old Superman show seemed to be along those lines as well.
>>I'm not sure how things stand in that regard today.
>
>
> It actually seems to be gradually headed back toward the silver age
> view (which kind of sucks)...Richard Donner has even been contributing
> to the writing on Action Comics.
In a way Superman would be like "the real Clark" since it's as Superman
that he doesn't have to hold back physically, though under the
circumstances I'd suppose he'd have to hide parts of Clark when he's
Superman (at least to those who aren't in on the dual identity thing) if
only to not drawn unwanted parallels between the two.
>>>>>>True, but good character/action balance is harder the just straight
>>>>>>action. Just like I said in the post you replied to.
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps...but I think we can both agree that balance is the goal to
>>>>>reach for.
>>>>
>>>>A good film is the goal. Balance is a secondary concern.
>>>
>>>
>>>And I don't think you can have one without the other.
>>
>>You can, but judging what is a good balance is very subjective and can
>>change radically from viewer to viewer. Further, a good movie doesn't
>>equal a popular money-making movie and vice-versa.
>
>
> It's true that finding a balance is subjective but, in certain cases,
> it's blatantly obvious that they didn't even try to do so.
True. For the most part I'd opine that when someone enjoys a movie
chances are that they're not going to notice right off if it's balanced
or not unless they think about it. When someone dislikes a movie it's a
lot easier to find a movie's flaws.
Michael
Michael
> On Jul 16, 1:05 pm, Michael <thissp...@for.rent> wrote:
>
>>Duggy wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 15, 10:06 pm, Michael <thissp...@for.rent> wrote:
>>>I understand why they added the kid (for character growth) but the
>>>execution was wrong.
>>>I hate the idea of the kid, but I understand *why* they did it.
>>
>>Then you're one up on me. I don't understand why they did it at all.
>
>
> For character/story growth reasons. Like making Rene Russo pregnant
> in Lethal Weapon 4.
It had Jet Li in it but I still missed it (except checking out some of
the final fight on HBO). I think I get the point though.
> It was the wrong choice and the execution showed a complete
> misunderstand of the character and created all of the continuity
> issues.
Not to mention that it makes Lois look really bad.
Michael
Duggy
> Duggy wrote:
> > On Jul 16, 1:05 pm, Michael <thissp...@for.rent> wrote:
> >>Duggy wrote:
> >>>On Jul 15, 10:06 pm, Michael <thissp...@for.rent> wrote:
> >>>I understand why they added the kid (for character growth) but the
> >>>execution was wrong.
> >>>I hate the idea of the kid, but I understand *why* they did it.
> >>Then you're one up on me. I don't understand why they did it at all.
> > For character/story growth reasons. Like making Rene Russo pregnant
> > in Lethal Weapon 4.
> It had Jet Li in it but I still missed it (except checking out some of
> the final fight on HBO). I think I get the point though.
Well, apart from the fight at the end the rest was catching up with
the characters...
> > It was the wrong choice and the execution showed a complete
> > misunderstand of the character and created all of the continuity
> > issues.
> Not to mention that it makes Lois look really bad.
And Superman.
Plus casting Lois younger (for understandable reasons) and the kid
older (for the usual reasons) made her look like she was babysitter
her brother.
===
= DUG.
===
Super-Menace
<993cdffd-dd07-4dd5...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 10:49 pm, Michael <thissp...@for.rent> wrote:
> > Duggy wrote:
> > > On Jul 16, 1:05 pm, Michael <thissp...@for.rent> wrote:
> > >>Duggy wrote:
> > >>>On Jul 15, 10:06 pm, Michael <thissp...@for.rent> wrote:
> > >>>I understand why they added the kid (for character growth) but the
> > >>>execution was wrong.
> > >>>I hate the idea of the kid, but I understand *why* they did it.
> > >>Then you're one up on me. I don't understand why they did it at all.
> > > For character/story growth reasons. Like making Rene Russo pregnant
> > > in Lethal Weapon 4.
> > It had Jet Li in it but I still missed it (except checking out some of
> > the final fight on HBO). I think I get the point though.
>
> Well, apart from the fight at the end the rest was catching up with
> the characters...
>
> > > It was the wrong choice and the execution showed a complete
> > > misunderstand of the character and created all of the continuity
> > > issues.
> > Not to mention that it makes Lois look really bad.
>
> And Superman.
How did it make them look bad?
Michael
> On Jul 16, 10:49 pm, Michael <thissp...@for.rent> wrote:
>
>>Duggy wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 16, 1:05 pm, Michael <thissp...@for.rent> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Duggy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Jul 15, 10:06 pm, Michael <thissp...@for.rent> wrote:
>>>>>I understand why they added the kid (for character growth) but the
>>>>>execution was wrong.
>>>>>I hate the idea of the kid, but I understand *why* they did it.
>>>>
>>>>Then you're one up on me. I don't understand why they did it at all.
>>>
>>>For character/story growth reasons. Like making Rene Russo pregnant
>>>in Lethal Weapon 4.
>>
>>It had Jet Li in it but I still missed it (except checking out some of
>>the final fight on HBO). I think I get the point though.
>
>
> Well, apart from the fight at the end the rest was catching up with
> the characters...
Which, IIRC from bits and pieces I've seen of the rest of the movie had
Mel dealing with becoming a father. I didn't see Lois' kid turning out
to be Superman's adding anything to his character within the movie. It
just gave him (well, Singer really) a reason to quote Jor-El from the
Donner movie and a not-so-creepy reason to stalk, sorry, keep an eye on
Lois and his young'un.
>>>It was the wrong choice and the execution showed a complete
>>>misunderstand of the character and created all of the continuity
>>>issues.
>>
>>Not to mention that it makes Lois look really bad.
>
>
> And Superman.
True. Unless one of the things that we weren't told was dropped from
SR's version of Superman 2 was the part where he told the President he'd
never leave the people of Earth in a lurch again since it looks like he
left Earth within weeks of the end of the movie.
> Plus casting Lois younger (for understandable reasons) and the kid
> older (for the usual reasons) made her look like she was babysitter
> her brother.
Michael
Billy Bissette
3e1aa1...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
Personally, I always preferred "Superman" as the real personality
and "Clark Kent" as the disguise. "Superman" was who he was.
Batman is a similar case. He pretty much *is* Batman. It isn't
just Millionaire Playboy Bruce Wayne that is fake, but just Bruce
Wayne itself is no longer real. I liked how Batman Begins handled
it, showing how he changed, and how at the end he loses the girl
because she realized what even he had not realized yet, that "Bruce
Wayne" (not just "Millionaire Playboy Bruce Wayne") was now the mask.
It is also so nicely opposite other human superheroes, where the
costume is either just a costume, or them acting without their
normal restrictions. Sure, "Peter Parker the nerd" was a bit fake
itself, but when it came down to it, he was "Peter Parker", not
"Spider-Man."
Duggy
> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
[SR makes Lois look bad]
> > And Superman.
> How did it make them look bad?
Singer says that the kiss at the end of S2 removed her memory of
Superman's identity, but not the sex (which makes less sense than the
kiss removing all her memory).
This means she had sex with Superman, got pregnant to him and either
had sex with Richard White immediately afterwards so she didn't know
which one was the father, or had sex with Richard to convince him he
was the father.
Superman looks bad because he got Lois pregnant and left the city.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Personally, I always preferred "Superman" as the real personality
> and "Clark Kent" as the disguise. "Superman" was who he was.
I prefer that the story dictate the way it goes.
Smallville, I think would be interesting if they get to the tights
stage and it whichever he becomes evolves naturally.
> Batman is a similar case. He pretty much *is* Batman. It isn't
> just Millionaire Playboy Bruce Wayne that is fake, but just Bruce
> Wayne itself is no longer real. I liked how Batman Begins handled
> it, showing how he changed, and how at the end he loses the girl
> because she realized what even he had not realized yet, that "Bruce
> Wayne" (not just "Millionaire Playboy Bruce Wayne") was now the mask.
I think that both Batman and MP Bruce Wayne being disguises means that
the real Bruce begins to cease to exist... an interesting arc in the
films could be to explore that... I certainly think that that's the
reason Alfred is always so annoyed with Bruce in the comics.
===
= DUG.
===
Michael
> On Jul 17, 2:18 am, Super-Menace <fortr...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> [SR makes Lois look bad]
>
>>>And Superman.
>>
>>How did it make them look bad?
>
>
> Singer says that the kiss at the end of S2 removed her memory of
> Superman's identity, but not the sex (which makes less sense than the
> kiss removing all her memory).
>
> This means she had sex with Superman, got pregnant to him and either
> had sex with Richard White immediately afterwards so she didn't know
> which one was the father, or had sex with Richard to convince him he
> was the father.
Well, at least within a month or two of havig had sex with Superman if
you want to stretch things and the young'un was a preemie.
> Superman looks bad because he got Lois pregnant and left the city.
And after telling the President he'd never let everyone down again at
the end of S2!
Michael
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 16, 5:19 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >Clark ceased to exist because it was Superman (disguised as Clark) in
>> >those days. However, story wise, they would have needed to add story
>> >at that point to do Clark (disguised as Superman), which would have
>> >slowed down the film, etc, etc...
>> I don't think you would have to add anything at all...
>
>What about the first time he puts on the costume.
No matter how you write it, you have to have that...it's only the
explanations behind the costume that change.
>
>> in most superhero origin films, the hero's persona doesn't completely change
>> the moment they put on a costume...
>
>We rarely see that in Superman.
If you have Superman as the real persona and Clark as the disguise,
then this is implied even if they don't show it...look at the original
Donner film...it shows him growing up in Smallville as Clark Kent with
little or no knowledge of Krypton...so Clark Kent is all he
knows...then he goes the artic and finds out about Krypton (and gets
the suit) and suddenly Clark Kent ceases to exist as anything but a
disguise...it doesn't even make sense unless Jor-El brainwashed him.
>
>> if anything, I'd argue you need
>> more story to sell the idea of Superman being the real
>> persona...something they never bothered with in the original movie.
>
>There were a whole lot of points in Smallville where I thought "hey,
>they could add the glasses here" because the need to do it to create
>to grow Clark. Smallville, however, is falling into the Superman
>(disguised as Clark) trap because TV prefers geeky characters to
>blossom, not hot characters to seem geekier.
There's no point in his wearing the glasses until he starts wearing a
costume to hide his identity...I know Superman's secret ID has always
been flimsy but I don't think the glasses make much of a difference if
he's still wearing the same flanel when he uses his powers.
>
>> For this type of film (adventure/fantasy), I would say you can't have
>> one without the other.
>
>You can, but rarely. And you have to get the balance right.
Name one.
grinningdemon
I'm not sure what you mean here.
grinningdemon
<bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote:
>Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in news:87729a5a-9f1f-4e06-bb0e-
>3e1aa1...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Jul 16, 5:24 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>> It's true that finding a balance is subjective but, in certain cases,
>>> it's blatantly obvious that they didn't even try to do so.
>>
>> It's also clear that in Superman Returns that balanced or not, they
>> did the characterisation completely wrong.
>>
>> What do you think of the "Superman"/"Clark Kent disguise"/Clark Kent
>> theory (like the "Batman"/"Millionaire Playboy Bruce Wayne"/"Bruce
>> Wayne" of Batman Begins)?
>
> Personally, I always preferred "Superman" as the real personality
>and "Clark Kent" as the disguise. "Superman" was who he was.
I prefer it the other way...with Clark as the real personality.
>
> Batman is a similar case. He pretty much *is* Batman. It isn't
>just Millionaire Playboy Bruce Wayne that is fake, but just Bruce
>Wayne itself is no longer real. I liked how Batman Begins handled
>it, showing how he changed, and how at the end he loses the girl
>because she realized what even he had not realized yet, that "Bruce
>Wayne" (not just "Millionaire Playboy Bruce Wayne") was now the mask.
I agree with you on this...I think Batman is the real personality
here.
>
> It is also so nicely opposite other human superheroes, where the
>costume is either just a costume, or them acting without their
>normal restrictions. Sure, "Peter Parker the nerd" was a bit fake
>itself, but when it came down to it, he was "Peter Parker", not
>"Spider-Man."
I like the dichotomy of Superman and Batman when Clark Kent
(essentilally a false identity) is the real persona and Bruce Wayne
(the name Batman was born with) is the disguise...when handled
correctly, it creates an interesting dynamic between the two and it
really cements them as the two ends of the heroic spectrum.
grinningdemon
wrote:
To me, you are who you have been raised to be...he was raised as
Clark...never really even knew much about Krypton until he was much
older...so, as they said on Lois & Clark, Clark Kent is who he is and
Superman is what he can do.
>
>>>>>>>True, but good character/action balance is harder the just straight
>>>>>>>action. Just like I said in the post you replied to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Perhaps...but I think we can both agree that balance is the goal to
>>>>>>reach for.
>>>>>
>>>>>A good film is the goal. Balance is a secondary concern.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And I don't think you can have one without the other.
>>>
>>>You can, but judging what is a good balance is very subjective and can
>>>change radically from viewer to viewer. Further, a good movie doesn't
>>>equal a popular money-making movie and vice-versa.
>>
>>
>> It's true that finding a balance is subjective but, in certain cases,
>> it's blatantly obvious that they didn't even try to do so.
>
>True. For the most part I'd opine that when someone enjoys a movie
>chances are that they're not going to notice right off if it's balanced
>or not unless they think about it. When someone dislikes a movie it's a
>lot easier to find a movie's flaws.
True.
Super-Menace
<29364d18-d4d1-4bd4...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2:18 am, Super-Menace <fortr...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
> > Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> [SR makes Lois look bad]
> > > And Superman.
> > How did it make them look bad?
>
> Singer says that the kiss at the end of S2 removed her memory of
> Superman's identity, but not the sex (which makes less sense than the
> kiss removing all her memory).
It doesn't make any sense at all. Singer decided he wanted the story
to be the way he wanted it, but he forgot to bring the rest of us along
on his magical mystery tour.
> This means she had sex with Superman, got pregnant to him and either
> had sex with Richard White immediately afterwards so she didn't know
> which one was the father, or had sex with Richard to convince him he
> was the father.
We don't know if Lois knew she was pregnant when Superman left. We
don't know if Richard thinks he's really the father. When Superman
reappears at Dodger Stadium, we see tons of reaction shots, and only
Perry seems a little taken aback, as if he knew what was coming.
Perry's reaction can at least be taken to mean that he and Richard knew
who Jason's father was.
In any case, to fix a lot of this, all Superman had to do was deliver a
line to the effect that "I thought I'd only be gone a few weeks, but
the ship malfunctioned, and I barely got back alive."
> Superman looks bad because he got Lois pregnant and left the city.
There's no reason to think Superman knew Lois was pregnant when he
left, and in fact Clark's pretty surprised when he finds out Lois has a
son.
Michael
Agreement here. I was just rambling on on a tangent and forgot to
mention that I was digressing a bit.
>>>>>>>>True, but good character/action balance is harder the just straight
>>>>>>>>action. Just like I said in the post you replied to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Perhaps...but I think we can both agree that balance is the goal to
>>>>>>>reach for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A good film is the goal. Balance is a secondary concern.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And I don't think you can have one without the other.
>>>>
>>>>You can, but judging what is a good balance is very subjective and can
>>>>change radically from viewer to viewer. Further, a good movie doesn't
>>>>equal a popular money-making movie and vice-versa.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's true that finding a balance is subjective but, in certain cases,
>>>it's blatantly obvious that they didn't even try to do so.
>>
>>True. For the most part I'd opine that when someone enjoys a movie
>>chances are that they're not going to notice right off if it's balanced
>>or not unless they think about it. When someone dislikes a movie it's a
>>lot easier to find a movie's flaws.
>
>
> True.
Michael
Michael
> In article
> <29364d18-d4d1-4bd4...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
>>On Jul 17, 2:18 am, Super-Menace <fortr...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>[SR makes Lois look bad]
>>
>>>>And Superman.
>>>
>>>How did it make them look bad?
>>
>>Singer says that the kiss at the end of S2 removed her memory of
>>Superman's identity, but not the sex (which makes less sense than the
>>kiss removing all her memory).
>
>
> It doesn't make any sense at all. Singer decided he wanted the story
> to be the way he wanted it, but he forgot to bring the rest of us along
> on his magical mystery tour.
That he did. I went in assuming S1 and S2 happened pretty much as seen
unless something in SR contradicted it.
>>This means she had sex with Superman, got pregnant to him and either
>>had sex with Richard White immediately afterwards so she didn't know
>>which one was the father, or had sex with Richard to convince him he
>>was the father.
>
>
> We don't know if Lois knew she was pregnant when Superman left. We
> don't know if Richard thinks he's really the father.
Is someone else gonna rewatch that POS SR to see if Richard thought he
was the daddy or not? Please don't make ME do it! And don't make me
reread that Lois issue of the comic prequels to SR!
> When Superman
> reappears at Dodger Stadium, we see tons of reaction shots, and only
> Perry seems a little taken aback, as if he knew what was coming.
> Perry's reaction can at least be taken to mean that he and Richard knew
> who Jason's father was.
Nah. Then we'dve seen a reaction shot of Richard.
I still think SR2 should be Superman vs. Cyclops!
;)
> In any case, to fix a lot of this, all Superman had to do was deliver a
> line to the effect that "I thought I'd only be gone a few weeks, but
> the ship malfunctioned, and I barely got back alive."
True. Too bad it wasn't in the script.
>>Superman looks bad because he got Lois pregnant and left the city.
>
>
>
> There's no reason to think Superman knew Lois was pregnant when he
> left, and in fact Clark's pretty surprised when he finds out Lois has a
> son.
Michael
Duggy
> > [SR makes Lois look bad]
> > > > And Superman.
> > > How did it make them look bad?
> > Singer says that the kiss at the end of S2 removed her memory of
> > Superman's identity, but not the sex (which makes less sense than the
> > kiss removing all her memory).
> It doesn't make any sense at all. Singer decided he wanted the story
> to be the way he wanted it, but he forgot to bring the rest of us along
> on his magical mystery tour.
As I've said before, I'm not sure I'd understand SR if Singer was
sitting next to me explaining it.
> In any case, to fix a lot of this, all Superman had to do was deliver a
> line to the effect that "I thought I'd only be gone a few weeks, but
> the ship malfunctioned, and I barely got back alive."
That would be information. Clearly they didn't want to give us *any*
of that.
> > Superman looks bad because he got Lois pregnant and left the city.
> There's no reason to think Superman knew Lois was pregnant when he
> left, and in fact Clark's pretty surprised when he finds out Lois has a
> son.
There's no reason to think either way. The problem is we were given
so little information in SR.
===
= DUG.
===
Eminence
<grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:30:19 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
><Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 16, 5:19 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>> >Clark ceased to exist because it was Superman (disguised as Clark) in
>>> >those days. However, story wise, they would have needed to add story
>>> >at that point to do Clark (disguised as Superman), which would have
>>> >slowed down the film, etc, etc...
>>> I don't think you would have to add anything at all...
>>
>>What about the first time he puts on the costume.
>
>No matter how you write it, you have to have that...it's only the
>explanations behind the costume that change.
>
>>
>>> in most superhero origin films, the hero's persona doesn't completely change
>>> the moment they put on a costume...
>>
>>We rarely see that in Superman.
>
>If you have Superman as the real persona and Clark as the disguise,
>then this is implied even if they don't show it...look at the original
>Donner film...it shows him growing up in Smallville as Clark Kent with
>little or no knowledge of Krypton...so Clark Kent is all he
>knows...then he goes the artic and finds out about Krypton (and gets
>the suit) and suddenly Clark Kent ceases to exist as anything but a
>disguise...it doesn't even make sense unless Jor-El brainwashed him.
Yet another of the problems I have with that movie: TOO MUCH JOR-EL.
Brainwashing is just the tip of the iceberg. Here's a guy who didn't
have time to build a bigger rocket, but he had time to develop an
interactive AI that would be able to answer all of Kal-El's questions
and train him "in the accumulated knowledge of the 28 known galaxies"
during the 12 years Kal spends in the Arctic? (Because whatever it was
that Jor put in that crystal, it obviously wasn't just the Kryptionian
version of the Encyclopedia Britannica.)
I like having the Kents train Clark, both morally and physically
(although I didn't need to see Pa swinging young Clark around on a
rope, tethered to balloons).
I like Clark honing his powers by interacting with the Legion
(although clearly, the film couldn't sidetrack itself with that).
I like the Byrne revamp, where Clark travels the world and acts in
secret while he trains himself in the use and limits of his powers.
But I don't like Jor-El as The Eradicator, erasing Clark's humanity
via years of Kryptonian indoctrination... although it does explain the
creepy, alien stalker from "Superman Returns". (That's not Superman,
it's the Krypton Man!)
Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned
Eminence
wrote:
Superman: "Good afternoon, Mr. President. Sorry I've been away so
long. I won't let you down again."
Lois: "I'm pregnant."
Superman: "Uh, gosh, look at the time! I mean, I won't let you down
again, AFTER I get back from looking for Krypton. In case, uh, there's
anybody else there like Zod."
Maybe Movie-Supes figured he only had to keep the promise to THAT
president, and once the election results came in, he was free to
leave?
Eminence
<fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote:
>In any case, to fix a lot of this, all Superman had to do was deliver a
>line to the effect that "I thought I'd only be gone a few weeks, but
>the ship malfunctioned, and I barely got back alive."
"Honest... I ran out of gas. I, I had a flat tire. I didn't have a
Motherbox to summon a Boom Tube. I got diverted to the 30th century.
My cape didn't come back from the cleaners. Adam Strange needed my
help on Rann. The Forever People came in from out of town. Someone
stole my Supermobile. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. A
Crisis. Locusts. IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO RAO."
>> Superman looks bad because he got Lois pregnant and left the city.
>There's no reason to think Superman knew Lois was pregnant when he
>left, and in fact Clark's pretty surprised when he finds out Lois has a
>son.
Maybe Movie-Supes is like James Brown, and he jumped back and kissed
himself.
Michael
I see him kissing Lois to forget who the baby daddy is, THEN flying off
into space.
Michael
Michael S. Schiffer
news:n5ut74dufuuu8fp5q...@4ax.com:
>...
> If you have Superman as the real persona and Clark as the
> disguise, then this is implied even if they don't show it...look
> at the original Donner film...it shows him growing up in
> Smallville as Clark Kent with little or no knowledge of
> Krypton...so Clark Kent is all he knows...then he goes the artic
> and finds out about Krypton (and gets the suit) and suddenly
> Clark Kent ceases to exist as anything but a disguise...it
> doesn't even make sense unless Jor-El brainwashed him.
Names notwithstanding, in the Donner film both the teenaged and
adult Clark do the traditional "pretend to be meek and retiring,
accept any humiliation without complaint, and generally act like a
nebbish" bit while around others, while cutting loose with their
real power and confidence only when they can't be recognized as
Clark Kent. As a teenager, he can only do this when he's alone or
with his parents; as an adult, that aspect of who he is gets a name
and a costume and some training from Jor-El. But even before he has
a name to hang on it, Clark does hide his real Superman self from
the world. What most people (other than the Kents) know as "Clark"
is a mask.
AFAICT, Byrne was the first to make the Clark and Superman
personalities basically the same-- though I think the George Reeves
version sometimes verged in that direction, and the mid-70s crack
reporter who went out on hot dates with Lois also came close.
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Billy Bissette
b66b19...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Bruce was never MP Bruce Wayne. That was always a disguise. He
went from young kid straight to vengeance driven. He never had a
part of his life that even approached MP Bruce Wayne.
Batman, however, is what he became. Particularly in Batman Begins,
where after he failed to kill Joe Chill, he leaves Gotham to learn
and train to become what would eventually be Batman. Take away the
costume, and he would still be Batman. Being "Bruce Wayne" is just
what helps him be Batman.
Bruce became Batman. That is why the girl says that Bruce left
and never came back.
Billy Bissette
news:mput749pe3joqk4a5...@4ax.com:
> I like the dichotomy of Superman and Batman when Clark Kent
> (essentilally a false identity) is the real persona and Bruce Wayne
> (the name Batman was born with) is the disguise...when handled
> correctly, it creates an interesting dynamic between the two and it
> really cements them as the two ends of the heroic spectrum.
I like them being a similar situation (where the "hero" is the
real identity) for different reasons. That itself shows the
differences in their designs, and why they are two ends of the
spectrum.
But as you say, you prefer Clark as the real person and I prefer
Superman. Both work as counterpoints to Batman, and as a character
in general.
Duggy
> Bruce was never MP Bruce Wayne. That was always a disguise.
Not true of the 60s series.
> Batman, however, is what he became. Particularly in Batman Begins,
> where after he failed to kill Joe Chill, he leaves Gotham to learn
> and train to become what would eventually be Batman. Take away the
> costume, and he would still be Batman. Being "Bruce Wayne" is just
> what helps him be Batman.
Nah, in BB, there's definately a Bruce Wayne in there. The Bruce
Wayne that Rachel Dawes, Alfred and even Lucius Fox related too were
the real person. There is a lot of artifice in the Batman character.
The voice for a start.
> Bruce became Batman. That is why the girl says that Bruce left
> and never came back.
Young Bruce, the Bruce she knew certainly did. But that's a fourth
character.
===
= DUG.
===
Billy Bissette
ee522e...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 18, 8:17 am, Billy Bissette <bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote:
>> Bruce was never MP Bruce Wayne. That was always a disguise.
>
> Not true of the 60s series.
>
>> Batman, however, is what he became. Particularly in Batman Begins,
>> where after he failed to kill Joe Chill, he leaves Gotham to learn
>> and train to become what would eventually be Batman. Take away the
>> costume, and he would still be Batman. Being "Bruce Wayne" is just
>> what helps him be Batman.
>
> Nah, in BB, there's definately a Bruce Wayne in there. The Bruce
> Wayne that Rachel Dawes, Alfred and even Lucius Fox related too were
> the real person. There is a lot of artifice in the Batman character.
> The voice for a start.
Batman is that Bruce, though. As I said, without the costume, he'd
still be Batman.
Michael
> On Jul 18, 8:17 am, Billy Bissette <bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote:
>
>> Bruce was never MP Bruce Wayne. That was always a disguise.
>
>
> Not true of the 60s series.
>
>
>> Batman, however, is what he became. Particularly in Batman Begins,
>>where after he failed to kill Joe Chill, he leaves Gotham to learn
>>and train to become what would eventually be Batman. Take away the
>>costume, and he would still be Batman. Being "Bruce Wayne" is just
>>what helps him be Batman.
>
>
> Nah, in BB, there's definately a Bruce Wayne in there. The Bruce
> Wayne that Rachel Dawes, Alfred and even Lucius Fox related too were
> the real person. There is a lot of artifice in the Batman character.
> The voice for a start.
He took Ra's' training with regard to theatrics to heart.
I think both Superman/Clark and Batman/Playboy Billionaire Bruce are
just facets of a singular person who, due to circumstances, have deemed
it a necessity (sp?) that they're aren't always their true selves (in
Superman's case where he's only really truly himself with a select
number of people), or even put on an act to a degree (Bruce really isn't
much of a playboy, nor does he have intentions of going beyond cetain
points while Batman, even if he has to allow people to think he will,
which is a lot more apparent in Batman Begins than anywhere else; Clark
acting the wimp is a good example too, though Smallville and Byrne's
Superman don't go with that aspect of the character).
>> Bruce became Batman. That is why the girl says that Bruce left
>>and never came back.
>
>
> Young Bruce, the Bruce she knew certainly did. But that's a fourth
> character.
Just a younger version of Real Bruce. Just like she was Younger Rachel
at the time.
Michael