|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Feb 26, 2009 16:27:47 GMT -5
Agreed Stargazer. The people who hated Superman Returns feel its fans are somehow reluctantly supporting it. Not that we genuinely like it. Which is the truth.Most of Marvel's movie have been average at best. Singer's X-men movies and Iron Man movies are certainly above average. But most of their other movies have huge problems. I may be in the minority but its my take. Marvel cranks out their films, regardless of the studio, like sausage. That is something to compliment?  BS! Look at all the money crunching problems Faveru has faced with Iron Man 2. Here is a guy who had a surprise success with a second tier character, going beyond all expectations - YET Marvel still wants to rush the sequel and do it on the cheap! I'm not sure what you mean with the first two sentences (the bolded ones).  Are you saying that SR fans really like the movie or just reluctantly support it? Other than that, yeah, I agree with the rest of your post. |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Feb 28, 2009 8:50:25 GMT -5
This is why Donner made a very smart decision to use NYC as Metropolis. Call it Metropolis all you want, but seeing those famous New York landmarks helps ground this movie in reality. Why does it have to be a mythical city? Just because the original writers declared it?  |
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Feb 28, 2009 10:33:54 GMT -5
Why does it have to be a mythical city? Just because the original writers declared it? I've always hated that about DC but now you can't have Batman without Gotham and Superman without Metropolis. I remember how weird it was to hear that San Diego was destroyed in the Aquaman comics. You have Metropolis, Gotham, Star City, and....San Diego? |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 28, 2009 12:12:05 GMT -5
On the flipside a fictional city (I don't get this mythical nonsense) allows you more creative freedom. Look at 9-11. You're telling me with like half the heroes in the Marvel U based in NYC that NONE of them could stop the WTC attacks? DR Strange couldn't sense it? Iron Man could? A Quinjet couldn't block the planes? Professor X couldn't sense something was wrong? SHIELD couldn't do something?
Then Marvel having the heroes at ground zero helping clean up was even more absurd. Their fake! Those firemen were real people. Real heroes.
|
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Feb 28, 2009 12:16:22 GMT -5
Yeah, I didn't care much for that Spidey issue either. But, on the other hand, they HAD to at least acknowledge it. We both know that any superhero there would be high-tailing it to the middle east to bring justice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Feb 28, 2009 13:29:22 GMT -5
On the flipside a fictional city (I don't get this mythical nonsense) allows you more creative freedom. Look at 9-11. You're telling me with like half the heroes in the Marvel U based in NYC that NONE of them could stop the WTC attacks? DR Strange couldn't sense it? Iron Man could? A Quinjet couldn't block the planes? Professor X couldn't sense something was wrong? SHIELD couldn't do something? Then Marvel having the heroes at ground zero helping clean up was even more absurd. Their fake! Those firemen were real people. Real heroes. i agree totall, it was a total failure and a weak attempt to appeal to comci buyers. donner was right- we want the characters to SEEM realistic, but there are real-world problems that a superhero could hypothetically " fix " , but superheroes arnet real- they are myth-archetypes and are there for fable-purposes .dont cross the line. would we have a story where sherlock holmes comes to america to prevent lincoln's assassination? where were the silver-age heroes when kennedy was shot ? did hercules lead the armies of Rome? |
|
|
|
Post by fggafagas on Feb 28, 2009 15:00:43 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with some realism. I mean of course you can't take it to the lengths the Batman series did, but they shouldn't let it get silly. Aliens yes, red kryptonite-induced ant headed Superman no.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 28, 2009 15:20:21 GMT -5
There was no problem with Donner shooting NYC for Metropolis because it had the SIZE and gave the scope that he couldn't have gotten otherwise. This was before you could CGI a city and add or remove stuff like Returns or Begins did.
Donner could have laid off using the famous landmarks so much. Same goes for Lester and Fury. I see the SOL or the ESB and it takes me right out of "Superman's world" for a second. Those things are specifically New York.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2009 17:25:34 GMT -5
I think both sides of the argument have plenty truth in them.
On one side, DC does indeed have some characters that are a bit more difficult to sell to people who aren't already into them. Superman just has that awful stereotype of being too much like God and no one can relate and all that bullshit which I do not buy into, but I'm sure there are plenty of folk out there that don't care for Superman because he's too whitebread and somehow lame, despite being able to do all the amazing goddamn things he can do. (not bitter)
And on the other, the characters have withstood the test of time and are still around and still popular amongst comics and fans and such, and certain mediums. Obviously Superman Returns cost more to make than Batman Begins, but didn't it make more money than Batman Begins? Yet everyone rips on it for not making any money or not being any good...well...that just doesn't work for me. It made plenty of money and was done well, the BOTH of them. Batman Begins got a sequel tootsweet, Superman didn't for some reason, and every other DC property has taken so fucking long to get off of the ground, that it's almost embarassing if you care enough. Which I used to, honestly, but I learned that sort of thing has no bearing on my life, so why worry.
Anyhoo. I think a Green Lantern movie done right could blow the minds out of millions of people around this world. There's a heck of an amazing movie in all that mythos, and if the cast is nailed and the director is competent, it could really switch things up. Hal Jordan's human. Especially the way Johns wrote him, he's kind of a fuck up, actually. Very relatable. There would go that excuse.
But most importantly, Superman. How can be THIS goddamn hard to make a Superman movie, and not just be fully prepared, ALREADY, to make it and make it ridiculously fantastic? It's SUPERMAN. Warner Brothers wants to make movies and money, and Superman movies can make some DAMN good money if they do a good job with the marketing. They dropped the ball hard on Superman Returns, sure they got tons of MERCHANDISE out there and were hoping that'd sell the movie, it's like they didn't even try with the trailers or the commercials at ALL. That was very discouraging. But I think the next Superman movie could bring in butt ton of moolah at the BO if it was done right all the way.
And I just can't wrap my mind around the reality that it ISN'T HAPPENING. Wasted opportunities abound. I suppose that's how it goes sometimes. Bummer it had to be with my pal Superman.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Feb 28, 2009 19:58:36 GMT -5
dammit kev- yer exactly right. there is no excuse for getting it wrong when they have all the right ingrediants under thier elitist noses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Avilos on Feb 28, 2009 22:14:00 GMT -5
I meant that fans of Superman Returns really do like it! I notice a perception from its haters that we "Settled for it". I really do like it for what it is.
Fictional Cities can be just as much characters as the people. Look at Hill Valley in Back to the Future. Allowing them to be defined how ever the comic book creators or film makers choose.
The "Marvel New York" is far from real. Whether in comics or film. Its just a backdrop using real landmarks as visual shorthand. Which will never have the same type of personalty that fictional cities like Metropolis and Gotham can have.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Feb 28, 2009 23:40:17 GMT -5
I meant that fans of Superman Returns really do like it! I notice a perception from its haters that we "Settled for it". I really do like it for what it is.  Yeah, so true. In my case, and I know I'm not alone, I freakin love this movie, REALLY love it. I think it's a great, heartfelt and epic Superman film that will stand the test of time. It'll be considered a classic, at least that's my gut feeling on it. And yes, these type of haters are the worst. &%# Thanks for responding. And I agree with the rest of your post as well. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 1, 2009 10:07:09 GMT -5
Great discussions on this thread!
My own two cents:
* Whedon I think is referring to the general concepts of the characters with both the DC and Marvel characters from Golden/Silver Age.... not reboots nor re-imaginings once the Bronze age started in comics.
After reading some of the excellent 'interview w/creators' books on the FF, Spiderman, etc.- It's interesting (and sad) to read the constant challenges comics creators have to face in 'aging' (or 'not aging') a character and his/her universe every ten years, in order to keep younger audiences from feeling lost, according to their business model (for the most part).
The 'Ultimate' collection from Marvel (the 'reimagining' of Marvel heroes' origins in this generation rather than when they originally came out int he 60's) sort of addresses this- and the 'Crisis on Infinite Earths' (and their successors) at DC was sort of supposed to address the aging heroes' thing over there....
But, ultimately, back to the point- Whedon was enthused for awhile about doing a Fantastic Four miniseries, (based on his recollection of the heroes when he read them growing up) but once he saw how much he felt they changed so much, he lost enthusiasm for them.
The point being: When looking at the core templates of doing superhero films, I agree that (if the original templates are to be a foundation) then--- in general --- Marvel is easier to make 'audience-friendly' to more adult audiences who may need more grounding in reality for their fantasy movies, while DC templates are harder (Batman the exception) to do because the basic heroes from DC are 'Gods'.
* which leads to another opinion:
"Should REALITY have anything to do with a Superman movie"?
Personally- and this is my opinion - for an animated tv series or feature- No, I think that since the budget is (relatively) unlimited, the animated stuff should shoot for as far as the pencil can imagine, and I rarely see that in animation.
For a live-action movie I want to see- to a degree, yes--- I don't want camp, I want dimensional characters I can relate to or have feel real at any age.... Which I think is one thing (among others) that I think Singer does brilliantly in his comic book efforts.
For example---to me, the son was a masterstroke- though for others, it was a killer to the story. It added so much complexity and drama to the personal story, that I just ate it up.
Having said that, it's just a pity he didn't find a way to include other 'non-reality based aspects' like Brainiac or some other fantastic villain to include in the mix so that we could have seen other sides to Supes besides his own internal struggle with (what seemed like) a fairly depressing life as a God on Earth.
((*sidebar on the New York stuff:
That's what I loved about the Donner version- Metropolis was a 'mix' of New York (the Statue of Liberty I miss in Singer's version- the symbolism of immigrants being welcomed by the Statue of Liberty.....and Superman being the ultimate immigrant and loving the city of diversity).... to me, I always thought of both Donners' Metropolis and MARVEL comix 'New York' - being alternative universe New Yorks... and works for me.
Thus, I was fine with the Strazinski Spiderman/9-11 story.... to me, it was very poetic, and could EASILY have felt exploitive, but I thought instead it was very touching... it definitely straddled a fine line, with Marvel comix characters always having lived in 'New York', I agree there had to be some nod to it, if you were going to keep the heroes there.))
|
|
|
|
Post by Sverdlovski on Mar 2, 2009 0:28:50 GMT -5
1. It's not smart to do that because you KNOW it's New York. Calling it a different name destroys the illusion that it's supposed to be Metropolis. You know it's not, and it ruins any sense of believability. That buggered me in The Incredible Hulk. They set the movie in my city, Rio de Janeiro. Bruce Banner is working in a soda factory in Favela da Rocinha, a real location, but then some lady says the soda was made in Valverde (or Rio Verde, or any other fake name... I don't really remember). I mean, WTH! Why have all the trouble of filming in Rio, showing real locations (specifically mentioning their real names) and just minutes after say they're located in some fake city. Ugh. |
|
Are you saying that SR fans really like the movie or just reluctantly support it? 
Yeah, so true. In my case, and I know I'm not alone, I freakin love this movie, REALLY love it. I think it's a great, heartfelt and epic Superman film that will stand the test of time. It'll be considered a classic, at least that's my gut feeling on it. 
