|
|
Post by adam15 on May 27, 2009 11:36:31 GMT -5
The problem with Supie is that he's all powerfull and the only real threat to him (aside from glowing green rocks  ) is super powered aliens from outer space... in other words folks JUST LIKE SUPERMAN! ;D I think that Superman is best when he is strong but not that strong. Like if really tries hard Superman should be able to lift, like, nothing heavier than a compact car. This way there are two advantages because one, Superman is still super-strong and two, he could still be vunerable if a dozen random guys decided to jump him and had weapons. Speaking of weapons, I think that Superman's skin should be unbreakable, he can never lose even a drop of blood no matter how badly he is wounded but he would still feel loads of pain if he got hit by a bullet or something, i.e. he can bruise and break bones. Do you guys think that having drastically scalled back powers makes Superman more interesting? I certainly do and I have proof. If there is ONE THING ON THIS EARTH that we ALL agree on here it is that Donner's dramatic final fortress confrontation was WAY better than Lester's mini fortress battle. Why do you think this is? It is because less POWERS are shown in Donner's version. In Lester's version it appears that Superman can do anything even pull a celephane S out of his ass so it is boring since they can cook up anything! On the contrary in Donners version less is more. Well that's my manifesto for the hour.  |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on May 27, 2009 12:00:01 GMT -5
"Do you guys think that having drastically scalled back powers makes Superman more interesting?"
NO. What makes him interesting is good, compelling writing.
|
|
|
|
Post by adam15 on May 27, 2009 12:01:42 GMT -5
But it's harder to write well when Superman is all powerfull and can go back in time, move the moon, re-build hreat wall of china and stuff!
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 27, 2009 13:15:21 GMT -5
I agree that Superman should have limits that don't change radically depending on the scripts' needs- but how well defined it should be is debatable. The main thing is that there's a sense of believability and tension for his heroics. If he can do everything without effort or limits whatsoever, that's not good.
Having said that- with the comment:
That's why having Superman be vulnerable by having a kid in SR is a masterstroke. How do you really advance Superman's character on a personal level? The Lois/Clark thing needed advancement on some level, and I can't think of a better one than to have them have a kid and for Lois to have another relationship. The complications make that story interesting- to others, that situation makes the story too messy for them.
Reboot or not, Singer took Superman's personal story forward in a real way. Being married to Lois (in the comics) actually locks the story in much much moreso, I think, than having the kid, which opens up fresh possibilities.
But back to the topic: Agreed- Superman should have more defined limits.
|
|
|
|
Post by adam15 on May 27, 2009 13:28:46 GMT -5
I don't think having the kid helps very much in establishing Superman's vunerabilities. I mean, couldn't he just turn back time so he had never knocked Lois up?
Superman needs drastic limits on his actual powers IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 27, 2009 13:49:03 GMT -5
Well... the assumption is that filmmakers would be smart enough to NEVER open that device of Superman turning back time ever again- (And hopefully the memory kiss)--- not to mention what an ass Supes would look like to turn back time so that he doesn't have a kid. ;p
Having significant supporting characters that CAN be killed off makes Superman incredibly vulnerable- Let's face it: we know nothing will ever really happen to Lois, Jimmy, or Perry. So where's the real danger? Perry's nephew? Possible target. Superman's kid? Even moreso, and what a great way to add significant unpredictability to the story.
It's not the only way to go, agreed....but it's one of the best that Singer chose, imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kal-Ex on May 27, 2009 14:19:00 GMT -5
I like the fact that Superman is almost invulnerable and that he is a kind of God. Is weakness is not only Kryptonite but is good human values: he never kill, never lie (except to protect his identity), he is pure. The real challenge of the character is not being stronger but stay right wathever happened. It’s great to see him trying to live a normal life as Clark Kent, falling in love with Loïs, and acting like if he was a nerd. Is weakness is his heart. Even if he is immortal, sometimes he loose the battle because he is sensitive, emotive. Is nemesis is Lex Luthor who don’t have super power… that prove that Superman stories can be interresting even if the character is invulnerable. And there’s also the psychology of Kal-el, the fact that he feel alone, being the only survivor of is homeworld. But I’m agree that is power are supposed to be always at the same level. - In STM he cannot reach the missile on time but he can fly fast enough to reverse the time Sorry for my english, I speak french |
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on May 27, 2009 14:25:01 GMT -5
Welcome Kalex!
Great insights!
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on May 27, 2009 14:26:44 GMT -5
But it's harder to write well when Superman is all powerfull and can go back in time, move the moon, re-build hreat wall of china and stuff! But Superman is not all powerful, even he has his limitations. He is not omnipotent you know? Besides, those things you mentioned aren't actual Superman powers (with the exception of being able to move the moon). Those were made up aka cop outs. One of the reasons I became such a big Superman fan is because he can do things NO other Superhero can, and he does it out of love and compassion. He could rule the world so easily, but instead he protects and serves us. He loves us. You up the ante in the villain stakes and have Superman showcase his wonderous powers against powerful adversaries. There - no de-powering needed. I love his strength levels as in SR. I mean, after all, as Superman fans isnt that what we all wanna see - Superman performing wonderous feats on screen? If you don't wanna see that yet still consider yourself a Superman fan? Then, all I can say is.......for shame. . |
|
Conor
New Member
Posts: 1,569
|
Post by Conor on May 27, 2009 18:17:19 GMT -5
STAS scaled back Supes' power and I think it was just about perfect! He wouldn't be called Superman going by your suggestion he'd probably be called "Slightly-Better-Than-The-Average-Guy-Man!
He can only save so many falling people so I do agree they need to be scaled back but not too much!
|
|
|
|
Post by inebriated87 on May 27, 2009 19:30:51 GMT -5
His strength is important - I still remember the unrivalled thrill I felt as a kid when he caught the helicopter with one hand and flew effortlessly upwards.
The DP headlines would have been different if he tried to grab it but plummeted with it to the ground. Or in II where he finds he can't fly fast enough (a dream I keep having) to save the falling kid from being dashed against a rock. Or in III where he struggles for several minutes to get his fingernails in under the drowning man's sunroof, eventually dragging a corpse onto the road. Or in IV where his feeble heat vision only cooks the outside of the duck, causing a 30 minute scene of Lois on the toilet.
No other superhero should be a physical match for Superman ... only one or two villains should be able to challenge him.
A good Superman movie only needs a good story, charming characters, a broad sense of humour with good dialogue ... and it'll win us all over.
|
|
|
|
Post by adam15 on May 27, 2009 21:11:04 GMT -5
But it's harder to write well when Superman is all powerfull and can go back in time, move the moon, re-build hreat wall of china and stuff! But Superman is not all powerful, even he has his limitations. He is not omnipotent you know? Besides, those things you mentioned aren't actual Superman powers (with the exception of being able to move the moon). Those were made up aka cop outs. One of the reasons I became such a big Superman fan is because he can do things NO other Superhero can, and he does it out of love and compassion. He could rule the world so easily, but instead he protects and serves us. He loves us. You up the ante in the villain stakes and have Superman showcase his wonderous powers against powerful adversaries. There - no de-powering needed. I love his strenght levels as in SR! I mean, after all, as Superman fans isnt that what we all wanna see - Superman performing wonderous feats on screen? If you don't wanna see that yet still consider yourself a Superman fan? Then, all I can say is.......for shame. . For shame?! I'm Superman's no.1 fan I'll have you know! No one loves Superman more than I do.... I just want him to be better i.e. less powers. Okay what was more cool, Superman easily catchinh the statue of Liberty in SIV or struggling to stop the plow in the field in SIII? The latter is better because at least it's somewhat of a challenge to Supes! |
|
|
|
Post by fggafagas on May 27, 2009 21:37:40 GMT -5
Unless you're going for realism, Superman's power level shouldn't be lowered so much that he can barely lift a compact car. heck, there's probably people in real life who could do that. I mean it's one thing to not want him to be able to juggle planets or time travel, but isn't this the least bit ridiculous? You weaken him so much that Iron Man and Spider-Man are stronger than him, you'll have people asking why they called the movie Superman in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by adam15 on May 27, 2009 22:14:51 GMT -5
Well maybe he can pick up a bus but that's it!
|
|
|
|
Post by fggafagas on May 27, 2009 22:49:02 GMT -5
Personally, I'd go a bit bigger, like an airliner and maybe even an asteroid at his maximum strength level (possibly from sun-dipping). But no planet pushing or time traveling.
|
|
