Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2010 2:14:39 GMT -5
Christopher Nolan, as talented and interesting as he is, would be totally wrong for Superman.
The way Hollywood has been approaching the character in the post-Donner era has been all wrong. They've been trying to make Superman more complicated, either by making him an isolated alien (Burton) or a mopey guy in need of a stable human relationship (Singer). But complication doesn't make someone relateable; even if he's the baby daddy of Lois' kid, he still has amazing powers normal people can only dream of. (Don't bring up Spider-Man as a counter-example, please. His personal relationships were always part of his overall storyline. heck, he knew most of his enemies before they gained powers) He's still in a much cooler position than anyone else on Earth, which completely invalidates any kind of angst the character is supposed to be experiencing. He's f'n Superman, damn it. Why in heck would he ever feel sorry for himself?
The thing is, Superman is the dumbest superhero in comics. He's a simplistic icon, an idealist in a world that tramples all over idealists- that is, unless you're an alien superhero who can fly and shoot lasers out of his eyes. Superman is a fantasy, the fantasy of having enough power and resolve to live as an idealist in a world that's anything but ideal. The Donner Superman may have been distracted by the need for human connection, but in the end, being Earth's greatest protector was more important- and he didn't pout about it. Any future filmmakers who take on the Superman franchise need to embrace the simplicity of the character and run with it, IMO. It's what sets him apart from the Iron Mans and Batmans of the comic universe.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on May 31, 2010 5:49:18 GMT -5
Which is why I love the B/W George Reeves shows and the 96 WB toons
Keep it simple; no angst. Let's have fun with the characters
|
|
EvilSupes
New Member
LOOK! Superman's drunk!
Posts: 3,037
|
Post by EvilSupes on May 31, 2010 10:03:41 GMT -5
Which is why I love the B/W George Reeves shows and the 96 WB toons Keep it simple; no angst. Let's have fun with the characters Me too! Love classic George Reeves Superman. He's very much a man's man. I used to watch the 96 wb cartoon whenever my youngest cousin used to come round, fun times! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on May 31, 2010 11:22:37 GMT -5
Hey, I like my Superman with some depth.
That's why I love the Alan Moore Superman tales.
I think the key is to find a balance.
|
|
EvilSupes
New Member
LOOK! Superman's drunk!
Posts: 3,037
|
Post by EvilSupes on May 31, 2010 16:18:55 GMT -5
Yeah you're right Star, balance is key!
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 1, 2010 11:03:28 GMT -5
Nolan is an interesting choice; The film will be of great quality, but it might not necessarily be what different fans want necessarily. We know two things that should be pretty solid about Nolan's work:
(1) He's smart enough to be respectful of source material.... (thus, his choice to collaborate with Goyer, a comic book guy)
(2) His films have consistently had a dark tone to them.
Those who think it's going to be a happy fun film I think are really going to have a big shock, when/if it has a dark tone to it.
In regards to characterization in the new film, I like Star's comment that balance is the key.
One draft from an earlier incarnation (NOT Singer's- Greg Portier I think was the screenwriter & the script also had Silver Banshee in it) had Clark Kent going to a psychiatrist regularly--- that's just wrong, imo.
On the flip side, if a main character has no internal conflict or struggle whatsoever, nor flaws, then it's pretty much a one-dimensional cartoon.
I thought Singer's Superman did a pretty great job going in the middle- making Supes still a pure character, who doesn't go to a psychiatrist for his problems, but sees the world as troubled and that he's its savior. He doesn't whine about it, but internalizes his own pain on what he sees in the world.
(*Though my own problem with it was that in going with this approach, especially when he's listening to the entire worlds' suffering, he saves a bank & saves a car..... not exactly jaw-dropping super-heroism. I know why they chose those bits, but.... anyways.... )
Anyhow--- For my part, my own view (and expectations) towards Nolan's Superman is mixed. Having his name attached to it, means a giganticallly high standard- but, if he is rebooting it from scratch, unlike the disappointing Batman series that had issues from the beginning..... Nolan's Superman has to be good enough to immediately make one feel that it was worth the effort of 'replacing' the Donner version- if that is the goal.
Guess we'll see...
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Jun 2, 2010 17:38:47 GMT -5
shiney- thats a compelling arguement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Jun 3, 2010 16:00:42 GMT -5
Christopher Nolan, as talented and interesting as he is, would be totally wrong for Superman. The way Hollywood has been approaching the character in the post-Donner era has been all wrong. They've been trying to make Superman more complicated, either by making him an isolated alien (Burton) or a mopey guy in need of a stable human relationship (Singer). But complication doesn't make someone relateable; even if he's the baby daddy of Lois' kid, he still has amazing powers normal people can only dream of. (Don't bring up Spider-Man as a counter-example, please. His personal relationships were always part of his overall storyline. heck, he knew most of his enemies before they gained powers) He's still in a much cooler position than anyone else on Earth, which completely invalidates any kind of angst the character is supposed to be experiencing. He's f'n Superman, damn it. Why in heck would he ever feel sorry for himself? The thing is, Superman is the dumbest superhero in comics. He's a simplistic icon, an idealist in a world that tramples all over idealists- that is, unless you're an alien superhero who can fly and shoot lasers out of his eyes. Superman is a fantasy, the fantasy of having enough power and resolve to live as an idealist in a world that's anything but ideal. The Donner Superman may have been distracted by the need for human connection, but in the end, being Earth's greatest protector was more important- and he didn't pout about it. Any future filmmakers who take on the Superman franchise need to embrace the simplicity of the character and run with it, IMO. It's what sets him apart from the Iron Mans and Batmans of the comic universe. sounds like super-forrest gump..... i would have to add that while he is noble and idealistic- and maybe in this day and age thats hard for people to "get", he is ALSO the ULTIMATE mythological archetype. he jesus, samson, moses, hecules all rolled into one and if that underpinning is present it gives the character more depth. |
|
|
|
Post by Krypton Refugee on Jun 3, 2010 19:08:58 GMT -5
Christopher Nolan, as talented and interesting as he is, would be totally wrong for Superman. The way Hollywood has been approaching the character in the post-Donner era has been all wrong. They've been trying to make Superman more complicated, either by making him an isolated alien (Burton) or a mopey guy in need of a stable human relationship (Singer). But complication doesn't make someone relateable; even if he's the baby daddy of Lois' kid, he still has amazing powers normal people can only dream of. (Don't bring up Spider-Man as a counter-example, please. His personal relationships were always part of his overall storyline. heck, he knew most of his enemies before they gained powers) He's still in a much cooler position than anyone else on Earth, which completely invalidates any kind of angst the character is supposed to be experiencing. He's f'n Superman, damn it. Why in heck would he ever feel sorry for himself? The thing is, Superman is the dumbest superhero in comics. He's a simplistic icon, an idealist in a world that tramples all over idealists- that is, unless you're an alien superhero who can fly and shoot lasers out of his eyes. Superman is a fantasy, the fantasy of having enough power and resolve to live as an idealist in a world that's anything but ideal. The Donner Superman may have been distracted by the need for human connection, but in the end, being Earth's greatest protector was more important- and he didn't pout about it. Any future filmmakers who take on the Superman franchise need to embrace the simplicity of the character and run with it, IMO. It's what sets him apart from the Iron Mans and Batmans of the comic universe. Quoted for truth. GREAT argument Shiny! |
|
|
|
Post by Matt in the Hat on Jun 4, 2010 0:20:40 GMT -5
Right. That's his struggle. He fights for justice in a world that keeps on being unjust. It is a never ending battle after all. There's plenty of drama in there. It's what motivated a lot of story in the Loeb/Kelly era, and I don't see why a similar approach couldn't work. You wouldn't have to compromise the character in any way.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Jun 4, 2010 0:39:56 GMT -5
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Jun 4, 2010 3:35:26 GMT -5
Perhaps in that case, he should hire Singer as creative consultant
|
|
|
|
Post by SupermanUF on Jun 4, 2010 18:29:31 GMT -5
I agree with what you said up there, Shiny. Just give us a Superman that gets down to business and doesn't whine about it.
The world doesn't need heroes; the world just needs people who actually get shit done.
Looking at this oil spill, for example--I think everyone feels frustrated that nobody-- from the company at fault, to private enterprise, to the FUCKING GOVERNMENT--can seem to fix it.
Give us a Superman that fixes things. Give us a Superman that sets an example, a Superman that shines a light on the ineffectiveness of bureaucracy and the uselessness of politicians. Anyone who says the character needs to be "updated" is full of crap. We NEED that 30s-40s Superman more than ever, because he took no bullshit. A Superman that inspires people to act when they see injustice; not just sit home and blog about.
|
|
Keith
New Member
Posts: 3,238
|
Post by Keith on Jun 4, 2010 19:00:35 GMT -5
 Everyone is making some excellent points! |
|
Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on Jun 5, 2010 9:00:57 GMT -5
I agree with what you said up there, Shiny. Just give us a Superman that gets down to business and doesn't whine about it. The world doesn't need heroes; the world just needs people who actually get shit done. Looking at this oil spill, for example--I think everyone feels frustrated that nobody-- from the company at fault, to private enterprise, to the FUCKING GOVERNMENT--can seem to fix it. Give us a Superman that fixes things. Give us a Superman that sets an example, a Superman that shines a light on the ineffectiveness of bureaucracy and the uselessness of politicians. Anyone who says the character needs to be "updated" is full of crap. We NEED that 30s-40s Superman more than ever, because he took no bullshit. A Superman that inspires people to act when they see injustice; not just sit home and blog about. THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT! BRAVO! BRAVO! |
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Jun 5, 2010 16:19:55 GMT -5
and he told me his take on it. I thought it was really tremendous. It was the first time I’ve been able to conceive of how you’d address Superman in a modern context I thought it was a really exciting idea. What you have to remember about Batman and Superman is that what makes them the best superhero characters there are, the most beloved after all this time, is the essence of who they were when they were created, when they were first developed. You can’t move too far away from that."
.... y'know- i could see how one could INFER that its a period piece from that. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt in the Hat on Jun 5, 2010 21:48:40 GMT -5
But one could infer that the sensibilities of the original stories may be reflected in modern times. A Superman that takes care of shit today. Not just saving cats from trees.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 5, 2010 22:36:02 GMT -5
Well.... it would be a fresh interpretation if he did, though. (Not to mention it could help keep the budget low if he never had to actually fly nor leave a computer.)  |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jun 6, 2010 6:48:36 GMT -5
I fear Margot Kidder's Humpty Dumpty analogy is dead on with regards to the Superman franchise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Jun 6, 2010 11:53:33 GMT -5
read a few blogs there, the name henry cavill was brought up- dont know anything about this guy- but i'm warming to the LOOK of him as superman, i think he could look the part, is he any good?   |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on Jun 6, 2010 15:59:35 GMT -5
read a few blogs there, the name henry cavill was brought up- dont know anything about this guy- but i'm warming to the LOOK of him as superman, i think he could look the part, is he any good? Didn't he play Jim Caviezel's son in Count of Monte Cristo? I seem to remember his name coming up as a possibility for 007 before Daniel Craig was cast. |
|
|
|
Post by Matt in the Hat on Jun 6, 2010 16:18:33 GMT -5
WTF, THIS SHIT AGAIN? Will he ever not be rumored for the role?
|
|
|
|
Post by Scissorpuppy on Jun 6, 2010 19:29:43 GMT -5
[ Didn't he play Jim Caviezel's son in Count of Monte Cristo? I seem to remember his name coming up as a possibility for 007 before Daniel Craig was cast. He was the runner up EON liked him a great deal but didn't know wether they wanted a young bond or a mature bond starting as 007. They went with the later, people seem to think he's on the short list to replace Craig when the time comes. Which if this MGM shit doesn't settle down, it could be sooner rather than later. |
|
Kirok
New Member
"You have failed this city!"
Posts: 3,179
|
Post by Kirok on Jun 6, 2010 23:08:55 GMT -5
WTF, THIS SHIT AGAIN? Will he ever not be rumored for the role? Haha, so true. I remember him being rumored back in the Brett Rater/McG days of the early 2000s. Of course I've been suggesting Matthew Boomer recently, so I guess that makes me just as bad... |
|
botz1
New Member
Posts: 422
|
Post by botz1 on Jun 10, 2010 19:09:25 GMT -5
just wondering why cant nolan just do superman first?
Batman is already up and running, and this superman idea is supposed to be sooooooooooo great and its been 4 years since returns. So F it do supes first.....Has goyer even started the supes script??
|
|
