Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 12, 2013 13:31:35 GMT -5
Just the times we live in. Superman aint ruined but so much of the magic in film, especially genre film, is gone. A first I thought it was me getting older but there are still films that make me feel the old magic every once in a while. Hollywoods always been a business and about money but it seems like the quality and ingenuity is slipping. Instead of the great distinct visions we got to see as kids we are seeing more cookie cutter productions. Why aren't we seeing as many iconic cinema heroes as we saw growing up? Maybe its because the creative ground isn't as fertile.
We got Cameron, Carpenter, Miller, Spielberg, Lucas, Zemeckis, etc. at their peaks. What do kids now have? Bay? Compare 1981 or 82 to now. Holy f***. Seems like younger people now aren't always as interested in that kind of diversity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Jul 12, 2013 13:35:00 GMT -5
Before asking if he's ruined, someone needs to define what Superman is. Some say he's become Nolan's Dark Knight with a red cape. OK then, what should he be then? What should he represent? And then, how can that be made to work in today's climate/environment? Is society too cynical to accept the "old" Superman?
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 12, 2013 13:43:21 GMT -5
Well you can never please everyone but I think a better balance can be found. People have called Superman old fashioned and out of date for over forty years but incarnations have come along that truly impressed.
Marvel seems to have found that balance. Hate to keep bringing them up but there are LOTS different takes on their characters by different people across different eras. They seem to have mostly hit on the right mix. Look at Thor. Look at Hulk. Do we want he PAD Hulk? Lees Hulk? Bixbys Hulk? Which one is "THE one?" He's had just as much trouble as Supes as far as people saying he doesn't work on film. Yet Whedon found a better formula.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on Jul 12, 2013 13:50:09 GMT -5
What should he represent? Hope. That's what this symbol means. The symbol of the house of El means hope. Their symbol wasn't an "S", it was hope. Hope was their symbol. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2013 14:22:14 GMT -5
Your friends might be above average people. Average is getting pretty stupid now. We live in world where a Bay Transformers movie made over a billion dollars so there's a market for big action. People had a good time at 300 (I did too when I saw it). There are plenty of folks who will see MOS because Snyder's name is on it. some of my friends yes. Co-workers? that was a mixed bunch, but a lot of them will just get on board with what people tell them to or just follow what ever else does. These are the people who went racing out to see TDK without showing any previous signs of being into comic book movies, came back raving about it but strangely couldn't seem to hold a conversation about it! If you told some of these guys Justin Bieber was cool now they'd race out and buy his albums. Interesting what people were saying about the feeling you got from STM. That I agree with, I just tried to think of a modern film that had that magical feel of STM and you know what, I haven't thought of one, not one film! |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Jul 12, 2013 14:30:25 GMT -5
I think the last film that even came close to feeling like magic was probably Titanic.
After that, I really cant think of any.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2013 14:45:33 GMT -5
Maybe Gladiator, that had a 'special' feel to it.
Titanic is a decent shout too. Few and far between though, not much is really jumping out at me.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jul 12, 2013 16:51:18 GMT -5
Superman isn't Nolan's Batman with a red cape.
That's why neither of the two films have gotten it right.
Superman IS hope. He IS a boy scout. He IS the light to show the way.
STM came out during the Jimmy Carter era of high inflation and high misery index among the population. Movies were grim during the 70s. It would be easy to take Superman and make him the guy we got in SR and MOS, all sad and EMO, back in the 1970s. But they didn't do that. They made Superman WHO HE IS. And they did it in an era kinda similar to ours: no jobs, bad to mediocre economy, hope on the decline.
For Superman to truly fly again, he needs to rediscover who he is. Filmmakers need to stop being afraid of portraying Superman as what he truly is: an upbeat boy scout from middle America. Sure, he has his moments of sadness---who doesn't---but that doesn't define him.
We need a filmmaker with the clarity of vision of what Superman is and have the balls to make a movie about him.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 12, 2013 17:26:41 GMT -5
True. All very true. I hate when people say STM came out in a simpler more naive time. No it fucking wasn't. It was arguably the most cynical time of the last century. Ten years after civil rifts race riots scarred part of the country. Wed left Nam with our tail between our legs. Nixon had tainted the presidency epically. We had less trust in our leaders than ever. Fuel shortages. Energy shortages. Mideast unrest. Serial killers butchering people for all the media to see. Cults killing themselves. Superman was a beacon in the darkness. Superman stood out against the cynical film anti heroes of the 70s like the Dirty Harrys or the Paul Kerseys. Superman should be unique like that again. Update the minor stuff but don't be ashamed of who he is. Most of all get real filmmakers and storytellers with the chops to bring him to the screen. Not action directors or guys good with special effects but guys who are masters of story. That's what many of the best superhero movies have in common. Marvel didn't pick Whedon because he could blow shit up real good. No. He knows how to craft a good story. He understands the importance of story flow and character interaction. He knows about the ups and downs of drama and when to play on the right emotions.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jul 12, 2013 17:38:52 GMT -5
That's a great piggyback on what I was trying to say. I think it's exactly why Star Wars, Superman, Jaws, Grease and Close Encounters resonated with audiences and still do to this day: they give the audience hope. It's kinda cool that Star Wars is titled "A New Hope" because that is exactly what this generation of filmmakers gave their audience.
Here we are in the dreary late 70s, and here comes Christopher Reeve as Superman. Unapologetically a good guy. No wonder he made such an impression.
Filmmakers need to stop apologizing for who Superman is.
Superman is Superman, rain or shine.
Whether it's the happy go lucky 50s, tumultuous 60s, dreary 70s, hopeful 80s, prosperous 90s. When today's filmmakers understand that, that's when we'll get something worthy of succeeding Reeve.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Jul 12, 2013 18:06:23 GMT -5
It's kinda cool that Star Wars is titled "A New Hope" because that is exactly what this generation of filmmakers gave their audience. Psh, 4 years later. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 12, 2013 18:59:58 GMT -5
That's a great piggyback on what I was trying to say. I think it's exactly why Star Wars, Superman, Jaws, Grease and Close Encounters resonated with audiences and still do to this day: they give the audience hope. It's kinda cool that Star Wars is titled "A New Hope" because that is exactly what this generation of filmmakers gave their audience. Here we are in the dreary late 70s, and here comes Christopher Reeve as Superman. Unapologetically a good guy. No wonder he made such an impression. Filmmakers need to stop apologizing for who Superman is. Superman is Superman, rain or shine. Whether it's the happy go lucky 50s, tumultuous 60s, dreary 70s, hopeful 80s, prosperous 90s. When today's filmmakers understand that, that's when we'll get something worthy of succeeding Reeve. I agree. Damn I miss that level of great films and great film heroes. Brody was just a guy in Jaws but Im not sure if there are any main hero characters that are as awesome now. I was telling a buddy of mine the other day that Hollywood doesn't have a clue how to create great groups of characters on film either. It's a combination of great writing and interesting actors more than anything but these days Hollywood is usually lacking both. Remember the Colonial Marines? Dutchs team in Predator? The guys in The Thing? I don't know, man... but I miss ensembles like that. |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jul 12, 2013 19:21:27 GMT -5
Look no further than the GI Joe. How many cool ensembles could come from that?
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 12, 2013 19:31:32 GMT -5
Yeah. If only someone would make a GOOD GI Joe movie and stuck with the traits that made the characters awesome.  Predators still one of the closes things to a Joe team on film IMO. |
|
Gandy
New Member
Admiral
Owner & Creator of Superman Cinema
Posts: 17,343
|
Post by Gandy on Jul 13, 2013 11:52:58 GMT -5
Nolan was actively involved with Superman. My theory is that a lot of folks at the studio are a little embarrassed with the character. He's a boy scout, he's not brooding, dark etc. He's a source of hope and inspiration. Superman wears his heart on his sleeve. The producers suggested he's an anachronism. How many times did they use the word "relevant" in interviews? When STM came out, the world was very cynical, yet Superman worked because Dick and Tom were not making him relevant, they went against public opinion. Superman isn't ruined, he justs some TLC.  |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jul 13, 2013 11:55:50 GMT -5
They need to stop apologizing for what Superman is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2013 12:33:17 GMT -5
Agreed. I hope DC doesn't go the troubled route with all their characters. It's so ironic, how Marvel comics gained popularity for having darker, troubled characters as the heroes, yet their movies are fun and light hearted for the most part and DC is literally the exact opposite.
I have a feeling MOS 2 will feature a proper Superman, one that is more of the traditional ilk rather than a serious dude. I wanna see him smile a lot in the next one.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using proboards
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 13, 2013 12:35:39 GMT -5
That's a great piggyback on what I was trying to say. I think it's exactly why Star Wars, Superman, Jaws, Grease and Close Encounters resonated with audiences and still do to this day: they give the audience hope. It's kinda cool that Star Wars is titled "A New Hope" because that is exactly what this generation of filmmakers gave their audience. Here we are in the dreary late 70s, and here comes Christopher Reeve as Superman. Unapologetically a good guy. No wonder he made such an impression. Filmmakers need to stop apologizing for who Superman is. Superman is Superman, rain or shine. Whether it's the happy go lucky 50s, tumultuous 60s, dreary 70s, hopeful 80s, prosperous 90s. When today's filmmakers understand that, that's when we'll get something worthy of succeeding Reeve. Yeah you're right I love how Reeve's superman is unashamedly Superman despite being seen as dated then. What Donner did was modernize the man but left Superman as he was. Reeve was very much a "modern" man for the times instead of the image of manhood that George Reeves represented. He could be more sensitive. More emotionally accessible. But he was still a icon. A symbol of hope and optimism. And Donner didn't just say it he showed it. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 13, 2013 12:39:49 GMT -5
Very true.... Which is why STM is so aligned with Donner--- Donner's movies (at least they were at the time, outside of the Omen) were pretty sentimental--- or if they weren't, they'd have a sentimental happy ending (see Ladyhawke, Inside Moves, even Conspiracy Theory, and even the problematic Radio Flyer)--- Donner WAS that character who refused to be cynical. STM is unabashedly corny ("Can you Read my mind"?) in spots and even embarrassing at moments- but it's anything but cynical, which is part of the charm of the film.
To me, STM's core anchor is all about Ma and Pa Kent instilling the sense of who Superman is and should be as a person. The angst didn't come from family conflict or squabbles- The comics for decades was about Superman and his adopted parents as being the perfect family unit, and the tragedy of the family being what's tragic for everyone: mortality. (At least that's what I got from it- although I guess it could be argued that Clark constantly felt guilty for making his dad race him and get the heart attack)
MOS's main flaw to me is that it felt it needed to add our neurosises and fears into the main characters and sully them, to a degree.
I wanted to vomit when Clark is squawking to Jonathan Kent: "You're not my father!" (which came from Goyer being told that by his stepson). The movie kind of hints and builds on the idea that Clark's suffering was all built on Jonathan's overdoing the protection bit for his son and keeping him down from life (ie arguing about farming). He grows into adulthood with the searing scar in his head that he AND the world were responsible for Jonathan's death.
If the world were ready, Jonathan could have been saved by Clark. If Clark didn't decide to blurt out to his dad (although as an orphan he had to feel a sense of abandonment common to all orphans) that he didn't consider his dad his real dad, then he might not be so angst-ridden.
So.... is Superman ruined?
Nah. Superman's bigger than any movie at this point... he's simultaneously a pop icon that can have as much meaning what you want, (and the definition you want- whether he's someone who can or can't have a kid and is/is not someone who kills-) and a corporate property that is whatever they say he is about at the time.
But I'm just convinced that what I see in Man of Steel is a darker Peter Parker or Daredevil version of Superman.... not the version of Superman that I grew up with that inspired hope in humanity, albeit fiction.
To me, the old version had the idea at the core that mankind was good, but would feel safer and inspired just by having him around to help, as mankind's safety is always his first and foremost priority.
The new version suggests that mankind is basically horrible and untrustworthy like Pa Kent trained him, but should feel better knowing that he's around to help out, even though he wants his privacy and will save always somebody if he's not too busy fighting.
Not ruined. Just as Star Trek isn't ruined with its reboot, but it's certainly doesn't feel like it has the optimistic spirit I had for the previous versions of both.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 13, 2013 12:41:40 GMT -5
Nolan was actively involved with Superman. My theory is that a lot of folks at the studio are a little embarrassed with the character. He's a boy scout, he's not brooding, dark etc. He's a source of hope and inspiration. Superman wears his heart on his sleeve. The producers suggested he's an anachronism. How many times did they use the word "relevant" in interviews? When STM came out, the world was very cynical, yet Superman worked because Dick and Tom were not making him relevant, they went against public opinion. Superman isn't ruined, he justs some TLC. Yup. Agreed. I don't think WB gets ANY of the DC characters. We got lucky with Nolan but what we have now is a bunch of suits who don't understand their product and why it appeals to people. |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Jul 13, 2013 13:07:36 GMT -5
yeah, couldn't have put it better. RDJ looks like he's having a blast, we needed that with MoS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2013 13:10:40 GMT -5
They had better give us that in any sequel.
I'm fine with the tone of MOS given the story and given it's a kind of journey to becoming Superman. But there is NO EXCUSE at all for giving us the more classic or traditional Superman in a sequel, they sort of showed us it at the end.
And yes, it will be good to see him smile more, Cavill's got a great smile, so fucking use it!
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 13, 2013 13:23:34 GMT -5
yeah, couldn't have put it better. RDJ looks like he's having a blast, we needed that with MoS. You feel like your taking the ride with the Marvel characters. That's why it's so much fun to live vicariously through a Tony Stark. When he put on that suit for the first time I bet a lot of people wanted one. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul (ral) on Jul 13, 2013 13:30:06 GMT -5
Do we know if there is even a plan for a shared DC movie universe? So far we have MOS but no real plan outside of that...and nothing hinted to in MOS. Marvel had it laid out from the get go...WB at the moment are making it up as they go (well that's how it seems to me), and that doesn't inspire confidence. I hope they pull it off though. Instead of trying to distance from Marvel's approach, perhaps they should embrace it.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 13, 2013 14:14:09 GMT -5
They might have a plan they're keeping under wraps but I doubt it. Seems more like they have an idea of what they want to do but no idea on how to get there or how to make it happen. I doubt they even know what Batman will be yet even though they dropped an Easter egg in MOS. that's nothing new though. Batman and Superman have dropped nods in each others productions for over 15 years. Certainly not close to the big hint Fury dropped after the credits of Iron Man. Marvel didn't have everything laid out in 2008 but they had a pretty strong vision of what they wanted and a rough idea of how to get there.
Millers JL was going to be separate from Batman Begins and Superman Returns which seemed like a waste to me.
Green Lantern was supposed to be the first steps to a DC Film universe (especially with Amanda Waller) but they blew that. They even supposedly had to cut a Superman cameo out of an early script (probably because they didn't have a Superman ready to put yet). Pretty obvious they werent even sure of what to do with that. In hindsight they should have given Routh an Affleck/Murdock sized cameo in GL. It wouldn't have made a difference since GL failed.
I think if WB had any kind of plan we'd be seeing much clearer signs of it in MOS just like we saw more of a foundation in Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk. By the time we saw TIH it was obvious Marvel had little more in mind than Easter eggs. They were already setting things up. Blonsky used an incomplete version of the super soldier process that created Captain America among other things.
|
|
