So is the pressure on Superman?

[davejames]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

And THAT is central to what made these movies so good.

Clearer?

Dude, what's with the freakin attitude? If I misread your original post, I apologize. Geez.

[davejames]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

I would argue that while Superman was never threatened physically he certainally was emotionally...that seemed to be the entire crux that Singer was going for with his version of Superman. What would happen to the world and to Superman if he had been gone for a period of time? Clark returns to find his world entirely thrown for a loop and like any human has a tough time attempting to adjust to the changes. The woman he loves--who thinks he abandoned her--has moved on with another man--a good man--and has a son (remember he doesn't know that its his when he intially comes back) his own mother has moved on from the death of her husband (she's seeing Ben Hubbard in the novel). All these changes had a profound effect on Clark (him spying on Lois and Richard with his x-ray vision). Then you have Lex obtaining more Kryptonite and creating an entire continent with it, essentially attempting to "steal" or corrupt Superman's legacy, that of his homewolrd. These are all emotional threats to Clark...there was no need for physical threats in this movie. I agree though this needs to change in the next one.

Agreed. While I definitely think some of these themes should have been explored a bit deeper, there's still a lot for Superman to deal with in this movie. And yeah, Lex's plan is a lot more than "just another real estate scheme" as people call it. Not only is it MUCH grander in scale, but it's a much more personal attack than we saw before; he's basically using Superman's own technology (and a piece of Krypton itself) to destroy the country this time.

[CaptainCanada]

Galactus wrote:

---

So you think Thor can take on Superman? I don't think he can take out Hulk or Sentry, so he is not even top in the Marvel heroes. I want to read the new Thor but I am sure he has been ruined like the rest of Marvel, even though I know some that like the book.

Thor is meant to be the most powerful Marvel hero (Lee created him because the only thing he could think of more powerful than the Hulk would be a god); particularly in his current form, he could defeat Superman in the blink of an eye, since he's inherited the position of his father, Odin; even without that he'd have a shot. Particularly since Superman is vulnerable to magic.

[Galactus]

Like I said I haven't read the new Thor, or much of comics lately but I thought Sentry was suppose to be the most powerful hero on Earth for Marvel now.

But just getting back to just Thor vs Superman. Are we talking about just fighting hand to hand? Which version of Superman are we talking? I don't think Asgardian powers are magic per se because Silver Surfer can duplicate them. I still don't get the whole vulnerable to magic thing. If the Hulk can clean Thor's clock I don't see why Superman couldn't as well.

[CaptainCanada]

Galactus wrote:

---

But just getting back to just Thor vs Superman. Are we talking about just fighting hand to hand?

Fighting with all their powers.

Which version of Superman are we talking?

I was thinking of the modern version; baseline Thor would have a hard time beating the pre-Crisis one at his most ridiculous levels, but Odinforce Thor could do it.

I don't think Asgardian powers are magic per se

He's a god; it's magic.

If the Hulk can clean Thor's clock I don't see why Superman couldn't as well.

The Hulk can't clean Thor's clock, not when it's written properly.

[Cary L. Brown]

davejames wrote:

---

Dude, what's with the freakin attitude? If I misread your original post, I apologize. Geez.

"Dude," what is with YOUR 'freakin' attitude?

You misunderstood or misinterpreted something I said. I clarified it. I asked if you understood what my point was after I clarified.

That's central to what's called "discussion." It's OK to disagree, but it's not OK to misunderstand (and thus to disagree with something which isn't even what's being said in the first place).

I know that the internet is filled with people just aching to leap off the handle on these issues... looking to pick fights and flame and so forth. But that's not what this is about. I'm trying to have an actual civil conversation... which does NOT require people to just smile stupidly and agree with everything someone else says, but DOES require an honest effort to communicate clearly.

You didn't understand what I said. I clarified. And you seem to be upset that I clarified??? Sheesh...

[Lapis Exilis]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

Wonder Woman needs its element of fantasty...but there are definately ways to make it realistic and in the real world as well. All you have to do is look at shows like Buffy, Angel, Doctor Who, who have fantastical and science fiction based themes that take place in the so called real world.

Buffy and Angel never struck me as particularly trying to be realistic. Their worlds had a lot of the same forms as our world, but they just did that to play with them - to have nightclubs for demons and what not. Plus stylistically they were very self-conscious and spent a lot of time winking at the camera, which is drawing attention to the fact that they are fiction, and thus not realistic at all.

Theymiscra and the Amazons have always been seperate from Man's World anyways, that's the point of sending Diana as their Ambassador. You need to keep these elements as they're vital to the story you're trying to tell, removing Olympus from Diana's backstory would turn into a big mistake and piss off all the Wonder Woman fans. I'm thinking that the upcoming Animated DVD movie is a test to see what kind of interest there is for a live action Wonder Woman movie. LOTR was a historical fanstasy...Peter Jackson made a statement early into production (it might have even been during pre-production) that his intention was to make a historical fantasty. Breathe life into Middle World and make it real that way. You could do the same with Wonder Woman, Superman, and Thor. They all have elements of science fiction/fantasty but there are ways to keep them "real" as well.

Wonder Woman is historical fantasy as well. LotR is all about a "mythical age", Wonder Woman operates as a kind of time warp - Greek mythology transported into a modern age. It seems to me what Jackson is talking about is committing to the fantasy. Committment, believing in the world you're creating, no matter how fantastic it is, creates a depth that allows for the audience to suspend their disbelief. I would say that Buffy and Angel committed to their worlds, all the way down to the self-conscious style. It's possible to commit to any fictional construct and achieve a sense of belief, even without it feeling like "the real world". Middle Earth felt like a real world, but not the real world.

[Galactus]

So because Thor is a god, that automatically makes his power magic?

I can't think of a story where Thor has actually beat the Hulk in a fight, maybe I am getting old. I can think of at least one where the Hulk whipped Thor good. But then again they have Wolvie fighting the Hulk so go figure.

We definitely need to have a Superman vs thread one day.

[Bad Bishop]

Galactus wrote:

---

So because Thor is a god, that automatically makes his power magic?

I can't think of a story where Thor has actually beat the Hulk in a fight, maybe I am getting old. I can think of at least one where the Hulk whipped Thor good. But then again they have Wolvie fighting the Hulk so go figure.

We definitely need to have a Superman vs thread one day.

That would be a fun topic, but I warn you that the Superman-Thor fight in the miniseries JLA/Avengers is still a sensitive subject for Thor fans. Mainly because their guy was KO'd.

Returning to the original topic, can another Superman film start filming in early 2009 and still make it onto the Summer 2010 schedule?

[CaptainCanada]

Galactus wrote:

---

So because Thor is a god, that automatically makes his power magic?

It's magic because it's always described as magic (what else would you call it?).

I can't think of a story where Thor has actually beat the Hulk in a fight, maybe I am getting old.

Iron Man has beaten the Hulk himself on occasion, so Thor can.

One example would be Jurgens' extended AU run, Thor conquered the world and killed the Hulk, along with a bunch of other guys (this, of course, was the current Odinforce version, ludicrously powerful (though not written as quite so ludicrously powerful as Odin was when he wielded it, since it's hard enough to write stories for Thor at his current level))..

In general, writing requirements affect the outcome; since whenever the Avengers fight the Hulk, Thor can't win all by himself or the rest of the group looks worthless.

Bad Bishop wrote:

---

That would be a fun topic, but I warn you that the Superman-Thor fight in the miniseries JLA/Avengers is still a sensitive subject for Thor fans. Mainly because their guy was KO'd.

Busiek's thoughts on Thor earned him no friends among Thor's fans.

[JacksonArcher]

Bad Bishop wrote:

---

Returning to the original topic, can another Superman film start filming in early 2009 and still make it onto the Summer 2010 schedule?

Then the ball needs to get rolling. I don't see another Superman film making it to 2010 with Bryan Singer as director; he is knee-deep in post-production on Valkryie, and still re-shooting some scenes or having recently shot them.

The film isn't due until 2009 and I don't think Singer will want to primarily focus his efforts on another project like Superman until he is done with his current one.

2011 might be feasible.

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

JacksonArcher wrote:

---

Then the ball needs to get rolling. I don't see another Superman film making it to 2010 with Bryan Singer as director; he is knee-deep in post-production on Valkryie, and still re-shooting some scenes or having recently shot them.

The film isn't due until 2009 and I don't think Singer will want to primarily focus his efforts on another project like Superman until he is done with his current one.

2011 might be feasible.

I don't think 2010 is looking likely either. And Warners will presumably want to get the next Nolan/Bale Batman film out in the summer of 2011, and I don't see them releasing a Superman film in the same year (unless they gave it a Christmas release - although I don't think they'd do so). If Superman slips back to 2012 then I think they'll go with a new cast and director and start from scratch.

[JacksonArcher]

I can see Nolan waiting another year to do the next Batman, if he decides to do one. I don't know why, but I can see him waiting to either do more projects or just wait until the right story hits him.

[davejames]

Yeah I definitely think Nolan has earned the right now to make the next Batman in his own time and on his own terms. And considering how hard a followup to TDK will be, he'll probably NEED all that time.

[Cary L. Brown]

JacksonArcher wrote:

---

I can see Nolan waiting another year to do the next Batman, if he decides to do one. I don't know why, but I can see him waiting to either do more projects or just wait until the right story hits him.

Agreed. I'd rather have NO movie than have a poorly-conceived, poorly-executed one which is rushed out just because some MBA-types want to cash in...

If the guy making the film has a story he wants to tell... not just a "universe he wants to play in" but a real STORY... which would be compelling regardless of whether or not that was presented within that universe... that's when I want another movie. When the storytellers are excited about doing their job. That's when I want another one... and not before. If Nolan is burnt out on this stuff (not saying he is, but IF he is) then I don't want him to do another one (even though he's done an amazing job thus far!).

No movie is better than a bad movie... IMHO.