Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by JacksonArcher, Oct 4, 2010.
Instead of Daily Planet, he could work for Daily Kos.
He obviously reconsidered and probably did so after seeing the massively fat check Warner Bros. was offering to the director.
I think that was one of the story points.
The Daily Planet is suffering from people getting news off the web instead of print until Superman arrives.
^ Clark is about to get laid off until Superman grants him an interview.
That was one movie, though, at the start of his career. It was also his lowest budgeted, and if you look at every other project he has done since then, including the upcoming Sucker Punch, the more projects he does that are higher profile, the more of his hyper-stylized, slow-motion type of filmmaking creeps into every film that he does.
Superman will probably be his highest budgeted film yet, which doesn't make me believe that he'll restrain himself; if anything, it makes me believe he'll go all out stylistically.
In the most recent "Origin" story the Planet was run-down and a dying Paper due to a combination of this and that Luthor had been bleeding them dry as part of his ongoing plot to have a total monopoly on all Metropolis businesses (he even had the people gather at his building every morning so he could pick one to get a "reward". Like people praying to their God).
When Superman showed up, it broke Luthor's control of the public, and he became so obsessed with finding ways of killing Superman that he neglected his business plan and the businesses regained control of themselves.
I'm sure Zod is interesting. Still, been there, done that.
Go back to Russia.
Colour me lukewarm. I liked his Dawn of the Dead a lot, enjoyed the ridiculous campness of 300 and thought Watchmen was a reasonably good adaptation of the classic graphic novel.
But - I think each of those movies has gotten successively poorer; DOTD is still my fave of them. 300 and Watchmen were way to reliant on slo-mo and too slavishly faithful to the source material. The style over substance accusation has some weight, IMHO. So I suppose we'll get a lovely looking Superman movie but we could have got that from Michael Bay.
I'm also underwhelmed at the use of General Zod. Singer got criticised for re-hashing Superman TM and its villain and plot, now this movie seems to be re-treading Superman 2. No Braniac, no Bizarro, no original villain?
And finally, to complete my disappointment, no Routh. That he might come back was always a long shot but one can hope. Or could have. Oh well.
Brainiac was mentioned by Nolan back in March as being in the script along with Lex.
It is possible that Nolan, Goyer, etc. are saving Brainiac and other villains for future installments. Maybe we'll see Brainiac introduced in this film but not take a full-on role as villain until the sequel. Who knows. We have so little information at this point and General Zod hasn't even been officially confirmed- just mentioned offhand in an article.
I think if we have Luthor and Zod in the first movie, Metallo or some such in the sequel, and then Brainiac in the third film- he is, after all, Superman's big bad and I think saving him is a good idea. Perhaps Nolan and Goyer are planning on using him for the second film, like how they used The Joker for The Dark Knight- who knows at this point.
I do think it is disappointing with Nolan involved that Batman & Superman happen in separate universes...cameos would have been fun.
Superman would be trying to save someone in Gotham and then Batman would be all pissed off, calling him an "amateur" and telling him that he's done with him professionally.
I don't want to see them use Zod again because I love Terrence Stamp's performance of the character so much. While it may appear campy and outdated by today's standards, I still think it's perfect and do not like the idea of it being reinterpreted. I could be wrong and they could cast and write it brilliantly and surprise me, but this is one of those characters that I just wish would be left alone based on a past performance. Kinda like Gene Wilder in "Willy Wonka and the Chocoloate Factory".
Jack Nicholson's Joker was fun, but I didn't think it was the best portrayal of the character possible, so I was open to seeing a new one. I just don't think anyone can top Stamp's Zod. I loved Frank Gorshin' portrayal of The Riddler and I don't think any version will ever be as loved, but I could see a new interpretation being interesting and satisfying, but Zod doesn't need to be modernized. His performance in 1980 was one for the ages that need not be rehashed in any form.
I can understand why Nolan an Goyer avoided Joker in the Batman Begins; Joker had been done to death in the past, and they instead focused on something new with Scarecrow and Ra's al Ghul.
If this Zod crap pans out, then Nolan and Goyer are only serving to make "Richard Donner Continues Part II". There is absolutely no reason to save Brainiac for later, and it's ridiculous that he hasn't been used in *any* film up until now.
I hope the Zod report is wrong. I don't want to see Zod. At all.
At least the slo-mo scenes can be explained away by the character moving at super speed....
Because, if one looks up from the TV and out the window it's quite apparent that we're living today, not twenty or thirty or forty years ago.
Either do Superman as a real period piece - pre-WW II, to honor the era from which he sprang - or be completely contemporary about it. Or stay home.
And Lois isn't getting laid at all until Superman grants her an interview.
I was very much unimpressed by 300 and Watchman. Both were over stylized and I was not invested in the characters or stories on any level. So I am not happy with this choice at all.
.... So thats my 2 cents. For whatever its worth...
Separate names with a comma.