• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

TREK_GOD_1 said:
I doubt anyone at WB+D would think that has a place with / interest from modern day audiences. There's no evidence of a widespread call for the silly, bumbling, "golly gee, Lois" Silver Age version, extending to the Donner interpretation of the character. Singer attempted it and was met with less than enthusiastic reactions--not due to Routh's version being a so-called deadbeat dad in the film--but the slavish dedication to bring back the worst of the Newmans and Benton's influence which defined the script of the Donner film. The comics matured since the late 60s, responding to readers' interests, but film adaptations took a little longer (The Incredible Hulk TV series being the first and most overtly mature comic-based production starting in 1977), and next to no one looked back, wanting the worst of late Golden/Silver Age comics again.

Just as WB would never unearth the Adam West Batman series or the Legends of the Superheroes TV specials and believe there's significant interest in the productions ever being the main film version (or even as an alternate universe experiment), one can see any idea for the handling of Superman being the same.

The existing Cavill outings already laid out the most believable character growth (slowly--by necessity), with Superman trying to find his way as an alien in a world where part of the population may not trust a being like him in his debut, to taking on the role of protector (in a more official capacity)--to the point of seeing Batman and his methods as a genuine criminal threat to order & the idea of justice in Dawn of Justice, to his acceptance of his place in ZSJL.

Going from that natural progression, Cavill's Superman no longer has to stand apart from humanity as much as needed to do in Man of Steel.

What's important to note is that this is all about the Superman side--not the Clark side; as Kent, he was already seen as trying to integrate as much as he could through his gateway to humanity in his relationships with Lois and his mother. Its the Alien With Otherworldly Power side that needed to find a place among fragile humans, and by the time of ZSJL, he achieved that.

As a result, Cavill's next movie performance--contrary to those who rattle their bones with the self-generated fiction that Superman would be exactly the same as he had been in MoS (when he was not in his other appearances so far) should (if WB+D handles this properly) build on the aforementioned character growth, and not dump an unwanted, Saturday morning / Weisinger version on a world that willingly left that behind several generations ago.
Click to expand...

Why is there never such thing as "middle ground" with people?

Getting a character more joyful does not have to immediately mean "Saturday morning, golly gee silly".

Just you know. Maybe a bit less of making out with a person you barely know over the dead and rubble of the city you barely saved. That sort of thing. There are degrees within the extremes.
 
I appreciate Brandon's portrayal as a continuation of Reeve's Superman, and the movie had some excellent scenes.
Click to expand...

I find that sad, because that means Routh never got the chance to develop his own version of Superman. He was merely copying someone else's style. Which would explain why I'm fonder of his portrayal of Ray Palmer aka the Atom. Routh gave a good performance as Superman, but it wasn't that original to me, and I was a lot more impressed by his Atom in "Legends".
 
Dee1891 said:
I find that sad, because that means Routh never got the chance to develop his own version of Superman. He was merely copying someone else's style. Which would explain why I'm fonder of his portrayal of Ray Palmer aka the Atom. Routh gave a good performance as Superman, but it wasn't that original to me, and I was a lot more impressed by his Atom in "Legends".
Click to expand...


Based on Superman Returns alone, I used to think that Brandon Routh was poorly cast as Superman. But then I saw him as Ray Palmer, and suddenly I thought, "Wow, he could've been a great Superman!" The problem wasn't him, the problem was how the character was written and directed. Really, nobody gave their best performance in that movie, because Singer directed all of them to be as subdued and underplayed as possible, and it turned out rather dull as a result.
 
The Superman in contemporary comics is portrayed as highly optimistic, always doing his best to find the good in people or the light at the end of the tunnel even at the darkest moments. And he does this without reverting to the Silver Age version of the character. He is a hero to the other heroes because of his optimism and sense of empathy--everyone looks up to him as an example. With all that, he still goes through crisis of character, has difficulty navigating family life, and grieves. He is a highly nuanced character and there is no reason that he couldn't be portrayed that way on screen. In terms of "who" the character is, the two portrayals on screen that have come close to "comics accurate" have been on Smallville and Superman and Lois.
 
Christopher said:
Based on Superman Returns alone, I used to think that Brandon Routh was poorly cast as Superman. But then I saw him as Ray Palmer, and suddenly I thought, "Wow, he could've been a great Superman!" The problem wasn't him, the problem was how the character was written and directed. Really, nobody gave their best performance in that movie, because Singer directed all of them to be as subdued and underplayed as possible, and it turned out rather dull as a result.
Click to expand...

This all comes down to the fact that Singer just doesn't care about any comic characters he does movies for. He isn't a Superman fan, he's a Richard Donner fan. He wanted to do a homage to what Donner did but his lack of real consideration for the characters meant it would always be hollow.

Now, this can work in some cases like with Tim Burton and Batman, but not in Singers' case.
 
M'rk son of Mogh said:
Why is there never such thing as "middle ground" with people?

Getting a character more joyful does not have to immediately mean "Saturday morning, golly gee silly".
Click to expand...

What I mean by:

The existing Cavill outings already laid out the most believable character growth (slowly--by necessity), with Superman trying to find his way as an alien in a world where part of the population may not trust a being like him in his debut, to taking on the role of protector (in a more official capacity)--to the point of seeing Batman and his methods as a genuine criminal threat to order & the idea of justice in Dawn of Justice, to his acceptance of his place in ZSJL.

Going from that natural progression, Cavill's Superman no longer has to stand apart from humanity as much as needed to do in Man of Steel.

What's important to note is that this is all about the Superman side--not the Clark side; as Kent, he was already seen as trying to integrate as much as he could through his gateway to humanity in his relationships with Lois and his mother. Its the Alien With Otherworldly Power side that needed to find a place among fragile humans, and by the time of ZSJL, he achieved that.
Click to expand...

...is progression, as with any other character. In the Cavill appearances, his Superman has changed from film to film, so he's not lacking in a lighter personality, but he had to get there. In-universe, it has not been that long since Kal-El/Clark made his public debut as Superman, so he still had growing to do, which the films have explored. I have no idea how long into the timeline his future appearances will be set, but at present, he comes off as a mix of stone (or steel) cold when facing a threat (ZSJL), but he's a cooler/easier going personality anywhere else. The latter is how he behaved in Black Adam's mid-credits cameo.
 
I don't see the logic in making this change for Superman specifically, though. If Cavill is only now officially back on board, he shouldn't be needed for filming a hypothetical superman movie for quite a while yet. And theoretical cameos and supporting roles shouldn't be hard to fit around the schedule of a streaming series.

Unless WB is absolutely rushing this movie through the writing and pre-production process, which is very much the level of stupid that gave us the JL theatrical cut.
 
I haven’t seen any of The Witcher, but while the obvious thing may seem to be that Henry’s departure is connected to his return to Superman, a lot of online discussion seems to relate it to issues behind the scenes of The Witcher. But you pays your money and you takes your choice
 
TREK_GOD_1 said:
Just as WB would never unearth the Adam West Batman series or the Legends of the Superheroes TV specials and believe there's significant interest in the productions ever being the main film version (or even as an alternate universe experiment), one can see any idea for the handling of Superman being the same.
Click to expand...
As much as you may try to pretend everyone despises and has no interest in Batman '66, I think the fact that in the last years few we've gotten 7 comic series, 2 movies, and Burt Ward's appearance as what was clearly meant to be an older version of Dick Grayson, proves that not true. Now, they obviously aren't going make it the core movie version, but there's clearly still a lot more love and interest in seeing those versions of the characters again, than you seem to think.
With the kind of diversity of styles, we've seen in the DC movies lately, I don't know if I'd want to totally rule out a return those versions of the Batman characters, and if they did movie in the style of the series, I would be right there in the theater for the first showing opening day.
 
JD said:
With the kind of diversity of styles, we've seen in the DC movies lately, I don't know if I'd want to totally rule out a return those versions of the Batman characters, and if they did movie in the style of the series, I would be right there in the theater for the first showing opening day.
Click to expand...

Sounds like fun. Maybe it could bring in some of the Silver Agey stuff from the comics that the original series stayed away from, like Ace the Bat-Hound, Bat-Mite, Batman's weird transformations and costume changes, space travel and aliens, Carter Nichols's time-travel hypnosis, prank wars with Superman, etc.

Well, it seems unlikely that they'd do that, but I've often thought it's high time we got a more upbeat, heroic reinvention of Batman to break the monotony of all the grim, gritty, hellhole-Gotham versions we've gotten ever since Nolan. It doesn't have to be a campy comedy, just something like Bronze Age Batman, played straight but not too dark.
 
After Nolan gaves us what I still think is one of the best version of Batman on screen I did also think that going to something more upbeat would be nice. But The Batman just gave me a movie that was far more interesting than any upbeat version could be in my opinion.

This is just my personal preference ofcourse, and if they made a version of Batman that is more upbeat and heroic I'd be very happy for the people that wanted that and I could just enjoy what I already have.
 
JD said:
As much as you may try to pretend everyone despises and has no interest in Batman '66, I think the fact that in the last years few we've gotten 7 comic series, 2 movies, and Burt Ward's appearance as what was clearly meant to be an older version of Dick Grayson, proves that not true.
Click to expand...

Step by step:

One, the present era '66-inspired comics are niche publications for die-hard fans of that series, which is not the mainstream Batman comic fan, nor is its tone and approach ever going to be incorporated into main Batman comics or external media productions. The time for that influence had a thankfully short window from 1966 - '67, but a number of reader letters (I've posted examples of those letters in this forum) made DC aware they Batman readers did not like the "Dozier-isms" added to Batman or Detective Comics, and it was dropped, right in time for Frank Robbins and Irv Novick to bring a darker, more city-crime tone back to the comics.

Two, "two movies"--again, you're talking about 2 direct-to-video niche productions set in its own, Dozier-world. They were the textbook example of specialty productions, and not marketed to the mainstream Batman comic or movie fans.

Three, Ward's stunt cameo in a Berlanti TV series has no bearing on the DCEU's content, or the audience it caters to. Dozier's series is as set apart from the main version of Batman in the movie franchise as Filmation's numerous Archie cartoons are a universe apart from Riverdale.

There's not much evidence supporting the idea that fans of the DCEU want any of the Dozierverse added to it, even as a one-off reference.

Ironically enough, Dozier's adaptation of The Green Hornet (ABC, 1966-67) has more, undeniable support and direct influence on other TGH productions (from the Seth Rogen travesty, and the many scripts for yet another TGH reboot in the works) than his Batman series, and that's not just about trying to channel the aura / legacy of Bruce Lee, but the style and score of the series to certain degrees. It suggests of the two shows, one is not seen as the outlier to the heart of a character / concept.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top