So is the pressure on Superman?

[Captaindemotion]

While I'm in the minority who likes SR a lot, I can understand why others dislike it. However, I've become more and more sure that while there will be another Superman movie, it won't be a sequel to SR and won't feature Bryan Singer behind the camera. If WB were going to make a direct sequel to it, the wheels would have been in motion long before now. Singer and his co-writers, Routh, Bosworth etc would all be booked up. There would have been no talk of a JLA movie and no discussions or pitches from other writers or directors.

I think WB will be looking at the success ofthe Batman franchise, having dumped the baggage of the Burton/Shumacher years, the reinvention of Bond and the success of the breezy, fun-filled Iron Man. While not every reboot is a roaring success - the Incredible Hulk (though it was great fun) - I don't see them greenlighting another movie with Son of Superman and all the stuff that so many disliked in 2006.

I do hope that even if they jettison Singer and the rest of the creative crew behind SR, they retain Brandon Routh. I think he was the perfect successor to Chris Reeve and I think they'd be crazy to spend zillions more dollars seeking a new wearer of the cape when they have the perfect man at home twiddling his thumbs. And with him being a good 3 or 4 years older (at least) by the time shooting begins on any sequel, presumably he won't look like Superboy any more.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I think they need to let Superman rest for a while and push their other characters like Flash, Green Lantern, and Wonder Woman. Marvel is putting out way more characters. DC has a rich background. Yes, Supes and Bats are the foundation characters, but DC/Warner Brothers is doing a disservice to themselves and the fans by not really delving into the deep well they have.

You know I think part of their big problem is that Marvel's characters are a little easier to envision in a naturalistic way, while DC's are much more fantasy in terms of their origins and their worlds. For some reason everyone's decided putting things in a world that looks and feels like ours is the way to go - which is a tad baffling, didn't LotR prove that a fully fleshed fantasy world can also make oodles of money?

I keep hearing about problems with Wonder Woman and that's because there's no way to do that character in a naturalistic world. She fights psychotic pantheons and snake monsters and what all. They need to embrace the fantasy...

 

[Kegek]

For some reason everyone's decided putting things in a world that looks and feels like ours is the way to go - which is a tad baffling, didn't LotR prove that a fully fleshed fantasy world can also make oodles of money?

Even LOTR emphasized its fictional historicity. It was about as naturalistic as one could get in a world filled with Orcs, Elves and Dwarves. There are genuflections to Harryhausen; but it takes itself far more seriously than that. (Which worked for LOTR but not for King Kong, yet I disgress...) Just as The Dark Knight is about as naturalistic and serious one could get in a world where a lone, rich man can dress in a Batsuit and be an effective vigilante who doesn't kill.

Well, that and genre distinctions. LOTR is high fantasy. Superhero movies are superhero movies. The following knee-jerk assumption is that Wonder Woman should be measured by Batman and Spider-Man pictures rather than Narnia and Middle-Earth.

Personally, yeah, I'd like to see outrageous, fantasy pictures along with the more serious, realistic stuff. Whatever works and keeps me amused in the theatres is fine by me. Of course, I also want space opera to make a big comeback, but eh....

 

[davejames]

I think you're misinterpreting the statements some folks are making re: "The Dark Knight" or "Batman Begins" regarding how Superman would be done.

What these films demonstrated isn't that "dark and brooding" is the way to go. What they demonstrated is that staying as true as possible to the source-material, instead of trying to "reinvent" or "put my own spin on it" or whatever, is the way to go.

"Superman Returns" at once tried to honor, not Superman (the comic character) but Superman (the Reeves character) and yet to "update" it in ways that they'd NEVER do with the comic character. They "honored" stuff that's not central to the guy, and ripped out core elements of him and those around him.

As "cool" as the action sequences in S-R may have looked, the "Superman is a stalker ex-boyfriend" bit was utterly horrifying to me and ruined everything. The fact that the actor, or at least the way the part was written and the character was outfitted and dressed, was almost like a Goth/Emo version of Superman didn't help.

Go do a search for "World's Finest trailer." It's a fan-made thing, but it's got the best Batman and Superman casting I've ever seen (and I love Bale in the Nolan films, by the way... I just think that the guy in this is better!) The guy who did Clarke Kent in this little trailer IS Superman as I've always seen him in my mind's eye. And his Clark and Superman are just dissimilar enough that I can imagine people not figuring it out.

What needs to be done in the next Superman film is to treat it as a SERIOUS (no "camp") treatment. Treat this as the real world... but just put this fantastic character into it. The Salkind Superman did that to an extent... but it also had a heavy dose of campiness, with "Superman Returns" kept but layered on even more heavily.

Note: "No Camp" does NOT mean "dark and depressing." Humor doesn't have to involve self-mockery. Superman should be a bright, positive hopeful character... exactly the opposite of what Batman should be.

I'm sure the vast majority of moviegoers who went to TDK couldn't have cared less if the movie was faithful to the comics. The reason the movie did so well was because Nolan wrote and directed a great movie. Simple as that.

And while World's Finest was a fun little fan film, stylistically it felt about as campy and comic booky as the Spider-Man movies-- which is NOT what I'm looking for in a Superman movie.

I far preferred SR's more sophisticated and adult style (although I would still want to brighten things up a tad for the sequel ).

 

[JacksonArcher]

Well, that and genre distinctions. LOTR is high fantasy. Superhero movies are superhero movies. The following knee-jerk assumption is that Wonder Woman should be measured by Batman and Spider-Man pictures rather than Narnia and Middle-Earth.

I would agree that I would rather see a Wonder Woman movie in the vein of Lord of the Rings rather than The Dark Knight. I think that kind of story necessitates a grand, epic scope with heavy fantasy elements.

Personally, yeah, I'd like to see outrageous, fantasy pictures along with the more serious, realistic stuff. Whatever works and keeps me amused in the theatres is fine by me. Of course, I also want space opera to make a big comeback, but eh....

Let's hope next year's Star Trek rival does just that.

 

[Trent Roman]

Personally, yeah, I'd like to see outrageous, fantasy pictures along with the more serious, realistic stuff.

You may yet get your wish. The rumours that have been swirlling about the movie version of Thor point towards a film largely if not wholly set in Asgard. (I'd be surprised if it was wholly, but I can see a Midgard/Asgard ratio equivalent to The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe work for "Thor").

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[JacksonArcher]

That type of Thor film sounds interesting, but I'm more intrigued if it ends up being helmed by Matthew Vaughn. A fantasy-filled Thor film directed by Vaughn piques my interest a lot.

 

[CaptainCanada]

Wonder Woman is about how our normal world is invaded by denizens of a more fantastic one, and Diana's job (apart from all the political stuff) is to keep us safe from the various war gods, werecat-brides of plant gods, and ancient sorceresses that are out to dominate us. Both in-text and metatextually, she's meant to bridge between myth and the mundane.

That type of Thor film sounds interesting, but I'm more intrigued if it ends up being helmed by Matthew Vaughn. A fantasy-filled Thor film directed by Vaughn piques my interest a lot.

Vaughn left the project, as far as I know (he's not one for commitment to his superhero projects, it would seem); the original script, from what I've heard, is basically all-Asgard. Of course, once it's been rewritten to be half as expensive, who knows?

 

[JacksonArcher]

Wonder Woman is about how our normal world is invaded by denizens of a more fantastic one, and Diana's job (apart from all the political stuff) is to keep us safe from the various war gods, werecat-brides of plant gods, and ancient sorceresses that are out to dominate us. Both in-text and metatextually, she's meant to bridge between myth and the mundane.

Which is why I would prefer a more fantasy-based approach. Taking out all of those war gods, werecat-brides and ancient sorceresses would take something out of the Wonder Woman character in my opinion. I mean imagine the sort of majestic beauty of The Fountain and the world of Mordor applied to a Wonder Woman film?

Vaughn left the project, as far as I know (he's not one for commitment to his superhero projects, it would seem); the original script, from what I've heard, is basically all-Asgard. Of course, once it's been rewritten to be half as expensive, who knows?

That's unfortunate, but I can understand why. I don't see Vaughn as someone who typically likes to work within the confines of the studio-based system.

 

[Admiral_Young]

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. 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.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Maybe if the next film had things happen to the character - upsets of the status quo, prices paid by the hero, and other things that I felt Returns lacked and was my main problem with a pretty good film.

Giving Superman a son by Lois out of wedlock doesn't qualify as an upset of the status quo? Seems like it upset enough fans....

 

[Kegek]

Of course, I also want space opera to make a big comeback, but eh....

Let's hope next year's Star Trek rival does just that.

I definitely hope so. Hell, even if I just get a good Star Trek movie, I'd be satsfied - Star Trek being, to I'm sure nobody's surprise, my favourite space opera. But if a good Star Trek movie starts a wave of new space opera, that's even better.

You may yet get your wish. The rumours that have been swirlling about the movie version of Thor point towards a film largely if not wholly set in Asgard. (I'd be surprised if it was wholly, but I can see a Midgard/Asgard ratio equivalent to The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe work for "Thor").

I see. I'm not familiar with the Thor comics. To what extent do Thor, Asgard and Midgard resemble their Norse myth equivalents? (I recall discussing this before on the forum and hearing that Thor's quite a bit different - more Shakespearean-ish - but I don't know about the rest of it.)

Giving Superman a son by Lois out of wedlock doesn't qualify as an upset of the status quo? Seems like it upset enough fans....

I thought both the son and Richard were good ideas. My problem is that, despite these, for the most part the characters don't really have arcs. Superman and Lois go through the motions and hit a couple of notes that have already been done in the previous movies - the boyfriend and the son shake things up a bit but not too much. Superman seems to be never really threatened or challenged. And Luthor's still Luthor, of course. I thought it was a good movie, certainly, but one of the many reasons I thought The Dark Knight was better is that the status quo gets bucked quite a bit and many of the principals, including the title character, have significant character arcs.

So, I don't know, I guess what I wanted was more resolution on Lois rather than deferring that to the sequel. Does she stay with Richard or not? And for Luthor to pose some kind of extra threat to Superman.

 

[CaptainCanada]

I see. I'm not familiar with the Thor comics. To what extent do Thor, Asgard and Midgard resemble their Norse myth equivalents? (I recall discussing this before on the forum and hearing that Thor's quite a bit different - more Shakespearean-ish - but I don't know about the rest of it.)

The characters line up, more or less, but everybody except Loki is way less of a bastard.

 

[Kegek]

The characters line up, more or less, but everybody except Loki is way less of a bastard.

Aw. I love the bastardliness of Norse myths.

Still, if it's good I'll probably go.

 

[Admiral_Young]

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.

 

[Galactus]

Marvel's Thor is sort of like the one from Norse myth, except he is a lot smarter and thinks a lot more. He comes off more as a knight with a hammer than a Viking Thunder god and his hair is blond instead of red. Also Odin is a lot more powerful than he is. I guess you could say he comes off as a more down to Earth Superman because his power levels are so much lower. He was the most powerful hero behind the Hulk, but that has changed since they inserted Sentry, a Superman clone (dumbest thing ever!) into the New Marvel universe.

If done right I think a lot of people would like him a lot, the trick is finding the right person to play him because Thor is suppose to be a big guy with muscles so you would have to get someone that looked like Hulk Hogan in his hayday are Arnie's Conan to really do the character justice.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I'm sure the vast majority of moviegoers who went to TDK couldn't have cared less if the movie was faithful to the comics. The reason the movie did so well was because Nolan wrote and directed a great movie. Simple as that.

Your statement is absolutely true... and absolutely UNRELATED to anything I said.

Nolan is a fan of the source material. He made a pair of movies which respect the source material rather than trying to "put his own spin on it." And that's a major element of why I think the film is successful.

Not because it's "faithful to a comic" per-se. There are CRAP comics out there as well as the successful, "classic" ones, after all... and being faithful to crap will not give you anything but crap, will it?

The reason is because, historically, the comics were far higher quality than the entertainment based upon them has been. Schumacher's GARBAGE had absolutely NO respect for the source material. Nolans work, by contrast, RESPECTS the source material and treats it not as a joke but as serious entertainment. Nolan didn't go in saying "I'm remaking Batman the way I want him to be." He went in saying "how can I do Batman the way he's supposed to be?"

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

Clearer?

And while World's Finest was a fun little fan film, stylistically it felt about as campy and comic booky as the Spider-Man movies-- which is NOT what I'm looking for in a Superman movie.

Again, you TOTALLY FAIL TO GRASP MY POINT. Nowhere did I claim that I thought that the fan-film trailer presented represents Academy-award-worthy filmmaking (though it's better than a lot of stuff that comes out of hollywood, granted).

What I said is that the CASTING in that trailer was excellent, and that I think that the guys playing Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent in that trailer are near-perfect cases of casting (versus what I consider to be horrible casting for Superman Returns... I DO like Bale, though... again, because he GETS IT and it is less about his ego than it is about becoming the character from the source material!)

I far preferred SR's more sophisticated and adult style (although I would still want to brighten things up a tad for the sequel ).

I didn't see anything particularly "sophisticated" or "adult" for that matter in "Superman Returns." Honestly, every bit of it felt... well... SOPHOMORIC to me. Not "childish" exactly, but certainly not "mature and adult." Honestly, it felt like "Superman through the eyes of the goth kids who hang out at the mall" to me. Granted, that's purely personal there and you can (and obviously do) feel differently. But it was very off-putting to see a Superman who reminded me more of Jamie Gumm from Silence of the Lambs than he did of the character from the books, or even of the STRONG characterization which Chris Reeves gave us.

Seriously... try to imagine Chris Reeves in the scenes from this movie... people keep saying that Routh reminds them of Reeves, but there's more to the character than basic facial structure and being quite tall... Reeves got the powerful aspect of the character's personality right, and Routh didn't. Reeves' voice was strong, clear and deep, and he spoke with conviction. Routh's voice was tinny and weak.

The entire movie played Superman as weak and powerless... and more than a little creepy. Lex Luthor was played as a parody of Gene Hackman's original parody. Lois Lane came across as a high-school-senior pretending to be a 30-something.

So, while I agree that the "trailer" I mentioned felt (as it really was) a bit "Fanboyish"... I actually like the actors in that trailer far more than I like those in the last Superman film... by a huge measure. And I like the guy playing Batman (Clark Bartram's the guy's name) better than Bale, though I like Bale a lot. (Bartram pulls off the character without any need for a rubber muscle-suit, too... literally just fabric except for the cowl sculpt!)

 

[CaptainCanada]

I guess you could say he comes off as a more down to Earth Superman because his power levels are so much lower.

Them's fightin' words there.

 

[theenglish]

I'm really worried that the success of the Dark Knight will do a disservice to the next Batman film. It stands a chance to wind up being too dark or violent for a Superman film. The spirit of Superman needs to remain intact.

Likewise, I am worried about the next Star Trek film being to "action based" and fast paced.

 

[Galactus]

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.