Re: Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman fi
Aragorn? Is that you?
Aragorn? Is that you?
Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman film
- Thread starter Out Of My Vulcan Mind
- Start date
Re: Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman fi
No dark superman please! He is the inbodyment of hope and good! superman is the day batman the night! Make it a fun and lightharted movie! Please we go see it and come out feeling good about life that can not be bad right?
No dark superman please! He is the inbodyment of hope and good! superman is the day batman the night! Make it a fun and lightharted movie! Please we go see it and come out feeling good about life that can not be bad right?
Re: Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman fi
I think it's important to consider what super-hero movies pre-Superman '78 were.
"Verisimilitude" in this case should probably be (ironically) judged in relative terms, relative to what came before.
60's era Batman, the 70's Captain America, there wasn't much in the genre that treated its subject matter in as sophisticated a fashion as Superman '78.
The first half of the film in particular, on Krypton and then Kansas was handled beautifully. Comedic elements like Otis, and absurdities like reversing time were not the rule for the film.
I'd also argue that even if the flying effects were not flawless (effects rarely ever are) they were by far the most convincing seen up till that point.
I respect your fathers opinion that he he didn't buy Reeve's takeoffs, but I always found the "gliding" approach to be much more believable. I don't imagine Superman would have to "push off" to beat gravity, I imagine it would be effortless, after all he isn't Hulk-jumping. Of course, this is all entirely subjective here.
Out of My Vulcan Mind pretty much nailed what Donner meant when he referred to verisimilitude, that Reeve's would make the characters "boy scout" character believable and true, and that audiences would buy into it.
I'm also surprised that you're comparing the "verisimilitude" of Batman Begins with Superman '78, especially considering one came neary 30 years after the other. It can't be argued that in that time there has been a fair amount of experience gained in tackling the subject matter, films in the genre have become increasingly sophisticated since then, and we continue to learn what works and what doesn't.
I do agree though, that for the most part the verisimilitude in Superman '78 is mostly conceptual, but I'm not sure why that's a bad thing.
Why should Krypton be functional? Why would there be kitchens in a laboratory, council chambers or a courtroom (the three primary locations).
I think it's important to consider what super-hero movies pre-Superman '78 were.
"Verisimilitude" in this case should probably be (ironically) judged in relative terms, relative to what came before.
60's era Batman, the 70's Captain America, there wasn't much in the genre that treated its subject matter in as sophisticated a fashion as Superman '78.
The first half of the film in particular, on Krypton and then Kansas was handled beautifully. Comedic elements like Otis, and absurdities like reversing time were not the rule for the film.
I'd also argue that even if the flying effects were not flawless (effects rarely ever are) they were by far the most convincing seen up till that point.
I respect your fathers opinion that he he didn't buy Reeve's takeoffs, but I always found the "gliding" approach to be much more believable. I don't imagine Superman would have to "push off" to beat gravity, I imagine it would be effortless, after all he isn't Hulk-jumping. Of course, this is all entirely subjective here.
Out of My Vulcan Mind pretty much nailed what Donner meant when he referred to verisimilitude, that Reeve's would make the characters "boy scout" character believable and true, and that audiences would buy into it.
I'm also surprised that you're comparing the "verisimilitude" of Batman Begins with Superman '78, especially considering one came neary 30 years after the other. It can't be argued that in that time there has been a fair amount of experience gained in tackling the subject matter, films in the genre have become increasingly sophisticated since then, and we continue to learn what works and what doesn't.
I do agree though, that for the most part the verisimilitude in Superman '78 is mostly conceptual, but I'm not sure why that's a bad thing.
Why should Krypton be functional? Why would there be kitchens in a laboratory, council chambers or a courtroom (the three primary locations).
Re: Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman fi
It has amused me that Superman has been the focus of this thread and Batman 3 has been pushed aside. I'm quite frankly a huge fan of both Superman and Batman, while I'm excited about the third Batman possibly finally happening I've also been concerned about the direction of a new Superman film. I wouldn't mind James McTeague being named the director of the film...I believe he was one of the names included in the pitch process WB entertained two years ago. I'd like Geoff Johns to write a script though. The writer is going to be extremely important IMO in terms of what story they come up with.
It has amused me that Superman has been the focus of this thread and Batman 3 has been pushed aside. I'm quite frankly a huge fan of both Superman and Batman, while I'm excited about the third Batman possibly finally happening I've also been concerned about the direction of a new Superman film. I wouldn't mind James McTeague being named the director of the film...I believe he was one of the names included in the pitch process WB entertained two years ago. I'd like Geoff Johns to write a script though. The writer is going to be extremely important IMO in terms of what story they come up with.
Re: Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman fi
In a vacuum, yes. But I was responding to the idea of using the Donner film as a model for how a new Superman film should be approached. Whatever passed for "verisimilitude" in the context of the 1970s is no longer anywhere close to believable today.
Because people live and work there. What should a living or working environment be but functional? Keeping in mind that the comfort and psychological well-being of its occupants is part of its function. That barren, sharp-edged, colorless crystal environment in the movie strikes me as a horrible place to try to live or work, even aside from the complete lack of any practical accoutrements or any sign of life forms other than the actors. True, they deliberately wanted it to be cold and barren for some strange reason, and they succeeded to the point that the environment is completely repellent to me, but they also rendered it completely devoid of anything remotely credible as a living or working environment. (Hell, where do they even get their oxygen if there are no plants, no soil for them to grow in? If the whole planet is just one big crystal, how the hell does anyone live there?) It's a one-note caricature of an alien environment, far more so than the oft-scorned single-ecology planets in Star Wars.
In a vacuum, yes. But I was responding to the idea of using the Donner film as a model for how a new Superman film should be approached. Whatever passed for "verisimilitude" in the context of the 1970s is no longer anywhere close to believable today.
Because people live and work there. What should a living or working environment be but functional? Keeping in mind that the comfort and psychological well-being of its occupants is part of its function. That barren, sharp-edged, colorless crystal environment in the movie strikes me as a horrible place to try to live or work, even aside from the complete lack of any practical accoutrements or any sign of life forms other than the actors. True, they deliberately wanted it to be cold and barren for some strange reason, and they succeeded to the point that the environment is completely repellent to me, but they also rendered it completely devoid of anything remotely credible as a living or working environment. (Hell, where do they even get their oxygen if there are no plants, no soil for them to grow in? If the whole planet is just one big crystal, how the hell does anyone live there?) It's a one-note caricature of an alien environment, far more so than the oft-scorned single-ecology planets in Star Wars.
Re: Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman fi
A number of the directors of the best superhero films of the last decade, including Chris Nolan, have cited Donner's work on Superman as a major influence. What they basically did was to take Donner's focus on verisimilitude, which he applied in the context of the 1970s, and applied it in the context of the 2000s. So citing Donner doesn't mean that they're going to exactly ape the particulars of Superman: The Movie - Batman Begins and Superman: The Movie aren't exactly two peas in a pod, after all - it just means that they're going to try to achieve a tone and texture for superhero films that says, "This is really happening and these are real people with real emotions."
A number of the directors of the best superhero films of the last decade, including Chris Nolan, have cited Donner's work on Superman as a major influence. What they basically did was to take Donner's focus on verisimilitude, which he applied in the context of the 1970s, and applied it in the context of the 2000s. So citing Donner doesn't mean that they're going to exactly ape the particulars of Superman: The Movie - Batman Begins and Superman: The Movie aren't exactly two peas in a pod, after all - it just means that they're going to try to achieve a tone and texture for superhero films that says, "This is really happening and these are real people with real emotions."
Re: Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman fi
Nothing has been officially announced. It's been rumored that David Goyer and J-Nol are working on the script and now Chris Nolan is prepping the film, but gosh darn it, I just want an official confirmation.
Everyone's talking about Superman, but this right here, "Batman 3" for lack of a better term, is what I'm really interested in right now. And they basically did sort of announce he was working on that, so that's something at least.Why can't they just officially announce Nolan's involvement in the next Batman film? I'M GOING CRAZY HERE!
Nothing has been officially announced. It's been rumored that David Goyer and J-Nol are working on the script and now Chris Nolan is prepping the film, but gosh darn it, I just want an official confirmation.
Re: Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman fi
As opposed to, say, the Adam West BATMAN tv show, which is what people mostly expected prior to the Donner movie.
As opposed to, say, the Adam West BATMAN tv show, which is what people mostly expected prior to the Donner movie.
Re: Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman fi
Well, everything's relative, I guess. I find the characterizations in the Donner film to be quite broad and campy, particularly the annoyingly klutzy Clark and the ridiculous excuse for Lex Luthor and his gang. Superman's greatest foe is a wisecracking, wig-fixated petty crook whose entire criminal organization is one bumbling moron and one shallow sexpot? Why are we supposed to find this guy threatening? At least the villains in the Adam West show were competent enough to get henchmen who could throw a punch.
Well, everything's relative, I guess. I find the characterizations in the Donner film to be quite broad and campy, particularly the annoyingly klutzy Clark and the ridiculous excuse for Lex Luthor and his gang. Superman's greatest foe is a wisecracking, wig-fixated petty crook whose entire criminal organization is one bumbling moron and one shallow sexpot? Why are we supposed to find this guy threatening? At least the villains in the Adam West show were competent enough to get henchmen who could throw a punch.
Re: Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman fi
I found the first hour of Superman: The Movie to be very solid and dramatic. Really everything before Clark Kent arrives in Metropolis. The first hour, with the pastoral plains of Kansas, feels like this intimate character drama. The moment Clark hits Metropolis, and wham, we're in a screwball comedy. However the last act, with Superman saving the world, is also quite solid. When Lois dies and Superman turns back time... his anger... it sends chills down my spine every time.
I found the first hour of Superman: The Movie to be very solid and dramatic. Really everything before Clark Kent arrives in Metropolis. The first hour, with the pastoral plains of Kansas, feels like this intimate character drama. The moment Clark hits Metropolis, and wham, we're in a screwball comedy. However the last act, with Superman saving the world, is also quite solid. When Lois dies and Superman turns back time... his anger... it sends chills down my spine every time.
Re: Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman fi
Because he cold-bloodedly fires off two nuclear missiles and is willing to kill millions of people to get filthy rich.
Re: Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman fi
Throwing a punch at Superman wouldn't be very effective at least Lex had some Krytonite to use against Superman.
Throwing a punch at Superman wouldn't be very effective at least Lex had some Krytonite to use against Superman.
Re: Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman fi
The scene where he introduces himself to the world by rescuing Lois from that helicopter never fails to put a smile on my face. Still a great sequence.
The scene where he introduces himself to the world by rescuing Lois from that helicopter never fails to put a smile on my face. Still a great sequence.
Re: Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman fi
The thing about the Donner film is that it is wildly uneven. As several people have noted it has ridiculous camp elements, and I frankly think the Krypton and Kansas Norman Rockwell sequences move at a leaden pace. However, it hit right on the mark in the two areas that are fundamental to any truly great Superman story. If Warners can just keep these two things in mind - it will do fine (and I'm constantly amazed that these two things seem difficult for them to grasp, or at least to execute. Singer got one of them right but not the other).
1. Call it epic, call it mythic, call it sense of scope - Superman: The Movie is grand. It treats its subject with a seriousness born of size, weight, and power, not versimilitude. It is majestic in its most important emotional beats, and this is absolutely necessary for Superman. The whole compelling aspect of Superman is being a God grounded in the contemporary world. That's interesting subject matter, even if it is dressed in silly blue tights. Singer got this and even managed to convey it. Sadly he missed the hell out of the other half of what makes Superman work.
2. Chemistry. Whatever problems Superman: The Movie may have, the chemistry between Reeve and Kidder is pure movie gold. No, she's not beautiful - Lois doesn't have to be. Her looks were never what it was all about. Donner himself said, Superman, at its heart, always was, and always wil be - a love story. Lois is the balance for Superman, the way Gotham is for Batman. She's his raison d'etre, his intimate connection to humanity. Yes, he's all goodness and light and nobility - that's a hard character to care about after a while because he's too removed from the basic human experience, which is full of missteps and wrong turns. Lois draws him back, makes him one of us. Before her, he is an awkward, bumbling fool, like we all are when we're in love. Both S:TM and Superman II work despite all their numerous flaws, because the stories are about a man who loves a woman with such depth and power that even though he holds the fate of the world in his hands, his love for her actually competes with that duty. Again, that's interesting material, it's compelling and dramatic. If Lois doesn't work, the whole thing doesn't work. Which is where Superman Returns truly went off the rails. Bosworth was terrible and the love story in the movie was creepy rather than compelling. Which is why Lois & Clark, despite being so cheesy you couldn't watch it without crackers, manages to have some real charm - the love story works.
Throw in some super powerful villains and groovy FX, and you're done. It's not like this should be that hard. The particular style of the movie isn't even that important, Superman is remarkably flexible on that score - deadly serious, somewhat campy, teen angst, romantic comedy - any can work so long as the above elements are in place.
The thing about the Donner film is that it is wildly uneven. As several people have noted it has ridiculous camp elements, and I frankly think the Krypton and Kansas Norman Rockwell sequences move at a leaden pace. However, it hit right on the mark in the two areas that are fundamental to any truly great Superman story. If Warners can just keep these two things in mind - it will do fine (and I'm constantly amazed that these two things seem difficult for them to grasp, or at least to execute. Singer got one of them right but not the other).
1. Call it epic, call it mythic, call it sense of scope - Superman: The Movie is grand. It treats its subject with a seriousness born of size, weight, and power, not versimilitude. It is majestic in its most important emotional beats, and this is absolutely necessary for Superman. The whole compelling aspect of Superman is being a God grounded in the contemporary world. That's interesting subject matter, even if it is dressed in silly blue tights. Singer got this and even managed to convey it. Sadly he missed the hell out of the other half of what makes Superman work.
2. Chemistry. Whatever problems Superman: The Movie may have, the chemistry between Reeve and Kidder is pure movie gold. No, she's not beautiful - Lois doesn't have to be. Her looks were never what it was all about. Donner himself said, Superman, at its heart, always was, and always wil be - a love story. Lois is the balance for Superman, the way Gotham is for Batman. She's his raison d'etre, his intimate connection to humanity. Yes, he's all goodness and light and nobility - that's a hard character to care about after a while because he's too removed from the basic human experience, which is full of missteps and wrong turns. Lois draws him back, makes him one of us. Before her, he is an awkward, bumbling fool, like we all are when we're in love. Both S:TM and Superman II work despite all their numerous flaws, because the stories are about a man who loves a woman with such depth and power that even though he holds the fate of the world in his hands, his love for her actually competes with that duty. Again, that's interesting material, it's compelling and dramatic. If Lois doesn't work, the whole thing doesn't work. Which is where Superman Returns truly went off the rails. Bosworth was terrible and the love story in the movie was creepy rather than compelling. Which is why Lois & Clark, despite being so cheesy you couldn't watch it without crackers, manages to have some real charm - the love story works.
Throw in some super powerful villains and groovy FX, and you're done. It's not like this should be that hard. The particular style of the movie isn't even that important, Superman is remarkably flexible on that score - deadly serious, somewhat campy, teen angst, romantic comedy - any can work so long as the above elements are in place.
Re: Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman fi
Who is saying a new Superman film will exactly follow the model of the Donner film? Just because someone has a appreciation for it and values it for what it accomplished at the time, doesn't mean that new directors will attempt to simply ape it when telling a new story. Granted, Superman Returns took cues from the Donner film, but the story and execution is very, very different from that earlier film.
Pfft...Batman is sooo yesterday...
Who is saying a new Superman film will exactly follow the model of the Donner film? Just because someone has a appreciation for it and values it for what it accomplished at the time, doesn't mean that new directors will attempt to simply ape it when telling a new story. Granted, Superman Returns took cues from the Donner film, but the story and execution is very, very different from that earlier film.
Why can't they just officially announce Nolan's involvement in the next Batman film? I'M GOING CRAZY HERE!
Pfft...Batman is sooo yesterday...
Re: Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman fi
Chipping in belatedly on the verisimilitude debate, if you look at Donner's Metropolis, it looks like a real-life American city from the 1970s (New York, to be precise). Nolan's Gotham is fairly recognisable as modern day Chicago.
On the other hand, Tim Burton's Gotham is a gothic fantasy cityscape, 'New York gone wrong' I think is what they called it at the time. Singer's Metropolis is very art deco and stylised. I found these different approaches to our respective superheros' worlds quite interesting
Chipping in belatedly on the verisimilitude debate, if you look at Donner's Metropolis, it looks like a real-life American city from the 1970s (New York, to be precise). Nolan's Gotham is fairly recognisable as modern day Chicago.
On the other hand, Tim Burton's Gotham is a gothic fantasy cityscape, 'New York gone wrong' I think is what they called it at the time. Singer's Metropolis is very art deco and stylised. I found these different approaches to our respective superheros' worlds quite interesting
Re: Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman fi
Says Batgirl.Why can't they just officially announce Nolan's involvement in the next Batman film? I'M GOING CRAZY HERE!
Pfft...Batman is sooo yesterday...
Re: Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman fi
Hmm...
<insert witty comment>
Says Batgirl.Why can't they just officially announce Nolan's involvement in the next Batman film? I'M GOING CRAZY HERE!
Pfft...Batman is sooo yesterday...
Hmm...
<insert witty comment>
Re: Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman fi
I think the key to the psychology is very similar to that of Batman when you get down to it, though twisted in a different way.
Batman was born as Bruce, and became Batman because of the events of his youth and through a decade of effort. He created a new 'Bruce' to be his mask in society because he doesn't know how to be a normal person, just as he created the Batman mask to help him survive on the streets of Gotham while doing his work and to scare those who might stand in his way.
Superman was (essentially) born and raised as Clark, but was always Superman by nature. He never had a choice to just be a normal guy because by definition he was superhuman. I disagree with Tarantino that Clark is commentary; instead, Superman is the real mask for Clark, a symbol that is everything good about humanity to inspire humanity to be that good. Clark chose the persona of Superman as a channel for his nature, just like Bruce chose Batman as a channel for his pain, but Clark can never fully walk away from Superman like Bruce could if he sorted out his shit. Clark can always fly, he can always lift heavy objects and do all that superhuman stuff. He is also the only one, so there is a definite sadness to the character, a solitude if you will. Superman is everything Clark wishes he was, all that the best of humanity wishes it could be. Superman isn't a person though, he is just a mask, like Batman.
I think the key to the psychology is very similar to that of Batman when you get down to it, though twisted in a different way.
Batman was born as Bruce, and became Batman because of the events of his youth and through a decade of effort. He created a new 'Bruce' to be his mask in society because he doesn't know how to be a normal person, just as he created the Batman mask to help him survive on the streets of Gotham while doing his work and to scare those who might stand in his way.
Superman was (essentially) born and raised as Clark, but was always Superman by nature. He never had a choice to just be a normal guy because by definition he was superhuman. I disagree with Tarantino that Clark is commentary; instead, Superman is the real mask for Clark, a symbol that is everything good about humanity to inspire humanity to be that good. Clark chose the persona of Superman as a channel for his nature, just like Bruce chose Batman as a channel for his pain, but Clark can never fully walk away from Superman like Bruce could if he sorted out his shit. Clark can always fly, he can always lift heavy objects and do all that superhuman stuff. He is also the only one, so there is a definite sadness to the character, a solitude if you will. Superman is everything Clark wishes he was, all that the best of humanity wishes it could be. Superman isn't a person though, he is just a mask, like Batman.
Last edited:
Re: Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman fi
I'll agree the pre-Metropolis part is more solid and serious, though I still hate its version of Krypton. I can't really fault the Smallville portion of the story. As for the last act, I'm sorry, but the turn-back-time ending is one of the stupidest things in superhero-movie history. Even aside from the physical idiocy of it, it's dramatically incompetent. If the hero has the power to do that, to hit the reset button and change any outcome he doesn't like, then there's no point even bothering to tell a story.
That's exactly my point. What Luthor does is monstrous, but who he is, how he's portrayed as a character, the feebleness of the organization at his disposal, is pathetic in comparison to the magnitude of menace he's supposed to convey. If he has the ruthlessness, brilliance, and organization skill to pull off something like that, why can't he find better help than Otis and Miss Teschmacher? Of all the cinematic and televised portrayals of Lex Luthor, this one is... well, the second-worst. (The worst was the first-season version in the '88 Superboy series, though they later recast him as Sherman Howard, who's one of my favorite Luthors.) Even Superfriends had a more convincingly menacing Luthor than this loser. Sure, Gene Hackman's fun to watch, but the character is too lame to be Lex Luthor.
Granted. One thing I will give the Donner films is that they told big stories (aside from the minuscule size and competence of Luthor's excuse for a criminal organization). For all the faults of Superman II, its Metropolis battle between Superman and Zod's trio is one of the most effective cinematic translations of comic-book action ever made (if you ignore the comedy beats Richard Lester stuck into it). And I can't get over the stupidity of Clark and Lois walking back to civilization from the middle of the Arctic, and the whole super-amnesia-kiss thing was a totally inane copout, but I'll grant that they did choose to tell a big story about Superman/Clark and Lois. I'd just like to see a big story told in a way that actually makes a modicum of sense.
Granted, Lois-Clark chemistry is important. Too bad I really disliked Margot Kidder.
Yeah, the chemistry there was pretty good.
I'll agree the pre-Metropolis part is more solid and serious, though I still hate its version of Krypton. I can't really fault the Smallville portion of the story. As for the last act, I'm sorry, but the turn-back-time ending is one of the stupidest things in superhero-movie history. Even aside from the physical idiocy of it, it's dramatically incompetent. If the hero has the power to do that, to hit the reset button and change any outcome he doesn't like, then there's no point even bothering to tell a story.
That's exactly my point. What Luthor does is monstrous, but who he is, how he's portrayed as a character, the feebleness of the organization at his disposal, is pathetic in comparison to the magnitude of menace he's supposed to convey. If he has the ruthlessness, brilliance, and organization skill to pull off something like that, why can't he find better help than Otis and Miss Teschmacher? Of all the cinematic and televised portrayals of Lex Luthor, this one is... well, the second-worst. (The worst was the first-season version in the '88 Superboy series, though they later recast him as Sherman Howard, who's one of my favorite Luthors.) Even Superfriends had a more convincingly menacing Luthor than this loser. Sure, Gene Hackman's fun to watch, but the character is too lame to be Lex Luthor.
Granted. One thing I will give the Donner films is that they told big stories (aside from the minuscule size and competence of Luthor's excuse for a criminal organization). For all the faults of Superman II, its Metropolis battle between Superman and Zod's trio is one of the most effective cinematic translations of comic-book action ever made (if you ignore the comedy beats Richard Lester stuck into it). And I can't get over the stupidity of Clark and Lois walking back to civilization from the middle of the Arctic, and the whole super-amnesia-kiss thing was a totally inane copout, but I'll grant that they did choose to tell a big story about Superman/Clark and Lois. I'd just like to see a big story told in a way that actually makes a modicum of sense.
Granted, Lois-Clark chemistry is important. Too bad I really disliked Margot Kidder.
Yeah, the chemistry there was pretty good.
