Re: Chris Nolan is prepping Batman 3 and will mentor a new Superman fi
^ Teri Hatcher remains my favourite Lois.
^ Teri Hatcher remains my favourite Lois.
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.
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.
Yeah, the chemistry there was pretty good.
Why should Krypton be functional?
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.
I agree, screw realism! (more or less) Screw earth based villains! Bring on some real foes!
I agree, screw realism! (more or less) Screw earth based villains! Bring on some real foes!
Yeah, I'd love to see how much a Superman vs. Darkseid movie would cost.
They're fun enough, sure, but again, the point is the story evolves around Clark as a man with amazing powers - who is in love with a driven, adventurous woman who is his equal, if not in physical strength, in mental and emotional strength. The reason Superman's rogue gallery is largely forgettable is because his foil has always been Lois. It's possible to tell a decent short tale in the comics without her, but for any big Superman story (as a movie must be) the love story has to be paramount because it is fundamental to Superman's identity. It's where the meat of the character's drama is.
I hope they put a lot of sci-fi elements in the Superman reboot, too, especially in terms of the villains. The fact that Warners has signed off on a fully-fledged sci-fi adaptation of Green Lantern hopefully signals a willingness to go in that direction with other superhero films, perhaps including Superman.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.