I thought he always was very positief about working on Smallville. And his characters death had more to do with it being the 100th episode of the show
DC Cinematic Universe ( The James Gunn era)
- Thread starter Samurai8472
- Start date
I thought he always was very positief about working on Smallville. And his characters death had more to do with it being the 100th episode of the show
I’m pretty sure I remember a time when he publicly criticised sexing up of the show to the press. This was a year or two before he got the axe. Could well be coincidental but I can’t imagine that it helped.
I can’t find a contemporaneous link to it but here he is talking about it some time ago but after he left and says - half in jest, I would guess - that his dissatisfaction with the Clark & Lana sexual relationship got him sacked. Those complaints were voiced behind the scenes but I definitely remember reading about his views on it in SFX magazine at the time
More than nostalgia, the idea of Clark learning the lesson early that there are things even Superman can't fix is a good one, which is why people keep resurrecting it. Even if it is undermined by the time travel in the '78 movie.
Is it really, though? It's always been common for elements from Superman adaptations to get adopted by the comics and later adaptations; Jimmy Olsen, Perry White, kryptonite, and the famous catchphrases and title narration all came from the radio series (and Jimmy didn't become a regular in the comics until after he became one on TV), the Daily Planet came from the newspaper comic (because several papers that carried it had rivals named the Daily Star, so that was out), Superman flying instead of leaping arguably came from the theatrical cartoons (though I think it's ambiguous), etc. And certainly a bunch of stuff from the Reeve movies has been adopted by later adaptations -- crystalline Kryptonian tech/architecture, Jor-El's AI ghost in the Fortress, Jimmy Olsen as a photographer instead of a cub reporter, the characters of Otis, Eve Teschmacher, Non, and Ursa, the line "Kneel before Zod." Not to mention the entire modern characterization of Lois Lane as an award-winning veteran journalist rather than an undervalued "girl reporter" pushing against the glass ceiling, and the elevation of her romance with Superman and/or Clark to a true relationship and a central story thread rather than a perpetual tease.
In short, there are many later creators whose main touchstone for Superman stories is the Reeve movies rather than the comics, so they emulate those movies' elements and characters because it's what they know or what they remember fondly. They may not need more of a reason than that.
I'd argue that a lot of those elements are remembered fondly (and thus reused), because they are clear improvements on the mythos.
Are they? The changes to Lois are definitely improvements, but I don't see how any of the others are objectively better. The crystal architecture was striking but kind of silly if you think about it (where the hell do they sit?), and I got tired of seeing it decades ago. Ursa is just a renamed Faora, so that cancels out; Non is just a mindless thug, less interesting than other Phantom Zone villains from the comics. Making Jimmy a photographer instead of a cub reporter has some merit, I guess (and his original radio job as a copy boy is obsolete now), but you can get good stories out of him either way, and a lot of versions make him both. Eve has no advantages as a character over Mercy Graves (also a creation of an adaptation, specifically Superman: The Animated Series), and Otis is a joke; I feel both characters diminished Lex Luthor as a villain, since you'd think a true criminal genius could recruit a better gang than a couple of idiots. Even the goons-of-the-week in Batman '66 were more competent than those two.
And Jor-El's ghost... Some good things have been done with the idea, like in Man of Steel and with a similar character in the Krypton TV series, and arguably in My Adventures with Superman, though it's still a bit too early to tell. But it's never been a concept I've liked all that much, and sometimes (as in Superman & Lois) it seems to be used purely out of a sense of obligatory mimicry. There have been multiple worthwhile versions of Superman that have done just fine without it, like Lois & Clark (the first couple of seasons before it went to crap) and S:TAS.
Honestly, one reason I get tired of everyone copying Superman: The Movie is because it really isn't all that good an adaptation. In some ways, it's fantastic, but in others it's pretty dumb. But it's the version most familiar to the general public, and that's why it gets imitated, the bad with the good.
I agree that you could take or leave most of the character changes, save Lois and Jimmy, as you pointed out. Your observation about the The Crystal architecture as striking is why it's definitely an improvement, as it replaces the "generic sci-fi" style with something alien and instantly recognizable, doesn't matter if humans can't figure out how it works day to day. The early stuff, Superman flying rather than leaping, Kryptonite to give him a weakness, etc, are clearly good character refinements. I think the Jor-el hologram goes in the good column just because it allows the writers storytelling efficiency, a way to dynamically teach Superman about his past quickly and get on with the rest of the story, should they so choose.
That may have been the narrative purpose in that film, but it wasn't in later reuses of the trope.
SV did it, but in season 5, way past the point where Clark learned this lesson.
Geoff Johns did it during his run, but that was even further into Clark's superhero career, so again, lesson already learned.
The New 52 started after Jonathan's death, so maybe in-universe Clark learned his lesson that way, but the audience didn't get to witness it.
Jonathan's death in MoS was something, but it certainly wasn't a lesson that it was beyond Clark's power to save him.
Yeah, but if its value is its originality, then just copying it loses that originality. The way to homage something original and new is to do something else original and new. Man of Steel did that with its Krypton, creating something entirely different and striking (if raising just as many logic questions in its own way), rather than just lazily imitating what someone else did before them.
I wasn't addressing those, though, just using them as context for my concession that there is a history of drawing on past adaptations. My point is that the Donner movies specifically get drawn on more than they really deserve.
There are plenty of ways to do that. A lot of versions have a recorded message from Jor-El rather than an interactive (sentient?) personality emulation. S:TAS used a version of Braniac, as I said. The '88 Superboy and Lois & Clark kept Clark's past a mystery to him for much of their runs. The Silver Age comics had Superman fly into space and catch up with the emitted light from Krypton so he could watch his past as it unfolded. I wouldn't say Ghost Jor-El is superior to other methods, just different.
I see it as a lesson that he should never stand idly by when he has the power to help someone, a lot like Spider-Man and Uncle Ben. Except that Spidey learned to follow the lesson Uncle Ben taught him about taking responsibility (in later versions), while MoS Clark learned not to follow the lesson Jonathan taught him about avoiding responsibility.
Looks like we have our Martha https://www.cbr.com/superman-2025-martha-kent/
Definitely not likely to be mistaken for Diane Lane in a hurry. Interesting that as eg Aunt May has gotten younger, Martha (why did you say that name?!) and Jonathan are getting older.
Marisa Tomie is about four years younger than Pruitt Taylor Vince.
Ma & Pa Kent being cast older suggests that they'll be in the present day instead of flashbacks.
And Pruitt Taylor Vince is six years younger than Kevin Costner. But of course, Costner was eleven years younger than he is now when Man of Steel came out.
Well, my wife pulled out photos of our trip to Europe seven years ago. Everyone (especially the kids) looked noticeably younger—except me. I looked identical to today. Either that means I look young for my current age or I looked old back then. I, of course, prefer to say I look timeless.And Pruitt Taylor Vince is six years younger than Kevin Costner. But of course, Costner was eleven years younger than he is now when Man of Steel came out.
It makes sense that Martha and Jonathan be a little older if their story is that they wanted kids for a long time before finding Kal-El. Even if they were only in their mid-thirties when the spaceship arrived, then they would be in their sixties at the time of the movie. It's all in how Gunn wants to tell the story--and if he is indeed basing it on A Man for All Seasons then the new casting looks like he is being faithful to that story's version of Ma and Pa Kent.
Similar threads
