That was the approach Michael Chabon wanted to take, in his pitch.
I think the Four are primed for the modern age in ways that many other properties aren't; they're celebrity superheroes, and we live in a world that's powered by celebrity.
How "real" should (movie) Superman's world be?
- Thread starter Gaith
- Start date
I think the Four are primed for the modern age in ways that many other properties aren't; they're celebrity superheroes, and we live in a world that's powered by celebrity.
The choice of tone for a movie depends on the story being told. There's probably a great Superman movie to be made that is retro-Capraesque set in a fantasy world, and there's probably a great Superman movie to be made that's mythically timely and full of metapors for our contemporary situation set in a naturalistic world. Certainly both have been done time and again in the comic. As for which of the many options would "work" - so much depends on the chemistry of the cast and setting and story, as well as the audience, who knows? That's why the movie business is a gambler's world.
I agree with you totally. Superman: The Movie's Metropolis seem much more like a real place than the Metropolis we see in Superman Returns. While somewhat idelaized, Metropolis in S:TM still has some personality to it. There is a bit of grit to the place. The scenary, the cops, the ambiance of the street scenes. And it was a recognizable analogue to our world's New York.
Meanwhile, the Metropolis of SR is just a generic Big City (tm). No personality to speak of. Nothing to set it apart from being any other big city on the planet.
There is also a difference in the characters in the two films. For example, compare Lois Lane in the two movies. Kidder's Lois in S:TM has a personality, maybe drawn just a bit over the top at times, but at least she has one. The Lois we see in SR is just a woman named Lois. Blank slate even though they've given her a lot of reasons to be a pretty well developed character. Well, at least one really big reason which i won't spoil for those not having seen it yet. My other problem with SR is the endless parroting of lines from the first film. Once or twice would have been a nice homage, but they just went overboard, IMO.
In fact, I'll go aout on a limb here and say that Superman: The Movie is still the best superhero film made. Sure, some of the effects are looking their thirty-year-old age, but the film hits all the notes the right way even now. Are some of the sentiments of the script dated? Maybe so, but that's probably more an indictment of our current situation than it is of the movie. I periodically pull this DVD off the shelf and watch it again just to let it wash over me. Visually it is still quite wonderful. The casting is top notch. In particular, Glenn Ford as Pa Kent. Just watch the scene where he is explaining the world to young Clark, and then his death scene. Wonderful piece of acting, that. and then there is Christopher Reeve. He nails the character of Kal El/Clark Kent/Superman better than anyone has (or might ever again). Granted the whole Superman puts on glasses and no one realizes he's not Clark Kent is pretty silly. But we believe it in the movie because Reeve makes us believe it. It's not just the glasses. He changes his whole body language, posture and attitude. Again, a wonderful piece of acting.
Damn, gonna have to go watch this again now.
Indeed - shiny, impersonal, and Australian besides. That worked for the Matrix movies, but less so for Superman.
I'd rank it among the best two-thirds of a movie ever made; everything until he gets settled in in Metropolis is great. Once they start focussing on Hackman's awful Luthor it kind of falls apart a bit. But the stuff people really remember about that movie, the aforesaid earlier stuff, is justly classic.
In retrospect the 70s may seem to be a "goofier" time, but when you were living through them not so much. The were just the present. Same for the 30s when Superman debuted. The idea that Clark Kent, be he in the 30s, 70s or 00s needs some convoluted reason to done a costume and fight for truth, justice and the American Way shows a lack of understanding of superheroes in general and Superman in particular. Its that sort of over thinking that sucks the life out these projects.
IICR, Metropolis in S1 was a recreation of NYC, built on an English soundstage. They barely fudged anything, it was NYC in all but name.
SR was more generic. It seemed contemporary but not specific.
I assume it was Richard's place not Lois's. Not sure why the age of the actress should hold any meaning as to where the character lived. If you want say the actress was too young then say it.
Superman has always taken place in contemporary times. He's called the Man of Tomorrow because he exists in today's world. The term would be meaningless if he existed in a futuristic or even retro-futuristic city/world.
Clark's apartment: Why not? If we do it should reflect what ever is current for big city apartments for a person of Clark's income level.
Politics: Depends on what you mean by politics. Superman got his start addressing social issues. He took Hitler and Stalin to court, nabbed corrupt politician and save women in distress. In the goofy 70s his stories reflected on the social issues of those times. The counter culture, Racism, sexism and a few other isms as well.
What would he say: Do the right thing. Use what you are given to make the world a better place. Set an example and make a difference. The message doesn't change with the calendar.
Why put on the suit: see above.
Where'd it come from: Blankets from Krypton. Ma Kent made it. Found it in a thrift store. It's an old Halloween costume.
Does it matter? It's not like Iron Man's armor or Batman's toys. Its origins have little to do with what he does.
I understand what you're saying. However, I even like the stuff you mention. Sure Hackman is a bit over the top as Luthor, but it works. The only other person who's pulled it off is Kevin Spacey (the only real bright sport of Superman Returns).
It just doesn't work for me; neither is a remotely intimidating threat, mostly played for laughs, which is stunning when you consider the calibre of the actors in both cases (and, particularly in the case of SR, Singer's determination to avoid 20 years of work from John Byrne on to make Luthor into a truly credible villain).
That's interesting - I didn't know that. I'd be much more interested seeing Supes attempt some sort of contemporary comment, even if it were as pat as, say, urging the Israelis and Palestinians to settle their differences peacefully, than to see more near-totally apolitical Luthor-fighting. Spacey's "Bring it on!" may have been a subtle dig at Bush, but after X-Men, Dark Knight and Iron Man, I'd like to see a Superman story that (unlike SR and Smallville) doesn't strive not to engage with the times at all.
The exteriors were mostly shot in NYC, not on a soundstage.
Gimme a live-action DCAU Supes and get Tim Daly to dub.
Oh, and Luthor must be black.
The perfect Superman.
Oh, and Luthor must be black.
The perfect Superman.
Well, I know that one pimp thought it was a "bad outfit" and all, but that doesn't mean he could have blended into any late '70s crowd.
Similar threads
