I'm pretty sure Godzilla had already done it. And I doubt Godzilla was actually the first, either, though I can't name anything older.
Spoilers Superman (2025) Grade and Discussion
- Thread starter Nerys Myk
- Start date
I'm pretty sure Godzilla had already done it. And I doubt Godzilla was actually the first, either, though I can't name anything older.
I’ve always thought that prior to Casino Royale there was a sort of soft reboot element to the James Bond series every time there was a change of actor. OHMSS admittedly has a sequence where Lazenby looks at gadgets that Connery used, presumably to stress that, his “this never happened to the other fellow” line notwithstanding, he’s the same fellow. DAF, in which Connery returns, pretty much ignores OHMSS. LALD, Moore’s debut, eschews Q and a lot of the tropes. Dalton is clearly not meant to be the same fellow as Moore, I terms of age, attitude and delivery. Brosnan mixed elements of all his predecessors but is clearly enjoying being an agent much more than Dalton did. But for all that, there’s consistency of Lois Maxwell as Moneypenny for 20 plus years, Q returned after LALD & assisted 2 more Bonds and there were nods to the ending of OHMSS a few times, while DAD (which ended up being the last pre-full reboot film) has another sequence acknowledging old gadgets etc
It felt a bit odd. James Gunn seemed to be holding back on the disturbing images he’s accustomed to. And I was bracing myself for discomfort throughout the film instead of enjoying the thrilling fights and flights. And the dog was too much for my liking.
After watching this new movie, I revisited the 2005 version, which I actually preferred. It felt more fitting to the concept of a comic book world that is at least somewhat grounded in reality but has that underlying mythical/legendary/fairy tale feel.
After watching this new movie, I revisited the 2005 version, which I actually preferred. It felt more fitting to the concept of a comic book world that is at least somewhat grounded in reality but has that underlying mythical/legendary/fairy tale feel.
Not sure if shared I saw Helen Slater write a glowing review on Instagram. Which James Gunn thanked her for that.
Interesting aside - Helen Slater holds a doctorate in Mythological Studies. With a particular interest in Greek Mythology.
Interesting aside - Helen Slater holds a doctorate in Mythological Studies. With a particular interest in Greek Mythology.
I was thinking the same thing. Which is why when some fans saw Superman Returns being a soft reboot as a bad thing misunderstanding it had been done before. It used to be that continuity between sequels in most movies was very loose. Even with the same actors. Cliffhanger endings that were picked up in sequel but often ignoring the specific details, etc.
The DC Universe has been in a rolling reboot since 1939. Superman himself has been through multiple soft reboots and one complete, hard restart by John Byrne ("Birthright" started taking on water so quickly it's hard to know what to call it).
Marvel's continuity seems to parallel that of soap operas - "after enough years, we just stop talking about that storyline."
It's all loose and subject to revision at any instant,which after decades of suffering with Trekkie "canon" obsessions is really relaxing.
Marvel's continuity seems to parallel that of soap operas - "after enough years, we just stop talking about that storyline."
It's all loose and subject to revision at any instant,which after decades of suffering with Trekkie "canon" obsessions is really relaxing.
Sorry, I was actually responding to @JD , but didn't quote them. We two are in total agreement on this.
Exactly! Or Star Wars fans…The DC Universe has been in a rolling reboot since 1939. Superman himself has been through multiple soft reboots and one complete, hard restart by John Byrne ("Birthright" started taking on water so quickly it's hard to know what to call it).
Marvel's continuity seems to parallel that of soap operas - "after enough years, we just stop talking about that storyline."
It's all loose and subject to revision at any instant,which after decades of suffering with Trekkie "canon" obsessions is really relaxing.
Reading comics is one of the reasons I never took canon or continuity very seriously anywhere. I have had more enjoyment because it it. I started reading new comics in 1989. So I somewhat informed by John Byrne’s reboot of Superman… BUT at same time I was reading older comics from Half Price Books and later real comic book shops. Liking the older mythology too. Not to mention various tv shows, movies, serials, cartoons, etc.
And yet hardcore comics fans will still rage if a new entry is not slavishly beholden to some obscure line from Long-Johned Goober Tales #167, June-July 1964.The DC Universe has been in a rolling reboot since 1939. Superman himself has been through multiple soft reboots and one complete, hard restart by John Byrne ("Birthright" started taking on water so quickly it's hard to know what to call it).
Marvel's continuity seems to parallel that of soap operas - "after enough years, we just stop talking about that storyline."
It's all loose and subject to revision at any instant,which after decades of suffering with Trekkie "canon" obsessions is really relaxing.
See also, “Supergirl would never do that!” (Except she just did.)
Those guys can give Trek fans a run for their money for prioritizing the trivia of continuity over all other considerations.
Would that all comics readers took such lessons of perspective and proportion.
As someone who considers "Birthright" their favorite Superman origin story, a big part of that was the hugely miscommunicating marketing. It was not presented as "This is the new canon", but "this is a book we're doing, kind of like what Marvel is doing with their Ultimate line, or what we did with For All Seasons". It wasn't until about issue #8 of 12 that the main ongoing books made that continuity shift to match what was happening in "Birthright", and even that just happened without being advertised.
I think there were a lot of people who never realized "Birthright" was supposed to be canon.
Exactly. So other creators ignored it at random, and that was all she wrote.
I think there were parts of it that were not well-liked by other DC writers.
I have to hold Byrne's reboot as my favorite Superman origin story - not because I like every detail of it, but most crucially because he rethought and redefined the character dynamics between Clark, Lois and Luthor.
Tarantino to the contrary, Byrne made it clear that Superman is not a "real person," but a name and role that Clark Kent chooses to adopt and grows into. Superman stopped being a pigtail-pulling adolescent dick and finally really fell for Lois Lane. Luthor finally started acting (sometimes) like the smartest guy on Earth.
A lot of the world that Byrne defined has been unraveled in favor of the complicated pre-Crisis version, but the characters have never gone back to being the plot-dependent stick figures that they'd become over the decades (and, TBH, always had been).
Last edited:
"There should have been only one".
She should complain to her local theater. Sometimes they getting the settings wrong and the cinema screen is too dark.
And at the time 'Superman Returns' was guaranteed to get a sequel according to a highfalutin poster here.
My only familiarity with the Hawks is in TV, and I've seen pictures and of Hawkgirl in the Justice League animated series with in her civilian clothing with her wings, and I'm pretty sure the Arrowverse showed their wings appearing when they needed to use them and then when they were disappearing when they were done. I've also seen at least one or two episodes of Smallvile with Hawkman, but I can't remember what they did with his wings.
And just to be clear, I'm not posting this as an argument against what you said, I'm just explaining where my other post came from. I'm more than willing to admit I could be remembering wrong.
I think Marvel calls their approach a rolling timeline, basically no matter how long it's been in the real world, it's always been a certain number of years since major events in the Marvel Universe happened. Kind of like how The Simpsons is always adjusting when Homer and Marge met, or when Bart and Lisa were born.The DC Universe has been in a rolling reboot since 1939. Superman himself has been through multiple soft reboots and one complete, hard restart by John Byrne ("Birthright" started taking on water so quickly it's hard to know what to call it).
Marvel's continuity seems to parallel that of soap operas - "after enough years, we just stop talking about that storyline."
It's all loose and subject to revision at any instant,which after decades of suffering with Trekkie "canon" obsessions is really relaxing.
Okay, the Hawkgirl in civilian clothing was from Justice League Unlimited, after she left the League over her involvement with the Thanagarian invasion. She still wore the wings, but not as part of her Thanagarian uniform. I'm not sure if they explained it on-screen, but she probably adjusted her wing-harness to be worn with a civilian top.
As for the Arrowverse, yeah, those simply appeared and disappeared as needed, probably because of they were CGI and they didn't want to pay for that outside of action scenes.
It always seemed to me that all Connery, Lazenby, Moore and Dalton were all the same character. The thing that tied everyone of them together was the death of his wife. It happened in Lazenby's movie, Connery's next one opens with him like a madman chasing after blofeld, and it was mentioned in both Spy Who Loved Me and License To Kill.
Plus my earlier comment was in regards to Superman Returns actually being advertised as a movie that takes place after 1 and 2 and pretending none of the other sequels existed. If there were other franchises that came out and said "ignore the sequels" I'm not familiar with them. I dont ever remember a Bond movie doing that before Casino Royale.
OK, now I understand with JLU stuff. I had assumed she was wearing them in her civilian clothes because she couldn't take them off. Seems to like it would be kind of awkward to walk around with those things on your back when you didn't need them.
Similar threads
