298 replies to this topic

[Jaxom 1974]

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out...

I find it pointless to say it's impossible to make a good superhero movie after the Nolan Batman trilogy...as it's simple a subjective thought process in and of itself...X2, Avengers, the first Iron Man certainly and Captain America all showed other ways of making good superhero movies.  They're just different from what Nolan chose to do.

The last Superman movie suffered from a lot of high expectations and its sustainibilty petered out as more and more came out about it...it should have been better than it was...now will this one get the same treatment?

[drawkcabi]

ZombieWife, on 22 July 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

I enjoyed the hell out of Smallville, even though I had to endure the teen angsty BS.  It was a great little CW show and because it was on the CW, it was allowed to go what?  10 years as a work-horse series that allowed characters and storylines a little more time to breathe.  They didn't always nail it, no, but I feel like they got enough right that I stuck around.  Happily.

Smallville remains one of my favorite shows, but it did get awfully hard at times to endure the angsty crap. But for when it was good it was so much worth it!

[Davos55]

sciborg2, on 22 July 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

I had more respect for Telsa before I learned he gave a probability-cloning machine to a stage magician.

Excellent comment. Just re watched "The Prestige" today after not seeing it for a couple of years. Tesla really should have just destroyed that device lol

[Howdyphillip]

drawkcabi, on 21 July 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

Whatever they do in rebooting it, all I ask, all I beg is that they keep the John Williams Superman score.

Hans Zimmer is doing a completely original score for this movie. On one hand, I am disappointed  by this decision, and on the other I can see where they need a complete break after the disaster of the last movie. Zimmer did an amazing job on Batman, so I am at least hopeful.

[drawkcabi]

Howdyphillip, on 23 July 2012 - 12:47 AM, said:

Hans Zimmer is doing a completely original score for this movie. On one hand, I am disappointed  by this decision, and on the other I can see where they need a complete break after the disaster of the last movie. Zimmer did an amazing job on Batman, so I am at least hopeful.

Ugh, all Zimmer did was plagiarize West Side Story with the Batman soundtrack.

So,

crappy director
crappy actors
crappy music

I'm out.

Maybe I'll catch bits and pieces of it on FX in a few years.

[Arthmail]

Superman is not your average man, he is not a blue collar guy. He's a fucking alien, and he's fairly boring. But this one might pull it off. Might.

[JEORDHl]

Kalbear, on 22 July 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

Or ironically having the trailer for Lord of the Rings use the very distinctive and awesome soundtrack from Requiem for a Dream. (which actually happened)

Thanks a lot, fucker. Stuck in my head, the tune was the soundtrack to every thing I did today-- and every single thing was bad ass.

Seriously... thanks.



---


To the subject, I won't get the shield tattooed, but I do own a few shirts. I'm not ashamed to admit that since I was a young boy I've always looked up to Superman, like a dream, an ideal. Always will.

Really looking forward to this movie, and as shiftless and conflicted as Clark might've come off in the trailer... I know I'm going to get goosebumps when he finally accepts his heritage and embraces responsibility for the things he has the power to change that we ourselves would, if we could.

I think. Or hope.


Post Script: except for Arthmail.

Edited by JEORDHl, 23 July 2012 - 06:18 PM.

[Jaime L]

Brady's eloquent defense of Superman not withstanding, I dislike this current trend we're in now where half the summer's big budget, big moneymakers are superhero flicks. I'm a little worn out on them, not gonna lie. I get the financial incentive and I get that almost all (at least those without Lantern in the title) make bank. And the inevitable sequels provide a built in audience, like Harry Potter, like Hunger Games, like Twilight - these are the safest films to make.

But do we gotta reboot these ever 5-10 years? Batman at least made sense to reboot because the prior series of films went up its own asshole with pure camp. Made sense to reboot with a gritty, dark origin story that felt nothing like the films that came before. But I think everyone agrees Spiderman didn't need a reboot a mere 5 years after the mostly satisfying Raimi films ended. Remembered thinking how ridiculous it was that The Hulk rebooted 5 years after Ang Lee's version and there was no way in hell I'm seeing it. X-Men also rebooted 5 years after the Brett Ratner shitshow. Is this what America was clamoring for? Moreover, is this where we would desire movie studio bucks being spent if we had a say? Personally I'm getting a little fatigued on the all too familiar beats of all these stories - even the well made ones. And I feel like the Nolan Batman films gave me everything I wanted out of a superhero flick. I don't think anyone can beat it - so I'd rather see studios try in different more novel directions.

To me, it's like so what that the new Spiderman was by most accounts a pretty good film. And honestly this new Superman film could be the best one yet, even though this represents a third reboot and was in theaters only 7 years ago. It's just I want something that feels fresher and different out of my summer movie season. All these superhero epics, and to a lesser extent part 3 of a quadrilogy or book 5 of whatever series is crowding out the more original content. We still get some of those films, just feels like less often.

Why I'm on this long rant is the Superman trailer looked fascinating seeing it prior to TDKR. The cinematography and score were eye-catching and seeing Nolan's name attached piqued my interest...right up until I saw it was a Superman film. Just killed it for me. I'm burnt out on it. Would've followed that trailer in any direction it wanted to take me...except the well worn path of the most famous and possibly most played out of superheroes. Just judging from the trailer I'm sure it makes a killing at the box office, gets mostly positive reviews on RT and continues the cycle that will ultimately lead to the insanity of rebooting Batman again in 2017. Though at this point think I'd rather it bomb...

[Bastard of Boston]

Superman Returns, let the record show, was not a reboot. Bryan Singer's movie was meant to occur in the same universe as Reeve's Superman. So, actually, this new Superman franchise will be a "fresh" reboot.

Superman can be great in the right hands. My favorite Superman stories have been Death/Return and All-Star. I think Superman is best when he's used as a lens. He may be ultra pure and altruistic, and in the grand scheme, people don't like reading about perfection or the trials and tribulations of a Golden Boy. However, it's Supes' supporting characters who become compelling, and seeing how the gray world at large contrasts with the stark red/white/blue of Supes, for me, is what makes his story great.

Edited by Bastard of Boston, 24 July 2012 - 12:00 AM.

[Arthmail]

If you need supporting characters to make you, you suck.

[Shryke]

The reason you are seeing all these superhero movies and reboots and shit is several fold (fuck you, it's now an expression!):

1) Technology: This is sort of the impetus for the superhero movie explosion in the first place. We finally got to the point, with shit like Spiderman leading the way, where we can make an honest to god superhero movie that looks good.

2) Movies be fucking expensive and ticket sales aren't doing great: The movie business is becoming extremely conservative investment wise. If it's gonna be expensive, and superhero movies are, it's gotta be a sure thing. Superhero movies are big summer blockbusters that are proven to make bank and have brand recognition. It's a good place to go big for big profit.

3) Contractual Issues: Alot of these properties were made under deals with Marvel and DC way back years ago when the power of these properties on the big screen was basically unknown. Now everyone knows they print money. Marvel is kicking themselves over selling them off right now. But part of those deals are clauses about having to use the license every X number of years or it reverts back to Marvel. That's why you get shit like the new Spiderman. Sony needs to keep making Spiderman movies to hold on to their right to make them. And since they make money off that shit, they will keep fucking making them to hang on to that cash cow.

4) Marvel Renaissance: At the same time this is happening, Marvel decides it wants in on the game too. (DC to a certain extent as well, but Marvel is the big one) They start pumping out their own set of movies with the licenses they still own and they are really interested in building a semi-cohesive universe and movie schedule to tie this all together.

3 & 4 are pretty much the big reasons it feels like we are neckdeep in this shit these days. Marvel is pumping out their movies like mad to establish/continue their new business model while at the same time DC is trying to copy them and all the other properties of theirs they sold are being exploited as frequently as contractually required by the studios.

As for reboots, well:

5) Reboots: This ones pretty simple actually. No one wants to make superhero movies forever. Certainly not ones about the same superhero. So eventually the creative talent behind one or a series of movies leaves. When new talent is brought on to keep the cash cow going, these people want to actually do their own work and not be tied down by whatever shit the last guy did they didn't like (whether storywise, actor wise, setting wise, tone wise, etc). So they reboot and make their own version of <insert superhero here>.

Edited by Shryke, 24 July 2012 - 12:32 AM.

[Arbor Goldson]

Jaime, I agree with you in principle.  I wish, more than anything, that the general public would stop seeing a lot of these movies.  No demand, no supply, amirite?

However, I'm torn on this one. I don't see a lot of the blockbuster movies (my summer take has thus far been comprised of Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, Safety Not Guaranteed, and Moonrise kingdom) and I tend to veer away from superhero movies.  I did not see Superman Returns.  Christopher Reeve, to me, is Superman.  The original Superman movie was the first movie I ever had on VHS (recorded from my friend's HBO) and I watched it all the time when I was like 8.  So, I have a soft spot in my heart and am ready for a good Superman reboot.  I think, for this project, the time has come.  

I generally despise Hollywood and am not a fan of the obvious money-grubbing tactics, but this one has me intrigued.  I think it could be good.  It probably won't be good, but I'm willing to see more before I totally dismiss it (as I do most previews I see).

[red snow]

There's not much to go on from the teaser trailer (duh). They seemed to be playing down the Super which while a different approach may not be the correct one. Trying to do Batman in a realistic way works because he's a "normal" guy with no powers other than his training and gadgets. Superman is an alien who can fly, shoot lasers out his eyes, can lift a jet and is essentially invulnerable. Trying to take a "realistic" approach to him may be too much of a juxtaposition. Are they going to explain the flying by saying he's super flatulant? One promising thing was that the narration is essentially taken from all star superman. While making a film of that story wouldn't be wise (there is an animated version though) I think that story works because the author/artist emphasised the super and bright side of the character.

To be honest, it's seeing Superman being super that I'm looking forward to. If the grounded mundanity of the trailer highlights the super aspects then the film could be very good. I have more hope in Snyder delivering than Nolan and really hope that having Nolan as a producer may help prevent a "sucker punch" scenario and give us the best of both directors strengths.

I also want to see a proper metropolis. Nolan's Gotham was a bit too much a generic mixture of US/UK cities for me. Metropolis needs to look like a shining beacon of the future. Crime in Metropolis needs to be more of an infection/cancer rather than being rotten to the core like Gotham too.

the comic con trailer sounds better in that we do get a few more action shots.

[Slurktan]

Jaime L, on 23 July 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

To me, it's like so what that the new Spiderman was by most accounts a pretty good film. And honestly this new Superman film could be the best one yet, even though this represents a third reboot and was in theaters only 7 years ago. It's just I want something that feels fresher and different out of my summer movie season. All these superhero epics, and to a lesser extent part 3 of a quadrilogy or book 5 of whatever series is crowding out the more original content. We still get some of those films, just feels like less often.

You know there has been exactly 1 Superman movie in the last 25 years and it most definitely was not a reboot right?  I don't get this, I mean 3 reboots if you count the TV shows but then your point ignores the 500 versions of Batman, Spiderman, and the X-Men on TV.

Superman kind of is the one superhero franchise where a reboot isn't a bad idea in theaters.  The first one came out almost 40 years ago.

[polishgenius]

Jaime L, on 23 July 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

And I feel like the Nolan Batman films gave me everything I wanted out of a superhero flick. I don't think anyone can beat it.

I at least partially agree with a great deal of what you're saying but that's a bit defeatist...

red snow, on 24 July 2012 - 02:24 AM, said:

There's not much to go on from the teaser trailer (duh). They seemed to be playing down the Super which while a different approach may not be the correct one. Trying to do Batman in a realistic way works because he's a "normal" guy with no powers other than his training and gadgets. Superman is an alien who can fly, shoot lasers out his eyes, can lift a jet and is essentially invulnerable. Trying to take a "realistic" approach to him may be too much of a juxtaposition. Are they going to explain the flying by saying he's super flatulant? One promising thing was that the narration is essentially taken from all star superman. While making a film of that story wouldn't be wise (there is an animated version though) I think that story works because the author/artist emphasised the super and bright side of the character.

To be honest, it's seeing Superman being super that I'm looking forward to. If the grounded mundanity of the trailer highlights the super aspects then the film could be very good. I have more hope in Snyder delivering than Nolan and really hope that having Nolan as a producer may help prevent a "sucker punch" scenario and give us the best of both directors strengths.

I also want to see a proper metropolis. Nolan's Gotham was a bit too much a generic mixture of US/UK cities for me. Metropolis needs to look like a shining beacon of the future. Crime in Metropolis needs to be more of an infection/cancer rather than being rotten to the core like Gotham too.

the comic con trailer sounds better in that we do get a few more action shots.

Indeed, the  comic con trailer answers most of your concerns.


http://www.youtube.c...h?v=KuBPTeDSiTM

Edited by polishgenius, 24 July 2012 - 06:56 AM.

[Mr. E]

polishgenius, on 24 July 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

I at least partially agree with a great deal of what you're saying but that's a bit defeatist...



Indeed, the  comic con trailer answers most of your concerns.


http://www.youtube.c...h?v=KuBPTeDSiTM

[red snow]

polishgenius, on 24 July 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

I at least partially agree with a great deal of what you're saying but that's a bit defeatist...



Indeed, the  comic con trailer answers most of your concerns.


http://www.youtube.c...h?v=KuBPTeDSiTM

Yup. Seeing superman get punched through a building is always a promising start Metropolis looks shiny too. They should have just shown that trailer with DKR.
I like the idea of the world not being ready for him. Maybe now's the right time for Superman to bring something positive to the audience.

[Bastard of Boston]

Arthmail, on 24 July 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

If you need supporting characters to make you, you suck.

Every character needs supporting characters, otherwise we'd be reading a one-man show. It's the relationships between characters which make a story a story. When I said it's the supporting characters which become compelling, I didn't mean to imply that they don't also make Supes compelling. I was or less trying to counterpoint what's been said about the supposed blandness of Superman as a character, being that he's nowhere near as angsty as someone like a Batman.

[Jaime L]

Shryke, on 24 July 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

2) Movies be fucking expensive and ticket sales aren't doing great: The movie business is becoming extremely conservative investment wise. If it's gonna be expensive, and superhero movies are, it's gotta be a sure thing. Superhero movies are big summer blockbusters that are proven to make bank and have brand recognition. It's a good place to go big for big profit.

The conservatism makes perfect sense from a business model perspective.

But the most memorable films are almost always the biggest risks. It's a shame that fewer seem to be getting made.

Anyway I feel like there's a definite comparison to be made with Westerns in the 50s and 60s. At some point the public's appetite seemed to run out for that kind of film. Judging by box office receipts we're probably a ways away from that happening here with Superhero films, but have to imagine it will happen some day.

Arbur Goldarelli, on 24 July 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

Jaime, I agree with you in principle.  I wish, more than anything, that the general public would stop seeing a lot of these movies.  No demand, no supply, amirite?

Absolutely. And I'm to blame too for seeing TDKR this past weekend. But personally I'm kinda drawing the line at remade versions of films that came out  since 2000.

Slurktan, on 24 July 2012 - 02:37 AM, said:

You know there has been exactly 1 Superman movie in the last 25 years and it most definitely was not a reboot right?  

Fine, revisit not reboot. To me it's a pedantic distinction at this point with Superhero movies. The core point of the post was the feverish rate these specific type of films are being made and what they're potentially crowding out.

Also it was made 6 years ago. It's like saying there was also one Avengers film in the last 60 years. Techinically true but a bizarre framing.

[Sci-2]

Quote

But the most memorable films are almost always the biggest risks. It's a shame that fewer seem to be getting made.

What? I don't think that's necessarily true.

Really, it seems now more than ever people can support the film projects they want to see in all but level of special effects and rounding up of actors.