Qui-Gon John
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2000
- Messages
- 3,532
- Real Name
- John Co
I'd say wait until Smallville is done, then do a movie with Wellig.
Yeah, Donner put it well in the documentary, saying he couldn't imagine anyone then or now that could even come close to being as good a Superman as Christopher Reeve. I really agree.
Though the DVD of Superman: The Movie is pretty durn glorious, the film still has quite a few flaws in it, though it's true that the origin half is great. The film loses alot of the grandeur and seriousness when it moves to Metropolis.
The turning-the-world-backwards gag is just a dumb idea that really doesn't make any sense. And as much as I love Hackman, they still couldn't resist the Batman TV show angle of the campy villian(s). You can have fun with an idea without resorting to camp.I really dig the Turn back the world, its very fanciful and straight outta comics. I just think it works. And Hackman aint campy IMO, Batman Forever and B&R, those are campy pieces of cow dung, Hackman aint!
I'd actually like them to do an origin redo -- simply because it would make a clean break from the original films.But it would also invite comparison, and there's no need for that. Just make a great Superman adventure - the origin has been done (and likely won't be done better). Besides, that would free the movie up to be one story, not two joined together.
And if I were making it, I'd make it about power. Luthor's economic, political and technological powers against Superman's superhuman ones. Him trying to lay (or "regain") a claim to Metropolis, which he considers his city, to drive the alien out.
And then, once you've really established this relationship in the first movie, take it the next step in the sequel with the "Death Of Superman" story - only Doomsday is something Luthor cooked up, as opposed to an escapee from an alien mental hospital. Make Luthor the Herod to Superman's Christ figure.
Blasphemy- Uneccessary wholesale alteration of an existing character, film, or other creation purely on whimsy because the blasphemer think they know better than the original creator how to deal with their creations.That's subjective.
There are some instances, like with FOTR where things had to be restructured in order to get them out of the Shire in under 90min, I'm OK with that, though I'm not too happy with how it was structured
Faramir kidnapping Frodo? Blasphemy. Unneccessary wholeale invention of a scene that signifigantly alters the character. It's not PJ's book, ergo he should not be rewriting it.Its an adaptation, AN ADAPTATION!!, its not the whole book on film, the whole book on film would be 20 hours long! And I personally liked the change in Faramir's character, made more sense than some guy just saying "Nah..I dont want it."
Back to Superman...
IS IT IN THE BOOK/MOVIE etc?
No?
BlasphemyI suddenly can't help wondering if you've read the novel LA Confidential and compared it to the movie
But, the comic has changed so much since its beginning. As was said earlier, Superman couldn't initially fly, he just jumped REEEEEALY high or REEEEEALLY far. Soon it just became flying. With that in mind Donner's Superman was blasphemy.Exactly. There's a broad range between strict adherence and blasphemy, atleast in my book. So it's status as blasphemy is subjective.