CoreyII
Second Unit
- Joined
- May 15, 1999
- Messages
- 474
Chuck Mayer said:Chris, I wouldn't care too much if Singer ignored the earlier films or retold the origin. Superman existed for 40 years before Donner's film, and almost 30 years since. The film might have reached the biggest audience, but it wasn't the best version of the big S by any stretch. Numerous comic (or cartoon) writers did it better. It's OK to let Donner's film be Donner's film, and to let it go.
Chuck Mayer said:I don't think the takes were criticized...I think it was their executions. A better origin could be done today. I believe that. I've worked it over in my head And I could visually do it in 5-10 minutes. Again, the Donner film is a classic. But it's not the alpha or the omega of Superman.
Frankly, why make a sequel to S:TM? The origin is SO WELL KNOWN, they could just make a Superman movie without bothering with it. Without using the same Luthor plans, etc.
As for the only reason retelling an origin. I vehemently disagree. If that origin can illuminate the story you are telling now (and it really could have here), then you do retell it...at least the part of it that applies. I've seen numerous comic writers use the nuances of an origin to make the themes of their story significantly more meaningful.
Chuck this is what I've been trying to say for the longest time. Instead of trying to retread on Donner's film, this Superman movie should be much closer to way the character and his world is currently written by the DC staff.
One of the many reasons to re-do the origin for a 21st century audiece would be the chance to see both Johnathan and Martha Kent alive. Both serve as a pillar of strenghth and wisdom for Superman, but I've always thought Johnathan Kent as slightly more important because he teaches Clark what it means to be man. This could have been done, but Singer chose to go in another direction, a direction that has been done before.
Chris Atkins said:The only reason you retell an origin is if the first time wasn't successful.
Or if the origin is almost three decades old with too many dated scenes that makes continuing where the original left off in this day and age seem out of place.
Chris Atkins said:Sure, there has been better Superman writing in other mediums, but Donner's origin tale is a cinema classic.
Yeah Chris, I agree but even classics begin to show their age.
Chris Atkins said:Sequels to classic movies are tough to pull off. We've seen two different directors (Lucas, Singer) take two different approaches (Lucas: new direction--with some homages of course; Singer: sticking to the original formula--with some new elements) and both have been criticized here.
I understand what you're saying Chris, but comparing Star Wars to Superman is almost like comparing walnuts and applesauce (lack of a better comparison)
1. First of all, as much of a classic as Superman: The Movie is, it has no where near the cultural impact that Star Wars has or still does. From a cinematic point of view, Luke Skywalker's story is more firmly planted in the public concscience than that of Donner's Superman.
2.In relation to my first point; ever since it's 1977 release, Star Wars has been able to stay in the public eye much more successfully than Superman: The Movie. Just look at how many times Star Wars has been re-relased on video and broadcast on regular t.v. and cable. And let's not even get started on the slew of toys the films have produced. Yes Superman has been in public eye since the 1970's and 80's movies, but it has been on television and in different incarnations. And television doesn't reach the number of people that movies do. Each version whether it is "Lois and Clark", "the Animated Series", "the Ruby Spears cartoon", or "Smallville" has told the origin story in it's own unique way and used it as a spring board to go in a vastly different direction.
3. With Star Wars, everyone knew that there was always going to be a contiunation of the story, it was just a matter of time. This was not the case with Superman.
4. As I have said before, Superman: The Movie is a nearly 30 year old film and if you consider the fact that most of Supes II footage was shot simultaneously with the first flick, then Superman II is also almost 30 years old too. You're talking about at least two generations of movie goers who haven't really grown up with the Donner film and yet Singer's asking them to use two films which clearly show their age and a make a connection to the 21st century. Which brings me to my next point.
5. Star Wars is set in an imaginary world in which we have no reference to whatsover. It is a world in which people dress in clothing that is tied to no era. The vehicles and appliances in Star Wars are like nothing we have ever seen before. Superman: The Movie can't claim that. In Donner's film you have girls and boys clearly dressed in 50's high school clothing, when you get to Metropolis, you have people driving around in large box shaped vehicles, and dressed in clothing that reflects the 70's and 80's. Superman and Superman II are dated films.