Isn't still to early to do Superman (1 Viewer)

[Qui-Gon John]

I'd say wait until Smallville is done, then do a movie with Wellig.

 

[Ricardo C]

The Joe Millionaire guy just doesn't strike me as the Supes type. He looks... I can't find a word for it. Too Dean Cain-like, I supposed. Chris Reeve was the epithome of class when playing the role. Dean Cain and Evan Marriott (Joe M's real name) look like the frat "dudes" I went to college with, ten years later. Supes deserves better. Let Smallville finish its run, then recruit Tom Welling. It takes more than just being "tall dark and handsome" to properly convey what Superman is all about. Welling comes close to Reeve when it comes to projecting those qualities, in my opinion.

 

[Joshua_Y]

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!

 

[Matthew_Millheiser]

I'm in the camp that feels the first Superman film is just gosh-darned the greatest comic-book movie ever. It's so pitch-perfect that its flaws -- and there are barely a few of them -- just recede into the background. This was the true blockbuster of my youth, bigger than Star Wars, bigger than Raiders of the Lost Ark, bigger than Here Come The Tigers.

I'd actually like them to do an origin redo -- simply because it would make a clean break from the original films. Plus if you do it right, you can tie in the destruction of Krypton to many great elements of the Superman mythos -- Brainiac, General Zod, hell even the Sun-Eater from the Legion comics.

If I could steer this ship, I'd do a period-piece Superman film taking place in the mid-1950s, and make it a Curt Swan wet dream.

 

[Jason Seaver]

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.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

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.

 

[James Miranda]

I think it is too early to remake Superman, but I have little doubt that one will be done in the next 5 years or so. The reinvention of tried and true comic book heroes on the big screen will continue. I loved the original Superman and do not care for a new one, but it is the younger generation that will dictate a revisitation and revision of the legend.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Adam, no it's not subjective. It's simple

IS IT IN THE BOOK/MOVIE etc?

No?

Blasphemy

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.

 

[Joshua_Y]

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...

 

[Ricardo C]

Alright, since this is the Superman thread, I'll just say I agree with Jeff K and leave it at that. See ya guys on the TTT thread

 

[Andy Sheets]

IS IT IN THE BOOK/MOVIE etc?
No?
Blasphemy

I suddenly can't help wondering if you've read the novel LA Confidential and compared it to the movie

 

[Chad R]

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.

Some things work fine on the page, but won't translate to screen. They are completely different mediums. Some things have to change for movies. In the book 'Gone With the Wind' Scarlett has a child with each of her husbands. But to have kept them in the movie would have been troublesome both in terms of storytelling and having that many children on the set with their rules, nannies and teachers.

I don't mind tinkering, but the tinkering posited by that first draft screenplay is just wrong. The ending with Lex would be laughably bad even if this was a completely original piece and not an adaptation of a beloved character. Not blowing up Krypton negates the possibility of Kryptonite which plays an integral part of the script. So it's not really that they changed the story, it's that Abrams didn't think his changes through clearly. Hopefully they get rewritten out.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

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.