Advice From a Fanboy: Superman Edition
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
"That way leads to squeezing the Electra storyline into the first Daredevil movie. That way leads to thinking you can build a good Spider-Man movie around Venom."
To be fair, both of those were horribly implemented. I have to say I would've preferred Daredevil to be just his origin story since it's basically the best shot Marvel had at a 4-star movie, but the Elektra story had potential too. Bad casting, a worse script and no ambition whatsoever killed it dead though.
Spider-man 3 is just a mess altogether. Venom could certainly work in a movie. Any villain could. It's just a matter of doing solid work.
I'm a bit worried about Snyder, because he doesn't seem to notice when a line is too awkward to keep. Watchmen was, as many will say, about as faithful to the source material as a movie would allow. Most of the dialog is directly from the book, and unfortunately that doesn't work very well. Tons of lines end up sounding weird and deliberate, as if the actors are reading their lines in a language they don't actually understand. Hopefully he won't make the same mistake here.
To be fair, both of those were horribly implemented. I have to say I would've preferred Daredevil to be just his origin story since it's basically the best shot Marvel had at a 4-star movie, but the Elektra story had potential too. Bad casting, a worse script and no ambition whatsoever killed it dead though.
Spider-man 3 is just a mess altogether. Venom could certainly work in a movie. Any villain could. It's just a matter of doing solid work.
I'm a bit worried about Snyder, because he doesn't seem to notice when a line is too awkward to keep. Watchmen was, as many will say, about as faithful to the source material as a movie would allow. Most of the dialog is directly from the book, and unfortunately that doesn't work very well. Tons of lines end up sounding weird and deliberate, as if the actors are reading their lines in a language they don't actually understand. Hopefully he won't make the same mistake here.
Having Watchmen as a tagline makes this the highest pedigree a superhero movie can get?
Watchmen was such a "meh" film! It was honestly a really forgettable movie, why can't you let it go Bob!?
OT: I just hope Zack Snyder doesn't mess it up with too much slow mo. I kinda agree with Bob on the not listening to fans completely thing.
Watchmen was such a "meh" film! It was honestly a really forgettable movie, why can't you let it go Bob!?
OT: I just hope Zack Snyder doesn't mess it up with too much slow mo. I kinda agree with Bob on the not listening to fans completely thing.
It's worth noting that DC Entertainment has given the comics division of their company extensive oversight on what happens with the movies. Geoff Johns, (Who is arguably the current architect of the DCU outside of Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman, AND was Richard Donner's Assistant) is in charge of overseeing DC properties outside of comics. Beyond that Warner Bros actually hired Geoff Johns, Marv Wolfman, and Grant Morrison as consultants for their comics propertied, meaning most likely that all of them will have a say.MovieBob said:
Also, it wouldn't be a Superman movie post if I didn't tout the same thing I always do whenever these come up. If you want a successful Superman movie, there is a 12 issue Miniseries called All Star Superman. There you go. Just lift it off the page (Snyder could totally do it too, until the end Watchmen almost seemed Panel for Panel)
Fans != Fanboys || FangirlsEndocrom said:
Just wanted to note there isn't a paradox in his point.
That's like saying "I really like children." "Oh? You a pedophile then?"
There are fans of things, then there are fanboys or fangirls, the kind of people who invent words like "narutard" or "xbot". Virile trash generally that exist only because their parents had an accident.
Not you guys though, you are all cool of course. I'm just talking about "those people".
Yes Superman needs to do something out of this world. Like when he made the world spin backwards to roll back time! (We all know it doesn't work that way, but hell everyone excepted it cause he is f@#$ing SUPERMAN)
Well, as some people have already pointed out, the "Nobody cares about Smallville" misses the mark.
Sorry Bob, but I'm afraid that you and the rest of "Smallville" haters are being in denial on this. You seem to hate the show so much that you utterly refuse to accept that the series has gotten a decent amount of success.
Now, before you ignore my statement thinking that I'm just some "Smallville" fan boy, think again. I don't specially like it. I just think it's OK, though severely unbalanced. I watched the first 5 seasons and then lost interest on it. But that doesn't mean that I forgot it ever existed. Quite the contrary.
That's because I see that, while it does tons of things wrong, the things that does right play the right cords. And that's "Smallville"'s true source of success.
Let me explain a little, if you will.
As some have already pointed out, Superman is outdated as a super hero. He is anachronistic in way too many aspects.
What "Smallville" gets right is that it modernizes the hero into the 21st century. Or at least its origins. We can argue if we like how it is modernized, but that's a different topic.
This is obviously best portrayed during the first 3 or 4 seasons. Clark learns his powers one at a time, he starts his story with Lex Luthor, he learns how to be a hero, his moral code is being developed and we see him having his teenage problems. All in a 21st century setting.
Speaking of the "teenage problems" thing, I can imagine that one of the reasons Bob hate it so much is the "Dawson's Creek" factor. He has stated in his videos that he totally hates awkward teenage romance. However we're talking about a teenage Clark during the early 2000s. Even if it was over the top, angsty, immature romance in this context not only made sense, but was also kinda necessary in this modernization. Of course the execution was poor in many ways (the dragging of Clark and Lana's story, the often cheese dialogue, etc...), but the basic idea was good, whether we like it or not.
And besides, another thing that the series got right was the "no tights" part. Having Clark to use his powers with no costume whatsoever forced him to make sure that absolutely NO ONE could ever see him saving the day. Not even a glance. That gave Superman a new and refreshing flavor which felt very modern. Of course it stopped having sense eventually and right now it is downright stupid, but during the first seasons was totally a right thing to do.
The point of all this babbling is that "Smallville" gave very good ideas for a necessary Superman modernization, even if the execution of those good ideas often were not well handed and the series completely lost its track like 5 seasons in.
Maybe what Nolan and co. should do is just to take the good basic concepts "Smallville" had, and forget the rest. I think forgetting those ideas out of despise to the show would be unwise.
Sorry Bob, but I'm afraid that you and the rest of "Smallville" haters are being in denial on this. You seem to hate the show so much that you utterly refuse to accept that the series has gotten a decent amount of success.
Now, before you ignore my statement thinking that I'm just some "Smallville" fan boy, think again. I don't specially like it. I just think it's OK, though severely unbalanced. I watched the first 5 seasons and then lost interest on it. But that doesn't mean that I forgot it ever existed. Quite the contrary.
That's because I see that, while it does tons of things wrong, the things that does right play the right cords. And that's "Smallville"'s true source of success.
Let me explain a little, if you will.
As some have already pointed out, Superman is outdated as a super hero. He is anachronistic in way too many aspects.
What "Smallville" gets right is that it modernizes the hero into the 21st century. Or at least its origins. We can argue if we like how it is modernized, but that's a different topic.
This is obviously best portrayed during the first 3 or 4 seasons. Clark learns his powers one at a time, he starts his story with Lex Luthor, he learns how to be a hero, his moral code is being developed and we see him having his teenage problems. All in a 21st century setting.
Speaking of the "teenage problems" thing, I can imagine that one of the reasons Bob hate it so much is the "Dawson's Creek" factor. He has stated in his videos that he totally hates awkward teenage romance. However we're talking about a teenage Clark during the early 2000s. Even if it was over the top, angsty, immature romance in this context not only made sense, but was also kinda necessary in this modernization. Of course the execution was poor in many ways (the dragging of Clark and Lana's story, the often cheese dialogue, etc...), but the basic idea was good, whether we like it or not.
And besides, another thing that the series got right was the "no tights" part. Having Clark to use his powers with no costume whatsoever forced him to make sure that absolutely NO ONE could ever see him saving the day. Not even a glance. That gave Superman a new and refreshing flavor which felt very modern. Of course it stopped having sense eventually and right now it is downright stupid, but during the first seasons was totally a right thing to do.
The point of all this babbling is that "Smallville" gave very good ideas for a necessary Superman modernization, even if the execution of those good ideas often were not well handed and the series completely lost its track like 5 seasons in.
Maybe what Nolan and co. should do is just to take the good basic concepts "Smallville" had, and forget the rest. I think forgetting those ideas out of despise to the show would be unwise.
MB, No one wants a pre-Crisis Superman, and he's way to hard to write for in that form. You want some insain epic battle that would make absolutely no sense then go back watch the 50's shows and watch him bounce bullets and duck when they throw their gun at him. If you want to watch him stop armies go watch that horrible The Quest for Peace. The first movie was good and the second movie was good but they were good because they introduced and explored a new villain with each one. Lex is way over used and they really only need to use any one of his villans other than Zod or Lex. Heck, use toyman then introduce dooms day for a sequel then do the real superman returns/reborn and that would make for a great set. But no, they arn't going to do that they are going to try to make it like any other hollywood film. Your hate for Smallville is unwarranted since if you were going to make a point about bad superman shows you only had to go back to "The Adventures of Superboy" It was in your lifetime and you should be able to remember it as being just that BAD Cheezy unwatchable.
"He's a Neitzschean paradigm!"?
Nietzschean paradigm?
Far from it, Superman is Nietzschean merely in name. If any superhero exemplified the morality which Nietzsche spends pretty much all of his work critisizing, it is Superman.
In fact, a Nietzschean superhero doesn't even make any sense.
Nietzschean paradigm?
Far from it, Superman is Nietzschean merely in name. If any superhero exemplified the morality which Nietzsche spends pretty much all of his work critisizing, it is Superman.
In fact, a Nietzschean superhero doesn't even make any sense.
They should make Clark Kent going after the big crooks in power all over the world, be they corporate or political. But having trouble with the possibility of explaining how exactly he manages to uncover so many dirts from their shoes.
An actual conflict worthy of Superman could only happen by exploring the limits imposed by the near limitlessness of his abilities.
An actual conflict worthy of Superman could only happen by exploring the limits imposed by the near limitlessness of his abilities.
Seriously, Superman is supposed to be just that. A "SUPER" man! Yet every single episode, every single movie, nearly every comic a bad guy seems to beat him. How did Earth get in the way of nearly half of the Kryptonian debris field? Nearly everyone has a football sized chunk of it! If it gets destroyed it doesn't seem to matter because all the bad guys seem to be able to purchase it at the local interplanetary giant warehouse down the street. Not only that, but the movies and TV shows depict him struggling to stop a speeding train or catch a jumbo jet, and yet he has no problems in other episodes picking up buildings from one single support beam and swinging it like a whiffle ball bat. Overall it's the improbable character, the unrealistic amount of villains that somehow always manage to come close to beating him, and the horrible inconsistencies in the writing that annoy me the most about "Super"-man.vanthebaron said: