I thought it would be a good idea for this thread to collect quotes from comic book artists and writers on their opinions of live action Superman films and TV shows. Similar to the "Comics Creators on the Batman Movies" thread.
Allow me to get the ball rolling.
Paul Dini's first impressions on Superman Returns when it was released in 2006:Quote
Yeah, I saw the new SUPERMAN movie.
Eh, it was okay.
Considering the train wreck it could have been it was outstanding, but as it was, to me at least, it was just okay.
Given Superman's history in comics, movies, radio, television and a dozen other places, I was disappointed that the filmmakers looked only as far as the two movies made in the late 70's for their inspiration. But Superman, both as a character and as an entire concept, is much richer than those films. Clark the bumbler, the barely developed Daily Planet staff (besides Lois), the Superman/Clark/Lois triangle, goddamn wacky Lex and his daffy henchmoll du jour, ugh. Enough. You clowns are spending, when all is said and done, 300 million dollars. Show me something I can't get at the video rental store. Screw the fact THE INCREDIBLES is a cartoon, give me a story that's better than that, because animated or not, THE INCREDIBLES is the new gold standard for superhero movies. SUPERMAN RETURNS was in live-action (partially) and it felt like a cartoon, a flat, boring one. THE INCREDIBLES had characters that were compelling, some cool plot twists, great action sequences, and a villain's plot that, while not the most original, actually made sense. Weren't too many of those elements in SUPERMAN RETURNS.
I liked bits and pieces -- Eva Marie Saint, Brandon Routh, the Smallville flashbacks, Superman seen via a security camera foiling a convenience store robbery, the whole saving the plane sequence. Sweet raisins in a bowl of bland oatmeal.
Then again, I saw it for free, so what right do I have to complain?
Judging by the way he made fun of the Christopher Reeve films in the quote above, Dini doesn't seem to be a big fan of them. :-[
http://kingofbreakfast.livejournal.com/31840.html
Bruce Timm on Man of Steel:Quote
A couple years back, when 'Man of Steel' came out, I remember the frenzy of the fans when they said, "Oh, I can't believe Superman killed General Zod! Superman would never do that." When I was watching the movie, my first thought was, "Well, dang, I wanted to do that in the Doomsday movie, when we had Superman versus Doomsday'. I was going to have Superman do exactly the same deed. Doomsday was going to be getting ready to kill some innocent bystanders, and Superman was already mortally wounded, and he was going to use his last bit of strength to break Doomsday's neck.
DC wouldn't let me do it. I said, 'OK, well this version of Superman can do that.' Nobody could ever say Superman can't do that. This version of Superman, we don't know what he's going to do.
http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/bruce-timm-on-zack-snyders-man-of-steel-ending-i-wanted-to-do-that
Mark Waid on Superman Returns: Quote
VENTRELLA: Have to ask: Knowing how much you love the original, what do you think of "Superman Returns"? What's your opinion on the current crop of movies based on comics and graphic novels?
WAID: Being a minority of one, I liked "Superman Returns." I can see its flaws, but it truly was like Bryan Singer was making a movie specifically for me.
https://michaelaventrella.com/2009/09/26/interview-with-mark-waid/
Mark Waid again, this time explaining his less-than-enthusiastic take on Man of Steel:Quote
"Some crazy guy in front of us was muttering 'Don't do it...don't do it...DON'T DO IT...' and then Superman snapped Zod's neck and that guy stood up and said in a very loud voice, 'THAT'S IT, YOU LOST ME, I'M OUT,' and his girlfriend had to literally pull him back into his seat and keep him from walking out and that crazy guy was me. That crazy guy was me, and I barely even remember doing that, I had to be told afterward that I'd done that, that's how caught up in betrayal I felt. And after the neck-snapping, even though I stuck it out, I didn't give a damn about the rest of the movie."
"I guess the reaction to my review was disappointing to me a little, because while most people seemed to get it, there's been a reductive aspersion cast on it by a lot of people. More and more I've seen, "Read here why Mark Waid hates Man of Steel." Well, that's not what I said... I was broken hearted, I was disappointed, I was gutted by that one scene as much as anything else or certainly the last third of the movie, but I also liked a lot of things about it. I even kind of understand why they went that way, so this isn't, "It's not my Superman," or "Why can't it be like the '50s when I was growing up?" It's not that at all. It's more the idea of, man, there's just no heart or charm, especially in that last third of the movie. It's just destruction porn."
"I think that seems to be the overall feeling from a lot of people, that this is the first step. But nobody knew it was going to be a trilogy going in!... If I wanted to see Boy of Steel I would have seen Boy of Steel... I understand that you want growth and development and stuff, but I just want a little more pay off to that. It reminds me very much of the thing you loathe hearing from freelancers and writers when you're a publisher or editor, because I get this a lot – every publisher and every editor gets it – you get someone turning in a first issue and... nothing big has happened or there's something missing, and the answer is always, "Wait till you get to issue three." Oh, shut up! "We have to set the stage!" Stop setting the stage and get on with the play. That's my kneejerk reaction to the point of, well he's just learning. But that's not what it was sold as, that's not what we thought we were getting. We thought we were getting a Superman movie, and we got a Superman in training movie."
"I've talked over and over to the people at DC over the last ten years, and I know what WB's feeling is about Superman, which is that he's stupid, he's corny and why can't he be more like Batman? Well, because he's not Batman, but there's nothing Hollywood loves more than safe bets. So that certainly always informs the tone and direction that this movie was going to have. We always knew once they got serious about it that it was going to be a darker, more brooding take, but I kind of thought there would be a little wiggle room there."
http://sciencefiction.com/2013/07/09/mark-waid-addresses-his-negative-reaction-to-man-of-steel-spoilers/
Cary Bates on Superman III...:Quote
Q: In the early 1980s, you met and developed a friendship and business relationship with "Superman" movie Producer Ilya Salkind. How did that come about?
A: Halfway through production of Superman III, DC sent me to Pinewood studios in 1983 as their official representative in meetings with Ilya, Pierre Spengler, Richard Lester and Leslie and David Newman. There were concerns over the tone of the film leaning too much toward Richard Pryor at Superman's expense, but we were stymied by Lester and our efforts proved to be too little too late. But it was the beginning of my long-running association and friendship with Ilya, which continues to this day (we have a project currently in development I'm not at liberty to discuss).
...on producer Ilya Salkind...:Quote
Q: Ilya Salkind's gotten kind of a bad rap by fans over the years, particularly over the issues with Richard Donner, but you worked with him on "Superman III", "The Adventures of Superboy", "Christopher Columbus: The Discovery", and the unmade "Superman V" script. Do you have any insights on the man?
A: What the naysayers seem to overlook is that without Ilya's vision and ambition, Superman I - which provided the template for most of the super-hero movies that have come since - might not have happened at all. Ilya was the first to see the potential Superman had as a big budget film with A-level talent at a time when the rest of the business considered comic book properties Saturday morning material at best. Even the '60's Batman TV show only attained its brief surge in the ratings by trashing and ridiculing the source material. With respect to Superman III, most fans are not aware that the most interesting (and praised) elements of the film - the schizophrenic split and fight between the evil Superman and the heroic Clark - were Ilya's concepts. The hokey super-computer and emphasis on Richard Pryor scenes were coming from the Lester camp, no pun intended. If Superman Reborn - which contained many more of Ilya's concepts - had reached the screen, it would have gone a long way toward erasing the so-called 'bad rap' you speak of.
... and why his Superman V script never got off the ground:Quote
Q: How far did the "Superman V" project get as you recall? I understand Chris Reeve considered returning to the role. Why do you think the project never happened?
A: We were in the initial stages of pre-production. The film had been budgeted and they had hired a production designer who came up with some great stuff (I can still recall his kick-ass designs for Brainiac's ship). Unfortunately, other forces were at work we weren't aware of at the time. Final script approval never came down from Warners because they had their own plans for the character - the newly commissioned Lois and Clark series. It wasn't long after that when the Salkinds began negotiations to sell all their Superman rights back to the studio. Given the success of the Superman films and the more recent Batman franchise, by the early '90's WB had realized in hindsight they were remiss in letting go of the rights to their flagship comic book character.
http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/interviews/interviews-intro.php?topic=c-interview_bates
When Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel was in a bitter court battle with DC Comics over his pension, this was what he said of the Richard Donner film before it opened in theatres:QuoteI hope it super-bombs. I hope loyal Superman fans stay away from it in droves. I hope the whole world, becoming aware of the stench that surrounds Superman, will avoid the movie like the plague.
The publishers of Superman comic books, National Periodical Publications Inc (aka DC Comics), killed my days, murdered my nights, choked my happiness, strangled my career. I consider National's executives economic murderers, money-mad monsters.
http://www.planetslade.com/superheroes8.html
According to urban legend, this put a "curse" on the franchise. This was sad to read. There would be nothing worse than creating a character that captivates millions, yet the treatment by your employers could make you denounce it. :(
Neal Adams on Man of Steel:Quote
And then at the end, what did he do? He killed a guy. Can't he put his hand over his eyes? I'm just saying put your hand over his eyes. That would stop it pretty much. One arm is around the throat, put the other hand in front of his eyes. That's pretty much it. Take him off to the moon or Saudi Arabia or someplace, and finish the battle there. The other thing that they did, too. I don't know. There's like a rivet in the back of what-his-name's head that makes his eyes not move like our eyes can move. Like there are people over there...all I have to do is go like that, and they're dead. Why are his eyes traveling the movement of his head?
Why were they fighting in Metropolis? I don't understand. Even the Kelvinator movies - I'm sorry I was just joking - the robot movies - Transformers movies - they went to Saudi Arabia to fight. They're knocking down the Sphinx and stuff, but there are not so many people. They're in the middle of nowhere. They could have gone on the moon, but as soon as Superman hits a building, it's going to fall down. Didn't we lose 500 people there? It feels weird.
Neal Adams again, this time on Superman Returns:QuoteYou would think they would be super-sensitive with this movie, and not make those kinds of stupid mistakes. Because the previous movie [Superman Returns] had more kryptonite than you could ever have and still Superman was alive. You had a whole island of Kryptonite, and then you had him go away for - I don't know - they said I think six or seven years. They said five years, but he comes back and the kid's twelve years old. He's got a bastard son. That changes the plot a whole lot. I don't understand where that came from. You would think after that movie they would be very careful about what they wrote so you would go, 'Ah, thank goodness, I'm fine with this now.' But no, it just made everybody more nervous, while Marvel is doing all these great movies.
http://www.cosmicbooknews.com/content/neal-adams-slams-man-steel-superman-returns
I'm not overly superstitious but maybe there is a notion of truth to the curse? There hasn't been a truly good superman film since superman II and even that wasn't as good as it could have been due to the Donner treatment. The poor character has been kicked around in every film
Superman III was too comedic
Superman IV was just a low budget train wreck
Superman returns was deprived of action
Man of steel was dull and depressing
Batman v Superman; well we know the criticisms
The only film to go as expected was the first one. And the history of the character in video games is even worse than the big screen.
Out of all the Reeve films, only the 1978 film holds up for me, although the third act does have some egregious plot holes that you'd have to turn a blind eye to.
As much as I liked Reeve and Terrence Stamp in Superman II, I felt the idea behind Clark giving up being Superman was deeply flawed, but I suppose it allowed him to redeem himself in the end. But the conflicting ideas and personalities between Richard Donner and the producers does hurt the quality of the film for my liking, and the plot doesn't feel that well thought out. Particularly The Richard Donner Cut, except for the Jor-El scenes.
Superman III had some good ideas with Superman fighting a corrupt version of himself, but the overall film wasn't my cup of tea. Though the hatred for it does feel overblown, as it was for MOS and BvS.
Speaking of BvS, I seriously wonder why couldn't WB make the film two hours and forty five minutes long to fit some of the Ultimate Edition scenes? The deleted Clark Kent scenes and how the how the Africa sequence was supposed to be made the plot much better. If The Dark Knight Rises could have such a long running time, why not BvS?
As for Superman Returns? The only thing I ever liked about that movie was scenes where Superman rescued people here and there, but overall, it felt like a misguided tribute to the Donner film. And even nowadays the scenes where Superman saves people, such as saving the plane and landing it into the baseball stadium, doesn't hold up nowadays because it's so long.
Here is what Elliot S! Maggin said about Superman Returns and the Smallville TV series in a 2009 interview with Superman Homepage:Quote
I liked Superman Returns. They did two things really deftly: (1) they dealt effectively with Superman's absence the day the Trade Center fell, much better than we ever did justifying his apparent absence during World War II, and (2) the disposition of the relationship with Lois was, I thought, just perfect and appropriately bittersweet. I hope the movie continuity progresses from that point.
I keep referring to the Smallville show as Superboy. I love it, actually. The guys putting it together really understand the mythology of it - the way Mario Puzo did before his producers tripped him up. The way you can only understand it if you're Greek or Italian or a serious geek. I've had an idea kicking around my head for a cool episode since the show began, but I haven't found a spare couple of weeks to write a spec script. I should, shouldn't I? I did that with Lois and Clark, also late, and the story editor I took it to said he loved it but it didn't fit in with that year's continuity. The previous year they would have scooped it right up, he said. Maybe. Turned out that was the last year. You know, I never thought he should marry Lois - no matter what Mort Weisinger promised a thousand years ago. I mean he "should" marry Lois in the sense of making an honest woman of her and all - but for storytelling purposes, they should never hook up successfully. Only tragically. Like Romeo and Juliet. Zeus and Leda. Batman and Talia. Know what I mean?
http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/interviews/interviews-intro.php?topic=c-interview_maggin
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 2 Jul 2016, 06:38Cary Bates on Superman III...:
Quote
Q: In the early 1980s, you met and developed a friendship and business relationship with "Superman" movie Producer Ilya Salkind. How did that come about?
A: Halfway through production of Superman III, DC sent me to Pinewood studios in 1983 as their official representative in meetings with Ilya, Pierre Spengler, Richard Lester and Leslie and David Newman. There were concerns over the tone of the film leaning too much toward Richard Pryor at Superman's expense, but we were stymied by Lester and our efforts proved to be too little too late. But it was the beginning of my long-running association and friendship with Ilya, which continues to this day (we have a project currently in development I'm not at liberty to discuss).
Not to derail this thread on page 1 but I really respect Bates for having this opinion. I'm a bit of an Ilya apologist and have been for quite a while. Superman III has a tone along the lines of any average Cary Bates Superman story one might have read during the Bronze Age. Try though I might, I cannot fathom how Superman III couldn't have been entirely ripped from the comics of the time. Not all Bronze Age comics were like that... but a ton of them were
EXACTLY like that. Very underrated film.
John Byrne on how Superman II fared even better than Superman '78 for some critics back in 2005:QuoteTo psychobabble a bit, I was stunned by the number of critics and reviewers who professed to prefer II over I --- until I thought about it. "Superman - The Movie" was the first Hollywood treatment of superheroes to follow Adam West's "Batman", and it broke the mold that TV series had taught civilians to expect. Not only did it not lampoon the characters, it actually demanded that the whole thing be taken seriously! Critics gave it high marks, and the box office was phenomenal -- but the next one did better, both in dollars and reviews, and I think it was because it gave the audience permission to laugh at the characters again. Fortunately, we saw precisely the reverse of this with the Batman franchise begun by Tim Burton's film -- the less seriously the subject was taken, the worse the reviews and the lower the box office. I am not prepared to assume this means the shadow of "Batman" (Adam West) has finally stretched so thin as to no longer be noticable -- but it does give some hope. Well, until the rip-offs of "The Incredibles" get rolling.
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8720&PN=0&TPN=2
Dan Jurgens comparing the way Superman kills Zod in Man of Steel and in Superman #22: Quote
It [Superman #22] was hugely controversial and I think if the Internet had existed at that time, it would have been that times three.
I always thought that if Superman was going to be put in that position, that it had to be a more immediate threat. It didn't bother me so much, Superman killing the Kryptonians, as it was him being just a stone-cold executioner. If you think of that cover -- there's a green cover and I think it was Superman itself where he's actually wearing the hood like an executioner would wear. That was, to me, the problem. If you wanted to have Superman kill the Kryptonians, I think it had to be a situation where innocent life was in immediate peril and the only way to stop them from taking innocent life was to kill them. At that point, Superman makes the same decision, but he's much more Superman as part of that. And the funny thing is, everybody gets twisted in knots over of that scene in the movie -- yet that's what Superman did.
When Superman kills Zod in the movie, it's because there are human beings there who are in immediate danger. The problem with the comic book was, I always thought, not that Superman did it as it was the way he did it, because he was judge, jury and executioner right there. And it was a police officer walking right up to an individual who had dropped his gun, dropped his knife, said 'I surrender,' waved the white flag...and still [blowing] his head off. That's basically what it was.
http://comicbook.com/2015/07/06/superman-legend-dan-jurgens-man-of-steel-handled-zods-death-bett/
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 10 Jul 2016, 06:05
Not to derail this thread on page 1 but I really respect Bates for having this opinion. I'm a bit of an Ilya apologist and have been for quite a while. Superman III has a tone along the lines of any average Cary Bates Superman story one might have read during the Bronze Age. Try though I might, I cannot fathom how Superman III couldn't have been entirely ripped from the comics of the time. Not all Bronze Age comics were like that... but a ton of them were EXACTLY like that. Very underrated film.
Colors, I heard that Ilya Salkind wrote a treatment that featured Brainiac, Mr Mtzlsptlk and Supergirl but it was rejected. Is that true? A part me of wished they went for those characters instead of Ross Webster aka Lex Luthor 2, and Gus Gorman.
If you don't mind me asking, what did you think of Mark Waid's comment about Superman Returns "felt like it was made for him" and his disappointment in MOS? Do you suppose he appreciated SR only for the Superman rescue scenes? Because I'd be surprised if it's for the story, there's very little of it.
For a while, I didn't think Superman had the quality content behind him like Batman. While in some respects that is still true, given Batman's embarrassment of riches with top quality TV shows, games, comics and movies....Superman doesn't fare that badly. Superman78 is a classic. No doubt about it. Superman II, the theatrical cut, is also a good movie which builds on the original. It increases the stakes and explores the hero in more depth. I won't mention Superman III or IV, or Superman Returns, because they don't do much for me. But I really dig Man of Steel, and it's my favourite Superman film. The BvS Ultimate Cut is also fantastic for Superman. So that's four movies with big blue that I hold in high regard. And with Cavill in the role for the long term, that number will surely rise.
Superman TAS is something to treasure. It's one of the best interpretations of the character you'll find. I will always have a soft spot for Lois and Clark with Dean Cain and Terri Hatcher. In fact, Dean remains my favourite Clark Kent. Good natured, charismatic cool. Smallville isn't exactly my cup of tea, but it did have its moments. So there's three programs that I can hold up and say 'these are worthy of my time'.
But the real heart and soul of the character remains in the comics. To the extent my Superman graphic novel collection has doubled. The best Superman stories are just as good as anything Batman has to offer. All Star Superman could mount a serious case for being the best superhero comic of all time. It's that good. Red Son is Elseworlds at its finest. I could go on, but needless to say, Superman has real depth in the comics. There's no shortage of good stories to enjoy.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 10 Jul 2016, 10:42Colors, I heard that Ilya Salkind wrote a treatment that featured Brainiac, Mr Mtzlsptlk and Supergirl but it was rejected. Is that true? A part me of wished they went for those characters instead of Ross Webster aka Lex Luthor 2, and Gus Gorman.
True. The basic story would've been largely similar (eg, "Superman goes bad for a while there") but the characters would've been different.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 10 Jul 2016, 10:42If you don't mind me asking, what did you think of Mark Waid's comment about Superman Returns "felt like it was made for him" and his disappointment in MOS? Do you suppose he appreciated SR only for the Superman rescue scenes? Because I'd be surprised if it's for the story, there's very little of it.
I've never been able to fathom Waid's fascination with Superman Returns. He routinely talks about the plane rescue scene as some sort of high watermark. Broadly he's described that movie as "his own Superman". That's the way he's pretty much always viewed Superman. It's worth saying that he describes seeing Superman: The Movie for the first time in almost salvific terms. Seeing that movie changed his life. Maybe even saved it.
Quote from: Grant MorrisonThe thing I disliked about the Superman Returns movie was the American Christ angle, which reduced Superman to a sniveling, masochistic wreck, crawling around on the floor, taking a kicking from everyone. This approach had an odd and slightly disturbing S&M flavor, which didn't play well to the character's strengths at all and seemed to derive entirely from a kind of Catholic vision of the suffering, martyred Jesus.
- Grant Morrison, 2008
Singerman Returns stunted Superman's cinematic growth in my eyes. I think Superman III and IV are disappointing, but I wouldn't go and pretend they didn't exist. But that's what Singerman Returns does. Snyder of Steel represented a new broom who swept away the cobwebs. New soundtrack, aesthetic style, suit overhaul....everything.
Snyder of Steel had the bravery to break away from the 'good old days'. A long overdue act, that was equivalent to killing Bambi to diehard Reeve/Williams/Donner fans. But hey. It's not 1978 anymore. Apples don't cost a nickel. Not in here, not out there.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 10 Jul 2016, 19:16
I've never been able to fathom Waid's fascination with Superman Returns. He routinely talks about the plane rescue scene as some sort of high watermark. Broadly he's described that movie as "his own Superman". That's the way he's pretty much always viewed Superman. It's worth saying that he describes seeing Superman: The Movie for the first time in almost salvific terms. Seeing that movie changed his life. Maybe even saved it.
Superman '78 definitely had a strong impact for a lot of people, maybe even inspired many artists like Waid to get involved in the comics industry. For better or worse, the movie has always had a powerful legacy.
Gary Frank on why he models nearly every Superman design on Christopher Reeve: Quote
Christopher Reeve so completely inhabited the character Superman when he was in that costume, and that had such a huge effect on me as a child, watching those films back in the '70s. There was so much of that character that was, for me, Superman. I don't think I've felt quite the same way about an actor portraying Batman, especially not in terms of our Batman.
http://www.newsarama.com/9888-gary-frank-on-who-batman-earth-one-is-for-its-future.html
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 11 Jul 2016, 11:03
Singerman Returns stunted Superman's cinematic growth in my eyes. I think Superman III and IV are disappointing, but I wouldn't go and pretend they didn't exist. But that's what Singerman Returns does. Snyder of Steel represented a new broom who swept away the cobwebs. New soundtrack, aesthetic style, suit overhaul....everything.
Snyder of Steel had the bravery to break away from the 'good old days'. A long overdue act, that was equivalent to killing Bambi to diehard Reeve/Williams/Donner fans. But hey. It's not 1978 anymore. Apples don't cost a nickel. Not in here, not out there.
Trying to retcon a film series that was decades old was a mistake. Never mind the fact none of the 2006 cast look anything like the class of 1978, too much time had passed for audiences to make a real connection. It would be like if they tried to make a sequel to B89 and BR twenty four years later, while ignoring the Schumacher movies. You could repeat all the memorable catch phrases and lines from the original Burton films all you want, it still wouldn't be the same if the guy playing Batman isn't Michael Keaton. I'd rather reboot the whole thing instead.
I'll admit that I had low expectations when MOS was coming out three years ago, because I wasn't too impressed with the idea of using Zod again, exploring the origin story again and so forth. But once I found out this wasn't simply just a coming of age story for Clark in the sense that it does raise questions of how humanity could react to something like a powerful being from another world (which gets explored further in BvS), and how he chose the people of Earth over his own heritage, I was glad to give it a chance and appreciate it. It's not without its flaws, but it definitely has its merits.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 11 Jul 2016, 11:03Singerman Returns stunted Superman's cinematic growth in my eyes. I think Superman III and IV are disappointing, but I wouldn't go and pretend they didn't exist. But that's what Singerman Returns does. Snyder of Steel represented a new broom who swept away the cobwebs. New soundtrack, aesthetic style, suit overhaul....everything.
Snyder of Steel had the bravery to break away from the 'good old days'. A long overdue act, that was equivalent to killing Bambi to diehard Reeve/Williams/Donner fans. But hey. It's not 1978 anymore. Apples don't cost a nickel. Not in here, not out there.
There's no real breaking away of it as far as I can tell. There's similar story structures, thematic and story elements. There's not much fresh to me, beyond tone and performance, along with the alteration of a directorial lens. I've said before that I think MOS is basically the same as the originals, but filtered through a post TDKT, post cynicism, post Raimi Spider-Man movies viewpoint.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 11 Jul 2016, 13:28Trying to retcon a film series that was decades old was a mistake. Never mind the fact none of the 2006 cast look anything like the class of 1978, too much time had passed for audiences to make a real connection. It would be like if they tried to make a sequel to B89 and BR twenty four years later, while ignoring the Schumacher movies. You could repeat all the memorable catch phrases and lines from the original Burton films all you want, it still wouldn't be the same if the guy playing Batman isn't Michael Keaton. I'd rather reboot the whole thing instead.
Eh. Batman and Superman can both be recast. There's no inherent application to a face or voice for the characters, so yes, they can do that. Though not by ignoring the other movies. There's no real reason for that. Though I will say that I appreciate that SR never officially rejected the other movies in film, as much as they just didn't talk about them. And I disagree, I think Brandon Routh looks a little bit like Christopher Reeve, same with Kevin Spacey with Gene Hackman.
QuoteI'll admit that I had low expectations when MOS was coming out three years ago, because I wasn't too impressed with the idea of using Zod again, exploring the origin story again and so forth. But once I found out this wasn't simply just a coming of age story for Clark in the sense that it does raise questions of how humanity could react to something like a powerful being from another world (which gets explored further in BvS), and how he chose the people of Earth over his own heritage, I was glad to give it a chance and appreciate it. It's not without its flaws, but it definitely has its merits.
Very few things are without their merits. But MOS's idea just isn't really fleshed out to me. It should have been to me. Which is a sticking point for me. So, as far as I can tell, there's not much of a difference between MOS and Reeve I/II movies, with exception of the tone and performances, which is another issue I have with it. It encases the same issues as the originals and even repeats similar aspects of SR, only a little heavier.
God bless everyone!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 11 Jul 2016, 14:51I'll admit that I had low expectations when MOS was coming out three years ago, because I wasn't too impressed with the idea of using Zod again, exploring the origin story again and so forth. But once I found out this wasn't simply just a coming of age story for Clark in the sense that it does raise questions of how humanity could react to something like a powerful being from another world (which gets explored further in BvS), and how he chose the people of Earth over his own heritage, I was glad to give it a chance and appreciate it. It's not without its flaws, but it definitely has its merits.
Very few things are without their merits. But MOS's idea just isn't really fleshed out to me. It should have been to me. Which is a sticking point for me. So, as far as I can tell, there's not much of a difference between MOS and Reeve I/II movies, with exception of the tone and performances, which is another issue I have with it. It encases the same issues as the originals and even repeats similar aspects of SR, only a little heavier.[/quote]Irrespective of whether you're right, I think you're underestimating the value of putting a new coat of paint on something.
MOS offers a story accessible to literally anybody, modern effects and a more modern tone while not betraying anything inviolable about Superman.
Superman is different from Batman inasmuch as Batman can be portrayed any number of different ways. Superman isn't quite as malleable. You have flexibility; just not as much flexibility.
What SR teaches us is that the under 35-crowd of circa 2006 hadn't seen STM. STM as a film isn't as iconic and popular as people originally assumed.
It doesn't help the comparison that Snyder set out to make a Superman film while Singer set out to make a chick-flick.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 11 Jul 2016, 18:27Irrespective of whether you're right, I think you're underestimating the value of putting a new coat of paint on something.
MOS offers a story accessible to literally anybody, modern effects and a more modern tone while not betraying anything inviolable about Superman.
Superman is different from Batman inasmuch as Batman can be portrayed any number of different ways. Superman isn't quite as malleable. You have flexibility; just not as much flexibility.
What SR teaches us is that the under 35-crowd of circa 2006 hadn't seen STM. STM as a film isn't as iconic and popular as people originally assumed.
It doesn't help the comparison that Snyder set out to make a Superman film while Singer set out to make a chick-flick.
What's wrong with chick flicks? And SR isn't that as I understand it. I'm under 35 and I'd seen STM. Not that that matters, because I don't really think it's very well done. I wouldn't call the story accessible, but it doesn't really have modern effects and it's modern tone isn't really something that's needed. But I find a new coat of paint to be pointless to quality. That's like saying having a killer have facial reconstructive surgery to look like Mother Teresa will make them not be a killer. It's just aesthetics.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 11 Jul 2016, 19:42What's wrong with chick flicks?
I don't want Superman to be the star of a multi-hundred million dollar chick flick. So there's that.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 11 Jul 2016, 19:42And SR isn't that as I understand it.
It is as Bryan Singer understands it.
"[Superman Returns] was a movie made for a certain kind of audience. Perhaps more of a female audience."
- Bryan Singer, 2014
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/superman/bryan-singer-wishes-he-had-rebooted-superman-wanted-darkseid-for-returns-a93794
"I really do think I was making [Superman Returns] for that Devil Wears Prada audience of women who wouldn't normally come to a superhero film."
- Bryan Singer, 2011
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/superman/superman-exclusive-bryan-singer-looks-back-at-superman-returns-a33821
Lest anybody believe this is (relatively) recent spin, this is a line Singer was using even when the movie came out.
"Oh, yeah. [Superman Returns] is my first chick flick."
- Bryan Singer, 2006
http://www.newsweek.com/flying-leap-112695
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 11 Jul 2016, 19:42I'm under 35 and I'd seen STM.
Good on you but we don't represent the normies and civilians... most of the ones under 35 back in 2006 manifestly had never seen STM and knew nothing about it.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 11 Jul 2016, 19:42I wouldn't call the story accessible,
"Zod invades Earth and only Superman can stop him!" It's hard to think of a more basic, accessible story than that. It's accessible in the big picture and in the fine details. It is more or less the movie Singer should've made but didn't.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 11 Jul 2016, 19:42but it doesn't really have modern effects
The effects were made in 2012 and maybe a bit in 2013. That was modern at the time MOS was released. They are and look modern.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 11 Jul 2016, 19:42and it's modern tone isn't really something that's needed.
If SR's numbers are anything to judge by, Superman desperately needed to be modernized.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 11 Jul 2016, 19:42But I find a new coat of paint to be pointless to quality.
The tone and style are part of the total package. They ultimately helped MOS at the box office. They may not matter to you but they
DO, in fact, matter.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 11 Jul 2016, 19:42That's like saying having a killer have facial reconstructive surgery to look like Mother Teresa will make them not be a killer. It's just aesthetics.
Oh wow...
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 11 Jul 2016, 21:14I don't want Superman to be the star of a multi-hundred million dollar chick flick. So there's that.
There's very little chick-flickyness involved in SR. Unless character drama is what appeals to women. Though, if there's no character drama, then I don't see the point to any show or movie. I could play a video game to watch characters punch eachother There's a lot of character drama, for instance in TDKT, or even BR, but I wouldn't call either of those a chick flick. Though I find the term personally a little demeaning.
QuoteGood on you but we don't represent the normies and civilians... most of the ones under 35 back in 2006 manifestly had never seen STM and knew nothing about it.
That seems like an assumption. Not that a lot haven't. But that most haven't. Though not taking a liking for the Donner films, writing wise, I can say that I liked the movie, without a deep affection for the originals that it was based on.
Quote"Zod invades Earth and only Superman can stop him!" It's hard to think of a more basic, accessible story than that. It's accessible in the big picture and in the fine details. It is more or less the movie Singer should've made but didn't.
I misconstrued what you said then. But accessibility doesn't have to mean that something isn't fully developed. But I think what should have been done is up for debate.
QuoteThe effects were made in 2012 and maybe a bit in 2013. That was modern at the time MOS was released. They are and look modern.
Oh. You were talking about cgi? Meh.
QuoteIf SR's numbers are anything to judge by, Superman desperately needed to be modernized.
Many things make good or bad numbers. It doesn't equal them being good or bad.
QuoteThe tone and style are part of the total package. They ultimately helped MOS at the box office. They may not matter to you but they DO, in fact, matter.
Not to quality. To popularity, likely.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 02:53There's very little chick-flickyness involved in SR. Unless character drama is what appeals to women.
Is it your contention that relationshippy drama concerning who dumped whom, who didn't say goodbye, who the baby-daddy might be, etc, is fodder for a conventional action movie?
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 02:53Though, if there's no character drama, then I don't see the point to any show or movie.
I really admire the way you're attempting to frame the issue as being one about "character drama" in general rather than specifically "romantic drama". It not only flies in the face of the facts but also the director's own words over a nearly ten year period as quoted in this very thread. Nice!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 02:53I could play a video game to watch characters punch eachother There's a lot of character drama, for instance in TDKT, or even BR, but I wouldn't call either of those a chick flick. Though I find the term personally a little demeaning.
Again, a truly masterful effort toward reframing the discussion away from a romantic relationship-oriented movie to a general character piece.
PS: The lack of action in Superman Returns is one of the many gripes people have with it. So even if I were to accept your "drama" premise (and I don't), the movie still wasn't what a big summer tentpole needs to be.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 02:53That seems like an assumption.
One borne out by the facts, luckily enough.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 02:53Though not taking a liking for the Donner films, writing wise, I can say that I liked the movie, without a deep affection for the originals that it was based on.
The price of tea in China. Specifically, what does your comment have to do with it? It's well and good that you personally enjoyed the movie. Wonderful, I'm thrilled. But most people were disinterested from the outset... as evidenced by the movie's fairly paltry box office showing.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 02:53But accessibility doesn't have to mean that something isn't fully developed. But I think what should have been done is up for debate.
Not really. Snyder's approach was successful. Singer's approach was not. Ergo, if commercial success is one of the motivations behind crafting a multi-hundred million dollar film (as I assume it would be), clearly Snyder made the right decisions.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 02:53Many things make good or bad numbers.
Indeed. Consumer disinterest, for example, leads to bad numbers. There was widespread consumer disinterest in Singer's movie. Thus the bad numbers.
Quote from: thecolorsblendThe tone and style are part of the total package. They ultimately helped MOS at the box office. They may not matter to you but they DO, in fact, matter.
Interestingly, this comment about tone and style leading to popularity inspired you to write:
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 02:53Not to quality. To popularity, likely.
Thank you for deciding to agree with me. It's very big of you to change your opinion to match mine in the face of the facts I've presented. I admire you for that, it's a good show of character on your part.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 11 Jul 2016, 21:14
I don't want Superman to be the star of a multi-hundred million dollar chick flick. So there's that.
Yep. Superman Returns is a chick flick. Plain and simple. Singer outright says it in the quotes you provided. It's the heartwarming tale of a deadbeat, stalking dad. It just doesn't do much for me.
There's plenty fresh with Man of Steel.
We have:
Jor-El as a man of action riding lizards and generally kicking ass.
Jor-El killed prior to Krypton exploding.
Krypton finally not depicted as a frozen igloo.
Clark bullied relentlessly as a child.
Clark disturbed by the extent of his powers, namely x-ray vision.
Pa Kent getting sucked into a tornado en route to Oz.
Clark working in places other than just the Daily Planet - at the diner, as a fisherman, etc.
The government and army suspicious of Superman despite agreeing to accept his help.
No magic fixes to problems – Zod with his neck snapped and time not rewound.
Snyder's Superman also actively engaged in combat by punching his enemies. Singer just had Superman lifting things over and over. Oh so boring. Give me the man of action any day. And twice on Sundays.
Snyder's approach was absolutely fresh, and to some, a shock to the system. Singer was on autopilot, trying to ride off the coat-tails of John Williams and other creative talent from back in the day. And what he did add didn't do himself any favours.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 04:13Jor-El as a man of action riding lizards and generally kicking ass.
I loved this whole sequence so much that I was willing to overlook how rushed all the Krypton stuff was.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 04:13Jor-El killed prior to Krypton exploding.
Ballsy.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 04:13Pa Kent getting sucked into a tornado en route to Oz.
This was the Joe Chill moment of the movie. In Begins, it would've been logical for Nolan to cast a teenager/early 20-something to play young Bruce who tries to kill Joe Chill. But Nolan wanted the audience to associate Bruce's actions and words with
Bruce. So even though Bale looked totally silly in that wig and thick makeup, Nolan had Bale play those scenes anyway.
Snyder had the same idea when Jonathan died in the tornado. It would've made more sense to have Dylan Sprayberry play young Clark in that scene too. But Snyder wanted us to associate Clark's decision to let Jonathan go Henry Cavill. It was a brave decision... and one people intuitively understood judging by the vitriol that scene inspired. I totally believe if Sprayberry had played Clark in that scene, the outrage would've been significantly less.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 04:13No magic fixes to problems – Zod with his neck snapped and time not rewound.
This moment really separated the men from the boys among Superman fans. People who don't seem to mind too much that Superman killed Zod in Superman II (after torturing him), killed three criminals in Superman #22 from the Supergirl Saga, killed Doomsday in Superman #75 (yes, Doomsday came back but that doesn't erase Superman's intent to kill him) and so forth. He also killed Nuclear Man in Superman IV and Luthor's henchmen in Superman Returns.
All of those things were, of course, overlooked. For some reason.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 04:13Snyder's Superman also actively engaged in combat by punching his enemies. Singer just had Superman lifting things over and over. Oh so boring. Give me the man of action any day. And twice on Sundays.
No kidding! For years there, Smallville was as good as it got in terms of Superman duking it out with people. Snyder deserves tons of love just for fixing that.
I wish the MOS and BVS Superman uniforms included the red trunks but, eh, can't have everything, I guess.
Removing the red trunks was part of modern overhaul that was needed as much as the new soundtrack. I'll always maintain that. Keeping them would have just cemented the vibe that Superman was a relic of the past, to be mocked or put down. I prefer the contemporary feel Snyder went with. It was time for a change. I don't miss the trunks.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 04:07Is it your contention that relationshippy drama concerning who dumped whom, who didn't say goodbye, who the baby-daddy might be, etc, is fodder for a conventional action movie?
Who cares about conventional? Not that I think a Superman movie should necessarily be relegated to action movie status by default. But I don't think there's much more relationshippy stuff happening in this than the Donner movies or even the later seasons of Smallville and in Lois & Clark. Even though I personally don't care that much about Superman having a romance with Lois, relationship stuff does seem to have a strong place with Superman. Though I still don't think it should take priority. Which I don't think it does in SR. More than anything the movie is about Superman feeling disconnected, out of place on earth, alone. And his relationship with Lois is an example of that. And his son is the solution to it. There's no whose-the-baby-daddy issue in the movie though. The movie just reveals it without an ounce of melodrama attached to it, if that's what you mean. There's no who broke up with who issue either.
QuoteI really admire the way you're attempting to frame the issue as being one about "character drama" in general rather than specifically "romantic drama". It not only flies in the face of the facts but also the director's own words over a nearly ten year period as quoted in this very thread. Nice!
The director is wrong. There's very little real romantic drama in the movie. Though superhero movies can have that. The Spider-Man movies have a lot of that. Certainly more than SR. There's even some, to a kind of detriment, in BB and a little bit in TDK. Also in BR. I don't think that makes the term "chick flick" usable for them. Same with SR.
QuoteAgain, a truly masterful effort toward reframing the discussion away from a romantic relationship-oriented movie to a general character piece.
PS: The lack of action in Superman Returns is one of the many gripes people have with it. So even if I were to accept your "drama" premise (and I don't), the movie still wasn't what a big summer tentpole needs to be.
It being a big summer tentpole doesn't really matter to it's quality. It's not a romantic oriented movie. I do see it as more of a character piece. Lack of action is an issue for me too. Though I don't think that a lacking of action makes it a chick flick. Just makes have more boring parts than it should have to me. Not enough excitement. Not that punching things is what I find exciting, there are more kinds of action than that
QuoteOne borne out by the facts, luckily enough.
Not true. The facts are that a lot of, not most, unless we're applying different ideas of most in this.
QuoteThe price of tea in China. Specifically, what does your comment have to do with it? It's well and good that you personally enjoyed the movie. Wonderful, I'm thrilled. But most people were disinterested from the outset... as evidenced by the movie's fairly paltry box office showing.
I'm sorry for the confusion. That was mainly in connection to an implication that I interpreted in the conversation that you were making that a liking of SR is connected to a liking of SMT/SM II. I'm very sorry for the assumption on my part, especially if that's not what you meant.
QuoteNot really. Snyder's approach was successful. Singer's approach was not. Ergo, if commercial success is one of the motivations behind crafting a multi-hundred million dollar film (as I assume it would be), clearly Snyder made the right decisions.
That's not connected to quality.
QuoteIndeed. Consumer disinterest, for example, leads to bad numbers. There was widespread consumer disinterest in Singer's movie. Thus the bad numbers.
You keep making statements about interest. Interest isn't important. Quality is.
QuoteInterestingly, this comment about tone and style leading to popularity inspired you to write:
Thank you for deciding to agree with me. It's very big of you to change your opinion to match mine in the face of the facts I've presented. I admire you for that, it's a good show of character on your part.
I never meant to imply that I thought that popularity didn't matter to B.O., just that popularity isn't important to the quality and vice-versa. I'm sorry for my miscommunication if I implied otherwise.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 04:13Yep. Superman Returns is a chick flick. Plain and simple. Singer outright says it in the quotes you provided. It's the heartwarming tale of a deadbeat, stalking dad. It just doesn't do much for me.
If that's what Singer was trying to do, make a chick flick, then he failed, because that isn't the movie. Clark isn't a deadbeat or a stalker in it. That's a false misconception based on hyperbole knee jerk reactions to the movie. Just like the unjust reaction that Superman destroyed Metropolis in MOS.
QuoteThere's plenty fresh with Man of Steel.
We have:
Jor-El as a man of action riding lizards and generally kicking ass.
Jor-El killed prior to Krypton exploding.
Krypton finally not depicted as a frozen igloo.
Clark bullied relentlessly as a child.
Clark disturbed by the extent of his powers, namely x-ray vision.
Pa Kent getting sucked into a tornado en route to Oz.
Clark working in places other than just the Daily Planet - at the diner, as a fisherman, etc.
The government and army suspicious of Superman despite agreeing to accept his help.
No magic fixes to problems – Zod with his neck snapped and time not rewound.
Those are all aesthetic changes. Jor-El fighting isn't important, along with him dying before krytpon's explosion. Clark being disturbed by his powers amounts to nothing. Most live action adaptions have him bullied in some way, though he wasn't bullied relentlessly. Jonathan still died, just like STM, both to make a point about not saving in some way, though through a different filter admittedly. You say it yourself, the suspicious government isn't important. It doesn't effect the story or Clark's character. There aren't magic fixes, but there are ignoring of the problems, making them pointless. It's like I said before, to me it's the same thing, the same issues, through a different lens and filtered through the ideas that the movies of the past 20 years have given, in one way or another.
QuoteSnyder's Superman also actively engaged in combat by punching his enemies. Singer just had Superman lifting things over and over. Oh so boring. Give me the man of action any day. And twice on Sundays.
Snyder's approach was absolutely fresh, and to some, a shock to the system. Singer was on autopilot, trying to ride off the coat-tails of John Williams and other creative talent from back in the day. And what he did add didn't do himself any favours.
See, I find pointless fighting and destruction in a Superman movie boring, because it's meaningless. If I wanted to see that I'd watch a turn your brain off movie. But there's nothing fresh about angst ridden protagonists and city destruction. Most of the themes try, but they don't get enough attention in development.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 05:00Ballsy.
Why? The result is the same.
QuoteThis moment really separated the men from the boys among Superman fans. People who don't seem to mind too much that Superman killed Zod in Superman II (after torturing him), killed three criminals in Superman #22 from the Supergirl Saga, killed Doomsday in Superman #75 (yes, Doomsday came back but that doesn't erase Superman's intent to kill him) and so forth. He also killed Nuclear Man in Superman IV and Luthor's henchmen in Superman Returns.
All of those things were, of course, overlooked. For some reason.
I find it confusing that something having happened in comics before, makes some people think that fans should be okay with it happening in the movies. People don't like all Superman stories just because they have Superman in them and they don't think that everything Superman has done is in character or even works. But Clark didn't kill Lex's henchmen in SR and killing DD isn't the same thing as killing Zod. Also, in SM II the movie makes an issue out of Clark throwing Zod into that hole or even says that he killed him. With MOS the movie makes an issue out of it and confirms it and then ignores it. I know that's an issue I have.
QuoteNo kidding! For years there, Smallville was as good as it got in terms of Superman duking it out with people. Snyder deserves tons of love just for fixing that.
I don't agree.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 16:13
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 04:07Is it your contention that relationshippy drama concerning who dumped whom, who didn't say goodbye, who the baby-daddy might be, etc, is fodder for a conventional action movie?
Who cares about conventional? Not that I think a Superman movie should necessarily be relegated to action movie status by default. But I don't think there's much more relationshippy stuff happening in this than the Donner movies or even the later seasons of Smallville and in Lois & Clark.
By volume? Arguable. But the difference is that the Donner canon, Smallville and even Lois & Clark had other things going for them besides romantic stuff. The Donners movies were fairly straight forward adventure films. Smallville was a coming of age story broadly and romantic stuff with Lois didn't really enter the equation until the 8th season. Lois & Clark was relationship-driven... but not exclusively so, and that element typically was incorporated into the story at hand, which could be more drama, a crime thriller, an action piece or whatever else. There was some romance in all those things but there were other elements going as well.
By comparison, Superman Returns didn't have much else to balance out all the romantic whoozeywhatsis going on. Those other iterations of Superman you mention all did.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 16:13Even though I personally don't care that much about Superman having a romance with Lois, relationship stuff does seem to have a strong place with Superman. Though I still don't think it should take priority.
So it looks like you agree with me.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 16:13Which I don't think it does in SR.
Quality vs. quantity. Superman Returns is fairly boring because not much exciting happens. And the one or two action sequences in the movie are fairly pedestrian.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 16:13The director is wrong.
Golly.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 16:13There's even some, to a kind of detriment, in BB
It never really becomes romantic until practically the last second.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 16:13and a little bit in TDK.
There are other happening in the narrative besides romance with Rachel... which ends, what, at the halfway point of the movie?
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 16:13Also in BR.
As with the Superman stuff above, the romance is one of many plates that Burton has spinning in BR.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 16:13I don't think that makes the term "chick flick" usable for them.
Good because I don't think anybody is using "chick flick" in reference to them... which, in Lois & Clark's case, is quite the achievement.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 16:13Same with SR.
The director has the right to categorize his own work as he sees fit. He sees SR as a chick flick. If you disagree with that assessment, I can only conclude you believe (on some level or another) that he failed in his self-appointed task to create a chick flick.
Either way, it seems like neither of us are singing Singer's praises here.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 16:13Quote from: thecolorsblendAgain, a truly masterful effort toward reframing the discussion away from a romantic relationship-oriented movie to a general character piece.
PS: The lack of action in Superman Returns is one of the many gripes people have with it. So even if I were to accept your "drama" premise (and I don't), the movie still wasn't what a big summer tentpole needs to be.
It being a big summer tentpole doesn't really matter to it's quality.
I'm not sure why you're struggling to follow this but SR was budgeted and marketed as a summer blockbuster. Irrespective of its "quality" (whatever that even means), it's far outside the style and substance of conventional summer action fare.
It isn't what it was marketed to be. People wanted an action movie; what they got was a chick flick. That is fundamentally bad business.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 16:13It's not a romantic oriented movie. I do see it as more of a character piece.
The lead character's heartbreak over getting dumped by his girlfriend is a major part of his arc in that film.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 16:13Though I don't think that a lacking of action makes it a chick flick.
Nobody has said it does. Being a chick flick is what makes it a chick flick.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 16:13You keep making statements about interest. Interest isn't important. Quality is.
Mmm, interest from the audience is pretty important if the movie has any hope of success.
You keep throwing the word "quality" around and I have no idea what that means. But I don't see much "quality" in SR.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 16:13I find it confusing that something having happened in comics before, makes some people think that fans should be okay with it happening in the movies.
It's a sign post. It's hard to get upset about a character doing X, Y or Z in a movie if doing that in the comics is something that has a fairly lengthy history to it.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 16:13But Clark didn't kill Lex's henchmen in SR
So when Superman threw their hideout into outer space, you believe they survived having that giant pillar fall on top of them and then caught a ride back to Earth on a space shuttle or something?
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 16:13and killing DD isn't the same thing as killing Zod.
Oh? What exactly is the difference?
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 16:13Also, in SM II the movie makes an issue out of Clark throwing Zod into that hole or even says that he killed him.
Well, the alternative is Superman crushed his hand into toothpicks, tossed him down a deep misty hole in the ground and left him to starve to death. Considering he's the villain of the piece, we never see what happens to him in either the theatrical cut or Donner's alternate cut.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 16:13With MOS the movie makes an issue out of it and confirms it and then ignores it.
Seems like it became a bit of a plot point in BVS, eh?
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 12 Jul 2016, 21:22By volume? Arguable. But the difference is that the Donner canon, Smallville and even Lois & Clark had other things going for them besides romantic stuff. The Donners movies were fairly straight forward adventure films. Smallville was a coming of age story broadly and romantic stuff with Lois didn't really enter the equation until the 8th season. Lois & Clark was relationship-driven... but not exclusively so, and that element typically was incorporated into the story at hand, which could be more drama, a crime thriller, an action piece or whatever else. There was some romance in all those things but there were other elements going as well.
By comparison, Superman Returns didn't have much else to balance out all the romantic whoozeywhatsis going on. Those other iterations of Superman you mention all did.
I disagree. The Lex plot, the saves and Clark's feelings of lonliness are prominent. The romance ties into that, but it's not imbalanced by it. I actually feel at the end that the movie closes out the romance at the end.
QuoteSo it looks like you agree with me.
Quality vs. quantity. Superman Returns is fairly boring because not much exciting happens. And the one or two action sequences in the movie are fairly pedestrian.
Not much exciting happening doesn't mean that romance is a priority. I think Clark's feelings of lonliness are the priority.
QuoteGolly. It never really becomes romantic until practically the last second. There are other happening in the narrative besides romance with Rachel... which ends, what, at the halfway point of the movie? As with the Superman stuff above, the romance is one of many plates that Burton has spinning in BR.
Good because I don't think anybody is using "chick flick" in reference to them... which, in Lois & Clark's case, is quite the achievement.
There are a few instances before that of a little too typical romancey elements to me in BB and kinda in TDK.
QuoteThe director has the right to categorize his own work as he sees fit. He sees SR as a chick flick. If you disagree with that assessment, I can only conclude you believe (on some level or another) that he failed in his self-appointed task to create a chick flick.
Either way, it seems like neither of us are singing Singer's praises here.
I said that I think he failed to do that.
QuoteI'm not sure why you're struggling to follow this but SR was budgeted and marketed as a summer blockbuster. Irrespective of its "quality" (whatever that even means), it's far outside the style and substance of conventional summer action fare. It isn't what it was marketed to be. People wanted an action movie; what they got was a chick flick. That is fundamentally bad business.
It isn't a chick flick. But it not being a summer blockbuster or action fare doesn't make it good or bad, just like something being those things doesn't do that.
QuoteThe lead character's heartbreak over getting dumped by his girlfriend is a major part of his arc in that film.
His disconnection from humanity and feelings of lonliness in the world is the main character arc. The romance and Lois' rejection connects to that, but it's not the priority.
QuoteNobody has said it does. Being a chick flick is what makes it a chick flick.
It isn't that.
QuoteMmm, interest from the audience is pretty important if the movie has any hope of success.
You keep throwing the word "quality" around and I have no idea what that means. But I don't see much "quality" in SR.
That's your prerogative. Success only matters to people who want to make money, not to those who want to see a well made product.
QuoteIt's a sign post. It's hard to get upset about a character doing X, Y or Z in a movie if doing that in the comics is something that has a fairly lengthy history to it.
Not really. People don't like or even accept many things from comics or view them as in character.
QuoteSo when Superman threw their hideout into outer space, you believe they survived having that giant pillar fall on top of them and then caught a ride back to Earth on a space shuttle or something?
I think that Superman wasn't trying to kill them and while is culpable for their deaths has no idea they died and I don't think is actively responsible for it.
QuoteOh? What exactly is the difference?
I'm not arguing against killing someone whose trying kill children as a last resort here. But Zod has feelings and a personality. DD is a mindless monster with none of that.
QuoteWell, the alternative is Superman crushed his hand into toothpicks, tossed him down a deep misty hole in the ground and left him to starve to death. Considering he's the villain of the piece, we never see what happens to him in either the theatrical cut or Donner's alternate cut.
I didn't say he didn't kill him. I'm saying that the audience weren't given the vicious in your face treatment of him dying as MOS gave. I can say that a lot of people probably never gave it much thought, because the movie didn't make it something that should be dealt with. Which is a different problem, I agree.
QuoteSeems like it became a bit of a plot point in BVS, eh?
BvS making it matter doesn't justify it not mattering in MOS. It's that movie's problem. But that isn't what I meant. The movie presented it as this big awful thing that SM had to do and then sweeps it under the rug. Have a very great day you and everyone!
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Jerry Ordway shared this illustration that he sent personally to Christopher Reeve when the late actor suffered that tragic horse riding accident back in 1995:(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/23/64/73/236473ff8f6ac138b30b3ae499443765.jpg)
Quote
To Christopher Reeve,
My inspiration to draw Superman comics!
Get better soon.
Jerry Ordway.
http://comicbook.com/2016/03/05/legendary-superman-artist-jerry-ordway-shares-the-get-well-card-/
Joe Quesada on Man of Steel while speaking to Kevin Smith's podcast:Quote
In an appearance on Kevin Smith's Fat Man on Batman podcast, Marvel Entertainment's Chief Creative Officer Joe Quesada weighed in with his thoughts on the competition's Man Of Steel, which rebooted the Superman franchise.
When talking about how Captain America dealt with his adversary in Captain America: The Winter Soldier in comparison to Superman dealing with Zod in Man of Steel, Quesada joked, "He could have broken Bucky's neck. I'm sorry. I had to get it in there."
Quesada also added that comparison was something that someone had pointed out to him in an online article.
"As a comic book fan, I wanted to love that movie so much," said Quesada. "I wanted to love it so much, and I didn't love it so much. Again, there are little things here and there that you could pick at and things like that, but I just think at the end of the day, Zod was the hero of the movie to me."
"He wanted to save his race, and Superman didn't let him," explained Quesada.
Quesada added, "Zod, in this particular incarnation, struck me as not necessarily an evil man, but a man of...he had a particular...he had his orders, he had a mission. He was a zealot of sorts, but he was a zealot...again, correct me if I'm wrong... but he didn't say, 'I want to rebuild Krypton, and then come back and destroy this little planet. All I want is to rebuild this planet. And the only reason I'm blowing everything to bits here is because you've got what I want, and you're not giving it to me. So please, give me my people, and I'll leave."
When Kevin Smith interjected that Zod forced Superman to make a choice that it was either going to be Krypton or Earth, Quesada replied, "When Superman said Krypton had its chance, I was like, 'Will you just f***ing kill him Zod?'"
Quesada felt that Superman was abandoning his own race in the film, and there could have been a solution where Superman could have given Zod what he wanted, so Zod could have rebuilt Krypton elsewhere. However, Smith countered that even if Superman had given Zod some of his blood that Zod would have eventually come back and wiped out Earth.
Quesada replied, "You probably could have written a way around it. You could have had a better solution if you had written a better problem. So I see things like that, and I'm like, 'Aww, man.' It was one of some things in the movie, that I just ended up feeling disappointed in it."
Quesada pointed out that he didn't get that feeling with the Batman movies and that he loved the Batman movies.
"I was in the mood to watch that Superman movie, and afterwards I was just angry," said Quesada.
http://comicbook.com/blog/2014/04/27/marvels-joe-quesada-disappointed-in-man-of-steel-says-it-made-zod-the-hero/
???
Out of all the negative MOS comments from people in the comics industry, Quesada's feedback has got to be the most moronic and backwards out of all of them.
One might suggest he has a heavy bias because he works for Marvel, but that still doesn't explain where he came up with this stupidity. "Zod was a hero"? WTF has he been smoking?! No sh*t Superman wouldn't let Zod save his race, he was trying to commit global genocide in order to do it! Did the miss the part involving the World Engine destroying Metropolis? Of course the home grown Superman would rather choose Earth. How can he compare The Winter Solider favourably when the two films have nothing in common? Bucky was a brainwashed assassin who still had goodness within him, whereas Zod wanted to exterminate the entire globe, while trying to revive Krypton at its expense, and after the chance to do so was taken from him. They're nothing alike FFS!
As for the Batman movies comment? I question the wisdom of this guy - and anyone else for that matter - if MOS left him angry because Superman killed genocidal maniac, but he was okay watching a Batman where the "hero" put the entire town in harm's way trying to prove to the Joker that he's "incorruptible"...only to kill another villain in the last five minutes.
Shockingly ignorant stuff.
Quote from: Joe Quesada on Sat, 3 Dec 2016, 13:52"As a comic book fan, I wanted to love that movie so much," said Quesada. "I wanted to love it so much, and I didn't love it so much. Again, there are little things here and there that you could pick at and things like that, but I just think at the end of the day, Zod was the hero of the movie to me."
"He wanted to save his race, and Superman didn't let him," explained Quesada.
Quesada added, "Zod, in this particular incarnation, struck me as not necessarily an evil man, but a man of...he had a particular...he had his orders, he had a mission. He was a zealot of sorts, but he was a zealot...again, correct me if I'm wrong... but he didn't say, 'I want to rebuild Krypton, and then come back and destroy this little planet. All I want is to rebuild this planet. And the only reason I'm blowing everything to bits here is because you've got what I want, and you're not giving it to me. So please, give me my people, and I'll leave."
Um, Zod never presented that choice to Superman. The fact of the matter is that Zod had access to technology that could've reshaped any planet in the universe to his likings. He could've rebuilt Krypton anywhere. He chose Earth even though it meant committing genocide. Why? Because he's a villain.
He had Superman helpless and in his custody for several hours. He could've reclaimed the codex then if he'd wanted to. But he didn't.
As I said above, he also never gave Superman a choice to hand over the codex in exchange for Zod's own withdrawal. What Zod did do is promise planet-wide destruction if Superman didn't surrender to him. Why? Because he's a villain.
How anybody can call Zod the hero of MOS is beyond me.
It is a baffling stance, that's for sure. This is a world where heroes are labelled toxic and divisive and the villains are thought of as idealistic angels. As colors says, Zod wanted to recreate Krypton...by killing every last human on Earth. That's all I really have to type. Superman wanted to coexist with humanity. Zod didn't.
As for Zod not killing Superman on the ship, that also makes logical sense. In Zod's mind, Superman is depowered and no longer a threat. He didn't count on his powers returning. I'm positive the deal was this: keep Superman as our prisoner, destroy the humans, let him watch and THEN kill him. Zod had it out for the El family. And there's a thing with killing - you can only do it once. So Zod wanted to do it right. Much like the Joker with Batman.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 3 Dec 2016, 22:58
He had Superman helpless and in his custody for several hours. He could've reclaimed the codex then if he'd wanted to. But he didn't.
Zod didn't even know the codex was stored in Superman's DNA until he was notified by one of his scientists much later. Nonetheless, it doesn't change anything you've said.
Gail Simone tweets her opinion on the Clark/Lois romance in live action:Quote
Here is a reason so many Superman movies misfire. Only the first two Donner films dealt with the obvious: that Superman is a romance story. They are, not coincidentally, the two films that presented a Superman as sexy, beyond just attractive. The panties discussion in Superman 1 is vastly hotter than all the recent Superman movies combined.
I think it's also why Smallville and Lois and Clark succeeded, they took advantage of Superman's romantic and sex appeal. Superman should leave theater seats darn near unusable. Instead, they keep showing him as tortured and morose. I think audiences have a hard time loving a ridiculously handsome flying guy with a hot girlfriend who feels sorry for himself.
Unlike almost all other iconic superheroes, the romance angle is built into Superman's story DNA. Like Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot. I have enjoyed the recent Superman movies to varying degrees...but Lois and Clark should be EPIC. Should melt underwear worldwide.
When I was writing Action Comics, writers were complaining that it was hard to write Lois and Clark as married. Pish. Superman belongs, not to the dark crimebuster genre, he belongs to the romantic hero category, like Zorro.
Anyway, that is my rant for the day. When I have more time, I have some theories about Lois/Clark to annoy everyone with. ;) But the key is, Superman should set pants on fire, Lois/Clark should burn down the pants factory.
Source: https://twitter.com/GailSimone/status/858821368317493248
Frankly, I find this to be shallow. Yeah, the romance with Lois is important of course, but there's much more to Superman than that. Seriously, you mean to tell me you prefer some lovey-dovey action than the idea of Superman going through a character arc where he overcomes doubt and obstacles with selflessness and bravery? You think, that in itself regardless of how it's realised on screen, is nothing more than "tortured and morose"?
Grow up.
Indeed. It's a load of crap. In BvS, there's a dark cloud hanging over the character's heads, but we know they both deeply care about one another. The romance is still there with Cavill and Adams. So much so, I wouldn't be surprised if the two characters get married at some point.
Lois investigated Clark and became interested in Superman.
They embraced several times, and Lois was there to console Clark after he killed Zod.
By the time of BvS, Clark moved into Lois' apartment.
Clark and Lois got down and dirty in the tub.
Superman rescued Lois several times in both films.
Lois worked hard to clear Superman's name.
Clark told Lois "you are my world" moments before he died.
Ma Kent told Lois that Clark was going to propose.
Superman can walk down the street and chew gum at the same time. Meaning romance can be present in a live action film, as well as covering themes such as overcoming obstacles, being selfless and being brave. It's like the myth Cavill's Superman doesn't smile. He does, and during appropriate situations.
Simone isn't completely wrong. Romance is native to Superman in ways that probably no other characters can quite match. Ignoring it is a bad move. But overplaying it (*cough*Singer*cough*) is even worse.
What Snyder did was depict Superman as the bridge between two peoples and Lois as Superman's bridge to humanity. She's what enfranchises him in the human race when nothing else ever really did. And all because she showed him a simple act of kindness (eg, acceptance) after he showed her a simple (for him) act of kindness (eg, saving her life).
Ages ago, I had a few go-rounds with Simone about some juvenile stuff. It was immature on both our parts. I've never been overly fond of her Superman work and her notions of Superman as a romance first and foremost isn't something I agree with... which is probably why I'm not fond of her Superman work.
John Ostrander weighs in on the difference between Henry Cavill and Tyler Hoechlin, in an opinion piece titled "Making a Better Superman":Quote
As of last Monday night, Warner Bros grew a Superman problem. That's the night that Supergirl started its second season on its new home, the CW... where one could argue that it always belonged anyway. The show guest starred Supergirl's cousin, Superman, embodied on TV by Tyler Hoechlin.
If you don't already know, DC – unlike Marvel – does not link its movie universe and its TV universe. Since DC Comics is currently in the Multiple Universe concept once more, it might help to think of their TV and movie universes as alternate dimensions. So we can have two Flashes, two Wonder Women – and two versions of Superman.
The DC movie version of Superman, as shown in Man of Steel and Superman vs. Batman: Dawn of Justice Whaddee Do Dah, is played by Henry Cavill and is a darker, more brooding, somewhat more Batman-ish Superman. His costume is also darker, almost a blue-black. He is, we are told, a more "realistic" Superman. And that's where I think the trouble is going to lie.
Supergirl's Superman is a more traditional Man of Steel. He's a brighter, more confident, more hopeful vision. And, not to slam Henry Cavill, Tyler Hoechlin is a better actor. As a kid he held his own with Tom Hanks, Paul Newman, Jude Law, and Daniel Craig in Road to Perdition where Hoechlin played a starring role as Michael Sullivan, Jr. (Sidenote: not everyone realizes that Road to Perdition is also a "comic book movie" based on the graphic novel by Max Allan Collins and Richard Piers Rayner. Work that little factoid into your conversations. Amaze your friends. Go out and get a copy. Great read. End of plug.)
The Superman appearing on Supergirl is more my idea of who Superman is – confident, capable, friendly, powerful and, according to one character on the show, smells good. When he walks into the DEO, the government facility where Lara's adopted sister Alex works, people just stop and stare. Superman works the crowd, smiling, shaking hands, setting people at ease not like a politician or even a celebrity but like a nice guy from Kansas which, for all his powers, he is.
Hoechlin also does a great Clark Kent, reminiscent of Christopher Reeve's great turn, having a deft sense of humor to the portrayal and making the bumbling aspect work. When his cousin secretly congratulates Clark on a well executed file fumble in the elevator, he tells her it wasn't an act. That's endearing.
Also, in the TV aspect of the DCU, there isn't the underlying mistrust that the DC movie universe has for this strange person from another world. Batman wants to kill Superman because the Kryptonian could be a threat; one of the arguments leading to the creation of the Suicide Squad was who could stop Superman if he decided to burst through the roof of the White House and grab the President? On Supergirl, people trust the Man of Steel. Seeing him, or his cousin, inspires hope. While the darker portrayal may be more "realistic," it's not what the character is about.
I'm not looking for a return to the Superman of the Fifties as seen in either the comics or the TV show. To be honest, that one bored me even as a kid. The movies, however, makes him more angsty, more dour, and less Super. Hoechlin is only scheduled to appear as a guest star on the TV show for right now but he wears the tights and the cape – and Clark Kent's glasses – quite well.
I know that in BvS: DoJ (spoiler alert, I guess) Superman dies at the end of the film but we all know he's coming back for the Justice League movie. I, for one, wouldn't mind if the movie Superman uses the grave as a chrysalis and pops out as Tyler Hoechlin. Or maybe they can have Tyler spin off into a series as Superman. I'd watch it. And I bet lots of others would as well.
And that's going to be WB's problem – the better Superman isn't on the big screen; it's on the small one.
Source: http://www.comicmix.com/2016/10/16/john-ostrander-making-a-better-superman/
I can't help but disagree with Ostrander on a number of things.
Once again, just because you don't like the idea of Superman going through trials and tribulations regardless how it is written, doesn't make him as dark as Batman. I think that's just a gross simplification for my liking.
I have nothing against Hoechlin, but I can see why some hardcore fans are getting fed up with this need to ape Christopher Reeve, and Ostrander isn't doing anybody any favours if they try to rebut claims that DCEU detractors are nostalgic over Reeve's portrayal. In fact, I'd say he's not doing Hoechlin any favours either because one can interpret that Hoechlin isn't really stamping his own name into the role, he's only copying somebody else who came before. Kind of like how some people tried to defend Brandon Routh. Superman's first appearance in Supergirl with the constant references to S78 soured my anticipation for him. Let him be his own take, FFS!
If Hoechlin's Superman were to headline his own TV show, I
want to see how Supes overcomes his own challenges and doubt and see how the show builds his own character arc. I don't want to see a 23-season long show full of forced smiles and "good-natured fun", that same narrow-minded sh*t is slowly undermining the quality of the recent MCU films lately.
On a separate note: I haven't seen Lois and Clark for twenty years, but I realise that Dean Cain's portrayal was more refreshing than I ever gave him credit for, particularly for his no-nonsense, hardhitting demeanor as Clark Kent, Daily Planet reporter. Would he have been accepted for today's audience? Sadly, I doubt it.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 2 May 2017, 03:17
Simone isn't completely wrong. Romance is native to Superman in ways that probably no other characters can quite match. Ignoring it is a bad move. But overplaying it (*cough*Singer*cough*) is even worse.
What Snyder did was depict Superman as the bridge between two peoples and Lois as Superman's bridge to humanity. She's what enfranchises him in the human race when nothing else ever really did. And all because she showed him a simple act of kindness (eg, acceptance) after he showed her a simple (for him) act of kindness (eg, saving her life).
Ages ago, I had a few go-rounds with Simone about some juvenile stuff. It was immature on both our parts. I've never been overly fond of her Superman work and her notions of Superman as a romance first and foremost isn't something I agree with... which is probably why I'm not fond of her Superman work.
I was starting to think Simone may have been taking the piss. But if you actually contacted her over this sort of topic - well, I'm rather disappointed with her childish perception of Clark and Lois's relationship. It's as equally as simplistic for liking another version of Superman more only for the fact he happens to smile more. Seriously, is that's it? Forget about whether or not if you think the execution of an idea works, you simply like another iteration better because he smiles more? If that's the common discourse shared among Superman fans nowadays, then the character has no hope.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 5 May 2017, 12:11
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 2 May 2017, 03:17
Simone isn't completely wrong. Romance is native to Superman in ways that probably no other characters can quite match. Ignoring it is a bad move. But overplaying it (*cough*Singer*cough*) is even worse.
What Snyder did was depict Superman as the bridge between two peoples and Lois as Superman's bridge to humanity. She's what enfranchises him in the human race when nothing else ever really did. And all because she showed him a simple act of kindness (eg, acceptance) after he showed her a simple (for him) act of kindness (eg, saving her life).
Ages ago, I had a few go-rounds with Simone about some juvenile stuff. It was immature on both our parts. I've never been overly fond of her Superman work and her notions of Superman as a romance first and foremost isn't something I agree with... which is probably why I'm not fond of her Superman work.
I was starting to think Simone may have been taking the piss. But if you actually contacted her over this sort of topic - well, I'm rather disappointed with her childish perception of Clark and Lois's relationship. It's as equally as simplistic for liking another version of Superman more only for the fact he happens to smile more. Seriously, is that's it? Forget about whether or not if you think the execution of an idea works, you simply like another iteration better because he smiles more? If that's the common discourse shared among Superman fans nowadays, then the character has no hope.
I didn't mean to imply that she and I duked it out over the romance thing.
No, that would've been a step up.
Seriously, we were both that immature about something even less important. Embarrassing, really.
So here we are.
Ethan Van Sciver shared this video where he rants about Superman comics and movies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc4JGN0KvLY
To be honest, he was losing me after listening to his praise for the Donner Cut and SII in general. I know I've said this many times before, but I'm sorry, no matter how much Clark fell in love with Lois, I never bought how he'd easily relinquish his powers in SII. As I said before, Clark didn't harbor any doubts about being Superman, and it makes it unbelievable. Yes, I understand Van Sciver is trying to say the movie's moral of the story is we can't give up our duties to satisfy our selfish desires, but again, I found the motive for the character giving up to be flawed in the first place.
As for his criticism over Superman "not" saving a single person in MOS, it's definitely a flawed outlook. Yes, I can't deny how he was guilty of recklessness in that movie, but some of the criticisms such as Superman bringing the villains to Earth and killing Zod can easily be applied to SII.
You're right, the Donner thing is a little goofy. In Superman II, Superman brought Zod to Earth, unbeknownst to himself and to Zod. In MOS, Superman brought Zod to Earth, except both of them knew it. Really, that's the big difference.
Superman saved Lois twice in MOS that I can remember and he also saved the soldier who fell out of the helicopter in Smallville. We don't know how many people died in Metropolis... but we do know that the ones who survived have Superman to thank.
Van Sciver was apparently offered SUPERMAN (the monthly title) during the launch of The New 52. For whatever reason, he chose not to accept it. But I look back at the clusterf**k that TN52 Superman was and I can't help thinking that if he felt so strongly about the matter, he had a chance to do something about it years and chose not to.
It's good that he feels so strongly about the character. But his criteria are a little inconsistent and he certainly squandered an opportunity.
Jon Bogdanove on who would win in a contest between Kirk Alyn and Dean Cain's Superman:Quote
I think Kirk Alyn looked better as Superman than Dean Cain—so he'd definitely win if the competition was based on who looked more like Superman in the comics at the time they were each playing the character.
Dean was a football player. Kirk was a dancer. Both were very fit and muscular, but Dean had greater muscle mass. Kirk was possibly faster and more agile, though. Dean's knees might be a vulnerability, but that might not matter much in close combat.
In a street fight, set in some dimension outside of time, with both actors at the peak condition they were when they wore the tights—I'd probably give Dean the edge, I think.
https://www.quora.com/Who-would-win-Dean-Cain-Superman-Lois-Clark-or-Kirk-Alyn-Superman-1948
Dan Jurgens on people having problems with his appreciation of Man of Steel back in 2013:Quote
Fan wants me to apologize for liking "Man of Steel". Sure. Right after I apologize for liking puppies, rainbows, fresh air and life itself.
https://twitter.com/thedanjurgens/status/350705721236660224
Jurgens on Superman Returns, again back in 2013:Quote
I was way more troubled by Superman being a deadbeat dad and sleazy voyeur in Superman Returns than anything in MOS.
https://twitter.com/thedanjurgens/status/345565304321101825
;D ;D ;D
And here's Jurgens once more expressing his appreciation for one of the ZSJL posters paying homage to The Death of Superman.Quote from: Dan Jurgens
Flattered.
Quote from: Zack Snyder
Risen #SnyderCut
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Es50sR6UUAEjIaD?format=jpg&name=900x900)
https://twitter.com/thedanjurgens/status/1355173271805767682
Jurgens never ceases to impress me. Never would've guessed we have identical opinions about SR and MOS.