Jump to content

Its Confirmed


Wheeljack35
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ok I wanted to start this new thread so everybody will see the news

 

http://www.newsarama.com/film/080822-WBRebootSuperman.html

 

 

 

Warner Bros. has confirmed long-running rumors that it will reboot the Superman movie franchise.

 

Jeff Robinov, Warner Bros. Pictures Group President, tells The Wall Street Journal that the Man of Steel will be reintroduced on the big screen without regard to 2006’s Superman Returns.

 

“Superman didn’t quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to,” Robinov says. “It didn’t position the character the way he needed to be positioned. ... Had Superman worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009.”

 

There’s no mention whether Superman Returns director Bryan Singer will be part of the reboot. Earlier this week, Variety’s Anne Thompson reported “that it is a priority at the studio to find the right direction and if Bryan Singer is willing to do that, fine, but if he gets in the way, he may not stay on the project.”

 

Taking a page from Marvel, Warner Bros. has reversed its earlier position of using the now-stalled Justice League of America as a launching pad for other DC properties. Instead, it will focus on solo features to build toward a multicharacter film.

 

“Along those lines, we have been developing every DC character that we own,” Robinov says.

 

That may sound less like a “strategy” and more like a mad cash-grab. Something else that might not sit right with some fans is Robinov’s determination to explore the darker side of super-heroes: “We’re going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it.”

 

According to The Journal, Warner Bros. plans to release four comic-book movies in the next three years: the third Batman installment, the Superman reboot, and two focusing on other DC Comics characters. (It’s unclear whether Watchmen is included in that count.) Likely candidates include Green Arrow/Super Max, Green Lantern, Captain Marvel and, perhaps, Jonah Hex.

 

As Variety reported over the weekend, Warner Bros. is expected to roll out its strategy for its DC Comics movie properties sometime within the next month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a good thing. I liked Superman Returns, but I thought the whole Supes, Jr. thing was kinda lame.

 

I want to see Superman battle villains like Metallo, Brainiac, and Darkseid. I'm tired of the Lois and Clark romance taking up 80% of the film (I'm just throwing that number out there). A good Superman movie has the ability to stand along side the big boys when it comes to visual special effects, like Transformers or Star Wars. I don't thing the general audience is ready for him to go off world, (like Apokolips) but Superman needs to be fighting truly powerful villains for me to want to go see another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Superman didn’t quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to,” Robinov says. “It didn’t position the character the way he needed to be positioned. ... Had Superman worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009.”

Admitting mistakes... good for them.

 

There’s no mention whether Superman Returns director Bryan Singer will be part of the reboot. Earlier this week, Variety’s Anne Thompson reported “that it is a priority at the studio to find the right direction and if Bryan Singer is willing to do that, fine, but if he gets in the way, he may not stay on the project.”

That is perhaps one of the most blatantly ballsy things I've heard said in quite some time. I approve heartily.

 

Taking a page from Marvel, Warner Bros. has reversed its earlier position of using the now-stalled Justice League of America as a launching pad for other DC properties. Instead, it will focus on solo features to build toward a multicharacter film.

...which was exactly what everyone said they should do instead when they announced the JLA film. Whether it's Marvel's page or not, it's a smart move.

 

That may sound less like a “strategy” and more like a mad cash-grab. Something else that might not sit right with some fans is Robinov’s determination to explore the darker side of super-heroes: “We’re going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it.”

This could be good or bad, depending on the character and the level of 'dark' that is brought to them. An R-rated Demon movie would be awesome. A Green Lantern movie where Hal Jordan disgraces himself and has to reclaim his heroic status (a la Rebirth and the early issues of the current series) would be awesome. A Hawkman movie full of mace-wielding battles would be awesome. A Superman movie where he swears a lot and fries people with his x-ray vision... not so much. Gonna have to take the 'wait and see' approach on this comment.

 

According to The Journal, Warner Bros. plans to release four comic-book movies in the next three years: the third Batman installment, the Superman reboot, and two focusing on other DC Comics characters. (It’s unclear whether Watchmen is included in that count.) Likely candidates include Green Arrow/Super Max, Green Lantern, Captain Marvel and, perhaps, Jonah Hex.

The idea of a gritty, bare-knuckled, gunslingin' Jonah Hex movie gives me the warm fuzzies in that special place.

 

No, the other special place, you perv.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Superman didn’t quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to,” Robinov says. “It didn’t position the character the way he needed to be positioned. ... Had Superman worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009.”

Admitting mistakes... good for them.

 

There’s no mention whether Superman Returns director Bryan Singer will be part of the reboot. Earlier this week, Variety’s Anne Thompson reported “that it is a priority at the studio to find the right direction and if Bryan Singer is willing to do that, fine, but if he gets in the way, he may not stay on the project.”

That is perhaps one of the most blatantly ballsy things I've heard said in quite some time. I approve heartily.

 

Taking a page from Marvel, Warner Bros. has reversed its earlier position of using the now-stalled Justice League of America as a launching pad for other DC properties. Instead, it will focus on solo features to build toward a multicharacter film.

...which was exactly what everyone said they should do instead when they announced the JLA film. Whether it's Marvel's page or not, it's a smart move.

 

That may sound less like a “strategy” and more like a mad cash-grab. Something else that might not sit right with some fans is Robinov’s determination to explore the darker side of super-heroes: “We’re going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it.”

This could be good or bad, depending on the character and the level of 'dark' that is brought to them. An R-rated Demon movie would be awesome. A Green Lantern movie where Hal Jordan disgraces himself and has to reclaim his heroic status (a la Rebirth and the early issues of the current series) would be awesome. A Hawkman movie full of mace-wielding battles would be awesome. A Superman movie where he swears a lot and fries people with his x-ray vision... not so much. Gonna have to take the 'wait and see' approach on this comment.

 

According to The Journal, Warner Bros. plans to release four comic-book movies in the next three years: the third Batman installment, the Superman reboot, and two focusing on other DC Comics characters. (It’s unclear whether Watchmen is included in that count.) Likely candidates include Green Arrow/Super Max, Green Lantern, Captain Marvel and, perhaps, Jonah Hex.

The idea of a gritty, bare-knuckled, gunslingin' Jonah Hex movie gives me the warm fuzzies in that special place.

 

No, the other special place, you perv.

 

 

Talking about the Darker side with the possibility of Superman swearing a lot and frying people with his X-Ray vision...if that happens that would be the worst thing I have ever seen put on film but the darker side could be like...well say they use Zod again (not saying they should but if they did) Zod in Superman 2 is evil but you get the feeling that he is evil b/c he wears black clothing flies around in broad day light and pulls stuff off roofs. If they made the Darker Superman movie Zod could be an evil SOB who killed without a problem, destroyed buildings for kicks, and basically just does whatever he wants to the puny earthlings. Which then would beg the question for old Supes...do I have to kill this man? The darker side could be Superman choosing does he take a life or try to stop Zod but suffer tons of losses in the process and give Zod a chance to return in the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking about the Darker side with the possibility of Superman swearing a lot and frying people with his X-Ray vision...if that happens that would be the worst thing I have ever seen put on film but the darker side could be like...well say they use Zod again (not saying they should but if they did) Zod in Superman 2 is evil but you get the feeling that he is evil b/c he wears black clothing flies around in broad day light and pulls stuff off roofs. If they made the Darker Superman movie Zod could be an evil SOB who killed without a problem, destroyed buildings for kicks, and basically just does whatever he wants to the puny earthlings. Which then would beg the question for old Supes...do I have to kill this man? The darker side could be Superman choosing does he take a life or try to stop Zod but suffer tons of losses in the process and give Zod a chance to return in the future?

Oh yeah, I'm all for putting in the more formidable guys from the Superman rogues gallery, and they could easily be used to give him a dark time psychologically without darkening the character. Your example is great. Here's one off the top of my head: Put him up against Bizarro, who should be played up as sick and twisted, but at the same time uncomfortably funny (like Ledger's Joker). Superman would have quite the dilemma there- he's the only one who can stop him, but in a very real sense, it IS him...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking about the Darker side with the possibility of Superman swearing a lot and frying people with his X-Ray vision...if that happens that would be the worst thing I have ever seen put on film but the darker side could be like...well say they use Zod again (not saying they should but if they did) Zod in Superman 2 is evil but you get the feeling that he is evil b/c he wears black clothing flies around in broad day light and pulls stuff off roofs. If they made the Darker Superman movie Zod could be an evil SOB who killed without a problem, destroyed buildings for kicks, and basically just does whatever he wants to the puny earthlings. Which then would beg the question for old Supes...do I have to kill this man? The darker side could be Superman choosing does he take a life or try to stop Zod but suffer tons of losses in the process and give Zod a chance to return in the future?

Oh yeah, I'm all for putting in the more formidable guys from the Superman rogues gallery, and they could easily be used to give him a dark time psychologically without darkening the character. Your example is great. Here's one off the top of my head: Put him up against Bizarro, who should be played up as sick and twisted, but at the same time uncomfortably funny (like Ledger's Joker). Superman would have quite the dilemma there- he's the only one who can stop him, but in a very real sense, it IS him...

 

I like Bizarro, if he is played right. He really could be played as the evil mirror image of Superman. Personally I have always thought Bizarro was better explained than executed. He is always explained as the Anti-Superman, all the things Superman isn't. And then you see him and its like...well I guess one of the things Superman isn't is mentally ##$%$#ed so I suppose they got it right? But if he is played as just a sick, twisted mental defect that has no issues with killing and maiming especially just to turn Superman's stomach, it would be a great take on the character. I think Smallville put the character in the right direction but they never exactly achieved it. Like in Smallville he was kind of scheming, using his powers to get what he wants as opposed to Clark who never gets what he wants and instead uses his powers to give the world what it needs. So Bizarro would be a great character as long as he doesn't turn out like a flying Forrest Gump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Green Lantern movie where Hal Jordan disgraces himself and has to reclaim his heroic status (a la Rebirth and the early issues of the current series) would be awesome...

 

 

Blah!

 

What is this modern-day fascination with making Hal Jordan such a screw up?

 

First he's quitting the GLC every other issue. Then it's revealed that he's a drunk with family issues. Then, he's a bad guy who wipes out the Corps. Finally, he gets replaced with a whiny kid who spends TEN years meandering in the role with zero memorable stories.

 

The Guardians sure know how to pick 'em!

 

All this forced angst is unnecessary and the pitfall of the weak writer. You've got a guy with an all-powerful ring who works for and with aliens! How is THAT concept not interesting enough??? How does making him a drunk make him more interesting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Green Lantern movie where Hal Jordan disgraces himself and has to reclaim his heroic status (a la Rebirth and the early issues of the current series) would be awesome...

 

 

Blah!

 

What is this modern-day fascination with making Hal Jordan such a screw up?

 

First he's quitting the GLC every other issue. Then it's revealed that he's a drunk with family issues. Then, he's a bad guy who wipes out the Corps. Finally, he gets replaced with a whiny kid who spends TEN years meandering in the role with zero memorable stories.

 

The Guardians sure know how to pick 'em!

 

All this forced angst is unnecessary and the pitfall of the weak writer. You've got a guy with an all-powerful ring who works for and with aliens! How is THAT concept not interesting enough??? How does making him a drunk make him more interesting?

 

Well the whole GL thing is a little off topic but the whole Hal Jordon thing is done so many times that no matter if he is a hero or a villain you just kind of run out of stories with the character. Just like a lot of these heroes who were made oh so many years ago that you run out of things to do and start replaying stuff over and over before you eventually are forced to write about something that they have never gone through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the whole GL thing is a little off topic but the whole Hal Jordon thing is done so many times that no matter if he is a hero or a villain you just kind of run out of stories with the character. Just like a lot of these heroes who were made oh so many years ago that you run out of things to do and start replaying stuff over and over before you eventually are forced to write about something that they have never gone through.

 

 

This is page one of the Weak Writer's Book Of Excuses!

 

You don't know what to do with a character? You find a writer who does! You find a writer who can write WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE PREMISE! You don't get a writer who looks at a concept like Green Lantern and says, " Um... Yeah. This super hero stuff is neat, but I'd rather write about this young kid who's an artist and who's looking for his father."

 

It stops being about Green Lantern at that point!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is page one of the Weak Writer's Book Of Excuses!

 

You don't know what to do with a character? You find a writer who does! You find a writer who can write WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE PREMISE! You don't get a writer who looks at a concept like Green Lantern and says, " Um... Yeah. This super hero stuff is neat, but I'd rather write about this young kid who's an artist and who's looking for his father."

 

It stops being about Green Lantern at that point!

 

The problem with this is just what stories fit within the premise of the character's concept. This is the problem with a Superman movie.........what kind of stories can you tell that well be a) relevant to the audience, and B) interesting and "fresh" in light of other movies and stories being done at the time.

All one has to do is remember the Deep Impact/Armageddon, Abyss/Deepstar Six/Leviathan debacles to understand that a novel story approach will be parasitically jumped upon and have its thunder stolen.

That and Superman (and his stories)is..............well..................shallow as a character. There's just no way around that.

This is the conundrum that Superman Returns presented everyone with.

Take the character, put him in a new and different situation, and...........poof.......all of a sudden the story and character are less likable and interesting. It was not for lack of trying.......bu having tried and failed, it means that future attempts are faced with restrictions.

 

This is the problem that Daredevil had as a movie. The character has, really, just ONE outstanding and interesting story. Unfortunately, in turning it into a movie, they used far too many of the SAME elements that had been done in Spiderman--making DD redundant in the process. This is the flaw of the cinematic superhero genre.....its major pitfall.......too many superhero properties are similar. Its takes a markedly different story to actually BE different--otherwise people perceive the work as derivative of something else.

Again the problem with "different" is that it thrusts the characters out of their known environs.

The Death of Superman story, on the face of it, sounds like a great premise for a movie........buts its actually a pretty sh***y story to begin with. Its shallow, contrived and doe not make for a good cinematic work.

Its not because of the visual opportunities, its because of the character opportunities.

This is why a character like Lex Luthor appears in so many of the Superman movies....Lex is interesting enough to be a good foil for Superman--even if he's handled at odds to what the tone "should be".

Comics are derived from cinema and have cinematic aspects, but they are NOT cinema. Cinema has its own storytelling demands, and a specific band of dramatic points and timing that need to be addressed. Comics simply operate on a different wavelength than cinema, and the translation from one to the other is not so cut and dried as the layman might think.

A great deal of exposition is often required to make conventions in comics workable in cinema, and sometimes vice versa.

 

Finding a writer......a story that works from comics to cinema is a tough, tough order to fill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the whole GL thing is a little off topic but the whole Hal Jordon thing is done so many times that no matter if he is a hero or a villain you just kind of run out of stories with the character. Just like a lot of these heroes who were made oh so many years ago that you run out of things to do and start replaying stuff over and over before you eventually are forced to write about something that they have never gone through.

 

 

This is page one of the Weak Writer's Book Of Excuses!

 

You don't know what to do with a character? You find a writer who does! You find a writer who can write WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE PREMISE! You don't get a writer who looks at a concept like Green Lantern and says, " Um... Yeah. This super hero stuff is neat, but I'd rather write about this young kid who's an artist and who's looking for his father."

 

It stops being about Green Lantern at that point!

 

Well look at it like this, if you have a character that no one can identify with but a great story is it really a great story? The premise is important but the character is even more important I think the idea was that Hal is a great but bland character so he goes through these chances to keep the character fresh. And with Kyle the character's dynamic changes again. I think your point about when the character takes over its not about GL anymore that is the problem with Superman, he tends to stay within his parameters and while he is a good character he has very little growth he can go through without changing his core dynamics. That is why the world around him changes. But really we are looking at characters who have been around for a very looooong time. The stories tend to get stale and they are played out over and over. Good or bad writer doesn't matter if there are no new ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the whole GL thing is a little off topic but the whole Hal Jordon thing is done so many times that no matter if he is a hero or a villain you just kind of run out of stories with the character. Just like a lot of these heroes who were made oh so many years ago that you run out of things to do and start replaying stuff over and over before you eventually are forced to write about something that they have never gone through.

This is page one of the Weak Writer's Book Of Excuses!

Actually, doing something new and not being repetitive would be page one for every good writer.

 

You don't know what to do with a character? You find a writer who does! You find a writer who can write WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE PREMISE!

The general premise with any character is to keep them fresh, exciting, and new. The moment a character gets stale is the moment you stop attracting new readers, and risk losing your old ones. Sometimes that means you step outside the premise, or change the premise, or, if you feel it makes for a good story, you ignore the premise entirely and tell the good story.

 

Now, if you want to talk about whether the story actually lives up to expectations... Sadly, it doesn't always happen. That's just life. Some stories conceptualize better than they execute, some stories should have been told with different characters, some stories don't have the right positioning/timing, and so on. This is why the fresh/new/exciting mantra is both the major strength and the biggest curse of serial storytelling.

 

You don't get a writer who looks at a concept like Green Lantern and says, " Um... Yeah. This super hero stuff is neat, but I'd rather write about this young kid who's an artist and who's looking for his father."

 

It stops being about Green Lantern at that point!

Or maybe it starts being about a new Green Lantern. You know, since it's a job description rather than a man's name. Not like Hal was the first and/or only one. The story of Kyle Rayner, an 'everyman' with the most powerful weapon in the universe, was a great idea. Was it well done? No, not always.

 

What is this modern-day fascination with making Hal Jordan such a screw up?

 

First he's quitting the GLC every other issue. Then it's revealed that he's a drunk with family issues. Then, he's a bad guy who wipes out the Corps. Finally, he gets replaced with a whiny kid who spends TEN years meandering in the role with zero memorable stories.

Ignoring your comment about Kyle, which is clearly a POV debate, it sounds like the writers are trying to get beyond the 'space opera' or 'planetary cop' stories. Traditionally, any title that focuses on that only lasts so long before cancellation. Take a look at Silver Surfer.

 

All this forced angst is unnecessary and the pitfall of the weak writer. You've got a guy with an all-powerful ring who works for and with aliens! How is THAT concept not interesting enough??? How does making him a drunk make him more interesting?

How long is 'all-powerful' really that entertaining? How is adding humanity to the character uninteresting? Traditionally, 'characters' are defined as much by flaws as they are by strengths, and when properly utilized, flaws make for a stronger character.

 

This leads right back to the problem with Superman: he's all-powerful AND a perfect human being. Whoop-dee. Sure, he sells books, but they often aren't that great. Many of the best writers in the industry have tried their hand at him over the years, and most of them just end up shrugging and moving on. Many of the most memorable stories in the last few decades have been alternate reality stuff that affects nothing of the actual character. They recapture the greatness, the "you will believe a man can fly"... then they're done, because there's nowhere else to go. Superman limps along because he's a 'classic' and 'the first', not because he's actually interesting. The bulk of the Superman merchandise and media out there is meant to appeal to the non-comic fan who isn't bored with him, rather than the comic fans who often are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blantantly knocking the "big changes" stories in comics is kind of short-sighted. Face it, in the last 20 years, what were the memorable DC stories? The Death of Superman, Knightfall, Paralax, etc. All involved major changes to the characters, who were all eventually returned to normal. The other stories told are not as memorable, because they are not fundamental changes to anything. How many Joker stories have been told? Not all of them reach the status of Killing Joke. Most are forgotten rather quickly. But having life changing events in the life of the hero, those are instantly memorable. You may not like them, but you remember when Superman died or turned into electricity, Batman broke his back, Robin blew up, GL turned bad, or Spiderman started wearing black. If every writer was told they could only work "within the premise", you couldn't change anything. Hell, adding Robin to Batman was an effort to change the "premise" of Batman because he was too dark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See the thing about making the human aspects of a character more important is something that all writers try to do. I know I have ragged on Superman before for not using his powers in battles so much but they are trying to make him appeal to everyone for his other aspects, instead of being a big guy who pummels everything (he should from time to time though). Marvel was one of the first companies to give there characters real world problems. DC early on made the super hero the main draw and the lives secondary but Marvel sold better. Kids identified with Peter Parker, they loved the web slinging but that would get old if it wasn't for the stuff Parker had to do in addition to being Spiderman. Robin was added to make Batman more appealing but it wasn't till Wayne enterprises was added to give Wayne something to do in his other life that made him a more solid character. Hell until Clark started trying to get close to Lois his only real issue was trying to find someone he could slip off to change into Superman. That is the point to GL there is only so many times you can do the cookie cutter space cop in an intergalactic battle. That is the point of trying to make the real person interesting and having the duty thrust on them seem like a chore sometimes. That is why when Hal went Emerald Green Parallax (which I liked it better when he just went insane instead of being taken over by a parasite) they were trying to make the character interesting b/c everything else has been done. There are only so many stories in this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Green Lantern should be a solid movie. There is depth to the character as well as good superhero fun and scale.

 

I don't totally agree with Superman being flat. I understand why people might say that, but in Byrne's or Azzarello's run they added some good character to him. As long as he isn't saying 'shucks' or 'Gosh' and smiling all the time, I think his demeanor works as an action hero.

 

Personally, I think the whole 'Save Aunt May' thing and needing a break for rent or having bad luck is actually ridiculous now. It made the character very appealing originally, but now is hackneyed IMO. I don't wanna see Superman go that route; he's an archetype. Being a hero is what he is, not a guy to feel bad for...over, and over, and over again. There are advantages. Luthor, on the other hand, he has depth as a character in that universe to explore. Bryan Singer not appreciating that was one of his many mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Green Lantern should be a solid movie. There is depth to the character as well as good superhero fun and scale.

 

I don't totally agree with Superman being flat. I understand why people might say that, but in Byrne's or Azzarello's run they added some good character to him. As long as he isn't saying 'shucks' or 'Gosh' and smiling all the time, I think his demeanor works as an action hero.

 

Personally, I think the whole 'Save Aunt May' thing and needing a break for rent or having bad luck is actually ridiculous now. It made the character very appealing originally, but now is hackneyed IMO. I don't wanna see Superman go that route; he's an archetype. Being a hero is what he is, not a guy to feel bad for...over, and over, and over again. There are advantages. Luthor, on the other hand, he has depth as a character in that universe to explore. Bryan Singer not appreciating that was one of his many mistakes.

 

I think that the character having a personal life and actual problems is important and being an archetype is cool for like ten minutes but it can't sustain a movie or even three comics. Its just boring. But yea the Spiderman thing where every issue is just his personal life is boring. I would like a little more put into hero stuff but a personal life is important for the character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Superman has a personal life. He has a wife and parents. Like most men his age. The supporting cast is a big deal there. I also think, as a comic fan, that Superman fighting aliens, villains, robots etc. as a great hero is fun for more than 10 minutes. The character has endured over 70 years for a reason. I think we might just have different preferences.

 

Personally, I thought the Wolverine Origins mini in 2001 was excellent. I loved reading it and was always a fan of the character. Same with Batman. Superman is different and that's fine; not being tragic doesn't mean he can't carry a fun comic or movie. There's always room for improvement though.

 

 

As for Spidey, I cited him b/c the whole OMD thing, Bennett not ever knowing his name and his friends and their soap operas returning 'magically' just killed it for me. That's the hazard of his personal life really being the center. It makes him more likable, but when he doesn't naturally age and evolve, it gets a little crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Superman has a personal life. He has a wife and parents. Like most men his age. The supporting cast is a big deal there. I also think, as a comic fan, that Superman fighting aliens, villains, robots etc. as a great hero is fun for more than 10 minutes. The character has endured over 70 years for a reason. I think we might just have different preferences.

 

Personally, I thought the Wolverine Origins mini in 2001 was excellent. I loved reading it and was always a fan of the character. Same with Batman. Superman is different and that's fine; not being tragic doesn't mean he can't carry a fun comic or movie. There's always room for improvement though.

 

 

As for Spidey, I cited him b/c the whole OMD thing, Bennett not ever knowing his name and his friends and their soap operas returning 'magically' just killed it for me. That's the hazard of his personal life really being the center. It makes him more likable, but when he doesn't naturally age and evolve, it gets a little crazy.

 

I didn't say Superman didn't have a life but early on before the writers decided to give him one he was very cookie cutter. He went to work something happened he ducked off saved the day and said something silly when he got back to work. Now he is more well rounded. Also Spiderman's life gets annoying to me, I think it is a good idea for the character to have a life but it can get annoying he is sometimes like the comic book version of Charlie Brown, something always is going wrong. But original point was that these characters need a life outside of the costume to be a well rounded character it would be boring for them to fight crime all the time its like why do I keep reading about this character b/c if they don't have a life or decent personality its not worth reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say Superman didn't have a life but early on before the writers decided to give him one he was very cookie cutter. He went to work something happened he ducked off saved the day and said something silly when he got back to work. Now he is more well rounded. Also Spiderman's life gets annoying to me, I think it is a good idea for the character to have a life but it can get annoying he is sometimes like the comic book version of Charlie Brown, something always is going wrong. But original point was that these characters need a life outside of the costume to be a well rounded character it would be born for them to fight crime all the time its like why do I keep reading about this character b/c if they don't have a life or decent personality its not worth reading.

Absolutely. That's what I was trying to get at above. Putting in flaws and 'shaking up' a character are what GIVE them character. Otherwise they're perfect. Even with suspension of disbelief, we know they're going to win. If they have an absolutely perfect personal life too, then what the heck is the point? That's not a character, that's a caricature.

 

Give me a character with some flaws, someone with problems I can relate to... who also straps on his boots and fights the good fight with whatever abilities he has. Iron Man is my favorite superhero because at the end of the day, with a billion dollars in his back pocket and a suit of high-tech armor in his closet, he sits at his desk and wonders when his heart will give out as he stares at a bottle. Think about what a headtrip that must be. Sure, it's overly dramatic, but hey, we're dealing with superheroes here.

 

If Hal Jordan just flew around space zapping bad guys, then returned home and went to bed, then got up and did it all over... I'd hate him. At least make the guy late on his phone bill or something.

 

I don't totally agree with Superman being flat. I understand why people might say that, but in Byrne's or Azzarello's run they added some good character to him. As long as he isn't saying 'shucks' or 'Gosh' and smiling all the time, I think his demeanor works as an action hero.

I'm not saying the character is completely one-dimensional, I'm saying that a majority of his stories are pretty weak, and that's a direct result of the character being 'perfect'. I note you bring up Byrne, who's best contribution was Man of Steel, which reinvented the character. As I said, they took him back to his roots... then had no idea what to do.

 

With that said, I do agree with you on Azzarello. The shooting of Lois was a fantastic character examination. If Superman was like that all the time, I'd be all over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope they adapt the death of Superman storyline for the second movie. How sweet would that be? Doomsday, the black suit and a mullet? Awesome.

 

That would be awesome!

 

The Death of Superman would definitely bring the darker aspect to the franchise. I just hope if they do decide to go with the Death and Return of Superman story line, that they keep it close to the comics, meaning I want to see Eradicator, Steel, Cyborg Superman, and Superboy. It would also be sweet to have Mongul and Green Lantern (which could serve to spin off a Green Lantern movie).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Superman has a personal life. He has a wife and parents. Like most men his age. The supporting cast is a big deal there. I also think, as a comic fan, that Superman fighting aliens, villains, robots etc. as a great hero is fun for more than 10 minutes. The character has endured over 70 years for a reason. I think we might just have different preferences.

 

Personally, I thought the Wolverine Origins mini in 2001 was excellent. I loved reading it and was always a fan of the character. Same with Batman. Superman is different and that's fine; not being tragic doesn't mean he can't carry a fun comic or movie. There's always room for improvement though.

 

 

As for Spidey, I cited him b/c the whole OMD thing, Bennett not ever knowing his name and his friends and their soap operas returning 'magically' just killed it for me. That's the hazard of his personal life really being the center. It makes him more likable, but when he doesn't naturally age and evolve, it gets a little crazy.

 

I didn't say Superman didn't have a life but early on before the writers decided to give him one he was very cookie cutter. He went to work something happened he ducked off saved the day and said something silly when he got back to work. Now he is more well rounded. Also Spiderman's life gets annoying to me, I think it is a good idea for the character to have a life but it can get annoying he is sometimes like the comic book version of Charlie Brown, something always is going wrong. But original point was that these characters need a life outside of the costume to be a well rounded character it would be born for them to fight crime all the time its like why do I keep reading about this character b/c if they don't have a life or decent personality its not worth reading.

 

 

I apologize, I see what you're saying. It's funny b/c I do get into comics history and mostly enjoyed Marvel Masterworks even though I was a nineties adolescent when introduced to comics. However, I can't get into older Superman stories. It is completely cookie cutter and only had the attraction of the costume and powers....so thank you Stan Lee and later Frank Miller and Alan Moore for injecting some real life!

 

I agree (unfortunately) on the Charlie Brown thing for Spider-man. It's contrived and for a character meant to seem real, it's misplaced. I liked Peter being into science and attempting to meet those rather difficult goals while being a hero. That made sense and could evolve. Guess Marvel thought it was better to just bring in Mephisto....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Superman has a personal life. He has a wife and parents. Like most men his age. The supporting cast is a big deal there. I also think, as a comic fan, that Superman fighting aliens, villains, robots etc. as a great hero is fun for more than 10 minutes. The character has endured over 70 years for a reason. I think we might just have different preferences.

 

Personally, I thought the Wolverine Origins mini in 2001 was excellent. I loved reading it and was always a fan of the character. Same with Batman. Superman is different and that's fine; not being tragic doesn't mean he can't carry a fun comic or movie. There's always room for improvement though.

 

 

As for Spidey, I cited him b/c the whole OMD thing, Bennett not ever knowing his name and his friends and their soap operas returning 'magically' just killed it for me. That's the hazard of his personal life really being the center. It makes him more likable, but when he doesn't naturally age and evolve, it gets a little crazy.

 

I didn't say Superman didn't have a life but early on before the writers decided to give him one he was very cookie cutter. He went to work something happened he ducked off saved the day and said something silly when he got back to work. Now he is more well rounded. Also Spiderman's life gets annoying to me, I think it is a good idea for the character to have a life but it can get annoying he is sometimes like the comic book version of Charlie Brown, something always is going wrong. But original point was that these characters need a life outside of the costume to be a well rounded character it would be born for them to fight crime all the time its like why do I keep reading about this character b/c if they don't have a life or decent personality its not worth reading.

 

 

I apologize, I see what you're saying. It's funny b/c I do get into comics history and mostly enjoyed Marvel Masterworks even though I was a nineties adolescent when introduced to comics. However, I can't get into older Superman stories. It is completely cookie cutter and only had the attraction of the costume and powers....so thank you Stan Lee and later Frank Miller and Alan Moore for injecting some real life!

 

I agree (unfortunately) on the Charlie Brown thing for Spider-man. It's contrived and for a character meant to seem real, it's misplaced. I liked Peter being into science and attempting to meet those rather difficult goals while being a hero. That made sense and could evolve. Guess Marvel thought it was better to just bring in Mephisto....

 

 

About Superman that was what I was trying to say early on with him and even Batman they both were very much heroes with no other reason for being even though Batman lost his parents and had this terrible reason for being Batman driving him he was still just kind of another boring hero. It wasn't until Stan Lee brought out Spiderman that the other writers took notice of what he was doing. But I think they should tone down Peter Parker a little his life is waaay too overloaded. I like reading Spiderman comics for six months after that I have to give it up for a while b/c its just one thing after another. If Parker wasn't a smartass that comic would be so depressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Find Action Figures on Ebay

×
×
  • Create New...
Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE