|
Post by kolchak92 on Jan 29, 2019 6:38:00 GMT
I mean we've had like a fucking dozen of them now and basically only two are any good.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jan 29, 2019 6:38:51 GMT
There hasn't been a good Superman movie since 1980.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 7:05:11 GMT
Superman is just not that interesting of a character and I think that's a struggle for any writer. The circumstances he's placed into can be interesting but what can you say about the character itself? He's not exactly a deep well of possibilities.
He's essentially invincible aside from a few contrivances and he has next to no character flaws as a person... or alien, I guess. He's an ideal and an exemplar. And that is not very interesting for telling more than a small handful of stories unless you're going to deconstruct his character and then you'll maybe get a couple more before that gets old. And if you deviate from his boy scout character, it's not really Superman anymore. It's a pinch to be sure.
I did like the animated DC film Superman Vs. The Elite which was practically a meta-narrative challenge to Superman's old-fashioned ways but even that I think you can only do that once before it gets tired. I just don't think you can do a lot with the guy.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jan 29, 2019 7:16:38 GMT
Man of Steel (2013) (6-6.5/10 ; within my Top 232 movies (I have seen it twice so far Oct 16th 2013/July 11th 2016). my 2nd viewing it jumped up from a 6/10 to it's current 6-6.5/10) is my #1 super hero movie straight up and the only superman movie I like at this point in time even though I used to like the Christopher Reeve movies but I attempted to re-watch Superman (1978) on May 8th 2015 and I could not finish it due to boredom and turned it off at 1hr10min. bartlesbyI think he's more interesting than the vast majority of super hero characters. hell, I can't be the only one who feels that way because if someone was to make a list of most known/popular super hero's among all age groups of people I am sure he would be pretty high on the list. Hell, I think you could say that about many super hero movies as they pretty much recycle stuff as I think it's more about the character/actor playing that character with their presence and more visual aspects of a movie than about some fancy story etc.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 29, 2019 7:24:15 GMT
People love an underdog, he's the complete opposite of that. Who wants to roots for someone that's pretty much invincible? His "arch nemesis" is some bald dude Superman could snap like a twig if he really wanted to. Batman on the other hand is just a regular human being, he could die easily doing what he does, so you have more reason to root for him, there's more tension and suspense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 7:24:52 GMT
Man of Steel (2013) (6-6.5/10 ; within my Top 232 movies (I have seen it twice so far Oct 16th 2013/July 11th 2016). my 2nd viewing it jumped up from a 6/10 to it's current 6-6.5/10) is my #1 super hero movie straight up and the only superman movie I like at this point in time even though I used to like the Christopher Reeve movies but I attempted to re-watch Superman (1978) on May 8th 2015 and I could not finish it due to boredom and turned it off at 1hr10min. bartlesby I think he's more interesting than the vast majority of super hero characters. hell, I can't be the only one who feels that way because if someone was to make a list of most known/popular super hero's among all age groups of people I am sure he would be pretty high on the list. Hell, I think you could say that about many super hero movies as they pretty much recycle stuff as I think it's more about the character/actor playing that character with their presence and more visual aspects of a movie than about some fancy story etc. I'm going to have to disagree. He's well-known and popular, sure, as is Mickey Mouse, but iconic does not necessarily mean interesting. Everybody knows what the Coca-Cola logo looks like but that doesn't mean that Coke has any nutritional value, if you get my meaning. Now, I do like Superman, I don't want you to get the wrong idea. But I like him better when he's a part of somebody else's story. I like him as the contrast and the voice of reason and good ole fashioned humanist values. I like him as a symbol of what's right and what's just. I even like him when he's been mind-controlled (which happens a lot in comics) as an "OH SHIT" moment. But I do not find it that interesting when the story centers on him.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jan 29, 2019 7:39:24 GMT
bartlesbyYeah, that's what I think makes him better than the vast majority of super hero's. But Coca-Cola sure tastes great as that along with Mountain Dew are hands down my Top 2 pops to drink (Dr. Pepper would be pretty much my #3 and then things drop off quickly after that) but yeah, I get your basic point.
|
|
|
Post by James on Jan 29, 2019 10:38:35 GMT
Superman is such a simple character. You can’t really make that much high art out of a character who’s so freaking powerful, which makes it more campy. However, I have to disagree that the first 2 Superman movies are the ONLY good ones, IMO.
You can fight me, but I like Man of Steel.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jan 29, 2019 10:46:47 GMT
Whether good or bad the Superman character, given flaws, is one of the more interesting characters in comics. Characters like Superman Prime who had a god complex for the longest time or Cyborg Superman and his struggles to maintain his humanity...or even a character like the Plutonian, who’s not DC but is basically a Superman type that got fed up with mankind’s meddling and thankless nature.
They all just feel more complex than Superman. I do think there’s still entertainment in the Superman character. It’s just harder to nail than many other archetypes.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 29, 2019 14:00:52 GMT
Lack of imagination with some exceptions. I disagree that a part of it is that Superman is too perfect or simplistic a character. The best moments from the live action films or especially the '90s animated series show that despite his power set, he has to deal with the same issues as other mortal beings. Work, family, romance, etc. On top of that, he has to maintain a positive outlook while other characters are free to wallow in their pessimism or cynicism. *cough cough* Bruce *cough cough.
From a cinematic perspective, Superman offers the chance to merge so many different genres. Aside from action/adventure, you can delve into science fiction, fantasy, comedy, or romance (I'd love it if Maxima appeared in a movie for once). His rogues gallery which imo is far better than credited for can open the doors to spectacular action and spectacle yet they're always limited to Lex Luthor or General Zod. Brainiac is sorely deserving of a film debut while other foes like Mongul, Parasite, Metallo, Cyborg Superman, Mister Mxzptlk, Atomic Skull, Silver Banshee, or Bizarro would be interesting baddies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 16:09:30 GMT
Because I think they keep trying to do Superman from a different angle than the Reeves films did, and it doesn't work (IMO). The Reeves' films weren't afraid to make Clark a bit campy as the naive farm boy in the big city.I agree with the above post that Superman as a cynic doesn't work. He carries the naivety he has as Clark into Superman's faith that humanity is mostly good, and there are just a few bad apples spoiling the bunch. Maybe the world in general is just too cynical to appreciate Superman now.
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Jan 29, 2019 16:17:29 GMT
Because I think they keep trying to do Superman from a different angle than the Reeves films did, and it doesn't work (IMO). The Reeves' films weren't afraid to make Clark a bit campy as the naive farm boy in the big city.I agree with the above post that Superman as a cynic doesn't work. He carries the naivety he has as Clark into Superman's faith that humanity is mostly good, and there are just a few bad apples spoiling the bunch. Maybe the world in general is just too cynical to appreciate Superman now. What about Superman Returns though? It tried to be exactly like the Reeve films and it was a disaster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 16:21:25 GMT
Because I think they keep trying to do Superman from a different angle than the Reeves films did, and it doesn't work (IMO). The Reeves' films weren't afraid to make Clark a bit campy as the naive farm boy in the big city.I agree with the above post that Superman as a cynic doesn't work. He carries the naivety he has as Clark into Superman's faith that humanity is mostly good, and there are just a few bad apples spoiling the bunch. Maybe the world in general is just too cynical to appreciate Superman now. What about Superman Returns though? It tried to be exactly like the Reeve films and it was a disaster. I don't think I saw that one. What was biggest problem with that film in your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Jan 29, 2019 16:22:09 GMT
Heck, they only have 1000+ back issues of comics they could pull a plot line from.
Maybe they should set it back in the 1930's or 1940's and give it an art deco feel.
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Jan 29, 2019 16:25:29 GMT
What about Superman Returns though? It tried to be exactly like the Reeve films and it was a disaster. I don't think I saw that one. What was biggest problem with that film in your opinion? Probably the casting. Routh had all the charisma of a department store mannequin and Bosworth looked like she was about 17 and played Lois as if she was going through PMS the entire movie. The fact that this was supposed to be the exact same versions of the characters played by Reeve and Kidder was laughable to me.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 29, 2019 17:09:32 GMT
I don't think I saw that one. What was biggest problem with that film in your opinion? Probably the casting. Routh had all the charisma of a department store mannequin and Bosworth looked like she was about 17 and played Lois as if she was going through PMS the entire movie. The fact that this was supposed to be the exact same versions of the characters played by Reeve and Kidder was laughable to me. I will never understand why they didn’t just cast James Marsden and Parker Posey as Superman and Lois Lane. They were right there.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 29, 2019 17:14:44 GMT
There’s this comic book I remember reading years and years ago (no idea what it was called) in which Superman turns his attention towards solving all the world’s ills: poverty, hunger, disease, etc. There was this beautiful panel of him standing in front of Congress (or the U.N.?), if I remember correctly. He’s basically trying to save the world from itself, to make a heaven on earth (which harkens back to the liberal humanitarianism with which the character has always been imbued). And he finds, as all who try to make heaven on earth have found, that it’s impossible: his efforts succeed for a little while, but then people go right back to the way they always have been. He gets incredibly disheartened and cannot figure it out; he made the world so close to paradise. Then there’s this flashback where he talks to his dad (Kent, not Jor-El) and remembers that he is, at his core, just a human—albeit an incredible human—but not a god. He can’t save the world from itself, and he can’t remake Eden—and, when he has realized that, it enables him to go on helping mankind person-by-person, rather than in the abstract, and he gets out of the slump. It’s really just a superb comic, and what a lesson. But my point is, that’s what you do with Superman. That’s how you tell a story with him (and what the original Superman, as well as Superman Returns, did so well, and Superman II in part). The moment you start thinking he is a nigh-literal god, that the alien from Krypton stuff is the important part of the character, that’s when you lose him. He’s human, fully and particularly human; he’s not an “El,” he’s a Kent. And therefore he isn’t invulnerable, really, because he’s plagued by the same fears, desires, hates, needs, etc., as the rest of us. When you do that, he isn’t boring; he’s fascinating. There’s that moment in the original when he flies up to the heavens in rage after Lois dies and is torn between being god and man, between Jor-El and Jonathan Kent. That’s the stuff of Greek and Biblical tragedy. This is not a boring character; to the contrary. Similarly, there was this cartoon TV show Justice League that did a surprisingly grown-up look at these characters and told some clever stories to boot, and the pilot-episode has Superman ridding the world of nuclear weapons (probably based on Superman IV)—which ends up being the first step in aliens’ evil scheme or something silly like that. It’s not as thought-provoking as the comic book above because the threat is external rather than inherent in man, but the writers understood taking a piece of the character (again, liberal humanitarianism) and using it for the foundation of a story. So, no, like politicidal I can’t agree that Supes is too perfect or simplistic. The whole point of the character is that he could be a wrathful Jehovah, judging the sins of man, or that he could “…snap [his nemesis] like a twig if he really wanted to”—but that he chooses not to. Isn’t that interesting?
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on Jan 29, 2019 17:19:25 GMT
Superman 1 and 2 and Man of Steel are good movies
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 29, 2019 17:29:49 GMT
There’s this comic book I remember reading years and years ago (no idea what it was called) in which Superman turns his attention towards solving all the world’s ills: poverty, hunger, disease, etc. There was this beautiful panel of him standing in front of Congress (or the U.N.?), if I remember correctly. He’s basically trying to save the world from itself, to make a heaven on earth (which harkens back to the liberal humanitarianism with which the character has always been imbued). And he finds, as all who try to make heaven on earth have found, that it’s impossible: his efforts succeed for a little while, but then people go right back to the way they always have been. He gets incredibly disheartened and cannot figure it out; he made the world so close to paradise. Then there’s this flashback where he talks to his dad (Kent, not Jor-El) and remembers that he is, at his core, just a human—albeit an incredible human—but not a god. He can’t save the world from itself, and he can’t remake Eden—and, when he has realized that, it enables him to go on helping mankind person-by-person, rather than in the abstract, and he gets out of the slump. It’s really just a superb comic, and what a lesson. But my point is, that’s what you do with Superman. That’s how you tell a story with him (and what the original Superman, as well as Superman Returns, did so well, and Superman II in part). The moment you start thinking he is a nigh-literal god, that the alien from Krypton stuff is the important part of the character, that’s when you lose him. He’s human, fully and particularly human; he’s not an “El,” he’s a Kent. And therefore he isn’t invulnerable, really, because he’s plagued by the same fears, desires, hates, needs, etc., as the rest of us. When you do that, he isn’t boring; he’s fascinating. There’s that moment in the original when he flies up to the heavens in rage after Lois dies and is torn between being god and man, between Jor-El and Jonathan Kent. That’s the stuff of Greek and Biblical tragedy. This is not a boring character; to the contrary. Similarly, there was this cartoon TV show Justice League that did a surprisingly grown-up look at these characters and told some clever stories to boot, and the pilot-episode has Superman ridding the world of nuclear weapons (probably based on Superman IV)—which ends up being the first step in aliens’ evil scheme or something silly like that. It’s not as thought-provoking as the comic book above because the threat is external rather than inherent in man, but the writers understood taking a piece of the character (again, liberal humanitarianism) and using it for the foundation of a story. So, no, like politicidal I can’t agree that Supes is too perfect or simplistic. The whole point of the character is that he could be a wrathful Jehovah, judging the sins of man, or that he could “…snap [his nemesis] like a twig if he really wanted to”—but that he chooses not to. Isn’t that interesting? That’d be cool to see on film but it’s likely to never happen. For the next decade or so anyway. It’s downright embarrassing how much WB mishandled the character in the DCEU. I liked Cavill better than most but I cannot deny his portrayal has been shortchanged severely from fulfilling its full potential post-MoS.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 29, 2019 17:38:28 GMT
That’d be cool to see on film but it’s likely to never happen. For the next decade or so anyway. It’s downright embarrassing how much WB mishandled the character in the DCEU. I liked Cavill better than most but I cannot deny his portrayal has been shortchanged severely from fulfilling its full potential post-MoS. Well, I don’t mean to do that story; in fact, I don’t think that particular story would translate well to film (and it probably wouldn’t make a dime if an audience goes in expecting a blockbuster). All I mean is that that’s a good strategy with which to approach the character: find an aspect (in that case, the liberalism) or flaw and use it to construct a story. The people who did the animated show had one episode where Supes loses his humanity after Lois is killed and sets up a dictatorship with Luthor—that sort of thing. Or even Superman Returns, where the romance (and Lois’s moving on—“Who Needs Superman?”) is key. (I admit I’m a Superman Returns fan.) As for Cavill and the DCEU, I didn’t like the approach in MoS, and I just rewatched the movie the other day and still didn’t like it. On the other hand, I thought BvS actually allowed more of these themes and deeper meanings to come through, and I found it less boring than MoS, so I liked that one more. Justice League, unfortunately, I think a complete mess. So you may well be right, a great Superman movie is not likely to happen anytime soon. But at least we’ve got the original.
|
|