|
Post by drystyx on Jan 29, 2019 17:52:31 GMT
It's actually easiest to make a good Superman movie. He's the most interesting of the comic book characters, with supreme powers, but the code against killing limits him and makes it so he has to think It's basically just the special effects that are tough to do.
", The reason we have only the first two that are good is because the first two didn't sell out to Hollywood hate formula that most people (at least most people outside the bubble boys of IMDB) find so trite, irritating, and most of all depressing.
That's why there aren't any good Batman movies, and most of them are 1/10 flops. They're made for the "hate mongering bubble boys", spoiled brats who just want to make all their family members depressed.
Hollywood has helped to promote the worst writers in History to be the only writers in the pool. That ensures no competition, which is the only they want. One has only to look at the first two Superman movies, which stayed true to good writing and originality, to daring to challenge the code of Hollywood hate and "alienate the audience"..
On the third Superman film, it still stayed true to the dare to challenge typical Hollywood, but it was more of a "vanity movie", such as a vanity book. The opening sequence was a strong hint to that, in which many actors and actresses were allowed to demonstrate their comic abilities. It was basically just a showcase. Not a "bad" movie, just not a "good" one.
After that, at least Superman didn't become as pathetic as Batman, whose movies were nothing like what the Batman world was supposed to be originally. But the writers worked too hard to just confuse the audience, and pride themselves on some arrogance that wasn't earned.
Meanwhile, the Batman movies, which were really depictions of Dante's Inferno, the man traveling through Hell and wanting to do something about it (movies based on Dante's Divine Comedy are usually Westerns like THE QUICK AND THE DEAD, THE COMMANCHEROS, SPRINGFIELD RIFLE, CRIPPLE CREEK); these Batman movies were trite clichés, and would have been clichés as long as 50 years ago.
Sometimes, the poor writers in the writer's guild will learn from unsolicited scripts by better writers, how to be inspiring, and do a good script, but it's rare.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 29, 2019 17:56:27 GMT
It's actually easiest to make a good Superman movie. He's the most interesting of the comic book characters, with supreme powers, but the code against killing limits him and makes it so he has to think It's basically just the special effects that are tough to do. ", The reason we have only the first two that are good is because the first two didn't sell out to Hollywood hate formula that most people (at least most people outside the bubble boys of IMDB) find so trite, irritating, and most of all depressing. That's why there aren't any good Batman movies, and most of them are 1/10 flops. They're made for the "hate mongering bubble boys", spoiled brats who just want to make all their family members depressed. Hollywood has helped to promote the worst writers in History to be the only writers in the pool. That ensures no competition, which is the only they want. One has only to look at the first two Superman movies, which stayed true to good writing and originality, to daring to challenge the code of Hollywood hate and "alienate the audience".. On the third Superman film, it still stayed true to the dare to challenge typical Hollywood, but it was more of a "vanity movie", such as a vanity book. The opening sequence was a strong hint to that, in which many actors and actresses were allowed to demonstrate their comic abilities. It was basically just a showcase. Not a "bad" movie, just not a "good" one. After that, at least Superman didn't become as pathetic as Batman, whose movies were nothing like what the Batman world was supposed to be originally. But the writers worked too hard to just confuse the audience, and pride themselves on some arrogance that wasn't earned. Meanwhile, the Batman movies, which were really depictions of Dante's Inferno, the man traveling through Hell and wanting to do something about it (movies based on Dante's Divine Comedy are usually Westerns like THE QUICK AND THE DEAD, THE COMMANCHEROS, SPRINGFIELD RIFLE, CRIPPLE CREEK); these Batman movies were trite clichés, and would have been clichés as long as 50 years ago. Sometimes, the poor writers in the writer's guild will learn from unsolicited scripts by better writers, how to be inspiring, and do a good script, but it's rare. Pardon? (My usual reaction after reading one of your posts.)
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 29, 2019 18:47:41 GMT
If they would just remake the animated movies they would be fine.
Doomsday from a few years ago is fantastic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 21:15:22 GMT
The problem isn't that Superman isn't an interesting character, it's that they rarely do anything interesting with him in movies.
They need to branch out and tap into the more high concept parts of his unviverse. I want to see him fight villains like Parasite, Braniac, and Darkseid who challenge his power. Show his internal struggle to keep his power under control and how he inspires hope in people.
They could even take inspiration from the newer comics and have him be married to Lois with a son he is teaching to use his powers.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jan 29, 2019 21:43:59 GMT
They should be thinking of it along the lines of a simple serial adventure story but they inject all the political and intellectual BS. They overthink it. On the other hand, since he is all-powerful there are some problems since the suspense potential is more limited. How many times can they bring out the kryptonite?
Then there is the skin color problem. In the 70s, Superman was the alien, so it didn't matter that he resembled a white guy--but political message nonsense has become so dominant that even a pale male alien who is successful or positive is un-PC. They don't say to themselves: what kind of interesting story can we tell?
Instead it's like: how can we convey our political agenda using this brand, and also make it readable to audiences in Asia?
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jan 30, 2019 0:09:38 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. While I understand that argument, I always find it to be false. Why? Because we all know Batman is still going to win in the end. It doesn't matter that he's more human and vulnerable. He's still the hero and he's still going to win. Just the same exact way Superman is going to win. The same as Indiana Jones, James Bond and Rocky.
How do you overwhelm Supermans great powers? Have him go up against someone even more powerful! They just haven't done it yet. Darkseid, Brainiac, Bizarro, Doomsday, Cyborg Superman, Mongul, even the Parasite and Mxyzptlk. All great villains.
The problem isn't Superman. Its the choices the filmmakers have been making with his movies. But of course everyone attributes those failings to the character.
I could write an entire franchise of movies for Superman without ever using Luthor or Zod once and still give him real challenges. I don't see the problem. Use your imagination.
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Jan 30, 2019 0:18:46 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. While I understand that argument, I always find it to be false. Why? Because we all know Batman is still going to win in the end. It doesn't matter that he's more human and vulnerable. He's still the hero and he's still going to win. Just the same exact way Superman is going to win. The same as Indiana Jones, James Bond and Rocky.
How do you overwhelm Supermans great powers? Have him go up against someone even more powerful! They just haven't done it yet. Darkseid, Brainiac, Bizarro, Doomsday, Cyborg Superman, Mongul, even the Parasite and Mxyzptlk. All great villains.
The problem isn't Superman. Its the choices the filmmakers have been making with his movies. But of course everyone attributes those failings to the character.
I could write an entire franchise of movies for Superman without ever using Luthor or Zod once and still give him real challenges. I don't see the problem. Use your imagination.
Exactly right. I think the whole reasoning that he's not interesting because he isn't vulnerable enough is spurious.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jan 30, 2019 1:20:48 GMT
The problem isn't that Superman isn't an interesting character, it's that they rarely do anything interesting with him in movies. They need to branch out and tap into the more high concept parts of his unviverse. I want to see him fight villains like Parasite, Braniac, and Darkseid who challenge his power. Show his internal struggle to keep his power under control and how he inspires hope in people. They could even take inspiration from the newer comics and have him be married to Lois with a son he is teaching to use his powers. That's what I'm talking about!
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Jan 30, 2019 1:31:11 GMT
I always felt that Superman shines best as a character in the face of opposition. Like @snakeeyes43 noted, they need to bring out high-powered supervillains like Brainiac, Metallo, and Bizarro to challenge his strength. I would save Darkseid for a potential Justice League film. Sometimes, it is the villain, moreso than the hero, that actually elevates the movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2019 6:48:27 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. I kinda disagree with you on this one Bartlesby. I think Superman can be an interesting character. 'Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman' with Dean Cain and Teri Hatcher showed that and the show brought in 20-30 million viewers a week at its peak beating a lot of other shows in the 90s that regularly appear on lists of the Greatest TV Shows of all time. Unlike the movies 'Lois and Clark' took the approach of having Clark Kent as the main character and Superman as the costume he put on when he went out to save the world and not the character being Superman and Clark Kent being the disguise he wore and a lot of people loved the show 'cause of that and 'Smallville' took the same approach to the character too with Clark not becoming Superman to the end and the show run for 10 seasons and had a very strong and dedicated fanbase. In comparison to 'Lois and Clark', 'Smallville' and 'Adventures of Superman' (with George Reeve) I would say most of the movies have been nowhere near as good as the TV shows and the TV writers have done a far better job handling Superman than Hollywood.
One of the main problems in my opinion is the overuse of Lex Luthor. Superman has a heap of villains like Braniac, Bizario, Parasite, Imperiex, Atomic Skull, Lobo, Darkseid, Doomsday, Maxima, Mongul, The Eradicator, Maxima, Intergang, Cyborg Superman, Metalio and Toyman and many of those can not only hurt him but can kill him but Warner Bros refuse to take any risks and continue to use Lex Luthor over and over again which has lead to many people who haven'tread the comic books or watched 'Smallville' (which was the first to feature a number of his other villains like Braniac, Bizario, Doomsday and Darkseid) thinking Kryptonite is the only thing that can hurt Superman which is actually far from true.
|
|