New Superman Film

MetalGuy71 wrote:

My son expressed an interest in seeing it, but I'm not sure that a 5 year old can handle and 2 and a half hour movie. Especially if they go through an hour or so of build-up before you even see the guy in blue tights and cape.

I'll probably wait this one out till it hits OnDemand.

Quote :

But the other part is, being a long-time Superman fanatic, I've been reading plot synopses and getting really turned off by how they work outside of the Siegel/Shuster mythology.

Probably to avoid paying royalties to the family.  But I also thought the same thing with the Spiderman re-boot. They added so much more pointless backstory. I understand the need to change things up for a new generation of watchers, but to me it just seemed unnecessary.

Exactly. It seems similar to when Crisis came out and came up with some really goofy continuity changes that blew off any sort of serious conflict in exchange for...well, from what I read it just got bizarre. The original premise held so much weight to be relevant.

How is backstory pointless?

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

How is backstory pointless?

It was pointless in the Spiderman movie because he already had an established backstory that worked just fine. The new version added more "insight" that didn't need to be there and added nothing to the plot. Therefore, pointless.

I haven't seen the new Superman, so I don't know how that movie plays out.

This is one movie that I am pretty skeptical about. I like the cheese factor of the old Superman flicks and Superman Returns was horrendous!! The wife really wants to see it tho, so I will more than likely take her to the movies very very soon.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

How is backstory pointless?

It was pointless in the Spiderman movie because he already had an established backstory that worked just fine. The new version added more "insight" that didn't need to be there and added nothing to the plot. Therefore, pointless.

I haven't seen the new Superman, so I don't know how that movie plays out.

nah...it wasn't pointless. It doesn't have to necessarily have to be part of the plot so much as offer insight into the character's mindset and actions. It may not always affect the actual story that's unfolding, but (for me) it offers underlying explanations to the way the character behaves, thinks, etc.

But that's just me. All "reboot" movies will have backstory with subtle changes from the preceding film in order to set itself apart...

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

How is backstory pointless?

It was pointless in the Spiderman movie because he already had an established backstory that worked just fine. The new version added more "insight" that didn't need to be there and added nothing to the plot. Therefore, pointless.

I haven't seen the new Superman, so I don't know how that movie plays out.

nah...it wasn't pointless. It doesn't have to necessarily have to be part of the plot so much as offer insight into the character's mindset and actions. It may not always affect the actual story that's unfolding, but (for me) it offers underlying explanations to the way the character behaves, thinks, etc.

But that's just me. All "reboot" movies will have backstory with subtle changes from the preceding film in order to set itself apart...

Nope. That's where I gotta disagree.

For decades, all we knew was Peter Parker's parents were killed and he lived with Aunt May & Uncle Ben. When Uncle Ben gets killed by an assailant that Peter could've prevented hours before, he's racked with guilt and that's his motivation to do what he does. Simple and to the point.

Adding the backstory that Pete's dad was a brilliant scientist and working on some top-secret project that got him and his wife killed by the government or spies or whatever, and was friends with the lizard, was unnecessary. Pete's dad could've just as easily been a janitor and had too many beers before getting behind the wheel. It wouldn't have made any difference to Peter's final outcome.

I understand why the movie companies feel the need to tweak the stories and pad out the running time, but it doesn't make it anymore relevant to me.

I think that they added backstory to the Spiderman movie because these days, not even small children are going to buy the 'radiation gives you superpowers!' ) thing.

corplhicks wrote:

I'm also surprised they allow Lois Lane to discover everything regarding Superman before the costume is even worn, which again is another essential element being robbed.

On the other hand, I suppose it avoids the potentially sticky issue that if Lois Lane is such a brilliant reporter then how come she never figured out that Clark Kent and Superman were the same person? While that obviously didn't come up in this movie, it could do so in the sequels.

Citanul wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

I'm also surprised they allow Lois Lane to discover everything regarding Superman before the costume is even worn, which again is another essential element being robbed.

On the other hand, I suppose it avoids the potentially sticky issue that if Lois Lane is such a brilliant reporter then how come she never figured out that Clark Kent and Superman were the same person?  While that obviously didn't come up in this movie, it could do so in the sequels.

Ahhhh, but this is a good point. Later in the 40's they started exploring this further especially since Superman's popularity (in the comic universe) exploded. Before that he was more or less an enigma to many. Anyway, the thing with Lois not noticing the obvious duality of SuperClark is an essential portion of her character: she's self-involved to the point of being oblivious. Her ambitions as a reporter were for her benefit alone, and her type-A personality kept her from truly looking around her. This is why she would always rush head-first into trouble without thinking of the consequences. Plus, if you look at the strips when Lois and Clark start field reporting together--this is explored further in the 90's TV show--there's always an edgy competition between the two because Lois wants the ultimate scoop before Clark can get to it. She would always rush into gathering intel and gloss over details. In other words...no, she wasn't a great reporter, she was just driven. This was in contrast to SuperClark's nature of exposing a story for the benefit of justice, the regards of society, and ultimately the love of Lois. So there's a moral context here that's missed in every movie made of Superman. Lois's objectivism is her ultimate downfall and the reason she couldn't discover Superman's identity. What makes this all the more interesting is how SuperClark's nature becomes a gradual paradigm shift for Lois (this is fully exploited in Death of Superman) and the transformation of her character from self-sustaining to dependent on the good of humanity.

TL; DR: Lois was a selfish bitch.

I enjoyed it, but I felt like some of the action was pretty thrown together.... "you know what.. let's just get this over with for the explosion fans"... considering how elegantly a lot of the rest was, that let me down. Something like 'Watchmen' on the other hand was flawless in every direction.

The main requests from Chinese theater-owners to Hollywood film studios:

1. More event pictures with lots of explosions and special effects and 3D.
2. Less dialogue, more physical comedy
3. Less politics

S.D. wrote:

The main requests from Chinese theater-owners to Hollywood film studios:

1. More event pictures with lots of explosions and special effects and 3D.
2. Less dialogue, more physical comedy
3. Less politics

They really feel the need to request that? Pretty much everything produced by the big studios fits that bill perfectly. Still, there will always be interesting films out there, it just looks as though the big Hollywood studios will not be making them.

I've only really liked the 1st two Batman movies and Kickass out of this deluge of superhero films, and Kickass hardly qualifies.

S.D. wrote:

The main requests from Chinese theater-owners to Hollywood film studios:

1. More event pictures with lots of explosions and special effects and 3D.
2. Less dialogue, more physical comedy
3. Less politics

Given the criteria I think I've found the perfect franchise to reboot  



ROADRUNNER 3D!!!!!!!!!!!

Orion Crystal Ice wrote:

I enjoyed it, but I felt like some of the action was pretty thrown together.... "you know what.. let's just get this over with for the explosion fans"... considering how elegantly a lot of the rest was, that let me down. Something like 'Watchmen' on the other hand was flawless in every direction.

What struck me about Watchmen was how, well, flat-out boring it was for me even though it was hyper-loyal to the original comic (but did they really have to leave out the Squid?), even artistically. After talking with some other fans of the series, it seems that the translation is what made it dull--it had little to offer beyond animating what we've already read. That and the slo-mo became repetitive.

Generally for comic book fans, movie counterparts fail. While some can be enjoyable as a separate creation (Donner's Superman, Raimi's Spiderman 1 & 2, Iron Man), others fall flat when they lose the poignant themes that were central to the characters of the original material. If you're too loyal, like Watchmen, the familiarity is too present. But most of the time, a comic book is worlds different from a motion picture, and 24 fps cannot replicate the feeling one gets from three pages a minute. Then there's Sin City. Why no one has filmed in such a style since--except for Miller's The Spirit, a real joke--is anyone's guess. That was quite a comic book movie.