Comments on: What The Dark Knight Has Done: A New Direction at WB

By: christopher nolan

christopher nolan — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:10:26 +0000

guess what batman 3 movie starring christain bale andries price aS ROBIN// TIM DRAKE eddie murphy as the riddler ashely tisdale as catwoman. it's about batman and robin team up against the riddler and catwoman so batman 3 opens june 2011 see ya

By: Aravind

Aravind — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:25:07 +0000

Bryan Singer's film is the uglyest adaption of Superman franchise. He just took off what Richard Donner left with current film making styles. The movie settings, character development was so "Golden age" type. it's remebers those classic two dimensional "good and evil" comicbook characterisation, which in now a days is totally crap. that approch should have worked if he did SR in a 1960's time settings, just like Peter jackson's King kong.

But what he did was a Fanboy approch of Donner's Superman, even his Superman hair combing STYLE is completly opposite of COMICBOOK VERSION. And adding his offspring element was another kick to Superman franchise.

All in all throw Briyan out of WB, reboot the franchise may be give us Tom Willing as the new Superman.

By: Mr.Carl.Lee

Mr.Carl.Lee — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:07:23 +0000

I completely forgot about this running topic, so let me reconnect with this conversation.

@KevinCarr/@Joe: By no means is money a judge of success, you should know better than that… to reiterate, Superman’s flaw is that no one relates to him. Smallville doesn’t even have him at full power, which is probably the reason why the show is still on the air. He hasn’t even flown yet but all the socially inept fans flock to him, because they see his flaws, in themselves.

Bryan Singer’s film is probably the truest adaption of the character himself; ie. the ability to lift planes without a grimace, or nonchalantly looking over his shoulder to vaporize falling glass. Yeah, the kid comes out of nowhere and a rock of krypton should probably crush him… but at the end of it all, he’s forced to give it all up so that Lois can live a “normal” life. Even with all his power, he still can’t be with his one true love… and that’s kind of romantic, but also very lame–especially when he can crush “Cyclops”.

To Superman, villains mean nothing, he’s his own obstacle… so the comics resort to him dying, getting a new costume, updating his powers, attack is alter ego, or letting him tailspin out of control to keep him relevant. And his “self-sacrifice” well, they fix that too… have him fall in love with Wonder Woman–I mean he’s got to get laid, right?

By: k (Black)

k (Black) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:52:52 +0000

I’d like to say this. Ying/Yang. Superman’s charachter was never designed to be dark the way Batman’s character is. Has he had dark moments? Of course but that’s not where he lives. Superman has always been the epitome of what’s good and wholesome. Nothing wrong with that. Not every charachter has to be the
“Anti-hero” type. There are still Boy Scouts out there. Which is what Batman/Bruce Wayne often called Clark/Superman. A Boy Scout.

Change the costume!?-Fine Change the director?!-Fine Don’t change what has stood the test of time for 70+yrs. When you peel away all the layers the core should always be intact.

By: juggz143

juggz143 — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:28:42 +0000

Personally I’m all for a Doomsday storyline, though I don’t think DC has the balls to actually kill Supes at the of the movie but , I think that’d be a great way to restart the franchise with him dying and bring him back in part 2. Especially if it wasn’t promoted as ‘The Death of Superman’ and it was like a twist ending, people would go Ape-Shyt.

By: doctorwho904

doctorwho904 — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:25:10 +0000

see one reason I think TDK was so scuess full and why I saw it 7 tiimes in 9 days was A. It’s cast was phenamanal and B cause it was a very Human movie and what i mean by that is it’s a movie that we can relate to and inspire to be . i think if a movie inspires or moves the people it goes far beyond what you expected . and thats what it did for me

By: Johnny Boy

Johnny Boy — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:25:32 +0000

so what if Superman is indestructable? He can’t be everywhere at once all the time… and
thus will fail at saving people sometime. This is a great way to explore his psychology
instead of just a character that does incredible feats of strength.

By: Adam Sweeney

Adam Sweeney — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:22:12 +0000

Cole’s onto something. If you make Superman, an indestructible man, have to make decisions that affect vulnerable people then you have conflict. Nobody wants to see Superman have a kid. They want to see the Man of Steel and his companions put in danger. It’s what made the conflict between the Joker and Batman so intriguing, the fact that The Joker knew his weaknesses. Make no mistake, Superman may be indestructible physically, but as the Green Goblin said in Spiderman “Attack the heart.”

And Superman’s comic book sales have not always been stellar. “The Death of Superman,” one of the most popular comics of all-time, was specifically created to generate comic book sales. After that they gave Superman a new costume for a while, another attempt to make money. So while the Man of Steel himself may be, the Superman story is not bulletproof

By: Nico

Nico — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:01:13 +0000

I don”t care!!!!!!! I always liked Batman and I want to see another Batman movie to finish this franchise.

Superman and the rest… Batman is a human after all , that makes him more interesting.

By: Cole Abaius

Cole Abaius — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:02:39 +0000

Another way to bring Superman back is to stay true to the nature of his character as a near-perfect being. Revamps aside, Superman is indestructible. Shifting that to make a more interesting film would be difficult – you end up wanting his incredible strength but also want him to be vulnerable which is a major disconnect.

So keep him as the constant presence in story. An unchanged character. Let the characters around him go through a transformation because of him.

Oh, and you know, don’t make it a love story. Seriously. WTF.

By: HempKnight757

HempKnight757 — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:55:31 +0000

- First off I went & saw “Superman Returns” because off Brian Singer’s pervious work assuming it would be good not being that big of a fan of Superman. The fact that he lauched that crap of a Superman story on the big screen made me want to fall asleep more than “Pineapple Express”, no lie. Second off the fact that he would bail on the X-Men franchise to ruin Superman & then we had to deal with X-Men 3: Everyone Dies, Still no Gambit, & By The Way Night Crawler is Gone..word.

- Then Batman Begins I understand he didn’t want to rush it & that makes since, but I still hate the fact that there was no real bad guy. I like that he did an actual “original story” that had not been done in this sea of garbage remakes, but I just would have enjoyed it so much more if they made Scarecrow a bigger role player or someother guy more in the storyline. TDK I enjoyed very much, but Ledger messed it up god rest his soul. No sequel without him is setting them up to fall including without Aaron (which I thought his performace was excellent as well) if he doesn’t return. I just ask no Harley Quinn I think that would be wack personally. Then again it would be tight to have her, Joker, & Two-Face, but scratch that. I guess her, Two-Face or The Riddler, & Scarecrow all team up. The title “Dark Justice”..sorry best I got currently.

- Green Lantern I can’t belive that no one else is stoked for that, wtf?

By: mac17

mac17 — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:01:10 +0000

I see what the WB is getting at. There not going to make a Superman movie thats dark. There going to make a Superman with a far better story line and not make the Man of Steel look like a big jackass. Superman Returns with its special effects were breathtaking but the story was terrible. Thats the point thats being driven home, that you not only haft to to make a great visual movie but you also haft to have a compelling story line as well. Great special effects,CGI, and all that other crap meens nothing unless you have a story behind it. Superman can be done much like Iron Man was and even the Hulk was better the second time around. Thats the point.

By: Mister Hand

Mister Hand — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 09:33:29 +0000

It’s my understanding that the Superman comics, while major successes in the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s, have suffered from flagging sales ever since. Superman as a character was instantly recognizable as a symbol for America, and served as wish-fulfillment for an entire generation of Americans.

Frankly, I just don’t think Superman really works as a character in the post-Watergate world. I believe pre-70’s, most Americans were confident that the USA WAS a sort of world Superman, with the ability to solve any problem, to overcome any foe. That confidence has sort of wavered back and forth over the past three decades, and most of us have come to regard our place in the world with a little more healthy skepticism.

Ironically, I believe Donner’s SUPERMAN movie worked so well for it’s time precisely because his Superman was a vision of that sort of wide-eyed naivete that people were longing for in the mid-seventies. In the middle of one of the worst recessions in history, with the Cold War still ongoing, Donner’s film was the perfect escapist entertainment.

So if it were me, I would make it a fish out of water story. But it’s NOT the story of an alien who can’t fit in on Earth and blah-blah-blah. It’s the story of a Kansas farm boy who goes to the big city. The wide eyed, farm-fed, red-blooded, gung-ho kid comes to save the world and finds a cynical, sort of depressed, and at times very angry populace. But instead of being changed, through his actions, he changes THEM.

Anyway. There’s my two bits.

By: Joe

Joe — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 03:43:23 +0000

@Mr.Carl.Lee: by all rights the only Superman movie that has “failed” is Superman Returns and even that gained enough money to give DC/WB idea’s for a sequel, even Superman III with Richard Prior which was thought to be the worse before S.R. was a bigger success lol, if you mean it “failed” by your own expectations, ok then fine thats your opinion man

@Johnny Boy: agreed, for the origin story yea Clark was clumsy and so on, but even in the comics he’s moved on from that, the movies have been around for over 20 years, I think its time Clark eased up on the bumbling baffon act, yea slip it in there once in awhile but not 24/7, in the comics he’s still “Clark” but he has more confidence while not giving away that he’s Superman, he acts more human then just that guy blending into the background

@Kevin Carr: everything you said…..I couldn’t have said it better lol

By: Johnny Boy

Johnny Boy — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:54:34 +0000

They need to make Clark Kent interesting, not simply a clumsy news reporter disguise for
Superman. If they took time to make Clark Kent as interesting as Superman, but both
alienated from people in different ways… then Clark/Superman wouldn’t have any place
where he truly fits in… except maybe at the kent Farm with his Mom and Dad.

it’d also be great to have some realism in the physics of superman. I mentioned this in
another thread, but I think it’s really dumb that Superman flies at a 100+ mph and still
manages to have neatly combed hair when he comes in for the landing.