# Christopher Nolan to oversee Superman 3.0 Reboot



## FitzChivalry (Feb 9, 2010)

Evidently, 

Sample quote:


> Warner Bros is trying to ready its DC Comics stalwart Superman to soar again on the Big Screen, and the studio has turned to Chris Nolan to mentor development of the movie. Our insiders say that the brains behind rebooted Batman has been asked to play a "godfather" role and ensure The Man Of Steel gets off the ground after a 3 1/2-year hiatus. Nolan's leadership of the project can set it in the right direction with the critics and the fans, not to mention at the box office. Besides, Nolan is considered something of a god at Warner Bros and has a strong relationship with the studio after the success of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Though he wasn’t obligated to do so, he gave the studio first crack at his spec script Inception, and Warner Bros was able to buy it before other studios even got a sniff. While Nolan completes that Leonardo DiCaprio-starrer for a July 16th release, he's also hatched an idea for Warner Bros' third Batman installment. Now his brother and frequent collaborator Jonathan "Jonah" Nolan, and David Goyer who co-wrote Batman Begins and penned the story for The Dark Knight, are off scripting it.


If you want more, click the link.



I don't think he's directing, but he's supervising the development of an uncrappy Superman. I do think he'll be on to direct the third Batman, though. Thoughts?


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Feb 9, 2010)

What is he, the actual director's supervisor or something?


----------



## Chee (Feb 9, 2010)

HOLY SHIT. AWESOME.

He might be a producer?



> Besides, Nolan is considered something of a god at Warner Bros and has a strong relationship with the studio after the success of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.



God seems like the right term for his status at WB.


----------



## Bart (Feb 9, 2010)

This could be really good 

But I pondering whether whether Superman is now a part of the Batman Universe, as far as Nolan's films go, as he did say he didn't want any other superheroes, abilities etc to take away the realism of his Batman films; something along those lines.


----------



## Castiel (Feb 9, 2010)

This raises my hope of getting a solidified film DCU

and watching bale be JLA batman (whenever he's in JLA Batman always uses crazy gadgets and does completely insane stuff he doesn't usually do in his solo titles) on the screen


----------



## Bender (Feb 9, 2010)

Christopher Nolan= The Grant Morrison of the film industry pek pek pek


----------



## Castiel (Feb 9, 2010)

things that need to be fixed about the franchise


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Feb 9, 2010)

This is so much better than what I thought they would do. Hire someone to "Nolanize" Superman, which would probably end up being god awful.

But yea I have no problem with Nolan supervising the Film DCU. I WANT TO SEE BATMAN/SUPERMAN AWESOMENESS!

EDIT: Posted this over in the DC movies thread, figured i'd copy it here.

So do you guys think that there will actually be a film DCU?

To be honest i wouldn't want Bale's batman to actually show up in the superman movie, but a mention of his existence, just the fact that yes, they do live in the same universe would be so freaking awesome.

Hell, i'd be happy if they just followed the superman cartoon. Where martha says something like "Maybe people should learn a bit more about superman, I don't want you ending up like that nut in gotham"


----------



## Chee (Feb 9, 2010)

> While Nolan completes that Leonardo DiCaprio-starrer for a July 16th release, he's also hatched an idea for Warner Bros' third Batman installment.



Hasn't been confirmed, but Nolan has an idea for Batman 3? COME ON WB! Just say it. Nolan is back!


----------



## Bear Walken (Feb 9, 2010)

The reboot is off to a great start.


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Feb 9, 2010)

Bartallen2 said:


> This could be really good
> 
> But I pondering whether whether Superman is now a part of the Batman Universe, as far as Nolan's films go, as he did say he didn't want any other superheroes, abilities etc to take away the realism of his Batman films; something along those lines.



I think that this is a "have your cake and eat it too" situation.

The batman franchise can still be completely independent from Superman, while still acknowledging that both exist in the same universe.

For the most part, the bat-universe in comics is similarly isolated for the majority of the time.


----------



## Gabe (Feb 9, 2010)

he is a good choice and should be ask to direct it as well as the 3rd batman


----------



## Chee (Feb 9, 2010)

NAM, he's probably to busy. Inception will probably become a franchise if it does well.


----------



## Gabe (Feb 9, 2010)

really i did not know he wanted to make the Inception into a franchise.


----------



## Chee (Feb 9, 2010)

I'm just guessing. Inception means "to begin," so I'm thinking that it might the first film of a series?


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 9, 2010)

Im town between my love for Nolan and my hatred for remakes.......Seriously guys, there would be a rule to wait at least 10 years before remaking.......Ugh, it's so freaking confusing.

There are originally 4 Superman movies, one good, one uneven, two crappy.....Then Superman Returns comes in that apparently is meant to be the REAL Superman 3....but the plot is prety much a remake to the first movie.......

Now they want to do it again? It was just 4 years ago man......

This is a bad sign for me. This means that every time a movie messes up, they will try again, and again, and again.......Soon, there won't be as many sequels as there have been remakes. 

In fact, the remake has been the new sequel. Do the studios really think that audiences care about the difference?

The 2003 Hulk movie made 245,000,000 on a 137,000,000 budget. It got mixed reviews. Some people liked it, others REALLy hated it. Then came the 2008 version, which got similar reviews(in fact, those who hated the first one liked this one, while those who liked the first liked this one). It made 263,000,000 on a 150,000,000 budget.

It made like 5,000,000 more in profit. 

The 2004 Punisher cost 15.5 million and grossed around 55,000,000. It did recieve mostly negative reviews. 

So in 2008, they did Punisher Warzone. It cost 35,000,000 and grossed 10,000,000. The hell? 

"Batman begins" came out 8 years after "Batman and Robin". It worked because "Batman and Robin" was universally hated and showed that the camp days had worn out. "Batman Begins" took it in a new, dark, gritty direction that wouldnt work during the Burton-Schoemocker days. 

Plus, it didn't have to be taken as a reboot. It was a reboot AND a prequel. It never overlapped the continuity of the other films, while never confirming it. hence, the first REAL reboot of Batman was "The Dark Knight".

But why Superman? Why Spiderman? What can you do differently? I mean, Batman had reason for remake. The old ones were campy and kid friendly. The newer one could be much more character driven and darker.

Superman Returns, more-or-less, went down that route but failed. Spiderman 3 partially went down that route and mostly failed.....But it was still a smash hit financially and I think fans would easily overlook it if Spiderman 4 turned out to be good.

Seriously, what could they do with it that they couldn't do 5 years ago? 

I have to say I'm very disappointed in Christopher Nolan for attaching himself to this project. "Superman" does not need to be rebooted yet. "Batman" did need a reboot. It just shows he's doing this for the money.


----------



## Chee (Feb 9, 2010)

^^ Doubt he'll get a lot of money for "overseeing" the reboot. 



> Im town between my love for Nolan and my hatred for remakes.......Seriously guys, there would be a rule to wait at least 10 years before remaking.......Ugh, it's so freaking confusing.



And loose their rights to those movies? Not happening.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 9, 2010)

Chee said:


> ^^ Doubt he'll get a lot of money for "overseeing" the reboot.
> 
> 
> 
> And loose their rights to those movies? Not happening.



1) Actually, he probably will. After TDK, he's going to get paid ALOT for anything he does. Even if he's just an in-name only producer, having his name attached will assure the big bucks. 

2) It just goes to show that their motivations are of greed.


----------



## Castiel (Feb 9, 2010)

> "Superman" does not need to be rebooted yet.


You're joking right.  I seriously need to know this.

Returns was absolutely horrific to anyone who knows the character.  They utterly gutted the character, *literally* copy pasted the plot of the last 4 movies and mixed them together in ungodly diseased inbred thing, and just god this movie was lame as fuck.

Seriously when it comes to Superman they did everything wrong.  and i'm not saying this as a fanboy.  Pretty much every single major comic writer who has written Superman have all stated this movie blows, and i mean the A list writers.


----------



## Bender (Feb 9, 2010)

> I have to say I'm very disappointed in Christopher Nolan for attaching himself to this project. "Superman" does not need to be rebooted yet. "Batman" did need a reboot. It just shows he's doing this for the money.



What the fuck are you smoking and where can I get it? I wanna skewer the friend that made you sound crazier than the average bear.


----------



## Ennoea (Feb 9, 2010)

> It just shows he's doing this for the money.



I doubt it MH. Nolan is doing this as a favour more than anything. I think Warner learnt their lesson from giving Singer full control for the last one.

I'm not sure about a remake either but I don't want a continuation from Returns.


----------



## Castiel (Feb 9, 2010)

I personally just want an actual *Superman* movie, not asking for much, just a movie where the character _acts_ like Superman and that can entertain me.


----------



## Ennoea (Feb 9, 2010)

And a Lois Lane that isn't such an annoying twerp.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 9, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> In fact, the remake has been the new sequel. Do the studios really think that audiences care about the difference?
> 
> The 2003 Hulk movie made 245,000,000 on a 137,000,000 budget. It got mixed reviews. *Some people liked it*, others REALLy hated it. Then came the 2008 version, which got similar reviews(in fact, those who hated the first one liked this one, while those who liked the first liked this one). It made 263,000,000 on a 150,000,000 budget.
> 
> ...



1. Can you find these people for me?

2. I have no idea why that other Punisher film was made either (the movie video games were fantastic however)

3. Spiderman 3 was a smash hit, because of how much of a smash hit 1 and 2 were and because some people heard how bad it was and went to laugh

4. Anyone who doesn't consider Begins a Reboot is in Denial

5. Superman Returns was BORING, not SUPERMAN and did I mention BORING and the ending left little that another director coming in would want to work with.

6. Between Superman Returns and now, TDK has come out and done crazy good and Marvel has gotten their act together and released great films on character with some of their biggest characters.

7. I'm hoping here that with this and the Green Lantern movie coming so closely at the same time DC can start to build the connections between their movies that Marvel has



and Finally I don't understand why this whole thing with Nolan is going down other than to use his name as like a seal of quality for the movie not being garbage. a Superman Movie needs to be Everything that TDK and Begins wasn't when it comes to these kinds of movies.

I am also afraid that any Superman Film that comes out in this climate will either 1) downplay the threats in the Movie (See RETURNS), 2) take too long on the Origin part and too little on the SUPERMAN part.


Here is all the origin story a Superman Movie needs, re do this live action and stick the Opening Credits of the movie over it


----------



## Ennoea (Feb 9, 2010)

> 1. Can you find these people for me?



I liked the first Hulk movie.



> 4. Anyone who doesn't consider Begins a Reboot is in Denial



Begins was more of an origins story, TDK was the reboot.



> and Finally I don't understand why this whole thing with Nolan is going down other than to use his name as like a seal of quality for the movie not being garbage. a Superman Movie needs to be Everything that TDK and Begins wasn't when it comes to these kinds of movies.



Nolan is not writing or directing the movie, only overseeing, theres a difference. The whole "its gonna turn out like TDK," paranoia is unfounded.


----------



## John (Feb 9, 2010)

Here's hoping it has a decent villain. Is Hugo Weaving as Brainiac really too much to ask?


----------



## Ennoea (Feb 9, 2010)

I just hope its fun, no overdramatics or angsty Clark Kent.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 9, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> I liked the first Hulk movie.
> 
> Begins was more of an origins story, TDK was the reboot.
> 
> Nolan is not writing or directing the movie, only overseeing, theres a difference. The whole "its gonna turn out like TDK," paranoia is unfounded.



Interesting I thought you people were a myth, and you may have just helped why I like Begins more than TDK.

To think that WB didn't see how Popular TDK was and try to infuse some of what made it work into a Superman Movie is naive.


----------



## Ennoea (Feb 9, 2010)

> To think that WB didn't see how Popular TDK was and try to infuse some of what made it work into a Superman Movie is naive.



I know but from what I've read WB don't wanna go down the "gritty" or a realistic route because that would kill the movie.



> Interesting I thought you people were a myth,



Im not much of a Hulk fan anway but other than the film being too dark (couldn't make out the action scene at the end) I enjoyed it.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 9, 2010)

I think that is what it was with those movies the people who read Hulk comics before seeing the movie tended to like Norton Banner more


----------



## Shark Skin (Feb 9, 2010)

Not sure I really care if Nolan is just supervising the making of the movie than actually having a large hand in the making. As others have said, it just sounds like they're throwing Nolan's name around to raise expectations for this Superman reboot.


----------



## Rukia (Feb 9, 2010)

I'd prefer Michael Bay.


----------



## Gabe (Feb 9, 2010)

the villain should be doomsday


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Feb 9, 2010)

NAM said:


> the villain should be doomsday



Save that for the sequel

Brainiac (with lex in the background) all the way.

As for Nolan, i'd like to think of It this way. If he had been in this situation for superman returns, he'd probably be like "Hmm, how bout no." and it probably would have resulted in a better film being made.

However. The only thing i'm worried about (since I don't know Nolan's personality) is that he'll end up pissing the director off so much that the movie ends up terrible.


----------



## The Big G (Feb 9, 2010)

I want General Zod. 


I squee with fanboy joy every time i hear "Come to me Son of Jor-El...KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!


ANd with Nolan being the Guru of it...maybe one day we'll get a World's Finest Movie


----------



## Roy (Feb 9, 2010)

This'll be good.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 9, 2010)

Kilowog said:


> You're joking right.  I seriously need to know this.
> 
> Returns was absolutely horrific to anyone who knows the character.  They utterly gutted the character, *literally* copy pasted the plot of the last 4 movies and mixed them together in ungodly diseased inbred thing, and just god this movie was lame as fuck.
> 
> Seriously when it comes to Superman they did everything wrong.  and i'm not saying this as a fanboy.  Pretty much every single major comic writer who has written Superman have all stated this movie blows, and i mean the A list writers.



- I agree that it was lame, but does that mean that a remake should be made in sequel time? 

Think about it. Everyone knows that Superman is a cash cow, as he's arguably the most popular superhero ever, and with the Batman movies, they figure that interest in Superman will be at an all time high. But they mucked up with Superman Returns. If we support them rebooting it ONLY 3 YEARS after the last attempt, then the studio will start thinking that they can reboot any mistake that make that shortly after.

Soon, there will be remakes of the same movie coming out every 2 years. I say let them suffer the failure of Superman Returns to teach the studios a lesson. Wait another 5-10 years, THEN they can try it again and we can hope that it's being more than a cash cow. 

They're rebooting it not because "Returns" sucked. They're rebooting it because it didn't make the money they wanted. Do you really think another remake will be any better?



Blaze of Glory said:


> What the fuck are you smoking and where can I get it? I wanna skewer the friend that made you sound crazier than the average bear.



-Not really sure what you're responding too, but I notice that you seem to be the resident flamer who is incapable of making any kind of argument.



Ennoea said:


> I doubt it MH. Nolan is doing this as a favour more than anything. I think Warner learnt their lesson from giving Singer full control for the last one.
> 
> I'm not sure about a remake either but I don't want a continuation from Returns.



Do you guys remember when X-Men 2 came out? Everyone was hailing Singer as the greatest thing ever. 

Think about this. Nolan persued "Batman Begins". TDK was an expansion on that vision. Look at "Inception". It looks awesome, but it also looks sort of like a vanity project. The fact is, Nolan hasn't screwed up yet because he has persued these projects. He WILL make a mistake eventually, because all filmmakers do, but so far, he has stayed true to his vision.

The studio went to Nolan. If Nolan went to the studio, then I could presume he had some great ideas before signing on for the remake. 

Another thought, the previous Batman movies had been style-over-substance. Liked the Burton films or not, the major success of those films were its gothic imagery. Furthermore, for some reason, they focused more on the villains. Nolan focused more on the character of Batman. 

But Superman and Superman 2 already covered that, focusing on Supermans inner struggle. So once again, what more can they do besides put a lot more special effects in there? We saw that already......with Superman Returns.



Taleran said:


> 1. Can you find these people for me?
> 
> 2. I have no idea why that other Punisher film was made either (the movie video games were fantastic however)
> 
> ...



1) imdb gave it a 5.7/10, rotten tomatoes gave it a 61%(which means 61% of the critics there liked it), arrow in the head gave it a 3/4, Ebert gave it a 3/4......I'd probably give it a 2.5/4....Seriously, the Hulk hate bugs me only because detractors flat out refuse to exist that the movie has fans......Most movies have fans....Hell, ALL movies have fans........Hulk 03 is just split down the middle(and its remake wasnt any better).

2) I agree Spiderman 3 was only a success because the first 2 movies were....Once again, it got mixed reviews. It's not like its universally hated. But I dont think people hated it enough to not go to Spiderman 4.....unless maybe Spiderman 4 got worse reviews than SM3.

3) Yeah, actually, I made a mistake here, as Batman 89 had the Joker killing Batmans parents, while Begins had some random guy doing the deed....so my bad there.

4) I agree Superman Returns is boring. My argument isn't against that. I simply dont believe that studios should be so quick to reboot any possible cash cow they can get. What happened if the next Batman movie sucked? Would you want them to discard the previous 2 movies just so they can try again? 

That's like getting a divorce every time you fight with your spouse. 

5) Marvel? Since TDK, they've released Iron Man.....which was great. They've also released Punisher Warzone and X-men origins....You really think they've gotten their shit together? You're thinking too high of them.

The new Batman movies were only good because the director/writer had a vision of something that wasn't studio friendly. This is why X Men and X men 2 were good, while X-men 3 was not.


----------



## Chee (Feb 9, 2010)

Batman Begins was a reboot. It restarted the Batman franchise and that's what reboots are.


----------



## Roy (Feb 9, 2010)

Who the fuck would deny that Batman *Begins* isn't a reboot? :S


----------



## Chee (Feb 9, 2010)

Martial, WB is a company. They want to save money at all costs. Why would they wait ten years and invest millions of dollars for rights that they already have (oh, and there is a chance that they could loose those wits to another company that buys them for more money)?

Superman Returns was awful, it had a hard time returning the budget and critics and fans were (majority) displeased. A reboot will be fine, considering the only good Superman movie was made over 30 years ago. 

And Christopher Nolan isn't selling out, he's practically stamping a seal of approval on the film and that's it.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 9, 2010)

> 5) Marvel? Since TDK, they've released Iron Man.....which was great. They've also released Punisher Warzone and X-men origins....You really think they've gotten their shit together? You're thinking too high of them.



Punisher Movies and X Men Origins (Highly Entertaining) WEREN'T MADE BY MARVEL

and that is a very KEY point


----------



## Rukia (Feb 9, 2010)

I don't consider Batman Begins to be that much of a reboot.

Gotham City in that movie looks the same as it did in Batman and Robin. The buildings are similar, the transit system is similar.

I think the movie might have even made a reference to Mr. Freeze when Batman was training with Ra's al Ghul.


----------



## Chee (Feb 9, 2010)

Rukia said:


> I don't consider Batman Begins to be that much of a reboot.
> 
> Gotham City in that movie looks the same as it did Batman and Robin. I think the movie might have even made a reference to Mr. Freeze when Batman was training with Ra's al Ghul.



I swear I saw Bat-nipples on a prototype of Wayne's new Bat-suit.


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Feb 9, 2010)

I guess the reason I'm supporting the reboot is because I feel its better to make the right decision late than not at all. Also, all I care about is making the best superman movie possible.

IMO it would be very difficult to make the best superman movie possible with all the baggage from superman returns. It should have been rebooted then, but again, better late than never.


----------



## Rukia (Feb 9, 2010)

George Clooney was originally slated to reprise his role for the movie but dropped out due to scheduling conflicts.

Michael Clayton I think.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 9, 2010)

Windwaker hit the nail on the head, as long as its good I don't care if its a Reboot Sequel or Whatever

what matters to me is that Entertaining, Fun movies are made. PERIOD.


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Feb 9, 2010)

So who do you guys think should direct? I really have no clue who could do superman proper justice.

Same with the leading role. To be honest I liked Brandon Routh, and the fact that he was in superman returns (and thus is probably not eligible for this one) kinda irks me, since I think he could do better If given the right script.


----------



## Chee (Feb 9, 2010)

Nolan's brother to direct. 



Ya know...Sharlto Copley said that he directs and acts...


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 9, 2010)

Chee said:


> Martial, WB is a company. They want to save money at all costs. Why would they wait ten years and invest millions of dollars for rights that they already have (oh, and there is a chance that they could loose those wits to another company that buys them for more money)?
> 
> Superman Returns was awful, it had a hard time returning the budget and critics and fans were (majority) displeased. A reboot will be fine, considering the only good Superman movie was made over 30 years ago.
> 
> And Christopher Nolan isn't selling out, he's practically stamping a seal of approval on the film and that's it.



First off, Superman Returns wasn't that much hated.

Imdb gave it a 6.6/10(the highest % gave it a 7/10), Rotten tomatoes gave it a 76%, box-office Mojo gave it a B, arrow in the head gave it a 3/4. Richard Corliss, Peter Travers, Jim Hoberman, Wall Street Journal review......More people seem to like it than there are people who dislike it. 

Much like Hulk, the detractors seem to confuse their opinions with everyone elses. I didn't like Superman Returns(thought it was too forgettable and generic), but that doesnt change the world view on it.

Once again, all a reboot is going to do is be another attempt to get money. It's probably not going to be a very good movie, and if we continue to encourage fast rebooting, then as I said, that's all you're going to see eventually. Reboots are replacing sequels. 

Let me ask you Chee. If the next Batman movie sucks, would you want them to quickly do another reboot?


----------



## Rukia (Feb 9, 2010)

Windwaker said:


> So who do you guys think should direct? I really have no clue who could do superman proper justice.


Someone weak.  Someone willing to be Nolan's bitch.  They will probably go with an unknown or give someone new a shot.

I didn't hate Kate Bosworth as Lois.  I think the script doomed her as well.  It wasn't the acting that made the movie terrible.


----------



## masamune1 (Feb 9, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> "Batman begins" came out 8 years after "Batman and Robin". It worked because "Batman and Robin" was universally hated and showed that the camp days had worn out. "Batman Begins" took it in a new, dark, gritty direction that wouldnt work during the Burton-Schoemocker days.
> 
> Plus, it didn't have to be taken as a reboot. *It was a reboot AND a prequel. It never overlapped the continuity of the other films, while never confirming it. hence, the first REAL reboot of Batman was "The Dark Knight".*



I think somewhere between Jack Nicholson turning into a street bum and the complete change of cast, crew, set design, characters, and a variety of minor details, your last point was kind of disproven.

As for the reboot, the point of course is that _Superman_ should have gotten a reboot *instead of* _Returns_ (which I did'nt think was that bad, bar the stupid plot, but it still should have been a proper reboot). He was due one even more than Batman since his last franchise ended in the 80's. _Returns_ was'nt horrible, but it was really a poor direction to take things in and a reboot should have happened in the first place.

As for Spidey, though he's in a somewhat different situation it's true too that he was being taken in a poor direction (by Raimi, mostly, even if the studio made things worse at times), one rather antithical to the whole point of the comic. Like the Burton-Schumacher _Batman_, it was pretty much a "Monster of the Week/ Film" kind of thing, which can be a problem becase while you don't want to use the same villains over and over again, you should recognise that some villains tell better stories than others and they should be treated as part of the supporting cast, and not as guest stars. Not helped when the films were so selective about what supporting characters they were willing to use and how they used them. This hurts the hero as well since it affects his development.

I agree that a lot of this is just to milk the cash cow, but the truth is, on a purely creative level, there are worse choices. The franchises beng rebooted were, to varying degrees admittedly, mishandled in the first place.


----------



## Chee (Feb 9, 2010)

> Let me ask you Chee. If the next Batman movie sucks, would you want them to quickly do another reboot?



If its as bad as Spiderman 3 or Superman Returns (which I hated cause it was extremely boring), then yes, it would happen.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 9, 2010)

You guys do realize that if Nolan has any say in the project, it's going to be a problem.

It's because Nolan's vision might be different from the directors. When more than one visions clash, problems arise. 

Of course, it could still be good....But once again, dont know what can be done with a reboot. We already have a film that was character oriented....so maybe do a style-over-substance this time? Then people would compare it too much to the Batman movies....

Masa: Already acknowledged that.

Chee: That surprises me, because it's just lazy. I'd much rather a redeeming sequel than another remake. 

I mean, I'd rather a Jaws 5 than a remake of Jaws, because a remake would lead to direct comparisons, while a sequel at least might be better than the other sequels, but I dont think any Batman remake would compare to Begins or TDK.


----------



## Rukia (Feb 9, 2010)

Chee said:


> If its as bad as Spiderman 3 or Superman Returns (which I hated cause it was extremely boring), then yes, it would happen. I wouldn't want them to do it personally, but it would happen.


Since we are having the reboot discussion.  I will do what I usually do and cause a disruption.

The news I heard today was that Mission Impossible 4 will be made and that once again it will star Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt.  I would prefer to never see another Mission Impossible movie ever again.  This is another instance in which I would rather see a reboot than see another lousy movie tacked on.


----------



## Ennoea (Feb 9, 2010)

MH you're being overly dramatic. Nolan's not making the movie, we don't even know how much input he'll even have.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 9, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> You guys do realize that if Nolan has any say in the project, it's going to be a problem.
> 
> It's because Nolan's vision might be different from the directors. When more than one visions clash, problems arise.
> 
> Of course, it could still be good....But once again, dont know what can be done with a reboot. We already have a film that was character oriented....so maybe do a style-over-substance this time? Then people would compare it too much to the Batman movies....



Your Problem may be a limited Understanding of what is possible in a Story dealing with Superman (this problem affects many people)


and I find your posting of ratings %'s hilarious because of how little they say in any movies I like


----------



## Rukia (Feb 9, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> MH you're being overly dramatic. Nolan's not making the movie, we don't even know how much input he'll even have.


MH is usually only this passionate when he's defending Dragon Ball Evolution.


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Feb 9, 2010)

Rukia said:


> Someone weak.  Someone willing to be Nolan's bitch.  They will probably go with an unknown or give someone new a shot.



I really hope this doesn't happen. While I like the fact that Nolan has been brought on as sort of a quality control guy, I don't want him to actually direct the movie.

I hope they pick someone who has just as clear a vision for superman as Nolan did for batman, but someone who acknowledges that those two visions would have to be very different.

Sadly i have nobody in mind though.



> I didn't hate Kate Bosworth as Lois.  I think the script doomed her as well.  It wasn't the acting that made the movie terrible.



Agreed.



MartialHorror said:


> You guys do realize that if Nolan has any say in the project, it's going to be a problem.
> 
> It's because Nolan's vision might be different from the directors. When more than one visions clash, problems arise.



That's why i'm hoping that:
1. Nolan's primary powers are being able to have the final say in who directs and who writes.
2. Once he makes that choice, he's free to give advisement to said director, but that's all it could be, advisement.

Also, If Nolan really does have final say in script/director, he's probably going to pick someone with a vision that he likes, otherwise he wouldn't have picked them.



> That surprises me, because it's just lazy. I'd much rather a redeeming sequel than another remake.



Which brings me to this question. Which do you think would be more likely to be a good superman movie? If I had faith that Singer could direct a good superman movie, then I would be all for a direct sequel. However, I want a new director, and i don't want that new director to be hampered by a previous work that conflicts with what he wants to do.


----------



## Chee (Feb 9, 2010)

I dunno how much control Nolan will have but it sounds like very little. Seems like he's just helping with pre-production and little input on the rest. Just to get the movie off the ground.



> Chee: That surprises me, because it's just lazy. I'd much rather a redeeming sequel than another remake.



Redeeming sequels usually never work. Many series fail at the third one, and very few make it to the fourth one.


----------



## Chee (Feb 9, 2010)

This made me laugh:



> But as just a 'consultant' his name will be barely mentioned in promotional material.
> 
> *From consultant Christopher Nolan*
> 
> Nope. Can't remember the last time I saw that in a trailer.



From a different site.


----------



## Rukia (Feb 9, 2010)

When 2-3 actors do a poor job in a movie, the casting director is at fault.  When everyone does a poor job in a movie... more often than not, it's a script issue.

I'm not surprised at all that they would try to make another Superman movie.  OF COURSE THEY WANT TO.  They have sat back and watched less popular comic book characters like Iron Man make hundreds of millions of dollars and they want in.

A reboot is an attempt to satisfy "purists".  People that despised the last movie.

I see crazymtf in this thread right now.  I know he fucking hated that Superman movie.


----------



## Roy (Feb 9, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> Chee: That surprises me, because it's just lazy. I'd much rather a redeeming sequel than another remake.



This. So fucking much. Like MH mentioned, its just being lazy.


I mean, if every superhero movie did bad and every one of them got a reboot then I would really HATE basically watching the same thing over and over than actually getting a brand new story etc.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 9, 2010)

Taleran said:


> Your Problem may be a limited Understanding of what is possible in a Story dealing with Superman (this problem affects many people)
> 
> 
> and I find your posting of ratings %'s hilarious because of how little they say in any movies I like



- Here is the thing. In a good first movie, you establish a character, the history, the world, etc. The original "Superman" movie was great for this reason. It was about the character more than the story, and the story was only there to drive the character.

"Superman 2" had the right idea of following up with more character development, but also with more hardcore villains, more epic battles, etc...(replacing the director was what harmed that movie). "The Dark Knight" did this. That is what a good sequel does.

"Superman Returns" tried to go back to the character-oriented film, reflecting that the director wasn't sure if he wanted to remake the movie or do a sequel. The problem was that we pretty much saw everything here in the first movie, except here the SFX are better. 

So if they reboot it, we will either get ANOTHER Superman Returns, or we'll get a "Fantastic Four"-esque CGI action film(which is more likely). 

Either way, we're screwed. Now, if they just decided to be a sequel, the possibilities are better. They could now expand on the character instead of rehashing past development and go further with the enemies, with the story and with the established world......because we know the character well enough. 

It should be like "Exorcist 3" in that it ignores the previous sequel, but it doesn't necessarily erase its continuity.

Guys, a reboot is the WORST thing that can happen to Superman right now. If it happens, Superman will go down in history in film as the superhero franchise that fucked up its continuity twice.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 9, 2010)

How is making better movies Lazy no matter what you want to call it,  A good Superman Movie will be barely anything like Superman Returns




> Guys, a reboot is the WORST thing that can happen to Superman right now. If it happens, Superman will go down in history in film as the superhero franchise that fucked up its continuity twice.



WHO
THE
FUCK
CARES

As long as its good?


Besides this is all the Origin you need for a Superman Film




The problem with the Approach that is taken to Superman is

The main threat is determined first and then the Character is limited so they are not too powerful for that threat

the correct way to do it is

Define how powerful the character is First, then Create a Threat to Match that


Solaris (Wet Dream for a Movie)
Brainiac

If you combine either of those with a Luthor who isn't dumbed down into the Comedic Relief Scheming Business Man then you could easily make a fantastic movie


----------



## Rukia (Feb 9, 2010)

At least we never had to deal with that Nicholas Cage rumored Superman project.


----------



## Chee (Feb 9, 2010)

You know what I wanna see? A goddamn Wonder Woman movie. A good one at that. Not that Catwoman shit.


----------



## Rukia (Feb 9, 2010)

Chee said:


> You know what I wanna see? A goddamn Wonder Woman movie. A good one at that. Not Catwoman-like shit.


I'd rather see that than Superman or Spiderman.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 9, 2010)

Windwaker said:


> That's why i'm hoping that:
> 1. Nolan's primary powers are being able to have the final say in who directs and who writes.
> 2. Once he makes that choice, he's free to give advisement to said director, but that's all it could be, advisement.
> 
> ...



1) Er, that means Nolan is the Producer(well, one of them).

2) Except that most likely Nolan will be more famous than the director, and will probably unofficially take charge of it, like Lucas did in "Return of the Jedi", or what Eastwood did to Post in one of the Dirty Harry movies, or what Spielberg did to Hooper in "Poltergeist". No one wants to do a bad movie, so if a more famous director involved in the production disagrees with the other director, they will force their will on them.

Should be good, right? The problem when this happens is that it creates friction on set which usually results in an uneven movie. "Terminator Salvation" is what happens when you have clashing visions(except here it was the writers)

3) Once again, big directors hire little directors to do work for them all the time and it RARELY turns out good for them. Sometimes the movies turn out good. Usually they don't.

4) In my eyes, a new Superman movie should have a new director, maybe even new actors. It shouldn't bring up plot points of Superman Returns(the kid, etc), it should go on its own.......But they shouldn't try to overwright it either. 

"Punisher Warzone" could've done this......but they had to rewrite the backstory. All they had to do was cut change 10 seconds of that movie and we could assume it as either a remake OR sequel. Same with the Incredible Hulk.......Both films could've easily been sequels. The rewriting the continuity felt tacked on and was unnecessary.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 9, 2010)

Wrong, Incredible Hulk couldn't have been a sequel because of all the Garbage with his Father that was what dragged down the original movie


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 9, 2010)

Taleran said:


> How is making better movies Lazy no matter what you want to call it,  A good Superman Movie will be barely anything like Superman Returns
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because most likely it won't be. Name all the Superhero movies to come out in the last 5 years. Then point out the good ones.

Most likely we'll get a Fantastic Four-esque movie. It will be fun, but good? Hell no.

Edit: Did they ever mention his father in IH? (Seriously, I dont remember).


----------



## Taleran (Feb 9, 2010)

So you are canning the project before it even begins because it has a _chance_ to be bad?

Really?


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Feb 9, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> So if they reboot it, we will either get ANOTHER Superman Returns, or we'll get a "Fantastic Four"-esque CGI action film(which is more likely).



I don't see how this could happen. IMO the reason they brought Nolan on board in the capacity that he's in is simply so that another Superman Returns, or FFesque CGI action film WOULD NOT be made.

He's not going to approve a shitty script/director. Regardless of him as a supes fan, I have enough faith in his taste in movies and dedication to them that I don't think that will happen.

And regardless of whether it's "lazy" or not, I can't see many directors willing to put their all into this if forced to write around the previous movie canon.



MartialHorror said:


> Because most likely it won't be. Name all the Superhero movies to come out in the last 5 years. Then point out the good ones.
> 
> Most likely we'll get a Fantastic Four-esque movie. It will be fun, but good? Hell no.
> 
> Edit: Did they ever mention his father in IH? (Seriously, I dont remember).



I really can't fathom how you see Nolan okaying a script/director that would produce a fantastic fouresque movie. 

Also, just because the majority of comic book movies aren't great doesn't mean this one is guaranteed not to be. Especially when they have a good director in an overseeing role like Nolan is.

While I certainly don't think he's a good fit to DIRECT superman, I think he knows enough about what does and doesn't work in movies to not let flat out lame stuff get OKed.


----------



## Chee (Feb 9, 2010)

Martial did that to Batman 3. 

Which by the way, everyone is ignoring. 
Freakin' Nolan has a story for Batman 3!


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 9, 2010)

Taleran said:


> So you are canning the project before it even begins because it has a _chance_ to be bad?
> 
> Really?



I'll see it. But I see anything that vaguely interests me. 

I'll even watch "House of the Dead 3", only because I hated the first one THAT much. Yes, I watch movies even though I know I'll hate them.

And I wont hate a Superman reboot. I'm very easily entertained. I just hate the idea of it.

Plus, I worry about the future of cinema if they're going to reboot a movie this quickly. Shit, Hulk took 5 years. Punisher took 4 years...and this is taking even less......

I don't want to see a Superman reboot. I don't want to see another Batman reboot, and I ESPECIALLY don't want to see another Spiderman reboot. 

Dear God, one day I'll mention about how I love Halloween and whoever I'm talking to will ask: Which one, the original, the remake or the remake of that remake?(which from what I hear, is already happening)


----------



## Rukia (Feb 9, 2010)

I can't really focus on these projects.  They are too far down the road.  Shit happens all the time with these movies.  Directors drop out, projects get pushed back, etc.  Until just a little while ago, people were discussing Spider-man 4.  This is just a hypothetical project at the moment.  It will probably get made because even a lousy film will be profitable.

But I would rather focus on Nolan's current project.  Inception is coming out this year and I am excited about it.


----------



## Chee (Feb 9, 2010)

You can blame Nolan and his talent for that. Everyone is going reboot hungry. 

Which, by the way, can't WB still keep the rights to Superman if they finance a cartoon? I don't really know about the way the time limit works on those things.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 9, 2010)

Windwaker said:


> I don't see how this could happen. IMO the reason they brought Nolan on board in the capacity that he's in is simply so that another Superman Returns, or FFesque CGI action film WOULD NOT be made.
> 
> He's not going to approve a shitty script/director. Regardless of him as a supes fan, I have enough faith in his taste in movies and dedication to them that I don't think that will happen.
> 
> And regardless of whether it's "lazy" or not, I can't see many directors willing to put their all into this if forced to write around the previous movie canon.



They're bringing him on board to use his namesake. They want to raise the hype that this will be good.

But if this movie was going to have Nolan's brand of awesomeness, he'd direct it.....

He's not going to approve a shitty script/director. But you dont realize that most approved scripts aren't bad. They become bad during the production/preproduction stage.

If he directed, then this would be fine. Hell, even if he 100% hijacked the production, I'd be hopeful. But at the absolute least, it's going to be a clusterfuck of mixed visions. 

Nolan might approve of a good script and good director, but would that be the extent of his involvement? Maybe the director will change the script during production. Maybe the actor will get involved and force script changes.

Once again, the perfect example of the raping of a script is "Terminator Salvation".


----------



## Taleran (Feb 9, 2010)

> If he directed, then this would be fine. Hell, even if he 100% hijacked the production, I'd be hopeful. But at the absolute least, it's going to be a clusterfuck of mixed visions.



this is actually what I am afraid of the most


----------



## Chee (Feb 9, 2010)

Well, Nolan realizes that Superman is in a whole different universe than Batman. So I don't think he'll force Superman to the brooding side. A more serious and realistic  approach (besides the whole alien thing of course) is most likely.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 9, 2010)

> More serious and realistic (besides the whole alien thing of course) is most likely



that scares me


----------



## Rukia (Feb 9, 2010)

A clusterfuck of mixed visions would make you hopeful?  Seriously?  That would effectively tear all optimism about the project out of my system and I would wait for the 20% rating to surface at RottenTomatoes.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 9, 2010)

Here is what I would do



> See Animated Series Opening Credits for first 10 minutes. Then a good 10-15 minutes of a Metallo cameo getting his ass beat at the beginning.
> 
> Brainiac as the main villain. Luthor is still portrayed as the obscure public figure(but not a fat retard), and his hate for Superman can begin in this reboot.
> 
> Sun eater(Solaris) / Luthor plot is hinted at, like the phoenix in X-Men 2.


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Feb 9, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> They're bringing him on board to use his namesake. They want to raise the hype that this will be good.
> 
> But if this movie was going to have Nolan's brand of awesomeness, he'd direct it.....
> 
> ...



It sounds like to you there is no way that a good director will be chosen, and no way that said director and Nolan will see eye to eye. Personally, I have faith that Nolan will pick a good director, one good enough that he won't feel the need to backseat direct.

I'm not going to immediately write the movie off till I hear who the director is.

Also, we still aren't really clear exactly what Nolan's role in this is, and what his take on his role is yet.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 9, 2010)

Rukia said:


> A clusterfuck of mixed visions would make you hopeful?  Seriously?  That would effectively tear all optimism about the project out of my system and I would wait for the 20% rating to surface at RottenTomatoes.



Was this to me? Er.....a clusterfuck of mixed visions wouldn't make me more hopeful........thats what would ruin it.

Once again, we don't need a reboot. You can be fancy with the name(Legacy of Superman can be a title, or Return of Superman, whatever) and ignore Returns........But you guys just wait.

If they reboot it, and it's a hit, then you can expect a reboot to happen every 2 years. I do not want to watch the same movie over and over again.



Windwaker said:


> It sounds like to you there is no way that a good director will be chosen, and no way that said director and Nolan will see eye to eye. Personally, I have faith that Nolan will pick a good director, one good enough that he won't feel the need to backseat direct.
> 
> I'm not going to immediately write the movie off till I hear who the director is.
> 
> Also, we still aren't really clear exactly what Nolan's role in this is, and what his take on his role is yet.



Ugh, you aren't listening to what I'm saying. A good director probably will be chosen. But you're presuming that Nolan will automatically be 100% supportive for one reason-

he's currently the coolest director around. He can do no wrong. 

But people have different opinions on what makes a movie good or not. Example, me and Chee in the "Rate" thread are talking about "Let the Right One In" and "Thirst", two fairly similar movies who have both been lauded by fans and critics alike.

She likes LTROI and dislikes Thirst. I'm the complete opposite. Now imagine if both of us were directors/writers hired to do a movie together. The movie would fumble because we have different opinions. It's not that one of us is worse. 

That's why having directors oversee other directors is usually a bad thing. The only real good example is George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, but Spielberg was already an established director before they teamed up.....So they even'ed out.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 9, 2010)

There is no way you can know that because no movie series has been rebooted twice yet and we haven't gotten far enough along to see where this will go


----------



## Chee (Feb 9, 2010)

> If they reboot it, and it's a hit, then you can expect a reboot to happen every 2 years. I do not want to watch the same movie over and over again.



I think once Spiderman and Superman are rebooted, they will focus on the other franchises that never got their movie counterparts.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 9, 2010)

Taleran said:


> There is no way you can know that because no movie series has been rebooted twice yet and we haven't gotten far enough along to see where this will go



Well, if you want to be technical. Batman technically has been rebooted twice(remember the old Adam West series? Well, there was a movie made from it).

But Batman was fine, because all the Batman series represented the different times.

the 60's Batman fit with what the audiences wanted at the time, same with the Burton films and EVEN Batman Forever. Then Begins fit with our time.

That is how remakes should be chosen. The superman series fucked up with attempting to reboot it for our times. I dont think they should be allowed to try again this quickly. It's greed at its worst.

Now, could it be good? Sure. I mean, you do never know. But if you think Im being harsh, passing judgment this early, remember that everyone naturally does it. 

If "Catwoman 2" was announced, wouldn't you presume it would suck?

Chee: Once they're rebooted, then there will be sequels, then yeah, they will bring back other superheroes......until they release another bad sequel/movie......Then they will be rebooted again.


----------



## Chee (Feb 9, 2010)

I'd like to see Nolan do a comedy some day. He has a western planned and he said he'd like to do a horror film (along the lines of Jaws, Martial are you happy about that?). Nolan also said that he'd like to do a comedy as well...but never a musical.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 9, 2010)

Chee said:


> I'd like to see Nolan do a comedy some day. He has a western planned and he said he'd like to do a horror film (along the lines of Jaws, Martial are you happy about that?). Nolan also said that he'd like to do a comedy as well...but never a musical.



Im sure he will one day.....But first, he wants to get his most expensive visions out of the way before the studio takes away his carte blanche. 

lol, I'd like to see a Nolan horror film too......


----------



## Taleran (Feb 9, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> Well, if you want to be technical. Batman technically has been rebooted twice(remember the old Adam West series? Well, there was a movie made from it).
> 
> But Batman was fine, because all the Batman series represented the different times.
> 
> ...



Jumping from TV to Movie (that were inferior than the TV show) doesn't count as reboot

and would Catwoman 2 have the same director and Cast, then yes I would say it would be horrible (I don't really like the Catwoman as a character)


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 9, 2010)

Taleran said:


> Jumping from TV to Movie (that were inferior than the TV show) doesn't count as reboot
> 
> and would Catwoman 2 have the same director and Cast, then yes I would say it would be horrible (I don't really like the Catwoman as a character)



I disagree. Even if its based on the TV show, it's still a movie. 

But would you know Catwoman 2 would be horrible, even if it had the same cast/director? Maybe Catwoman 2 was just a bad mistake.

I mean, I think Dragonball Evolution was a mistake for the director......who did cool films like "The One" and "Final Destination". Sometimes bad movies come from many problems, sometimes one......and you casting judgment on a Catwoman 2 movie isn't much better than me casting judgment on a reboot.

But as I said, I dont think a reboot would suck......although it should be noted that I did enjoy the Fantastic Four movies.........I just dont like the idea that studios will now reboot any mistake they make almost instantly.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 9, 2010)

I enjoyed portions of the Fantastic Four movies. Movies and TV aren't close enough formats for comparison in my mind


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 9, 2010)

Taleran said:


> I enjoyed portions of the Fantastic Four movies. Movies and TV aren't close enough formats for comparison in my mind



I agree, except that I think movies based on the TV show still count as movies....and I do mean there was at least one Adam West Batman movie out there...

I havent seen it, so dont know if its good......But it's still a movie.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 9, 2010)

Its better than all the Batman films except Begins


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Feb 9, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> Ugh, you aren't listening to what I'm saying. A good director probably will be chosen. But you're presuming that Nolan will automatically be 100% supportive for one reason-
> 
> he's currently the coolest director around. He can do no wrong.
> 
> ...



I actually agree with you here, sorta. I don't want Nolan backseat directing, I agree that this would destroy the movie.

I'm hoping that he has a large role in selecting the director/script, but at that point he should be expected/forced to back out a certain extent.

The odds of him being 100% supportive of everything the director does is pretty much impossible. However, I am hoping that since Nolan will have such a large part in selecting that director, that it will be someone he has faith in and will be more comfortable with simply offering advisement and suggestions.

And if the director chooses to ignore them, Nolan shouldn't have the ability to muscle him into doing things his way.

To sum up. I think Nolan will help a lot in selecting a director/script, and helping that director/script along, but first and foremost I do not want it to be his movie.


----------



## Ebisu's Shades (Feb 10, 2010)

I'm not sure what Peter Jackson's input was for District 9, but that turned out awesome even though he wasn't director.  I can't think that Nolan's influence on any film will be a bad thing director or not.  At least he would have enough clout to keep the studio execs from taking over and messing with the movie ie like forcing Sam Raimi to have Venom in the Spiderman movie even though he didn't want to.  
I'd  rather not have another Superman vs. Lex Luthor movie.  Superman has other enemies he could go up against.  I mean baldie can be in it but not the main bad guy.  
Did they say this was a reboot?  I didn't bother seeing the Hulk reboot, because I liked the first one and I thought it was too soon to really get me interested, so I am with MH on this.  I mean so we get Avatar reboot in another few years just because?  No thanks Hollywood!
Batman III!!!!


----------



## Comic Book Guy (Feb 10, 2010)

I'll reserve comments for a trailer.

But Superman Returns. . . missed it. Singer should have completely rebooted the franchise.


----------



## Bart (Feb 10, 2010)

Windwaker said:


> I think that this is a "have your cake and eat it too" situation.
> 
> The batman franchise can still be completely independent from Superman, while still acknowledging that both exist in the same universe. For the most part, the bat-universe in comics is similarly isolated for the majority of the time.



Well yeah, that'd be brilliant, as, although finished down, the other timeline did include a Gotham reference in Superman Returns, but I agree.


----------



## Wesley (Feb 10, 2010)

Can Nolan do a super Superhero movie?  One of the things about Begins and the Dark Knight was that he didn't want to do any villians with powers or supernatural properties.  That blackballs Bane, Freeze, and bunch of other Batman villians.

If he did Superman, he'd be weak.  Indestructible, but weak.

And he definiently wouldn't tie Superman into his Batman series.  He doesn't need something out of College Humor happening.


----------



## Bart (Feb 10, 2010)

Exactly what I said ^^^

And I could see Nolan doing that with Sups, or either making the villians tremendously stronger. But Superman being a part of Nolan's Universe wouldn't be a bad thing, would it?


----------



## Castiel (Feb 10, 2010)

Rukia said:


> I'd prefer Michael Bay.



ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahah

yeah no.


And I don't mean this as a fanboy or anything, I actually enjoyed Transformers, but he is just laughably wrong for the material in every  single possible way.





Taleran said:


> and Finally I don't understand why this whole thing with Nolan is going down other than to use his name as like a seal of quality for the movie not being garbage. a Superman Movie needs to be Everything that TDK and Begins wasn't when it comes to these kinds of movies.


Far as I can tell his power extends to picking script and director right now.  He should at least be able to filter out the utter shit and prevent something like Returns from happening again.




> Here is all the origin story a Superman Movie needs, re do this live action and stick the Opening Credits of the movie over it


----------



## excellence153 (Feb 10, 2010)

If Nolan is smart, he'll leave the Batman franchise.


----------



## Chee (Feb 10, 2010)

I'd like to see him try a Batman 3, and I really hope it does succeed.



Ebisu's Shades said:


> I'm not sure what Peter Jackson's input was for District 9, but that turned out awesome even though he wasn't director.  I can't think that Nolan's influence on any film will be a bad thing director or not.  At least he would have enough clout to keep the studio execs from taking over and messing with the movie ie like forcing Sam Raimi to have Venom in the Spiderman movie even though he didn't want to.
> I'd  rather not have another Superman vs. Lex Luthor movie.  Superman has other enemies he could go up against.  I mean baldie can be in it but not the main bad guy.
> Did they say this was a reboot?  I didn't bother seeing the Hulk reboot, because I liked the first one and I thought it was too soon to really get me interested, so I am with MH on this.  I mean so we get Avatar reboot in another few years just because?  No thanks Hollywood!
> Batman III!!!!



Peter Jackson basically gave the 'okay' to everything for Neill. He produced the movie but said that Neill could do anything he wanted.


----------



## Ennoea (Feb 10, 2010)

Neill was in complete control of D9, Nolan here will choose the director, and oversee the script. He did with Begin's aswell, otherwise god knows what Goyer would have done to Batman.


----------



## Chee (Feb 10, 2010)

The screenplay for Batman Begins (before Nolan had input on it) was almost the same as the final script. I didn't read all of it, but the major difference in the beginning was that Bruce Wayne didn't go into the bar to meet Falcone (it was Falcone in BB, right?). It all happened outside, and with different dialog.

And we don't know how much input Nolan will have, Ennoea. All it says is that he's helping oversee the project as a consultant.


----------



## Ennoea (Feb 10, 2010)

I know, I doubt it'll be much, probably just finetuning the script at the most. I don't really care tbh, I can die happy with the first two Superman movies we already have.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 10, 2010)

Kilowog

1) "When they get a character that horribly wrong. Yes.

Now I'm not advocating everything should be rebooted (Hulk was bit much, though I see why they did it [fan service, continuity, making an actual Hulk movie]). Really only superhero franchises that were so bad they actually merit reboots right now are Superman and Fantastic Four (in both cases all the movies were god awful and they just got every so horrendously wrong)

I personally want DD rebooted but that is only cause DD is my favorite Marvel character and I freely admit my bias in that regard."

-Unfortunately you are avocating that, albeit indirectly. Because if the studio can get away with rebooting one movie in studio time, then they will do much more. In the past 2 years, there have already been 2 of these, with 2 more to come. You dont think they'll stop here do you?

Of course, part of me believes that this wont work. Incredible Hulk got a better reaction than the 2003 Hulk(although Im not sure why, because it is one of the most rediculous movies to come out with positive reviews as of late), but it only made 5,000,000 more in profit. Not worth it. Punisher Warzone flopped. I'd like to think this is the fans way of saying "Stop rebooting this quickly!". Personally, I doubt Superman reboot will do any better than Returns.......Because Returns actually got good reviews. 

2) "it is certainly a huge factor. It sucked so much I doubt it would make much if they announced a Returns 2, thus hurting their pockets.

Also honestly I don't care since I hated Returns that much"

-If the studio cared about the quality of the picture, they'd reboot Catwoman, Elektra and every other piece of shit comic book movie ever that's worse than Superman Returns. But to be honest, I doubt they'd call a Superman Returns sequel Superman Returns 2....because Superman Returns was already meant to be Superman 3....even though there already was a Superman 3......It would have its own title. As I said, like "The Legend of Superman" or something.

3) "New continuity."

- So in other words, you're stating that you just want to see the same shit over and over again. I dont want to watch Superman have the same struggles he did through 1-2, then watch him go at it again. I dont think you realize how much you'd hate this, as one of the major mistakes of Returns was that it pretty much used the plot from the original.

4) "You never seemed to understand that when people read/watch anything Hulk related they want more smash for their buck. It's part of the character's dna."

-Yet more people seem to like it than not.

5) "There's a difference between merely sucking after giving it your best and horrendously ruining/ignoring everything that worked"

-Er, you do realize that Superman Returns probably was Singer's best. Singer is too respectable for anything less. "Superman Returns" was just a mistake. He should've either made it a full sequel with its own story/development or a full remake. I wouldnt have minded "Returns" being a full remake because it's been so long since the last one. But I dont think the director intentionally ruined/ignored everything that worked. He just became too cocky, too self-indulgant and.....well, made a mistake. That's what Superman Returns was.....a mistake.

6) "Punisher and Origins are not being made by Marvel Studios, they are shameless money grabs by 3rd parties.

Marvel Studios are trying to make a cohesive Marvel film universe and are using a lot about what's great about the comics to make the films enjoyable and accesable."

-Then what movies have they made? There is no such thing as a big studio doing their best to make good movies. They just want to make successful films. If they're lucky now, then good for them. "New Line Cinema" had some great movies lined up during the "Lord of the Rings" craze......but then they did some bad ones after that. If a movie of theirs turns out good, then they're happy, but their main aim is to make movies that are easily bankable.

7) "No, it's cause Nolan truly got the Batman and the world he lives in, taking what was great in the comics with something new and had a good cast.

Brian Singer got the X-Men and the world they lived in, taking what was great in the comics with something new and had a good cast. Brett Ratner did not."

- Er, that's pretty much what I said. Studios don't want comic book films with strong character development. They want popcorn flicks with lots of action. Brett Ratner much have agreed.

On "Superman Returns" underperforming, once again, remember that most people liked it. Even if you think they mucked up the character, that's irrelevant. What matters the most for a movie is the general consensus. But even fans conceded that Superman Returns was more of a flashy drama, with only a small handful of kick-ass action scenes, which was surprising, considering its budget.

In essence, it underperformed because no one wanted to see a Superman drama. They wanted action.

So now the studio will flip it around. A reboot will be full on action with hackneyed, tacked on drama.......Fantastic Four style.


----------



## Chee (Feb 10, 2010)

Martial...do you know how to use the Quote button?


----------



## Taleran (Feb 10, 2010)

> 3) "New continuity."
> 
> - So in other words, you're stating that you just want to see the same shit over and over again. I dont want to watch Superman have the same struggles he did through 1-2, then watch him go at it again. I dont think you realize how much you'd hate this, as one of the major mistakes of Returns was that it pretty much used the plot from the original.



It is you that are missing what we want


----------



## Chee (Feb 10, 2010)

I want a Supes movie without Lex Luthor.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 10, 2010)

Chee said:


> Martial...do you know how to use the Quote button?



yes, but it takes too long when responding to multiple things.


----------



## Chee (Feb 10, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> yes, but it takes too long when responding to multiple things.



All you have to do is highlight and press the quote button.


----------



## Ennoea (Feb 10, 2010)

Or you could just not respond to everyone.


----------



## Castiel (Feb 10, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> Kilowog
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If they're good I don't mind.


> Of course, part of me believes that this wont work. Incredible Hulk got a better reaction than the 2003 Hulk(although Im not sure why, because it is one of the most rediculous movies to come out with positive reviews as of late), but it only made 5,000,000 more in profit. Not worth it. Punisher Warzone flopped. I'd like to think this is the fans way of saying "Stop rebooting this quickly!". Personally, I doubt Superman reboot will do any better than Returns.......Because Returns actually got good reviews.



This was true HULK movie in ways Ang Lee's movie never was.

Also New Continuity to fit into the film universe



> > 2) "it is certainly a huge factor. It sucked so much I doubt it would make much if they announced a Returns 2, thus hurting their pockets.
> >
> > Also honestly I don't care since I hated Returns that much"
> 
> ...


What kind of moron would go see a Catwoman or Elektra movie to begin with?




> > 3) "New continuity."
> 
> 
> - So in other words,* you're stating that you just want to see the same shit over and over again*. I dont want to watch Superman have the same struggles he did through 1-2, then watch him go at it again. I dont think you realize how much you'd hate this, as one of the major mistakes of Returns was that it pretty much used the plot from the original.


My god, what part of *COMIC. BOOK. MOVIE.* do you not get?

Yeah I'd be miffed if they redid the origin, but unless it was more than half the film and had a good plot it would still be ok.  But I'm going with Taleran and hope they take the iHulk approach with having that be taken as read.




> > 4) "You never seemed to understand that when people read/watch anything Hulk related they want more smash for their buck. It's part of the character's dna."
> 
> 
> 
> -Yet more people seem to like it than not.


Ask your random guy on the street which one they prefered and most will do with iHulk because they got the Hulk right instead of go on weird metaphysical tangents


> > 5) "There's a difference between merely sucking after giving it your best and horrendously ruining/ignoring everything that worked"
> 
> 
> 
> -Er, you do realize that Superman Returns probably was Singer's best. Singer is too respectable for anything less. "Superman Returns" was just a mistake. He should've either made it a full sequel with its own story/development or a full remake. I wouldnt have minded "Returns" being a full remake because it's been so long since the last one. But I dont think the director intentionally ruined/ignored everything that worked. He just became too cocky, too self-indulgant and.....well, made a mistake. That's what Superman Returns was.....a mistake.


One that will be fixed.

Because really a franchise continuing Returns would be a travesty on every level.




> > 6) "Punisher and Origins are not being made by Marvel Studios, they are shameless money grabs by 3rd parties.
> >
> > Marvel Studios are trying to make a cohesive Marvel film universe and are using a lot about what's great about the comics to make the films enjoyable and accesable."
> 
> ...



Pixar.

Also right now they've just done iHulk and Iron Man.  Both of which were quite faithful to the spirit of the characters as presented in the comics, and even had the writers of the comics as consultants (fyi, Captain America and Iron Man comics are at their best in decades)


On the pipeline are
The First Avenger: Captain America (directed by Joe Johnston)
Ant-Man (directed by Edgar Wright)
Thor (directed by Kenneth Branagh)

a couple others, and eventually Avengers.


> > 7) "No, it's cause Nolan truly got the Batman and the world he lives in, taking what was great in the comics with something new and had a good cast.
> >
> > Brian Singer got the X-Men and the world they lived in, taking what was great in the comics with something new and had a good cast. Brett Ratner did not."
> 
> ...


That's basically all he does.



> On "Superman Returns" underperforming, once again, remember that most people liked it. Even if you think they mucked up the character, that's irrelevant. What matters the most for a movie is the general consensus. But even fans conceded that Superman Returns was more of a flashy drama, with only a small handful of kick-ass action scenes, which was surprising, considering its budget.
> 
> In essence, it underperformed because no one wanted to see a Superman drama. They wanted action.


a good superman story provides both.



> So now the studio will flip it around. A reboot will be full on action with hackneyed, tacked on drama.......Fantastic Four style.


You do realize this thread is about Nolan being given final say on the script and director.   Going by the overall quality of his movies, I don't see why he would suddenly half ass it with Superman


----------



## Rukia (Feb 10, 2010)

Michael Bay as the Director, Shia Labeouf as Clark Kent, Megan Fox as Lois Lane.  Make it happen Marvel.


----------



## Chee (Feb 10, 2010)

There aren't any good women super hero movies are there?


----------



## Rukia (Feb 10, 2010)

Chee said:


> There aren't any good women super hero movies are there?


Elektra, Catwoman, GI Jane, and Barb Wire.


----------



## Chee (Feb 10, 2010)

Rukia said:


> Elektra, Catwoman, GI Jane, and Barb Wire.



That's true.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 10, 2010)

> If they're good I don't mind.



Except 90% of the time they're not. At best, usually they're serviceable entertainment.



> This was true HULK movie in ways Ang Lee's movie never was
> 
> Also New Continuity to fit into the film universe



-And it was still stupid. Hulk 03 was well made, but boring. Hulk 08 wasn't boring, but it was freaking stupid, and if it was a good representation of the comic....then I must presume the comic was freaking stupid.



> What kind of moron would go see a Catwoman or Elektra movie to begin with?



-One that would think Hulk 08 was anything but stupid? Catwoman would because Batman Returns was pretty good(at least imo) and Elekra had Daredevil, which was pretty..........average. Actually, cant remember that one at all.




> My god, what part of *COMIC. BOOK. MOVIE.* do you not get?
> 
> Yeah I'd be miffed if they redid the origin, but unless it was more than half the film and had a good plot it would still be ok.  But I'm going with Taleran and hope they take the iHulk approach with having that be taken as read.



- What part of Comic Book Movie don't I get? Am I supposed to presume that comic book fans prefer redundancy? Why must Comic Book Movie be equivicated with "remake"?  



> Ask your random guy on the street which one they prefered and most will do with iHulk because they got the Hulk right instead of go on weird metaphysical tangents



-I agree most prefer IHulk because it's more of an action film. But it also says a lot about modern audiences: They prefer dumb shit. Now I more-or-less liked Ihulk in the same way I more-or-less liked Hulk03. The first was uneven while the 2nd was mediocre. 

But to be honest, saying Ihulk is a great movie almost proves my point. IHulk proves that general audiences want redundant, dumbed down action fodder. Its themes were all in Hulk03, except without new or interesting. If Hulk 03 changed the comic, then I must presume that the comic isn't very good. 





> One that will be fixed.
> 
> Because really a franchise continuing Returns would be a travesty on every level.



-And a new franchise will be just as bad, if not worse. What made "Returns" a great possibility(besides having a good director) was that SFX had improved so much that at the absolute least, it would be better than Superman 3 and 4 just because of the visuals.

Would they be much better now? Plus, as I said, if its a reboot, that means that the first movie will just rehash establishing the character of Superman, which was pretty much why Returns sucked. If they just presumed that this is the same continuity as Returns(which also means that it's in the same continuity of the Reeves movies), then we don't need anymore of that. The movie can expand, be different, bring in cooler villains, give more action scenes.

Batman benefited because before Begins, the only movie with a hint of depth from Batman was "Batman Forever". You can keep pointing out possibilities with the comic, but you forget that comics weren't meant to be adapted into movies. They rarely work, which is why most comic book films SUCK.





> Pixar.
> 
> Also right now they've just done iHulk and Iron Man.  Both of which were quite faithful to the spirit of the characters as presented in the comics, and even had the writers of the comics as consultants (fyi, Captain America and Iron Man comics are at their best in decades)
> 
> ...



-Well, Incredible Hulk was stupid(a point I can't seem to say enough) and Iron Man was pretty awesome.....So one good, one bad. Hmmmmm....

Oh yeah, feel free to tell me that most people like Incredible Hulk. You'll be right. Just remember I can throw Superman Returns right back at you. 

Also, Captain America will be VERY hard to pull off. Should be interesting though. 


> a good superman story provides both.



-Of course, but it is VERY difficult to pull this off. One thing Batman has going for him is that he is pretty much a human. He can use gadgets, kung fu and ninja skills. The result is that unless you're Joel Schumacher, the special effects should be limited. TDK was so freaking awesome because what was so exciting was the cat-and-mouse game between Batman and the Joker. 

But Superman is a completely different case. He is too powerful, and a superman movie would require lots of action and SFX. Maybe there can be nice character depth, but it is likely going to be minimized by the special effects.

One thing people forget about "The Fantastic Four" movie is that it actually did a decent job with its characters. They were surprisingly complex and believable, but all that was overshadowed by the special effects....(and the lame humor). 

The first two Christopher Reeves movies benefited from CGI whoring not being an option. Brian Synger actually seemed to realize that CGI whoring would be an issue, which is probably why there wasn't as much action. 



> You do realize this thread is about Nolan being given final say on the script and director.   Going by the overall quality of his movies, I don't see why he would suddenly half ass it with Superman



Because if he really cared, he would sign on as director.....or at least be the main producer. Being a consultant means he can give input, but if the movie turns out bad, he can say that the studio/director/whoever messed up, not him.

His limited involvement means that if its a success, he gets credit. If it fails, he's excused,


----------



## Comic Book Guy (Feb 10, 2010)

So. . . can someone briefly tell me the issue here?


----------



## Chee (Feb 10, 2010)

Blondie said:


> So. . . can someone briefly tell me the issue here?



Some people think that Nolan will become to involved in the project and the movie will become a clusterfuck of clashed ideas even though filmmaking, almost by definition, is a clusterfuck of clashed ideas.

Also, some disapprove of another Superman reboot, although I think its much needed since Superman Returns (and that was more of a sequel than anything else) kinda sucked and the only good Supes movie was over 30 years ago.


----------



## mystictrunks (Feb 11, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> Im town between my love for Nolan and my hatred for remakes.......Seriously guys, there would be a rule to wait at least 10 years before remaking.......Ugh, it's so freaking confusing.
> 
> There are originally 4 Superman movies, one good, one uneven, two crappy.....Then Superman Returns comes in that apparently is meant to be the REAL Superman 3....but the plot is prety much a remake to the first movie.......
> 
> .



Returns was a real sequel.

@Chee 
Superman 2 is only 30 years old.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 11, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> Returns was a real sequel.
> 
> @Chee
> Superman 2 is only 30 years old.



It also was a reboot, pretending that 3 and 4 didn't exist.

Which was an issue, as the plot was pretty much an SFX laden version of the original.


----------



## mystictrunks (Feb 11, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> It also was a reboot, pretending that 3 and 4 didn't exist.



So it was a sequel to a move from 1980.


----------



## Castiel (Feb 11, 2010)

> -And it was still stupid. Hulk 03 was well made, but boring. Hulk 08 wasn't boring, but it was freaking stupid, and if it was a good representation of the comic....then I must presume the comic was freaking stupid.


What part of the Hulk do you not get.

Hulk Smashes.


Also the movie had him do a motherfucking THUNDERCLAP 



> - What part of Comic Book Movie don't I get? Am I supposed to presume that comic book fans prefer redundancy? Why must Comic Book Movie be equivicated with "remake"?


I mean that a comic book movie should actually be a comic book movie, not some crap writers going crazy and turning a character into a creepy stalker or subvert the entire point of several characters



> -One that would think Hulk 08 was anything but stupid? Catwoman would because Batman Returns was pretty good(at least imo) and Elekra had Daredevil, which was pretty..........average. Actually, cant remember that one at all.


one look at either trailer should have been enough.





> But to be honest, saying Ihulk is a great movie almost proves my point. IHulk proves that general audiences want redundant, dumbed down action fodder. Its themes were all in Hulk03, except without new or interesting. If Hulk 03 changed the comic, then I must presume that the comic isn't very good.


It's a big green guy who smashes things when he gets mad.
It's meant to be a fun B movie experience
Remember fun?





> -And *a new franchise will be just as bad*, if not worse. What made "Returns" a great possibility(besides having a good director) was that SFX had improved so much that at the absolute least, it would be better than Superman 3 and 4 just because of the visuals.


What?  No.  Absolutely nothing from Returns is salvagable, to tell a real Superman movie they have to start over.



> Would they be much better now? Plus, as I said, if its a reboot, that means that the first movie will just rehash establishing the character of Superman, which was pretty much why Returns sucked. If they just presumed that this is the same continuity as Returns(which also means that it's in the same continuity of the Reeves movies), then we don't need anymore of that. The movie can expand, be different, bring in cooler villains, give more action scenes.


Returns sucked because they made _so many_ horrendous decisions at every point in production, and they gave the movie to Singer with no oversight.

Now they got Nolan to at least oversee everything, essentially an Executive Producer, but one of that knows his comic books and movie making.




> Batman benefited because before Begins, the only movie with a hint of depth from Batman was "Batman Forever". You can keep pointing out possibilities with the comic, but you forget that comics weren't meant to be adapted into movies. They rarely work, which is why most comic book films SUCK.


I mainly blame the writers for not giving enough of a damn to put an effort.  The guy who wrote batman and Robin?  actually a good writer.

Dark Knight, Iron man, first couple Spider-Man and X-Men movies?  They _got_ the point


> -Well, Incredible Hulk was stupid(a point I can't seem to say enough) and Iron Man was pretty awesome.....So one good, one bad. Hmmmmm....


More like two enjoyable true to their roots movies.


> Oh yeah, feel free to tell me that most people like Incredible Hulk. You'll be right. Just remember I can throw Superman Returns right back at you.


Seriously ask the average person what they think of Returns.

everyone will eithe say 1). it fucking sucked, 2). randomly yell the word WROOOOOOOOOOOONG l3). laugh till they crap themselves of the stupidity that is the super-son



> Also, Captain America will be VERY hard to pull off. Should be interesting though.


It's from the director of Rocketeer, which was really a pitch perfect spiritual cousin in a lot of ways to what a good Captain America should be.

and interviews make it seem like he's actually putting his all into it.  So I'm optimistic.

Also Brubaker is consulting and like i said, Cap comics have never been better.




> -Of course, but it is VERY difficult to pull this off. One thing Batman has going for him is that he is pretty much a human. He can use gadgets, kung fu and ninja skills. The result is that unless you're Joel Schumacher, the special effects should be limited. TDK was so freaking awesome because what was so exciting was the cat-and-mouse game between Batman and the Joker.


Well it would help if they actually used the *real* Lex Luthor (the one is the movies is essentially the Lex from the 1940's).

Really play up the whole duality of Superman, the god who thinks himself man, and Luthor the man who thinks himself god.  a HUUUUUGE plotpoint in the entire Superman mythos completely left out of all movies and only really show up outside of comics in a cartoon series



> But Superman is a completely different case. *He is too powerful*, and a superman movie would require lots of action and SFX. Maybe there can be nice character depth, but it is likely going to be minimized by the special effects.


He has other villains aside from Luthor.

There are plenty that could us a big ol' awesome fist fight sequence, or at least give a reasonable challenge to his powers.





> One thing people forget about "The Fantastic Four" movie is that it actually did a decent job with its characters. They were surprisingly complex and believable, but all that was overshadowed by the special effects....(and the lame humor).


They definitely got Ben and Johnny perfectly.  Reed was ok.

Sue was just bad.


Movie's use of Doom was one of the most horrific things I've ever seen.   They took  one of the most complex and interesting characters (and I don't just in comics, I mean ever) and turned him into a cardboard cutout.

edit: now that I think about it the same thing goes for Lex Luthor, though I will admit Kevin Spacey's insane overacting was funny.  But yeah not Luthor.



> The first two Christopher Reeves movies benefited from CGI whoring not being an option. Brian Synger actually seemed to realize that CGI whoring would be an issue, which is probably why there wasn't as much action.


He still whored like mad





> Because if he really cared, *he would sign on as director*.....or at least be the main producer. Being a consultant means he can give input, but if the movie turns out bad, he can say that the studio/director/whoever messed up, not him.


Batman 3?

Also he essentially _is_ a producer.  I fully expect him to get credited as one.

Also give him some credit here, I'd like to think the man who made the two best Batman movies and memento can tell when a script is god awful.


----------



## Wesley (Feb 11, 2010)

Rukia said:


> Michael Bay as the Director, Shia Labeouf as Clark Kent, Megan Fox as Lois Lane.  Make it happen Marvel.



Marvel.


----------



## mystictrunks (Feb 11, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> 3) "New continuity."
> 
> - So in other words, you're stating that you just want to see the same shit over and over again. I dont want to watch Superman have the same struggles he did through 1-2, then watch him go at it again. I dont think you realize how much you'd hate this, as one of the major mistakes of Returns was that it pretty much used the plot from the original.


His origins have changed and most of his better conflicts weren't explored in the first 2.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 11, 2010)

> What part of the Hulk do you not get.
> 
> Hulk Smashes.
> 
> ...



-You liked Transformers 2......did you.........(hey, I like it too!)




> I mean that a comic book movie should actually be a comic book movie, not some crap writers going crazy and turning a character into a creepy stalker or subvert the entire point of several characters



- I agree, but if Incredible Hulk is what a comic book movie should be like..............Then I can't blame Synger for going the opposite way. 



> one look at either trailer should have been enough.It's a big green guy who smashes things when he gets mad.
> It's meant to be a fun B movie experience
> Remember fun?



The fun B movie experience claim can be used to defend any shit movie.....from that Speed Racer movie to House of the Dead. If that was a valid argument, then Uwe Boll would be cool.

Once again, I enjoyed IH......It was just a really stupid movie. I wouldn't say it was worth it. 

Also, the "remember fun?" argument seems to be used against me a lot. I like Michael Bay movies, Roland Emmerich movies and EVEN Uwe Boll movies because they are fun.....granted, thats their only qualities, but their fun.

But whenever I argue against a movie that's shit, people love just using those 2 words. It's proof they're shit....Granted, I wouldnt say IH is shit. But it tells me that you really can't defend that movie beyond that.



> What?  No.  Absolutely nothing from Returns is salvagable, to tell a real Superman movie they have to start over.



-You're just going to get another "Superman Returns" with a reboot, or a "Fantastic Four"-esque mov- Jeez, how many times do I have to repeat this to you? Does the Incredible Hulk fry brains? Must I use the Exorcist argument again?

Exorcist 3 could've pussied out and been a reboot. But it wasn't. It didn't confirm Exorcist 2(which sucked), but it didn't go out of its way to erase it from the continuity. The result, everyone was happy that it didn't try to be remake, but that Exorcist 2 could be gone from their minds(whether they liked E3 or not). 

A remake means you're going to get the same shit....again!



> Returns sucked because they made _so many_ horrendous decisions at every point in production, and they gave the movie to Singer with no oversight.
> 
> Now they got Nolan to at least oversee everything, essentially an Executive Producer, but one of that knows his comic books and movie making.



-You keep talking about Returns making so many horrendous decisions, yet I haven't really heard you say any beyond "it's boring". Singer wasn't a fan of the comics, but he was a huge fan of the first 2 Superman movies. 

I am not a comic book reader, but with the praise of IH in this thread, I'm glad. As said, I enjoyed IH, but it's a shallow, shallow film with redundant cliches, gaping plot holes and some wierd casting decisions.......That's supposed to be a good representation of the comic? 

So if thats the comic book way, then I dont care if one was inspired by them. I just want a decent movie. I dont care if its faithful or not. If every adaptation was directly faithful, then we'd have more shit like Speed Racer.




> I mainly blame the writers for not giving enough of a damn to put an effort.  The guy who wrote batman and Robin?  actually a good writer
> 
> Dark Knight, Iron man, first couple Spider-Man and X-Men movies?  They _got_ the point.



- Forever and Batman and Robin sucked because the studios completely hijacked the production. They struggled with Burton for the 89 version(but Burton mostly succeeded against them), but when it was a hit, they let him do "Batman Returns". I think it's a great movie, but it underperformed so the studios booted him and took charge. Hell, even Joel Schumacher wasn't completely at fault at this(he's more responcible for B&R than Forever). The writers and director simply couldn't fight against the evils of the studio.

It wasn't that they didn't care. 



> More like two enjoyable true to their roots movies.
> Seriously ask the average person what they think of Returns.



-Find me proof that most people hate returns. I've pointed out reviews, imdb ratings, rotten tomatoes.....All you've got are "ask the average person" claims which prove NOTHING. The burdon of proof is now on you.

As for comparing IH and Iron Man. Iron Man ruled because it had well-written characters, great casting/acting, slick character arcs, great humor and inventive action scenes. IH had.......None of that. The action was good, but nothing there felt amazing. The final battle was kind of cool I guess.

One is dumb fun, the other is simply awesome. 



> everyone will eithe say 1). it fucking sucked, 2). randomly yell the word WROOOOOOOOOOOONG l3). laugh till they crap themselves of the stupidity that is the super-son



-Stop making up imaginary audiences and presuming what people die.




> It's from the director of Rocketeer, which was really a pitch perfect spiritual cousin in a lot of ways to what a good Captain America should be
> 
> and interviews make it seem like he's actually putting his all into it.  So I'm optimistic.
> 
> Also Brubaker is consulting and like i said, Cap comics have never been better..



- He also directed Jurassic Park 3, which made Jurassic Park 2 look like Jurassic Park 1 and Jurassic Park 1 look like......Jaws!

Plus, if the Wolf-Man fails as bad as word-of-mouth suggests, the studio will probably hijack him(especially as Wolf-Man has been a bitch to make).

I don't see any great films in his filmography anyway(although he has some good ones).



> Well it would help if they actually used the *real* Lex Luthor (the one is the movies is essentially the Lex from the 1940's).
> 
> Really play up the whole duality of Superman, the god who thinks himself man, and Luthor the man who thinks himself god.  a HUUUUUGE plotpoint in the entire Superman mythos completely left out of all movies and only really show up outside of comics in a cartoon series



- Do you really think the studio will care about that? They'll just want action! Brian Synger, who probably had creative control, already failed at trying to bring anything deep to the story........They won't allow that to be tried again.



> He has other villains aside from Luthor.
> 
> There are plenty that could us a big ol' awesome fist fight sequence, or at least give a reasonable challenge to his powers.



- But it's a reboot. Villains would be minor subplots. Sort of like how "Batman Begins" put Scarecrow in the background. More awesome villains is what the sequels are for. That's why this shouldn't a reboot.......Hell, you know what? I might even be okay if this was a reboot of Superman Returns(so the first two movies still existed in its continuity)......but, I cant expect intelligence from studios....



> They definitely got Ben and Johnny perfectly.  Reed was ok.
> 
> Sue was just bad.
> 
> ...



-Agreed with all of this. Sue was the weak link, and Dr. Doom was laughably bad. Spacey as Luthor seemed like a good idea, but yes, he just overacted like mad crazy....



> He still whored like madBatman 3?



- He didn't use CGI as much as everyone expected. Sure, there was a fair amount of it, but still less than alot of its contemperaries. I think thats what bugged people the most. They wanted to see Superman doing a lot more awesome stuff.



> Also he essentially _is_ a producer.  I fully expect him to get credited as one.
> 
> Also give him some credit here, I'd like to think the man who made the two best Batman movies and memento can tell when a script is god awful.




-Do you know how easy it is to get a producers title? They have many producers title. In fact, Nolan wouldn't have to do anything and he could still get a producers title. John Carpenter got a producers title for The Fog remake and all he did was wish everyone good luck on the set.

So the fact that he's not even getting THAT worries me. Being a producer seems to be hotter than ever these days. Some producers get their names over the directors(like District 9).....But why not Nolan? It's because he isn't sure about the material yet. He doesn't want his name associated with a failure. Or the studio isn't sure if it wants to let Nolan have his way.

Either way, it sucks.


----------



## Castiel (Feb 11, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> -You liked Transformers 2......did you.........(hey, I like it too!)


Honestly have not seen it yet.  Have it on my library reserve list though.





> - I agree, but if Incredible Hulk is what a comic book movie should be like..............Then I can't blame Synger for going the opposite way.


Iron Man is also what a comic book movie should be.  As was Dark Knight, and the first couple X-Men and Spider-Man movies.





> The fun B movie experience claim can be used to defend any shit movie.....from that Speed Racer movie to House of the Dead. If that was a valid argument, then Uwe Boll would be cool.
> 
> Once again, I enjoyed IH......It was just a really stupid movie. I wouldn't say it was worth it.


The B movie experience has always been a key pillar of the Hulk.  sure they can get philosophical and deep at times, but they should never forget people are here for big ol' monster mashes



> Also, the "remember fun?" argument seems to be used against me a lot. I like Michael Bay movies, Roland Emmerich movies and EVEN Uwe Boll movies because they are fun.....granted, thats their only qualities, but their fun.
> 
> But whenever I argue against a movie that's shit, people love just using those 2 words. It's proof they're shit....Granted, I wouldnt say IH is shit. But it tells me that you really can't defend that movie beyond that.


oh sorry don't know how that got into my post.  That was part of another argument I was making.  sorry





> -You're just going to get another "Superman Returns" with a reboot, or a "Fantastic Four"-esque mov- Jeez, how many times do I have to repeat this to you? Does the Incredible Hulk fry brains? Must I use the Exorcist argument again?
> 
> Exorcist 3 could've pussied out and been a reboot. But it wasn't. It didn't confirm Exorcist 2(which sucked), but it didn't go out of its way to erase it from the continuity. The result, everyone was happy that it didn't try to be remake, but that Exorcist 2 could be gone from their minds(whether they liked E3 or not).
> 
> A remake means you're going to get the same shit....again!


oh, you mean like what the Hulk did.  well the difference is that the last good Superman movie they'd have to go back to is several decades old.

Too much has changed, not just in the world next movie needs to make Superman relevant and exciting, and truly reintroduce him to a world that has more or less forgotten what he means.  They need "make us believe a man can fly" again.

also faaaaaaaar too much has changed in the core Superman mythos to keep what the Donner movies did (which were based on comics that were already outdated back then).  Luthor has radically changed, as has the portrayal of most of the supporting cast, all of which in better and more interesting directions.




> -You keep talking about Returns making so many horrendous decisions, yet I haven't really heard you say any beyond "it's boring". Singer wasn't a fan of the comics, but he was a huge fan of the first 2 Superman movies.



Superman movie _should not_ be boring.   Also Singer being obsessed with the movies is a big thing, as I stated before the movies are a product of a different age, and hell he essentially copy pasted the plot from all 4 movies and put them together like an inbred monster.

Also too many mistakes with the mythos, which can be blamed on him going from the Donner movies I guess, but *nothing* can ever be redeemed from the stupidity of the Super-Son.



> I am not a comic book reader, but with the praise of IH in this thread, I'm glad. As said, I enjoyed IH, but it's a shallow, shallow film with redundant cliches, gaping plot holes and some wierd casting decisions.......That's supposed to be a good representation of the comic?
> 
> So if thats the comic book way, then I dont care if one was inspired by them. I just want a decent movie. I dont care if its faithful or not. If every adaptation was directly faithful, then we'd have more shit like Speed Racer.


Well now that you put it that way, not really.  The comic has a lot of the deeper undertones that Ang Lee's had, but they were subtle and masked with big ol' monster fights and such.

Comics as an art form has several advantages that the movies will never be able to replicate (and vice versa), which is why the Watchmen sucked (but was still enjoyable), I highly doubt film will ever be able to capture Moore's vision in a way that I doubt the novel would have handled Kubrick.

Basically a similar thing goes on with Hulk, you can not make a movie that fully embodies the comic.  You can really only go stupid or boring.  Stupid I can handle, if it's stupid fun (which it was), but boring is something I find unforgivable in a movie.





> - Forever and Batman and Robin sucked because the studios completely hijacked the production. They struggled with Burton for the 89 version(but Burton mostly succeeded against them), but when it was a hit, they let him do "Batman Returns". I think it's a great movie, but it underperformed so the studios booted him and took charge. Hell, even Joel Schumacher wasn't completely at fault at this(he's more responcible for B&R than Forever). The writers and director simply couldn't fight against the evils of the studio.
> 
> It wasn't that they didn't care.


You underestimate how bad the Batman and Robin script was.





> -Find me proof that most people hate returns. I've pointed out reviews, imdb ratings, rotten tomatoes.....All you've got are "ask the average person" claims which prove NOTHING. The burdon of proof is now on you.


Because critics always represent moviegoers at large.
also imdb gave it a 6.6 which is not that good.



> As for comparing IH and Iron Man. Iron Man ruled because it had well-written characters, great casting/acting, slick character arcs, great humor and inventive action scenes. IH had.......None of that. The action was good, but nothing there felt amazing. The final battle was kind of cool I guess.
> 
> One is dumb fun, the other is simply awesome.


yeah, true enough to their original concepts as they can in a movie





> -Stop making up imaginary audiences and presuming what people die.


It's called a (bad) joke, or did the whole "WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG" part not give it away?





> - He also directed Jurassic Park 3, which made Jurassic Park 2 look like Jurassic Park 1 and Jurassic Park 1 look like......Jaws!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The entire production of JP3 was a clusterfuck, but he was able to his best with what he was given (which granted wasn't very good)

Can't comment on Wolf-Man but the whole thing just seemed like a bad idea, with the way it's been made.

Still Rocketeer was a good enough movie and like I said as close to the tone of a good Captain America as you can get.  so I'm cautiously optimistic




> - Do you really think the studio will care about that? They'll just want action! Brian Synger, who probably had creative control, already failed at trying to bring anything deep to the story........They won't allow that to be tried again.


He basically wanked off to the Donner movies and essentially licked his hands and touched all the pies in his handling of everything.

Also for those who've read good superman comics, nothing Singer did was "deep".





> - But it's a reboot. Villains would be minor subplots. Sort of like how "Batman Begins" put Scarecrow in the background. More awesome villains is what the sequels are for. That's why this shouldn't a reboot.......Hell, you know what? I might even be okay if this was a reboot of Superman Returns(so the first two movies still existed in its continuity)......but, I cant expect intelligence from studios....


You know there's a big difference between being a realist and being overly pessimistic.




> -Agreed with all of this. Sue was the weak link, and Dr. Doom was laughably bad. Spacey as Luthor seemed like a good idea, but yes, he just overacted like mad crazy....


[YOUTUBE]tRVUOGUmxJI[/YOUTUBE]

He makes a good cartoonish villain, but he's no Luthor.



> - He didn't use CGI as much as everyone expected. Sure, there was a fair amount of it, but still less than alot of its contemperaries. I think thats what bugged people the most. They wanted to see Superman doing a lot more awesome stuff.


He went the other way and went with gratuitous CGI when it came to the city, that stupid island, the airplane scene, BULLET TO THE EYE, etc.



> -Do you know how easy it is to get a producers title? They have many producers title. In fact, Nolan wouldn't have to do anything and he could still get a producers title. John Carpenter got a producers title for The Fog remake and all he did was wish everyone good luck on the set.


yes but we know Nolan will not be "not be doing anything".



> So the fact that he's not even getting THAT worries me. Being a producer seems to be hotter than ever these days. Some producers get their names over the directors(like District 9).....But why not Nolan? It's because he isn't sure about the material yet. He doesn't want his name associated with a failure. Or the studio isn't sure if it wants to let Nolan have his way.
> 
> Either way, it sucks.


You do know the studio has not even made an official announcement, this site just had someone high up leak the info.

for all we know Nolan will be getting the D9 treatment or just get marked as a producer.

Really in this instance you're just looking for stuff to complain about.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 11, 2010)

Martial Horror said:
			
		

> -You're just going to get another "Superman Returns" with a reboot, or a "Fantastic Four"-esque mov- Jeez, how many times do I have to repeat this to you? Does the Incredible Hulk fry brains? Must I use the Exorcist argument again?
> 
> Exorcist 3 could've pussied out and been a reboot. But it wasn't. It didn't confirm Exorcist 2(which sucked), but it didn't go out of its way to erase it from the continuity. The result, everyone was happy that it didn't try to be remake, but that Exorcist 2 could be gone from their minds(whether they liked E3 or not).
> 
> A remake means you're going to get the same shit....again!



No
It
Doesn't

Returns Failed for a Number of reasons

1. It was BORING, this was because they didn't have any real threats on the scale that the threats should be when you have a character like Superman. *this is very easy to be changed for a new film*

2. Lex Luthor, Spacey was Better than Gene yes easily, but He still fails as a threat to Superman and to the character Lex Luthor the movies have been stuck in the 80's Luthor mode. *this is easily fixed for a new film* (if you want to read what Lex Luthor is  here ya go)

If anything they could take pointers from the JLA/U Luthor hes more Lex Luthor than all 5 Superman movies are combined.

3. The whole baby subplot needs to be thrown right out *something that has to stick around if you continue from return, and is easy to change in a reboot.*


Look I know people hold the Reeve movies in high regard but I don't find them to be that good of films. Back then they tried to convince you a man can fly, with the tech we have these days there is no excuse for not giving me a convincing & exciting & action packed Superman film.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 11, 2010)

> Iron Man is also what a comic book movie should be.  As was Dark Knight, and the first couple X-Men and Spider-Man movies.



-Iron Man was a good movie because of all the reasons I mentioned. Hulk had none of those.......So which one represents what a comic book movie should be?



> The B movie experience has always been a key pillar of the Hulk.  sure they can get philosophical and deep at times, but they should never forget people are here for big ol' monster mashes



-That still doesn't excuse all the problems IH had.




> oh, you mean like what the Hulk did.  well the difference is that the last good Superman movie they'd have to go back to is several decades old.
> 
> Too much has changed, not just in the world next movie needs to make Superman relevant and exciting, and truly reintroduce him to a world that has more or less forgotten what he means.  They need "make us believe a man can fly" again.
> 
> also faaaaaaaar too much has changed in the core Superman mythos to keep what the Donner movies did (which were based on comics that were already outdated back then).  Luthor has radically changed, as has the portrayal of most of the supporting cast, all of which in better and more interesting directions.



-Now this was a good response. This is what remakes should be. But the probblem was that "Returns" did this. "Superman Returns" was their shot at rebooting the franchise. As a movie lover, I cannot condone a studio trying to fix a mistake this quickly.

Otherwise, as I said, this will happen with EVERYTHING. If they make a mistake, they just repackage it and in the next year or 2, we'll get the same thing. Even if the Superman remake is GOOD, if the studios think they can get away with this, we will get so many remakes that it will be forgotten what the original even was. Studios will discard creativity, originality and everything that makes movies good. 

So that's why the best thing will be too wait another 10 years, when interest in another Superman movie peeks. It's too soon and most people will be confused when they see the trailer and it's not the same cast as in "Returns", because yes, most will presume it's a sequel because most people don't obssess over movie boards like us.




> Superman movie _should not_ be boring.   Also Singer being obsessed with the movies is a big thing, as I stated before the movies are a product of a different age, and hell he essentially copy pasted the plot from all 4 movies and put them together like an inbred monster.



-All four movies? Dont remember 3-4 being there, but okay. To be honest, the main reason I thought Returns was boring was that I didn't care for the cast. A movie can be slow and interesting as long as I care about the cast/characters. Superman was passable, but Lois Lane was hard to like(plus, the actress was nothing like the original character). 



> Also too many mistakes with the mythos, which can be blamed on him going from the Donner movies I guess, but *nothing* can ever be redeemed from the stupidity of the Super-Son.



-The super-son was pretty stupid. I guess they did it to do another God-Christ allegory bit.



> Well now that you put it that way, not really.  The comic has a lot of the deeper undertones that Ang Lee's had, but they were subtle and masked with big ol' monster fights and such.
> 
> Comics as an art form has several advantages that the movies will never be able to replicate (and vice versa), which is why the Watchmen sucked (but was still enjoyable), I highly doubt film will ever be able to capture Moore's vision in a way that I doubt the novel would have handled Kubrick.
> 
> Basically a similar thing goes on with Hulk, you can not make a movie that fully embodies the comic.  You can really only go stupid or boring.  Stupid I can handle, if it's stupid fun (which it was), but boring is something I find unforgivable in a movie.



- There is one thing you should keep in mind when you say boring. It is a very subjective term. Many over-the-top action films have been called boring, and many great films have been called boring. Chee thought "Thirst" was boring, I didn't. 

I didn't find Hulk 03 to be boring, even when I originally saw it. When I originally saw it, I DEMANDED things be action packed. My problem with it was really what a lot of people liked about it......I just found it to be pretentious. 

In all honesty, I wouldn't call Hulk 03 any more boring than IH......Slower paced maybe, but that's it.



> You underestimate how bad the Batman and Robin script was.



- It was bad, but it also reflected what the studio wanted. Hence, they get most of the blame.



> Because critics always represent moviegoers at large.
> also imdb gave it a 6.6 which is not that good.



6.6 generally means decent. I'm a bit surprised at you trying to bring this up, as the Rocketeer, a movie you like, got a 6.1........




> It's called a (bad) joke, or did the whole "WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG" part not give it away?



- I knew you were being sarcastic, but you keep telling me that if I ask any average person, they will hate Superman Returns........Which Im pretty sure is a logical fallacy.




> The entire production of JP3 was a clusterfuck, but he was able to his best with what he was given (which granted wasn't very good)
> 
> Can't comment on Wolf-Man but the whole thing just seemed like a bad idea, with the way it's been made.
> 
> Still Rocketeer was a good enough movie and like I said as close to the tone of a good Captain America as you can get.  so I'm cautiously optimistic



- Actually, I thought he did pretty bad on Jp3. To be fair, he's no Spielberg. One of the reasons I love JP1 and even JP2 is Spielberg knows how to stage the camera and the actors, maximizing the affect of the CGI. Joe Johnson just throws CGI at us. JP3 wasn't that bad of a movie, but he pretty much derailed the trilogy for me. 

As for Wolf-Man, now that is a movie that should be remade. But it's been in production for three years. THREE YEARS! I didn't even know JP3 was a mess to make, but now you've confirmed to me that Johnson  just cannot control a set and it seems to have effect on the actual movie. 

In all fairness though, the issue with a Captain America movie is besides the cheesy title, that crappy 90's movie is still in my head and will be hard to throw out.




> He basically wanked off to the Donner movies and essentially licked his hands and touched all the pies in his handling of everything.
> 
> Also for those who've read good superman comics, nothing Singer did was "deep".



-That has nothing to do with what I just said.........My point was that Returns was meant to be a character oriented movie. When that flopped, despite positive reviews, they're going to realize that there is a reason the Fantastic Four movies are so profitable.




> You know there's a big difference between being a realist and being overly pessimistic.



-You know, in these last 5 years, remakes have become so popular that they've almost dominated the industry. I've watched as PG-13 remakes of 80's slashers came to be, I've watched sequels try to mask themselves as remakes for the sake of a quick buck(like calling Final Destination 4 "The Final Destination), and now I must contend with remakes of remakes. All this within a short time span.

How can I not be a pessimist? The reason why remakes have become such a hit is because people are revealing to the studios that they love the same shit. Everyone has always known this, but no one took it literally. Before, the problem was similar sequels(Jaws 2, example)......Now we're getting remakes at a sequels pace. There should not be a remake of Superman planned 3 years after the last one.....The gaps are closing. Before it was 4 years, 5 years, and then they will remake it(which is too fast). But 3? That means next time it will be 2 years, then 1 year.......Then we'll be getting a Superman or Spiderman reboot every freaking year. 




> He went the other way and went with gratuitous CGI when it came to the city, that stupid island, the airplane scene, BULLET TO THE EYE, etc.



-That's not a lot. In fact, that's all expected. 



> yes but we know Nolan will not be "not be doing anything".



- Then he should get a producers title! Although I just thought of something.....If he's doing Batman 3......won't that distract him from Superman, or vice versa? 



> You do know the studio has not even made an official announcement, this site just had someone high up leak the info.
> 
> for all we know Nolan will be getting the D9 treatment or just get marked as a producer.
> 
> Really in this instance you're just looking for stuff to complain about.


[/QUOTE]

- My whole argument has been rebooting Superman this quickly is a bad idea for the franchise and cinema in general.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 11, 2010)

> ]No
> It
> Doesn't
> 
> ...



- Wait......Did we watch the same movie? Didn't Luther have some convoluted plot where he'd create a land mass, destroying the U.S and killing millions? That's not a threat? Didn't Superman almost die at the end? 

I'm not sure if I should bother with you, because you seem to hate Returns so much that it's corrupted your thinking on the movie. Jeez, you must really hate the original Reeves movie then, because that was more-or-less the same story on a smaller scale.



> 2. Lex Luthor, Spacey was Better than Gene yes easily, but He still fails as a threat to Superman and to the character Lex Luthor the movies have been stuck in the 80's Luthor mode. *this is easily fixed for a new film* (if you want to read what Lex Luthor is  here ya go)



-Most people like Gene as Luthor. Say "This is easily fixed for a new film" all you want. If it was THAT easily fixed, Returns would've done so........Hell, Superman 3 and 4 would've done so.



> 3. The whole baby subplot needs to be thrown right out *something that has to stick around if you continue from return, and is easy to change in a reboot.*



-Not really, as Superman 3 axed out Lois Lane. It's not that difficult to take out a character and/or explain why they aren't there. Just look at Die Hard and how many times his wife/kids are not in the film.



> Look I know people hold the Reeve movies in high regard but I don't find them to be that good of films. Back then they tried to convince you a man can fly, with the tech we have these days there is no excuse for not giving me a convincing & exciting & action packed Superman film.



-Which makes this arguments pointless. The fact is, most people love Superman 1 and 2, many even love Returns. The reason why 1 and 2 are held in high regard is that they're much deeper than the usual comic book hero film. The character struggles, grows and we feel that he is vulnerable despite being invincible. 

Studios do not like it when movies do that. They just want to blow shit up, which is 90% most likely going to be the reboot.


----------



## Chee (Feb 11, 2010)

> Studios do not like it when movies do that. They just want to blow shit up, which is 90% most likely going to be the reboot.



Not with Nolan's involvement. He'd probably smack a ho before letting them get away with style over substance.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 11, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> Which makes this arguments pointless. The fact is, most people love Superman 1 and 2, many even love Returns. The reason why 1 and 2 are held in high regard is that they're much deeper than the usual comic book hero film. The character struggles, grows and we feel that he is vulnerable despite being invincible.
> 
> Studios do not like it when movies do that.



See back when Superman 1 and 2 were made I would agree with you, now past Iron Man, Incredible Hulk and Begins

none of the Superman films even stand close to them.


But I do realize I have Expectations that will never come to pass

But I will always have the comics for that


----------



## Chee (Feb 11, 2010)

Thank god this version was never put into production:



> LUTHOR
> I was hoping to do this on a slightly larger scale, SUPERMAN... but here we are. And the only way for me to be the good soldier is to tell you the truth.
> (intense, evil beat)
> No, that pod the CIA recovered... it wasn’t yours.​
> ...


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 11, 2010)

Taleran said:


> See back when Superman 1 and 2 were made I would agree with you, now past Iron Man, Incredible Hulk and Begins
> 
> none of the Superman films even stand close to them.
> 
> ...



In other words, bigger special effects are how quality is determined?

Incredible Hulk didn't have an ounce that the original Superman had in terms of character arc, creativity or ambition.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 11, 2010)

You and I must not have watched the same movie then.


----------



## Ennoea (Feb 11, 2010)

> See back when Superman 1 and 2 were made I would agree with you, now past Iron Man, Incredible Hulk and Begins
> 
> none of the Superman films even stand close to them.



Umm nope. Superman still stands up to all these movies. You might not agree but plenty of people do. Not to mention Incredible Hulk wasn't very good, forget about comparing it to the original Superman.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Feb 11, 2010)

well i hope they use Ottman version of theme song 

it was one of the best opening credits track i ever hear

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n59WAWD7dqE[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## mystictrunks (Feb 11, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> -Iron Man was a good movie because of all the reasons I mentioned. Hulk had none of those.......So which one represents what a comic book movie should be?



Both are. Comic books, and movies, don't need to be deep as long as they are entertaining.


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Feb 11, 2010)

SUPERMAN FILM CONTINUITY

[01] SUPERMAN
- ORIGIN
- ESTABLISHMENT OF MAIN/SUPPORTING CAST

[02] SUPERMAN II
- REVENGE STORY
- CHARACTER REVEALS TRUE IDENTITY

[03] SUPERMAN III - SIDE STORY 1
[04] SUPERMAN IV - SIDE STORY 2

[05] SUPERMAN III (AKA) RETURNS
- CHARACTERS FROM 1ST 2 FILMS ARE REUNITED AFTER NEARLY 10 YEARS

--------------------------------------------

BATMAN FILM CONTINUITY 1

[01] BATMAN
[02] BATMAN RETURNS
[03] BATMAN FOREVER
[04] BATMAN & ROBIN

[FRANCHISE 1 IS KILLED AFTER 2 HORRIBLE SEQUELS]

BATMAN FILM CONTINUITY 2

[01] BATMAN BEGINS
[02] THE DARK KNIGHT
[03] ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As far as the Superman Franchise is Concerned I think that rebooting it is a bad idea in the history of bad ideas.

First no one can top Christopher Reeve as Clark kent/Superman or the 2nd runner up Brandon Routh.

Secondly while Returns was a character drama and a good one it failed because the Title is more known as an action piece.

Third the continuity of Film I,II and Returns should not be discarded but expanded upon. If anything Warner Bros should learn from SONYs mistake
with Spiderman you don't chuck years of story and character development
out the window because you and the director aren't on the same page DOLTS.

There are still stories that can be told with this continuity of Superman


----------



## Grape (Feb 12, 2010)

Never been a superman fan. maybe this one will actually be good.


----------



## mystictrunks (Feb 12, 2010)

Hellrasinbrasin said:


> If anything Warner Bros should learn from SONYs mistake
> with Spiderman you don't chuck years of story and character development
> out the window because you and the director aren't on the same page DOLTS.



Comic books reset continuity on a pretty regular basis.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 12, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> Both are. Comic books, and movies, don't need to be deep as long as they are entertaining.



this.

And that is pretty much my view on movies and its part of how I define the different forms of entertainment and what they are about

Books: Character
Comics: Ideas
Movies: Moments
Television: Narrative


----------



## Comic Book Guy (Feb 12, 2010)

Chee said:


> Some people think that Nolan will become to involved in the project and the movie will become a clusterfuck of clashed ideas even though filmmaking, almost by definition, is a clusterfuck of clashed ideas.



Ah. Alrighty.



> Also, some disapprove of another Superman reboot, although I think its much needed since Superman Returns (and that was more of a sequel than anything else) kinda sucked and the only good Supes movie was over 30 years ago.



I motion for a reboot.

Superman Returns was a spiritual sequel to Superman.

Much as I love the Reeves Superman film, we need a new Superman film. Returns didn't do the job.


----------



## Bart (Feb 13, 2010)

In all the Superman films so far we've only seen one alien species: Kryptonions, not counting Vera Webster and Nuclear Man.

I can't wait to see Brainiac, Eradicator, Darkseid, Mr Mxyzptlk or even Doomsday.


----------



## FitzChivalry (Feb 13, 2010)

I would like it if they avoided the origins tale and got right down to business, since _everyone_ knows Superman's origin tale. Dump Lex Luthor as the main villain and keep him as a background force and finally let a villain like Brainiac grace us with his presence. Brainiac was always awesome and he's a recognizable villain in the Superman universe. I completely agree with bringing in the awesome Darkseid, and I think it could be better done if he were brought in for the inevitable sequel.


----------



## masamune1 (Feb 13, 2010)

9Tail-Hokage said:


> I would like it if they avoided the origins tale and got right down to business, since _everyone_ knows Superman's origin tale. Dump Lex Luthor as the main villain and keep him as a background force and finally let a villain like Brainiac grace us with his presence. Brainiac was always awesome and he's a recognizable villain in the Superman universe. I completely agree with bringing in the awesome Darkseid, and I think it could be better done if he were brought in for the inevitable sequel.



I don't know if I like the idea of Brainiac for the first film. It seems like he would do better for the sequel, and Darkseid can be someone built up to for a third or fourth climactic film. 

I think I would prefer Luthor being behind "human" villains in the first film, like Metallo or the Parasite (or both, maybe even with others- many villains _can_ work, if handled properly). 

Then bring in Brainiac for the sequel once everything is established (maybe tease him at the end of the first one), which gives him ground to be a major threat without wasting him because he was rushed in too quickly (like how Joker was saved for _TDK_ instead of _Begins)._ A subplot with Intergang can set up Darkseid for film 3. I'd like to see something like that.


----------



## Chee (Feb 13, 2010)

I'm just sick of Luthor.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 13, 2010)

masamune1 said:


> I don't know if I like the idea of Brainiac for the first film. It seems like he would do better for the sequel, and Darkseid can be someone built up to for a third or fourth climactic film.
> 
> I think I would prefer Luthor being behind "human" villains in the first film, like Metallo or the Parasite (or both, maybe even with others- many villains _can_ work, if handled properly).
> 
> Then bring in Brainiac for the sequel once everything is established (maybe tease him at the end of the first one), which gives him ground to be a major threat without wasting him because he was rushed in too quickly (like how Joker was saved for _TDK_ instead of _Begins)._ A subplot with Intergang can set up Darkseid for film 3. I'd like to see something like that.



Metallo is chump change he should be nothing more than a cameo Clark is pounding on at the start of a film.

Have it be Brainiac and then have the movie end with the destroyed Brainiac sending a signal out into space to the real Brainiac and then do War of the Worlds type Alien Robot Conquer Sequel



> I'm just sick of Luthor.



I am also sick of how they portray Luthor in live action movies

I want Action Scientist Luthor


----------



## masamune1 (Feb 13, 2010)

Chee said:


> I'm just sick of Luthor.





Taleran said:


> Metallo is chump change he should be nothing more than a cameo Clark is pounding on at the start of a film.
> 
> Have it be Brainiac and then have the movie end with the destroyed Brainiac sending a signal out into space to the real Brainiac and then do War of the Worlds type Alien Robot Conquer Sequel
> 
> ...




I want evil scientist-business Luthor. @Chee, the films have not really done Luthor.

If nothing else, that Luthor showed that beng an evil mad scientist is no reason to not make an honest (ish) living. It makes him look smarter than all the others who make silly mistakes like getting caught.



Metallo is okay, but I did say he should probably not be the only bad guy in such a film. Luthor hiring/ creating a group of superpowered villains to fight Superman sounds like a plan (though ideally there would be other stuff going on as well). 

Don't waste myBrainiac on your WotW-rip off idea. Set him up, and let him show what he can do in one film: he only needs that to wreck real havoc on he planet. Don't let him get repetitive like Lex.


----------



## Shark Skin (Feb 13, 2010)

Yeah this time around, if they insist on going with Lex Luthor, I'd like to see him be more akin to the animated one (darker) than the live action one (campy).


----------



## Taleran (Feb 13, 2010)

Hes not dark in JLA/U hes Smart


----------



## Tempproxy (Feb 13, 2010)

Hellrasinbrasin said:


> SUPERMAN FILM CONTINUITY
> 
> [01] SUPERMAN
> - ORIGIN
> ...



Ehhhhhhhhhh I think in regards to return it's more a case of the director and his target audience are not on the same page. Returns was a failure and a reboot is very much needed.


----------



## Ankoma (Feb 14, 2010)

I don't mind this. Superman is in need of a really good modern day movie. 

I think what they need to do is actually give Supes a challenge. I'd go for Metallo for the first movie. Just a relatively small time local problem just to test the waters, then really go all out for the next movie, like General Zod, or Braniac. Then step into Darksied or Doomsday territory after that. Basically just not Luthor again. Please. Or at most just make him the guy pulling the strings or something

Also I really don't think they should rack their brains in trying to make Superman relatable. Isn't his job supposed to be being a symbol of all that is good, all that humankind can/should aspire to be? Shouldn't he be setting an example for everyone rather than stalking his baby's mama? 

Also avoid the "dark" route like the plague. Dark isn't Superman. Make him struggle and possibly dobut, but they should never loose track of what Supes stands for. 

Really Superman can be an awesome franchise and hero. He just needs to be handle properly.


----------



## Chee (Feb 21, 2010)

Christopher Nolan isn't overseeing Superman. It's just a rumor.



> "Wouldn't you like to know!" laughed Nelson when asked if there was any truth to the recent rumor that "The Dark Knight" director Christopher Nolan will oversee a reboot of the "Superman" movie franchise.
> 
> "We don't have any plans about that, and as I've mentioned, in the coming months we'll be making a lot of announcements about what our content plans will be," she added. "But right now, that's nothing but rumor — and we frankly don't say a whole lot more about rumor than that, so..."



10 Years - Wasteland


----------



## Vault (Feb 21, 2010)

Chee said:


> Hasn't been confirmed, but Nolan has an idea for Batman 3? COME ON WB! Just say it. Nolan is back!



Batman 3 is already confirmed by what Nolan said, he had a GREAT IDEA of where to take batman 3, the script is in the works and almost complete


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 21, 2010)

Good for Nolan. He shouldn't touch this movie with a 30 ft stick.


----------



## Chee (Feb 21, 2010)

Knew you'd like the news, Martial.


----------



## illmatic (Feb 22, 2010)

More time for Batman 3


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Feb 22, 2010)

Agreed. I'm fine with this, especially since Geoff Johns is creative director, i'm confident that he'll be able to keep the next superman movie from missing the point.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 22, 2010)

Part of me hopes this sucks so the rebooting craze will die down.....the other part of me is annoyed that I hope any movie sucks......even if its one I'm against.


----------



## Eunectes (Feb 22, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> Part of me hopes this sucks so the rebooting craze will die down.....the other part of me is annoyed that I hope any movie sucks......even if its one I'm against.


Just because one reboot sucks doesn,t stop them from making more reboots you know.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 22, 2010)

Eunectes said:


> Just because one reboot sucks doesn,t stop them from making more reboots you know.



Yeah, but if it makes no more money than "Returns"(whether it sucks or not), then MAYBE it will prove to them that big budget reboots don't work.

With Punisher Warzone flopping and Incredible Hulk barely doing better than the first one, they will finally realize that general audiences aren't that interesting in reboots. They want sequels more.


----------



## masamune1 (Feb 22, 2010)

If this movie sucks then they will probably feel the need to reboot it.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 22, 2010)

Think they'll have the rights to it by then?

It's ultimately who they're going to target it for. Is it going to be more kid/teen friendly, like those Fantastic Four films, or more adult friendly.

To be honest, I dont think either way can work anymore. The Superman suit has become uber outdated and cheesy(I just cannot imagine any straight man flying around in that anymore).......but we've seen what happens when kids are the target audience(Superman 3 and Superman 4).......

To be honest, I doubt it will suck anyway. A 2/4 star will probably be what it will get at its worse. The Fantastic Four movies, Ghost Rider, etc probably would be that good/bad(maybe a 2.5/4)........

I mean, I haven't liked any comic book movie out there. But the only ones I'd say that were bad that have come out within the last 10 years are "Catwoman" and "Elektra", which I didn't even enjoy.


----------



## masamune1 (Feb 22, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> *Think they'll have the rights to it by then?*
> 
> It's ultimately who they're going to target it for. Is it going to be more kid/teen friendly, like those Fantastic Four films, or more adult friendly.
> 
> ...



Rights? 

The film is made by Warner Bros (and Legendary Pictures, their junior partner). Warner Bros. _owns_ Superman (or rather, they own DC Comics). They can make the films forever.

Unless you are referring to the copyright issues surrounding Supes.

And regardless of that, if the lose the rights, the franchise will need to be rebooted anyway.


----------



## Chee (Feb 22, 2010)

They seriously need to update the Superman costume. Sorry hardcore comic book fans, but its true. The red undies aren't working and neither is the blue.

And I still think he needs a better disguise (or at least try to avoid cameras and don't stay too long for people to see his face).


----------



## masamune1 (Feb 22, 2010)

The suit works fine. Be quiet both of you.


----------



## Chee (Feb 22, 2010)

Shush, no it doesn't. I'm sick of the tighty-reddies showing his bulgy groin.


----------



## masamune1 (Feb 22, 2010)

It's not his fault if you keep staring at his groin.


----------



## Eunectes (Feb 22, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> Yeah, but if it makes no more money than "Returns"(whether it sucks or not), then MAYBE it will prove to them that big budget reboots don't work.
> 
> With Punisher Warzone flopping and Incredible Hulk barely doing better than the first one, they will finally realize that general audiences aren't that interesting in reboots. They want sequels more.


I don,t think people care that much if it is a reboot or a sequel.
They want to be entertained and if a reboot is necessary to make that happen then so be it.
And to tell you the truth i thought that the new Hulk movie was way beter then old one. And i wouldn,t mind seeing more reboots like that if the quality improves.


----------



## Chee (Feb 22, 2010)

masamune1 said:


> It's not his fault if you keep staring at his groin.


----------



## Eunectes (Feb 22, 2010)

Chee said:


> They seriously need to update the Superman costume. Sorry hardcore comic book fans, but its true. The red undies aren't working and neither is the blue.
> 
> And I still think he needs a better disguise (or at least try to avoid cameras and don't stay too long for people to see his face).


I guess the 'ultimate superman' design is more for you then:


----------



## masamune1 (Feb 22, 2010)

"shivers" **


----------



## Eunectes (Feb 22, 2010)

masamune1 said:


> "shivers" **


The only ultimate DC design i realy liked was the Flash design.


----------



## Chee (Feb 22, 2010)

Eunectes said:


> I guess the 'ultimate superman' design is more for you then:



Turn the blue into black and I'd tap dat ass. 

But that costume still has the tight groin area. But then again, most superheroes do. D:


----------



## Eunectes (Feb 22, 2010)

Chee said:


> Turn the blue into black and I'd tap dat ass.
> 
> But that costume still has the tight groin area. But then again, most superheroes do. D:


Whats wrong with blue???


----------



## Chee (Feb 22, 2010)

Blue and red just don't go together. 

Red and black, however, sexy.


----------



## Banhammer (Feb 22, 2010)

I just want to say Incredible Hulk was really good, and it's greatest flaw was being shown between Iron Man and Dark Knight


----------



## masamune1 (Feb 22, 2010)

Chee said:


> Blue and red just don't go together.



So you'd change Spidey's costume too?


----------



## Eunectes (Feb 22, 2010)

Chee said:


> Blue and red just don't go together.
> 
> Red and black, however, sexy.


Red and black makes him look like a villain.
A dark Superman would suck horrible.


----------



## Chee (Feb 22, 2010)

Dark superman = sexy.



masamune1 said:


> So you'd change Spidey's costume too?



Yes.


----------



## masamune1 (Feb 22, 2010)

Chee said:


> Dark superman = sexy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.



You have no place in this conversation.


----------



## Chee (Feb 22, 2010)

Yes, I do. I'm the average comic book movie goer. We make up around 50%+- of the box office.


----------



## Eunectes (Feb 22, 2010)

Chee said:


> Dark superman = sexy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.


Dark Superman = shit
I don,t wanna see a "? kill you, I'll kill you to DEATH!'" or a 'You're ruining everything!!!!!' moment in a Superman movie.


----------



## Chee (Feb 22, 2010)

No. No. No. 

Dark Superman costume = sex
Dark Superman attitude = go die in a ditch, cause I don't want to hear you complain.

I just want the sexy dark costume.


----------



## masamune1 (Feb 22, 2010)

Chee said:


> Yes, I do. I'm the average comic book movie goer. We make up around 50%+- of the box office.



The average comic book movie goer does'nt what to change the costumes of two of the planets most famous heroes. For sex.


----------



## Chee (Feb 22, 2010)

masamune1 said:


> The average comic book movie goer does'nt what to change the costumes of two of the planets most famous heroes. *For sex.*



Keep the 'S' logo. Skip the red panties.

Bolded: And your no fun.


----------



## Chee (Feb 22, 2010)

At least I'm not as radical as this asspop:



> his colors are the first to go... i would put him in a gray-fox like costume. his new colors would be red and black. the cape is gone. the logo would be smaller, like a crest on his left breast... and definitely, i would make his hair all spiked up...


----------



## Taleran (Feb 22, 2010)

Chee said:


> Blue and red just don't go together.
> 
> Red and black, however, sexy.



You are a horrible person


----------



## Chee (Feb 22, 2010)

Oh come on guys! You have to agree with me, at least, that the red underwear on the outside is a tad silly. D:


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Feb 22, 2010)

What's next!? You'll be expecting him to ditch the costume altogether and just throw on a Black and Red T shirt, some Levis, and a pair of Doc Martens? No superhero would ever be caught DEAD in such a thing!!



Chee said:


> Oh come on guys! You have to agree with me, at least, that the red underwear on the outside is a tad silly. D:



Oh it's silly as hell, but it's still part of what makes superman superman so I wouldn't have it any other way.

And as long as they can make superman as awesome as he really is the costume won't matter all that much.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 22, 2010)

Chee said:


> Oh come on guys! You have to agree with me, at least, that the red underwear on the outside is a tad silly. D:



You are sounding like the people who make Smallville


----------



## Chee (Feb 22, 2010)

No. D:
Just no underwear. 

I'd prefer red and black, but I don't mind if he sticks with the blue and red. 

And I hate his Smallville "costume".


----------



## Taleran (Feb 22, 2010)

Chee said:


> No. D:
> Just no underwear.



its not underwear its part of the costume


----------



## Chee (Feb 22, 2010)

Taleran said:


> its not underwear its part of the costume



It's underwear. On the outside.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 22, 2010)

No its not, its only that on bad Action Figures and bad Movie costumes


----------



## Chee (Feb 22, 2010)

Taleran said:


> No its not, its only that on bad Action Figures and bad Movie costumes



He's wearing red panties.


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Feb 22, 2010)

I'll start considering a superman costume other than the primary one when I see an alternative that doesn't make me go "Who's that guy? Certainly not superman."


----------



## Chee (Feb 22, 2010)

Look at this faggotry, now this shit is not what I want:



This is pretty good, would change the red thing on his side to a belt or something:


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Feb 22, 2010)

Chee said:


> Look at this faggotry, now this shit is not what I want:
> 
> 
> 
> This is pretty good, would change the red thing on his side to a belt or something:



FRANKENSUPER!? 

But the other one, still. I mean it's not a bad looking costume, but the dark just doesn't suit superman imo. His whole shtick is that he's a figure of hope, and that costume doesn't look very hopeful. It looks intimidating, like someone I wouldn't approach on the street lest he punch my head in.

I think superman's costume should look approachable. He should look like someone a kid can walk up to, tug on his cape, and ask for help. The bright colors help with that.


----------



## Chee (Feb 22, 2010)

I KNOW RIGHT!? 

I'll settle on blue and red. As long as the blue is a dark blue.


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Feb 22, 2010)

Chee said:


> I KNOW RIGHT!?
> 
> I'll settle on blue and red. As long as the blue is a dark blue.



I don't mind if it's not super bright, but I don't want it super dark blue. For instance, the blue in the picture you provided is too dark.


----------



## Chee (Feb 22, 2010)

Eh, I think its just right.


^^ Brighter.
I guess that could work too.


----------



## Rukia (Feb 22, 2010)

I agree with Chee.  This franchise is doomed to fail if you guys are married to the idea of Superman's old costume.  This is the 21st century.  His costume needs an upgrade.  Something that worked in the 50's will not work now.  Times change and super heroes need to change with the time.

If they make another movie about Flash... I will expect a major uniform modification as well.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Feb 22, 2010)

Chee said:


> Eh, I think its just right.
> 
> 
> ^^ Brighter.
> I guess that could work too.



It's rather dark for my tastes but I guess it's all right...

God I wish we can get someone other than Luthor for this movie, because i'm tired of seeing him in every Supes movie.


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Feb 22, 2010)

Are you joking? The zaru kinda throws me off ha.

For me, one of the primary draws of Superman is that he doesn't change, not radically. The superman my grandpa loved is the same superman I'm watching and reading about today. Sure, he adapts to fit the issues and tone of the times, but deep down he's the same character. His costume reflects that. 

Also, it worked fine in the 80s, don't see why it wouldn't work now.

Finally, the flash costume is awesome, although the material could use some altercations.

EDIT: Oh and I don't think the costume (as long as its not horrible) is going to be the deciding factor for this franchise ha.



Emperor Joker said:


> It's rather dark for my tastes but I guess it's all right...
> 
> God I wish we can get someone other than Luthor for this movie, because i'm tired of seeing him in every Supes movie.



I'd agree with this if the portrayal of Luthor in the movies was any good. Not to say that hackman or spacey are bad, just that the writers really didn't get luthor.


----------



## Chee (Feb 22, 2010)

You still think the blue is dark? Jeezus. D:


----------



## masamune1 (Feb 22, 2010)

Emperor Joker said:


> It's rather dark for my tastes but I guess it's all right...
> 
> God I wish we can get someone other than Luthor for this movie, because i'm tired of seeing him in every Supes movie.



Luthor needs to be in it. He just does'nt have to be the main/ only villain.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Feb 22, 2010)

masamune1 said:


> Luthor needs to be in it. He just does'nt have to be the main/ only villain.



As long as he's not the villain for it i'll be fine, but for god's sake hollywood give me Brainiac or Darkseid or Doomsday, or somebody who is not fucking Lex Luthor for my main antagonist this time out.


----------



## masamune1 (Feb 22, 2010)

Emperor Joker said:


> As long as he's not the villain for it i'll be fine, but for god's sake hollywood give me Brainiac or Darkseid or Doomsday, or somebody who is not fucking Lex Luthor for my main antagonist this time out.



I'd prefer if he was manipulating another villain in the first movie- like Bizarro, Metallo, the Parasite, someone like that (maybe more than one)- and save Brainiac and Darkseid for the sequels. Luthor would be the "main" antagonist but he'd get away with it, more or less, with Superman having his hands full with the other guy.


----------



## illmatic (Feb 22, 2010)

Should Green Lantern's costume be modified?


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Feb 22, 2010)

masamune1 said:


> I'd prefer if he was manipulating another villain in the first movie- like Bizarro, Metallo, the Parasite, someone like that (maybe more than one)- and save Brainiac and Darkseid for the sequels. Luthor would be the "main" antagonist but he'd get away with it, more or less, with Superman having his hands full with the other guy.



I like this idea. But Luthor has to be portrayed correctly, as the evil genius/manipulator who believes that superman impedes human progress but really just hates him due to ego issues.



illmatic said:


> Should Green Lantern's costume be modified?



More of a fit for the DC movies thread, but if you've seen the concept art, that looks pretty good. Didn't change the design much, but made the material less skin tight looking, which i'm fine with.


----------



## masamune1 (Feb 22, 2010)

Windwaker said:


> I like this idea. But Luthor has to be portrayed correctly, as the evil genius/manipulator who believes that superman impedes human progress but really just hates him due to ego issues.



Would'nt have it any other way. 

Just make sure he's an evil businessman too (while still a mad scientist).


----------



## Taleran (Feb 22, 2010)

Clancy Brown as voiced through All Star Superman #5


----------



## Emperor Joker (Feb 22, 2010)

masamune1 said:


> Would'nt have it any other way.
> 
> Just make sure he's an evil businessman too (while still a mad scientist).



I'd be fine with that, as long as Luthor's not over the top like he was in Returns.


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Feb 22, 2010)

masamune1 said:


> Would'nt have it any other way.
> 
> Just make sure he's an evil businessman too (while still a mad scientist).



Of course. The business world is where we'd see his skill at manipulation, his ability to play the public like a fiddle and orchestrate deals behind the scenes. Initially I'd want Lex to regard Supes as just another obstacle in his way, another enemy to be crushed under his genius. Superman will then, through the events of the movie reveal Lex's true form to the people of metropolis and to the world, and *this *is what would turn superman from just another enemy to the bane of his existence. 



Emperor Joker said:


> I'd be fine with that, as long as Luthor's not over the top like he was in Returns.



I've always thought that Movie Luthor should be more similar to comic Luthor/DCAU Luthor.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 24, 2010)

Time To change the THREAD TITLE




this here





> Latino Review has broken the news that David Goyer will write the new Superman movie, to be titled *The Man of Steel!*
> 
> The site's scooper said that Goyer "had an idea that actually takes the movies back to the John Byrne incarnation. Modern. Believable. FUN!"
> 
> ...


----------



## Emperor Joker (Feb 24, 2010)

YES! Fuck yes!


----------



## Chee (Feb 24, 2010)

Oh cool.


----------



## Eunectes (Feb 24, 2010)

> The site's scooper said that Goyer "had an idea that actually takes the movies back to the John Byrne incarnation. Modern. *Believable*. FUN!"


Because a man flying in the sky and shooting lasers out of his eyes is totally believable.
Everything else looks to be good through.
Dc is probably waiting how Avengers wil do and then attempt at there own superhero team movie.


----------



## Castiel (Feb 24, 2010)

Taleran said:


> Time To change the THREAD TITLE
> 
> 
> 
> ...





detractors can suck it


----------



## Chee (Feb 24, 2010)

> with rumours that David Goyer – who has contributed to the story for both of the latest Bat-ventures – has signed on to write a new Superman tale called The Man Of Steel.



This is just a rumor too.


----------



## mystictrunks (Feb 25, 2010)

Chee said:


> No. No. No.
> 
> Dark Superman costume = sex



All his dark costumes have been pretty terrible.


----------



## Bart (Feb 25, 2010)

Because Routh may not come back what does everything think of Josh Hartnett?


----------



## Eunectes (Feb 25, 2010)

Bart said:


> Because Routh may not come back what does everything think of Josh Hartnett?


He doesn,t look much like Superman.
He could maybe play a teen Clark or something.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 25, 2010)

I didn't mind Brandon Routh.....I just didn't think he was exceptional. He does fine, but simply lacked the charisma/talent that Christopher Reeves had.


----------



## FitzChivalry (Feb 25, 2010)

Brainiac! Wish granted! This now makes me believe in Darkseid for a sequel. I approve.


----------



## Chee (Feb 26, 2010)

Another rumor hits the fan.



> With numerous (and fairly unbelievable) The Man of Steel rumors flying around over the past week, it seemed unlikely that they could possibly come together to form a truth. And although this may just be another interesting rumor to be considered and tossed out in another week, IESB may have hit on something that rings truer and potentially makes some sense of what has been said recently about the Nolans and The Man of Steel.
> 
> Now to get a few things straight, the rumors put Christopher Nolan as the ‘Godfather’ figure to the project (presumably due to his very successful work rebooting Batman) with Jonathan Nolan and David Goyer writing the screenplay.  But, according to IESB, word is that Chris Nolan’s involvement is more to help out his brother Jonathan than, say, just to help out Warner Bros. get another franchise off the ground.  The rumblings go further to mention that the reason Chris would want to be in this type of role is that The Man of Steel will be Jonathan Nolan’s directorial debut.
> 
> On the one hand it seems a little crazy that Warner Bros. would let Jonathan Nolan take on a $200-million Superman film for his first outing as director.  But with Chris’ support and the respect Warner Bros. has for the Nolan team, it does feel in the realm of possibility.  IESB’s rumor mill continues on to put Christopher Nolan as the director of the future Justice League movie.  Although intriguing, I think that’s one that just needs to stay completely in the rumor mill for now.





Rumor is that Jonah Nolan (Christopher Nolan's brother) is going to make his directorial debut with The Man of Steel.

I call bullshit.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 26, 2010)

I dunno...........It would be hard for him, as everyone would compare him to his brother(who became a titan with comic book films). It's always best to start out small and get bigger(like what Nolan did).


----------



## Chee (Feb 26, 2010)

He's never directed a film before, as far as official ones go.


----------



## mystictrunks (Feb 26, 2010)

Eh, Christ Nolan really only did two small films before getting bundles of money to do whatever.


----------



## Chee (Feb 26, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> Eh,* Christ Nolan *really only did two small films before getting bundles of money to do whatever.





Christ Nolan. 

He did three films before hitting it big.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 26, 2010)

Directing big budgeted movies as your debut is always a mistake.

Just look at Eragon.


----------



## Chee (Feb 26, 2010)

Yea, I don't see it happening.


----------



## mystictrunks (Feb 26, 2010)

Chee said:


> Christ Nolan.
> 
> He did three films before hitting it big.



Following, Memento, and what?


----------



## Chee (Feb 26, 2010)

Insomnia is considered small. I'm talking about big budgets.


----------



## mystictrunks (Feb 26, 2010)

Chee said:


> Insomnia is considered small. I'm talking about big budgets.



It was above average. Not small at all.


----------



## Chee (Feb 26, 2010)

I consider Batman Begins his break-out big-league film.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 26, 2010)

Most importantly, Nolan did three films people respected. Memento was hugely popular and Insomnia had a pretty decent sized budget, but it wasn't epic.

Insomnia only cost alot due to star power. In terms of visuals, its still small.

Dont even remember his other film.

So he knew how to direct well enough and although Batman Begins showed some problems(I will always hate those fucking fight scenes), it was a nice enough transition.


----------



## mystictrunks (Feb 26, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> Directing big budgeted movies as your debut is always a mistake.
> 
> Just look at Eragon.



That has more to do with Eragon being bad source material.


----------



## Vault (Feb 26, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> Most importantly, Nolan did three films people respected. Memento was hugely popular and Insomnia had a pretty decent sized budget, but it wasn't epic.
> 
> Insomnia only cost alot due to star power. In terms of visuals, its still small.
> 
> ...



how can you not remember the prestige?


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 26, 2010)

Didn't Prestige come out after Batman Begins?


----------



## Vault (Feb 26, 2010)

Yeah it did

I finally see, the movie you are talking about


----------



## Chee (Feb 26, 2010)

Following, Martial?

That was his first feature, made on a 6,000 dollar budget. I don't think it got into many festivals back in 1998 but it got attention when Nolan became famous.

Point is, Chris had tons of short films and 3 prior feature films on his resume before tackling something big.


----------



## mystictrunks (Feb 26, 2010)

Not having director credits before tackling a big movie. Dudes like JJ Abrams started out big with their directorial debuts with backgrounds in writing and production.

Film is an artform where practice, outside of the fundamentals, is pretty much useless. Uwe Boll has tons of experience as a director yet someone like Chris Nolan, who has little compared to him, blows him out of the water.


----------



## Chee (Feb 26, 2010)

That's true, but I dunno. We'll see. It's not even confirmed.


----------



## Bender (Feb 26, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> Most importantly, Nolan did three films people respected. Memento was hugely popular and Insomnia had a pretty decent sized budget, but it wasn't epic.
> 
> Insomnia only cost alot due to star power. In terms of visuals, its still small.
> 
> ...



What was wrong with the fight scenes in Batman Begins?


----------



## Chee (Feb 26, 2010)

It was unfocused and blurry. You really couldn't see what was going on. The fight scene on the ice was good though.

It was toned down a lot in The Dark Knight and it looks like Inception has some pretty damn cool fight scenes that you can actually see...well...aside from the fact that the majority of it is upside down and going all over the place.


----------



## Bender (Feb 26, 2010)

Chee said:


> It was unfocused and blurry. You really couldn't see what was going on. The fight scene on the ice was good though.



Only what....? Like one fight scene was blurry. The fight between Ra's Al Ghul and Bats was blurry.

On another note MH stop bitching about Superman Reboot. There is no way in hell any great director would make a sequel to Superman Returns.


----------



## Chee (Feb 26, 2010)

The fight between Batman and the henchmen during the drug scene (the part right before Batman gets Falcone...Falcone right?) was a bit...confusing.
Also the one where Bruce Wayne is fighting the Chinese guys in prison.

They aren't bad fight scenes, just the editing and camera work needed improvement. And it got that in TDK.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 27, 2010)

Blaze of Glory said:


> Only what....? Like one fight scene was blurry. The fight between Ra's Al Ghul and Bats was blurry.
> 
> On another note MH stop bitching about Superman Reboot. There is no way in hell any great director would make a sequel to Superman Returns.



Every fight scene was blurry dude.............

As for JJ Abrams, that's a good point. But to be fair, is Mission Impossible 3 really that good? lol, kidding(I liked it).

But in all honesty, JJ Abrams is an unusual talent. Maybe Johnathan Nolan is talented. But really, do you really think he's going to be as good as his brother? I mean, what are the odds that there will be two immensely talented director brothers? 

Oh wait, the Coens......And the Wach-the guys who did Matrix(but they also did Speedracer). 

But it's best to be on the safe side. If Superman isn't a good movie, then he'll always be the 2nd rate Nolan. Wouldn't it be better to start off with something smaller, so if he messes up, he won't embarass himself that badly?

Plus, Abrams was the producer, which is technically the director of finances. So he still had some experience with being a big wig on the set. Jonathan is only a writer.

This would just be something that could go way too wrong for him. Maybe if it was just writing that would be better, but directing.....


----------



## FitzChivalry (Feb 27, 2010)

I will say this again and in this thread for the first time: Neil Blomkamp. Nolan should talk to Peter Jackson and he would voich for this guy. Worked miracles on a relatively modest budget ($30m). Peter Jackson calls him a "true visionary." A guy like this should get a superhero franchise in the future.


----------



## Bender (Feb 27, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> Every fight scene was blurry dude.............



"_What are you dense or retarded? Who the hell do you think I am? I'm goddamn Batman_"

-*Batman*

It suits his character. 

It was easy to follow the Scarecrow fight. When Batman jumps out of a window on fire. 

The fight with the Chinese dude in prison I could follow.

The one where Batman stomps Falcone's men can't even be considered a fight. More of a massacre. 

As I said the final fight was blurry. And the final battle with Scarecrow in begins was blurry.


----------



## crazymtf (Feb 27, 2010)

Fight scenes sucked in batman, but that's not why it's hailed as such a great movie so doesn't really matter.


----------



## Chee (Feb 27, 2010)

> But in all honesty, JJ Abrams is an unusual talent. Maybe Johnathan Nolan is talented. But really, do you really think he's going to be as good as his brother? I mean, what are the odds that there will be two immensely talented director brothers?


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 27, 2010)

I think i already said that Chee.

Blaze: Then you must have.......The Sharingan!

Seriously though, most people disagree with you.

Everyone, Blaze of Glory is pretty much what I consider to be a slave of a movies awesomeness. It's when someone likes a movie so much, they refuse to see anything wrong with it, even though it's there. Then if you disagree, they suddenly act all hostile.

It's already contaminated most of imdb, dont let it get to narutoforums!


----------



## Taleran (Feb 27, 2010)

I enjoyed all of Begins aswell, and the fights were shaky on purpose because every fight except for the sword fight training with Ra's was mostly based on the element of surprise


And as for Superman I think future movies could take a lot of advice from the Superman 2000 proposal that Grant Morrison, Mark Waid, Tom Peyer and Mark Millar gave to DC

I'll give you the section on the villains


*Spoiler*: _Cube/Bizarro World_ 






> Taking the already existing Bizarro character and spinning off from Peyer's 80-Page Giant story, we can restore the creepy, demented, unnerving quality of the old Bizarro World stories. A little funny still...but somehow, a lot more scary.
> 
> Imagine a living planet which hunts through space. The entire world is a sentient system and it preys on other planets like a cancer. This self-aware--but not particularly intelligent by our standards--macro-entity has learned to imitate its prey and does this in order to "sneak up" on a victim in a pleasing, non-threatening shape. Its method is to transform itself into a crude copy of its target, sail in close and then strike by launching self-replicating parts of itself.
> 
> ...







*Spoiler*: _Brainiac_ 





> Lex Luthor builds a green-flesh computer brain and body to house the dying Brainiac. The space-villain becomes Luthor's Frankenstein Monster, a heartless machine whose intellect and cosmic reach dwarfs even his creator's genius. Unlike Luthor, Brainiac hasn’t a shred of compassion and is the only enemy whom Superman genuinely fears.
> 
> Not explicitly stated, but the Quartet implies that Brainiac is what Jonathan Kent feared Clark would turn into in Elliot S. Maggin's novel Miracle Monday: a cold, detached superbeing without any compassion or morals, viewing all living things as specimen to be studied and used for his own purposes. Since Superman is defined by his compassion and devotion to life, Brainiac is very much his opposite number.








*Spoiler*: _Luthor_ 





> We see Luthor playing chess with twenty grandmasters simultaneously while reading untranslated Il Principe and teaching himself Urdu via a Walkman he made for himself in five minutes back in 1962. Luthor is so smart we don't even have a WORD for what he is yet; calling him a genius is as insulting as calling him an imbecile.
> 
> Here’s a secret about Luthor no one yet knows. Despite his born ruthlessness, he was once salvageable, once redeemable--until Superman arrived. Though even he doesn’t consciously realize it, every iota of Luthor’s self-esteem was pinned to achieving that most lofty goal: to be considered the greatest man who ever lived. And he was on his way--until Superman appeared and outclassed him, triggering the scattershot sociopathic tantrum that is his criminal career.
> 
> ...






Oh and DC turned the proposal down and 2 of these 3 concepts (they go into every detail about the character), end up in Morrison's All Star Superman.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 28, 2010)

> I enjoyed all of Begins aswell, and the fights were shaky on purpose because every fight except for the sword fight training with Ra's was mostly based on the element of surprise



Alright, we need to talk about this. The whole shaky cam thing probably came from Psycho, in which the camera gets all shaky when Norman is killing a girl. It's meant to disorient the viewer. It's used wonderfully and artfully. Unfortunately, few other people seem to know how to use it right.

Horror films whore it badly, with every freaking attack and chase scene going down that route. But then action movies got on the craze, which only makes the action annoying("Transformers" sucked BECAUSE of this). 

Sort of like how Ebert described the use of dutch angles in his Battlefield Earth review: They know that it's used, but they don't know why.

Unfortunately, I think Nolan did a terrible job using it with the fight scenes. I mean, I could understand MAYBE if it was used once or twice, but for every fight? That just goes to show that he was probably too lazy to spend time choreographing it.

You have a nice reason for it, but if that was it, then why did they go down that same route when Bruce is fighting the prisoner early on? I couldn't even tell who was who!

But let's presume your right. It's supposed to raise suspense, disorient us, etc. But by doing it like it did, it puts us in the bad guys shoes. We're supposed to feel what they feel. The hell? Why would the movie do that?

It's made even worse in that Batman is supposed to be a freaking ninja. When someone is a ninja, I EXPECT PASSABLE FIGHT SCENES! I'd actually say that Begins probably has the worst fight scenes of all the Batman films(not counting the 60's ones). Oddly, "Batman Forever" might have the best.....which is strange as the movie sucks.

"Batman Begins" is a good movie, but it fell short of great 90% because of the fight scenes....The other 10% was those annoying, comical one liners that felt campy.....

If you still think I'm wrong, think about this. Why doesn't "The Dark Knight" use that same kind of technique? The fight scenes, while hardly Jet Li worthy(which I don't expect) are at least easy to follow. Plus, the campy one liners are gone.

It goes to show that Nolan saw his mistakes and corrected them for the sequel, which imo, shows how great of a director he is. Lesser directors tend to scoff at the audiences complaints(John Boorman, who has done some great films, is guilty of this). Real directors acknowledge their mistakes and fix them for the future, which is what Nolan did.


----------



## Chee (Feb 28, 2010)

> It goes to show that Nolan saw his mistakes and corrected them for the sequel, which imo, shows how great of a director he is. Lesser directors tend to scoff at the audiences complaints(John Boorman, who has done some great films, is guilty of this). Real directors acknowledge their mistakes and fix them for the future, which is what Nolan did.



Two words: Bat Voice.

Needs to be gone, or toned down and I hope Nolan does it.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 28, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> Alright, we need to talk about this. The whole shaky cam thing probably came from Psycho, in which the camera gets all shaky when Norman is killing a girl. It's meant to disorient the viewer. It's used wonderfully and artfully. Unfortunately, few other people seem to know how to use it right.
> 
> Horror films whore it badly, with every freaking attack and chase scene going down that route. But then action movies got on the craze, which only makes the action annoying("Transformers" sucked BECAUSE of this).
> 
> ...



See Batman isn't a Ninja hes MORE Than a Ninja so him tackiling someone off of the camera and then roping them up or whatever IS SPOT ON

And when watching a comic book movie you have to expect the comical stuff be it oneliners or others will sneak in.


Well I didn't like TDK as much as Begins so theres your answer to that.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 28, 2010)

Chee: To be honest, I dont know how that can be fixed. I kind of like the fact that Bale does change his voice, but it is a bit distracting. oddly, I didnt notice it in Begins, but it certainly was annoying in TDK. 

Keatan probably had the best Batman voice.

Taleran: But they don't need to be shaking the camera like a madman while he's doing it. The actual fight scenes are realistic enough. Batman would fight them like that.......But it's the camera that bugs me.


----------



## Chee (Feb 28, 2010)

Bale did do a deeper voice in Batman Begins but it wasn't as deep as the one in TDK.

I can understand a deep voice so people wouldn't recognize, but it went overboard in TDK.


----------



## Bender (Feb 28, 2010)

> I'd actually say that Begins probably has the worst fight scenes of all the Batman films(not counting the 60's ones). Oddly, "Batman Forever" might have the best.....which is strange as the movie sucks.



I should neg you to death for that MartialHorror

Batman isn't all about fighting mooks n' shit.


You want that go watch Bay's Transformers 2007 again or Joel Schumacher Batman & Robin. That was such an epic fail remark. Also as Taleran above me said: "Batman is more than a ninja". He's a bat. One of the most top peak human's who has taken the appearance of one of the most terrifying creatures of the night. He comes and goes. Look at the comics. He's not all about straight up fights he uses prep time and his remarkable intellect, and well thought tactics to defeat his enemies.

Batman Begins is about more than Bats fucking up dudes. It's about rediscovering who the mysteries of Batman and the challenges he faces when doing what he does. The downfall to being Batman and the the film can be seen as asking whether heroes (and human beings themselves) are motivated by abstract principles (Batman) or have no principles at all (The Joker, who is motivated by a desire to prove that everyone is corruptible and designs his 'social experiment' (the film's climax) to prove that very point). This is basically the same question that Watchmen asked ("What would motivate a real life Superhero?"), albeit The Dark Knight gives the opposite answer. 




He's not some muscle-bound ruffian, the world's savior a Superman is, a thing of legends as Wonder Woman is, He is and forever shall be *GODDAMN* Batman.


----------



## Chee (Feb 28, 2010)

He's saying the fight scene sucks, the movie is good though. :|


----------



## mystictrunks (Feb 28, 2010)

Blaze of Glory said:


> He's not some muscle-bound ruffian, the world's savior a Superman is, a thing of legends as Wonder Woman is, He is and forever shall be *GODDAMN* Batman.



Neither of them are ruffians


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 28, 2010)

> I should neg you to death for that MartialHorror
> 
> Batman isn't all about fighting mooks n' shit.



- No, it's not. Otherwise, Forever would be the best....I just expect passable fight scenes. 



> You want that go watch Bay's Transformers 2007 again or Joel Schumacher Batman & Robin. That was such an epic fail remark. Also as Taleran above me said: "Batman is more than a ninja". He's a bat. One of the most top peak human's who has taken the appearance of one of the most terrifying creatures of the night. He comes and goes. Look at the comics. He's not all about straight up fights he uses prep time and his remarkable intellect, and well thought tactics to defeat his enemies.



I know, genius, but what does that have to do with the shaky camera work?



> Batman Begins is about more than Bats fucking up dudes. It's about rediscovering who the mysteries of Batman and the challenges he faces when doing what he does. The downfall to being Batman and the the film can be seen as asking whether heroes (and human beings themselves) are motivated by abstract principles (Batman) or have no principles at all (The Joker, who is motivated by a desire to prove that everyone is corruptible and designs his 'social experiment' (the film's climax) to prove that very point). This is basically the same question that Watchmen asked ("What would motivate a real life Superhero?"), albeit The Dark Knight gives the opposite answer.



Are you even reading my posts? if not, dont bother responding. I know all of this. I said "Begins" was a good movie. The fight scenes were just handled poorly. Those are part of the movie. As said, I dont expect Jet Li-esque fight scenes.....I do expect to be able to see them clearly.


----------



## Bender (Feb 28, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> - No, it's not. Otherwise, Forever would be the best....I just expect passable fight scenes.





> I know, genius, but what does that have to do with the shaky camera work?



Forever was a mess. It's like what would happen if Bay was turned into a total fruit  like Joel Schumacher. The movie was a mess and the fight scenes were illogical as the indicated mixing "tight rubber suits", "Drive up the wall"  with *cough* *cough* his homo fantasies*cough* *cough* along with kiddy element to make the ultimate kiddy/adult flick. 

When in actuality it was a 200 pile of shit with shitty fight scenes to the point it's not even a movie more like a 40-year old gay virgin playing with his toys and making sex sounds while looking at his crotch. Bats ain't even portrayed correctly. The only reason why you consider TDK epic is because it's full of explosions and how greatly Batman punks all the baddies. 

It's because of reviews like that Americans are considered dimwitted. Batman is not a loud person and the camera angles were to show how hard it would be to trace him.

Shit, you should be praising Christopher Nolan. Not only in the The Dark Knight did he yield to the American movie goers that love "big explosions" and "cool fight scenes" he also managed to do an incredibly accurate portrayal of Batman. The dude ain't a member of the A-team



Look at my 

The reason that was done was to paint a realistic portrayal of being able to trace Batman's movement if he were real.



> Are you even reading my posts? if not, dont bother responding. I know all of this. I said "Begins" was a good movie. The fight scenes were just handled poorly. Those are part of the movie.



I know what you're saying I'm just saying the reason the fight scenes are  difficult to view is to paint a realistic  Batman. 

Read my post more carefully dammit.


----------



## mystictrunks (Feb 28, 2010)

SMH
I just realized Blaze is one of those people who thinks Batman is a character who isn't as much about big explosions, ridiculous fights, and fantastic imagery as he is a dark, "serious", and "realistic".


----------



## Chee (Feb 28, 2010)

> The dude ain't a member of the A-team



lol    whut?


----------



## Bender (Feb 28, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> SMH
> I just realized Blaze is one of those people who thinks Batman is a character who isn't as much about big explosions, ridiculous fights, and fantastic imagery as he is a dark, "serious", and "realistic".



Oh he isn't?

Then please explain to me how I'm wrong and Batman is about _big explosions, ridiculous fights, and fantastic imagery as he is a dark, "serious", and "realistic"._


----------



## mystictrunks (Feb 28, 2010)

Blaze of Glory said:


> Oh he isn't?
> 
> Then do tell me how Batman is about _big explosions, ridiculous fights, and fantastic imagery as he is a dark, "serious", and "realistic"._



Everything with the JLA, his countless team ups with other super heroes, his fights with other peak humans, Robin, his sillier rogues, his treks into sci-fi and fantasy,etc.


----------



## Bender (Feb 28, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> Everything with the JLA,



  

You just showed how little knowledge you have of Batman's character. 






> his countless team ups with other super heroes, his fights with other peak humans, etc.



lol Fail

Batman's never on the frontline fighting people upfront. He relies on cunning tactics that results in taking advantage of his friends/enemies/bystanders to achieve absolute victory. He's a chessmaster of sorts. The only time he's on the frontlines is if he has a plan in mind.

Taken from TV tropes "Batman gambit"



> Provided that a character is smart enough and manipulative enough, they can get the people around them to do just about anything. Sometimes this can be accomplished by the power of charisma, but other times it needs to be perpetrated through an elaborate scheme. This scheme takes into account everything that The Chessmaster (as well as the viewer) knows about the characters being manipulated, and uses it against them. The patsies in this scheme only act and respond as their own predictability dictates and all the pieces fall into place.
> 
> This is the essence of the Batman Gambit, which is a storytelling device that can be used by any unusually intelligent character, be they good or evil, to achieve what they want by using their own intelligence to make sure that the most probable outcome that is beneficial to them arises.
> 
> ...





> An example of this failing spectacularly comes from Batman as well, in the Wargames arc. Spoiler sets into motion a plan of Batman's which should, theoretically, end up with him in control of all of Gotham's gangs via a proxy. The whole plan hinged on the fact that he was supposed to be present at a meeting between all the heads of the gangs via one of his aliases, Matches Malone. Spoiler went and set off the plan without telling him, and due to his absence, the gang leaders got trigger happy and basically took each other out, leaving a power vacuum that sparked the out of control gang war.
> 
> * In the "Hush" Storyline, he finds himself facing off against a mind-controlled Superman, and is clearly physically outmatched. His solution is to have Catwoman dangle Lois Lane off a roof, and give Supes the choice of either saving her or continuing the fight. This trick would never work if he didn't know full well that even a brainwashed Clark would never let Lois die, and that Catwoman is just amoral enough to threaten an innocent woman without actually meaning it. He may even have predicted that Lois' struggles would cause her to fall, adding an element of urgency to the situation.
> * The cover shown at the top of the page, contrary to the way it looks, is actually an example of one of Batman's contingencies being hijacked. It's somewhat masterfully combined with a second Batman Gambit specifically designed to keep Batman diverted while his stolen contingencies are being used against the rest of the League: Ra's Al Ghul steals Bruce's parents' bodies from their graves and dangles them above a Lazarus Pit.
> o Its worth noting that, while the League ultimately overcomes Batman's contingencies, they do so only by cooperating and remembering what they know about each other, something they probably wouldn't do under the kinds of circumstances Batman prepared the contingencies for.



Refer to the link I provided for further explanation on who is Batman.


----------



## mystictrunks (Feb 28, 2010)

Blaze of Glory said:


> You just showed how little knowledge you have of Batman's character.


How does that disprove anything I said.



> lol Fail
> 
> Batman's never on the frontline fighting people upfront. He relies on cunning tactics that results in taking advantage of his friends/enemies/bystanders to achieve absolute victory. He's a chessmaster of sorts. The only time he's on the frontlines is if he has a plan in mind.
> 
> Taken from TV tropes "Batman gambit"


See above






> Refer to the link I provided for further explanation on who is Batman.


See above

All of those things involve fantastic imagery, the occasional big ass explosion, and ridiculous fights.

Then you have his less serious incarnations such as Batman: The Brave and The Bold which are all about crazy shit.


----------



## Bender (Feb 28, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> How does that disprove anything I said.



It proved that he's not all about creating big-ass explosions.



See above



> All of those things involve fantastic imagery, the occasional big ass explosion, and ridiculous fights.



What comic are you reading? 

He attacked the aliens with fire. Not a big-ass explosion. 



> Then you have his less serious incarnations such as Batman: The Brave and The Bold which are all about crazy shit.



Very few parts of The BBB are counted as cannon in the comics or it takes place on another Earth (refer to DC comics Multiverse for further explanation).


----------



## mystictrunks (Feb 28, 2010)

Blaze of Glory said:


> It proved that he's not all about creating big-ass explosions.


I never said he was. I said it was just as much part of his character as anything else.




> See above



See above.



> What comic are you reading?


Most titles where Batman appeared from 04-09 and lots of back issues.




> Very few parts of The BBB are counted as cannon in the comics or it takes place on another Earth (refer to DC comics Multiverse for further explanation).


I know, but they are based on his portrayals throughout the years. Also none of BBB is cannon to the comics it's just an example of his wackier portrayals.


----------



## Bender (Feb 28, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> I never said he was. I said it was just as much part of his character as anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Cool now that we got that covered let's get back on topic and talk about what Nolan can do to make Supes cool. 

My opinion 

Have Metallo, Parasite, and Lex Luthor as the villains in the first reboot film.


----------



## Chee (Feb 28, 2010)

Every time a Batman thread is bumped (or a Nolan one), there is always a debate. Always.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 28, 2010)

Lets switch focus back to Superman

Heres the entire Proposal

read its good


----------



## Bender (Feb 28, 2010)

I still say it should be Metallo Parasite Lex Luthor 



Chee said:


> Every time a Batman thread is bumped (or a Nolan one), there is always a debate. Always.



Fuck yeah!


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 28, 2010)

> Forever was a mess. It's like what would happen if Bay was turned into a total fruit  like Joel Schumacher. The movie was a mess and the fight scenes were illogical as the indicated mixing "tight rubber suits", "Drive up the wall"  with *cough* *cough* his homo fantasies*cough* *cough* along with kiddy element to make the ultimate kiddy/adult flick.



Must you express your immaturity with every post? For one, Schumacher was used mainly as a tool. He actually wanted a darker movie, but the studio said no. I'm not excusing him, but I won't stoop to petty insults just for disagreeing with what he did....Plus, he's actually a good director. Those Batman movies were probably his worst.

And Forever was a mess. It sucked. I thought it was just as bad as Batman and Robin. I just said that the fight scenes were handled the best there.

READ WHAT I SAY: FOREVER JUST HAPPENED TO HAVE THE BEST FIGHT SCENES, THAT DOES NOT MEAN I THINK ITS GOOD.



> When in actuality it was a 200 pile of shit with shitty fight scenes to the point it's not even a movie more like a 40-year old gay virgin playing with his toys and making sex sounds while looking at his crotch. Bats ain't even portrayed correctly. The only reason why you consider TDK epic is because it's full of explosions and how greatly Batman punks all the baddies.



- No, TDK is epic because it handles its characters expertly, handles the tension expertly and handles the developing plot expertly. I don't like it for the fight scenes(which are just acceptable, as I said, nothing too complex) and the explosions......aren't there like 2 or 3 of them?

Anyone here who knows my opinion on films knows that I am not a sucker for explosions. I'm lukewarm at best when it comes to Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich, and I wasn't fond of that GI Joe movie. 

Making up shit about me isn't going to win this argument.



> It's because of reviews like that Americans are considered dimwitted. Batman is not a loud person and the camera angles were to show how hard it would be to trace him.



-I'm presuming you didn't read my explanation on why shaky cams are used, because I said it was used poorly NOT JUST because of the shakyness, but because it puts us in the villains shoes, which is a stupid idea to begin with when your rooting for the hero.



> Shit, you should be praising Christopher Nolan. Not only in the The Dark Knight did he yield to the American movie goers that love "big explosions" and "cool fight scenes" he also managed to do an incredibly accurate portrayal of Batman. The dude ain't a member of the A-team



TDK didn't have any more explosions or fight scenes than in Begins.....Hell, I think there were more explosions in begins.......




> I know what you're saying I'm just saying the reason the fight scenes are  difficult to view is to paint a realistic  Batman.
> 
> Read my post more carefully dammit.



AND YOU CAN DO ALL OF THIS WITHOUT THE SHAKY CAMERAWORK! 

Plus, you never even bothered to respond to the fact that that was the style used during the prison sequence in the opening scene. The fact is, Nolan did not know how to film fight scenes then...


----------



## mystictrunks (Feb 28, 2010)

Don't worry about giving Superman a villain, worry about making Superman work first. He's supposed to be the best traits of mankind with the body of God and most of the movies don't focus on that, it's way more compelling than fighting one of his B-villains like The Parasite.


----------



## Taleran (Feb 28, 2010)

_tried_ being the key word


----------



## Castiel (Mar 10, 2010)

Oh hey guys, Nolan himself just confirmed this


----------



## Taleran (Mar 10, 2010)

> Nolan said that he admired Singer’s film, especially the way it connected to director Richard Donner’s version of Superman and the first two movies starring Reeve. Nolan added, though, that this new movie will stand on its own.
> 
> Batman atop police car “A lot of people have approached Superman in a lot of different ways. I only know the way that has worked for us that’s what I know how to do,” Nolan said, emphasizing the idea that Batman exists in a world where he is the only superhero and a similar approach to the Man of Steel would assure the integrity needed for the film. “Each serves to the internal logic of the story. They have nothing to do with each other.”
> 
> ...




I have no idea what to expect


----------



## Bart (Mar 10, 2010)

I wonder whether they'll stick with the original score and appoint John Williams?


----------



## Chee (Mar 10, 2010)

Darn, you guys beat me to it.


----------



## illmatic (Mar 10, 2010)

I forgot about this thread.


----------



## Chee (Mar 10, 2010)

Bart said:


> I wonder whether they'll stick with the original score and appoint John Williams?



What do you mean original score?


----------



## Castiel (Mar 10, 2010)

He means if they'll do a horrific copy paste job like Returns


----------



## Chee (Mar 10, 2010)

Oh, doubt it. They will probably go with Hans Zimmer.


----------



## Rukia (Mar 10, 2010)

Chee said:


> Oh, doubt it. They will probably go with Hans Zimmer.


Zimmer still got robbed of the Oscar this year.  

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N3urCXhEqs[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Mar 10, 2010)

I dunno about that. UP!'s soundtrack was really good, especially when you consider the impact it had on the movie.

By this I mean that the best scene in UP would not have been half as great if not for the music.


----------



## Bart (Mar 11, 2010)

Looks like Superman and Batman won't crossover:

_"Each serves to the internal logic of the story. They have nothing to do with each other."_


----------



## Taleran (Mar 11, 2010)

That doesn't mean there can't be a movie later that brings them together

It just won't happen in their individual series, think the opening act of both Morrison's JLA and the animated series


----------



## Chee (Mar 19, 2010)

Nolan was ambiguous on a Justice League movie:

Click this

But Superman is going good. Might Nolan direct it? It has to be done by 2013, correct?


----------

