Superman origins
 

Ok, comic book guys, let's hear what you think.

Jerry Siegel's grandfather died during a robbery.

Can you even believe the Lex Luthor part?? Whoa. :eek:

yeah, the whole origin of how Superman came to be the first super hero is fascinating. I know a lot of creators take into account personal experiences when writing and/or drawing their stories just like regular filmmakers or authors do.

One very good example is The Crow, which was written by a guy who was dealing with the death of his fiancee who died in an auto accident. I've seen the guy, James O'Barr talk about it in person and there's no doubt it was more therapeutic than creative but ended up as so.

Neat article CP - "Best article EVER!" says comic book guy.

So, now that that's been cleared up ... whatdya all think about Warner Bros. plans to scrap the Bryan Singer sequel to Superman Returns (which, though coming in under expectations, did BETTER than Nolan's Batman Begins) in favor of re-tooling the Superman franchise in a much darker vein, with Superman as a troubled, angst-ridden anti-hero, in light of the stunning success of the Nolan sequel, The Dark Knight?

I think I find Superman to ultimately be a pretty boring character so I'll give the benefit of the doubt if they try to deepen him. But after only one decent movie (the first one) out of five attempts (the last one may have made money but it wasn't a good movie) they have a big uphill battle to get me to care much.

I enjoyed the last one well enough, but liked Batman Begins a whole lot more. But then I've always preferred the Batman franchise and character to Superman, so that's no real surprise. I suppose an attempt to alter the character might lure me in to see what they do, but I can't say it would necessarily make it a must-see for me.

Superman Retuns was pretty much a cluster F**k, IMHO. It has moments but like Alex says, the first one is the best. I read the Kevin Smith script for his Superman, and I thought that was pretty good. There are only really two "great" stories in the Superman mythos and that's the origin and "Whatever Happend to the Man of Tomorrow."

I think this whole "dark" thing is nothing but the Hollywood squeeky machine being oiled with cow dung.

I just read this article this morning! How funny that you posted about it. It is quite an intriguing origin story. Are you going to pick up the book?

I just read this article this morning! How funny that you posted about it. It is quite an intriguing origin story. Are you going to pick up the book?

They could have him manage a highrise and live in a small basement apartment.

I couldn't agree more. Batman, fine, that's how it should be. But i like my Superman heroic, optimistic and fun, thank you very much.

Before it jumped the shark a few seasons back, SMALLVILLE did a good job of reinventing the mythos, giving Clark Kent plenty of "weight of the world" problems to face, while still keeping the proceedings exciting and clever. That's how I'd want a movie series to go for this character. (Boy, that Brian Singer movie ... What was that!?)

ok, guess I'm the only one here who liked the Bryan Singer movie. Hated Lois Lane, but liked everyhing else. Maybe it was too much a remake of the classic Reeves Superman (and the unreleased Donner-directed second half which was to be released as Superman 2), but I loved that.

It was played just two steps less slapstick than the original, but with the same silly tone. Except for Lois, every character wast the perfect two steps less silly, but essentially the same style.


It was a great remake.


Ya know ... except for the craptastic Lois Lane.

I liked it. I just don't care enough one way or the other about the franchise to be either excited or displeased about messing with the character.

And Routh sucked too. He had no presence whatsoever. The lead actor should at least be a little more than just a pretty face. I was looking forward to something, anything from him. Even if it was an impersonation of Reeve.

Spacey's Luthor was the best thing about that movie.

I agree. And at that time I was saying they needed to transition Smallville from TV to the big screen. Now, it's just too late though. Smallville is tired and Singer killed the franchise.

Totally agreed.

The story was insulting to Superman's character. And the creepy almost-Chris Reeve guy creeped me out. I remember enjoying it for popcorn's sake, but the plane crash nearly vetoed that. I hope they don't do a sequel in that mold.

As for making Superman dark....um, that's like saying they'll film a "light Batman".

Eh, probably not. I'm not that much of a fan.

I don't much care for Superman as a character. Too goody-good boring for me. But CP nailed it. A dark Superman = a lite Batman. Both are WRONG.


As for the Singer film, so many people have a problem with the airplane scene and its bending of physical laws, but have no problem whatsoever with Chris Reeve spinning around the Earth so fast it starts to rotate backwards and then .... wait for it ... results in Turning Back Time!!!!


Since the two films had nearly identical tone and only the one scene each where physics were defied (well, aside from, ya know, Superman defying gravity and such), I really don't see where the problem is with the airplane scene.


And as with Nolan's Batman, where I HATE Bale as Batman but find him the perfect Bruce Wayne ... I think Brandon Routh was merely ok as Superman, but fantastic as Clark Kent. (Yes, heavily inspired by the Christopher Reeve performance.)



To me, I don't think there's ever been a single actor who's equally good as both the comic book hero and his secret identity,

As much as I enjoy the first Richard Donner Superman, I did not then, I do not now and I never will accept that spinning-the-Earth-backwards bit. It's number one on my list of all time "you gotta be kidding me" moments.

And then, in the Richard Donner cut of Superman II,



I agree that Brandon Routh was a good Reeves-ish clark Kent. I wish he had a more charming movie within which to be so.

I think the problem with Routh in the role was he didn't have presence - Superman is pretty much a God with ultimate powers but has been raise among his "people." Routh spent too much of the film as an homage to Christopher Reeves' Superman when he should have been more concerned with acting. I think Reeves and George Reeve were almost perfect for the rolls and I think if you merged to two, you'd get a perfect Superman.

Superman Returns was just badly written and really contained nothing of what Superman is. There were just moments of nudges and winks to a way better film. The whole issue of turning the Earth back isn't so far off the map being what Superman is. I think was isn't addressed beyond Superman the Movie and Superman II (both versions) is that the story is that of an all powerful being dealing with being the only one of his kind and the responsibility he has to those around him. I think Hancock approched those themes much better than Returns ever could hope to. If someone could make a Superman film about the responsibility of being who he is and how it affects those around him I think we'd be well off. Kent in Retuns was only played for the "wink" and for comic relief, when he should be played as a chance for Superman to be included in humanites gifts - to be apart of the human race rather than as an outsider, which he is as Superman - no matter if he looks human, he isn't. I think that's a great, unexplored theme.

Anyway...

Oooh, I want a Bornieo-directing Superman Movie!!

I forgive Superman for every rule-bending moment because he's SUPERMAN. Lois Lane, on the other hand, shouldn't be able to survive being knocked around the inside of a plane like a pinball while everyone else bothers with seatbelts and oxygen masks. :rolleyes:

This was supposed to take place five years after the events in the previous Superman movie.

They should have used older actors. Both Superman and Lois Lane looked far too young.

It isn't like I remembered this two years later, this thread caused me to refresh my memory of my original thoughts on the movie. But it would appear your feelings about Superman Returns have been tempered by the passage of time.

I found Supe's mooniness over Lois to be a little too schoolboy for the Man of Steel, but I understand a movie has to focus on romance, and it was just a little excess that I found forgivable in the context of comic-book movie.


I don't think Superman has much character to be insulted. But I found that a wee bit retarded.


And granted, Lois getting knocked around the plane so much with nary a scratch, much less 18 broken bones, just struck a wrong chord. It was lazy filmmaking even for a comic book movie, but I forgave the slight because it was a comic book movie.


Tone is very important to me in a film, and I find few films achieve a good or consistent one. I thought Superman Returns was very good in this regard, and so forgave it a lot of little sins.

I wouldn't forgive those problems just because it was a comic-book movie. I think it's the fault of the filmmakers and not because it's a "comic-book movie."

And, not aiming at ISM, but in general the sterotype comic book movie in the public eye always seems to see this. The eyes roll and its another guy in his underwear and the biggest hurdle is Hollywood going with those types - but then when Dark Knight comes along and blows everyone away, they're all shocked. Well, the material is there and the potential - it's just that no one steped up and moved beyond "Comic book movies."

:) Anyway...

While we're mentioning changes of heart, I posted that I really liked Indy 4 after I saw it the first time. Now, after seeing it 3 times, I hate the film.
:D

Yep, I loved Indy 4 when I first saw it, pretty much despised it after the 3rd viewing.

I cut Batman a lot less slack because he's got no superpowers. But once you go with superpowers, and Superman is at the far end of that scale, I forgive all slights to natural law. Even though, vicerally, Lois escaping the plane without even a tiny cut just struck me so horribly retarded.

Considering, though, that her entire characterization was the bane of that movie ... and yet I still liked it, the sub-point that she defies physicality as much as her boyfriend is really moot.

Bwahahaha! VAM. Geez, read the rest of my comments there and I'm surprised how much I loved it. Yeah, action movies always make me feel good, and I remember feeling very nostalgic about the Christopher Reeve films, but over time, it fades, and you realize that you really don't feel like seeing it ever again.

Ok, I'll upgrade my current review here to say that I really did love the homages to the old films.

Note to self - write action movie reviews at least a week afterwards...

On the other hand, there are films I didn't care for the first time ... and don't know why I gave them a second chance, but did ... and they went on to become some of my favorite films of all time.


The Chris Reeve Superman happens to be among those.


As is, sigh, Close Encounters ... which I love so much, I'll be having a lone-man cemetery picnic this weekend.

Personally, I never interpreted that scene to imply the actual rotation of the earth stopped and reversed. It just looked that way from Superman's point-of-view as he moved back in time.

Have you all seen the Superman "How it should have ended"? Classic.


Also, if you wanted to revamp the Superman franchise I think a movie adaptation of Larry Niven's classic Superman essay would be a good start.

The part that bothers me about the going fast part, regardless of whether the earth's rotation actually changed is that having Superman going really fast would have the opposite effect. It wouldn't take him into the past it would take him into the future even faster.

But I think it is generally accepted that this super power makes absolutely no sense.

However, now that I think about it, I wonder if anybody has used that to calculate a minimal limit to Superman's strength. The g-forces involved in orbiting the Earth at relativistic speeds would be phenomenal and far worse than anything any super villain ever threw at him.

I simply must tell a very serendipitous happening at work...

A guy came up to get a library card a couple of weeks back. He was easily the tallest and most buff guy I've helped in a long, long time (perhaps ever). His hair was jet black and shiny, with one loose curl gracing his forehead. He wore black plastic eye glasses with oddly thick rims. His shirt (with ripped sleeves so you could eye the guns) was in the style of Hispanic tattoos, with words like "Justice" and "Truth" done in jagged cursive around elaborate scrolling. In the center - the familiar red and yellow S symbol.

The application didn't say "Clark Kent" but there was no denying that this was exactly what he was going for. The glasses were the clincher - they were so extremely stylized that I found myself wondering where he got them. I really wish I could get a pic of him. The only things holding him back are the fact that he's not fair skinned (and, judging by his surname, at least partially Hispanic - more power to him) and his various bicep tattoos, none of which are Superman related, and all of which look rather crudely done. Intriguing.

I saw Mr. Kent a few days later wearing a plain red shirt (again ripped at the sleeves). Last week, he wore another Superman shirt. And today, while walking to a public computer to check the LoT, I saw him at his own station. I couldn't help but notice that he was looking at some MySpace page (perhaps his own?) that was covered in Superman photos and red and blue, as garish as any MySpace you've ever seen. I sat two stations away and considered typing this very post...but decided it was quite possible he'd notice the word "Superman" on my screen with his amazing vision.

Did I mention that all this makes him extremely hot? I usually don't like muscled guys, but yeah, this Superman thing is pretty sexy. Where did I put that billowy blue nightgown....

oh my, i got hot just reading that. Wear your new low-cut, push-up combo next time, Ms. Librarian.

I was thinking "poor schmuck" while reading it. Reminds me of people who go onto a crappy show that appears on the TV Guide channel to get a makeover so they look more like some celebrity.

And at some point during each show they inevitably say they hope this makeover opens doors for them into a modeling or acting career.

Makes me sad for them every time.

Alex's post reminds me of a great skit from the TV show Fridays (ABC's West Coast answer to SNL back in the day...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvH0KQuuFYw

Yeah, the thought of the real thing really happening is kinda pathetic, but the story of a femmtastic Libertarian Librarian coming across a latino superman fan who knows he looks the part of the Man of Steel and not afraid to say it, while she's serendipitously posting about Superman on the computer a mere two stations away from him ... i'm sorry, but that's just hot.

You should do a Superman search on Myspace. I'm sure someone like that would have their pic plastered everywhere.

Great story CP!

I did attempt this, but MySpace's search sucks.

<looks down>
Pink

Gah! You stole my line!

Can you read my mind?

No, but I know what it is that you do to me.