Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Movie Talk! > Upcoming Movie Talk
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 02-11-2010, 12:04 AM








The Death of Superman was not some mere Dragon Ball Z fight but it was the fight and death of one of comic history's most iconic heroes. When Superman died: he not only caused feelings of loss or pain in the people that cared for him (such as Lois, his Earth parents, Jimmy, and his fellow team mates or super heroes) but he put the entire world at pause when he died.

Side Note:

Oh and if anyone missed it, here is my complete argument or defense of the Death of Superman....

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showpost...2&postcount=40

Last edited by James Bond; 02-11-2010 at 12:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-11-2010, 12:47 AM
Its not that the moment isnt dramatic, it's that that entire storyline just isnt complex enough for a film. Bad guy arrives - kill bad guy. Big whoop.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-11-2010, 02:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
Its not that the moment isnt dramatic, it's that that entire storyline just isnt complex enough for a film. Bad guy arrives - kill bad guy. Big whoop.
Adam:

Actually, I don't believe Superman was trying to kill Doomsday. At least, not at first, anyways. Otherwise he would have done something like this...

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/50389

However, your comment is funny, though. Minus the whole killing thing, you pretty much sum up the basic plot for just about every super hero movie in existence. In other words: Bad guy arrives - Stop bad guy.

Anyways, here is what I stated in my post on the previous page that addresses your particular comment in more detail, though...

Quote:
"Again, as for the story being one dimensional: I suppose that would depend on your perspective of it. Yes, the story had no subtext and it is a simply bare-bones, knock-down fist fight that goes on for several issues. However, here is a man that was a symbol of hope to the people. Here was a man that saved the day when no else could do it. He was a Superman and he died. I know for a fact, as simple as the story was, it was very emotional for a lot of folks to read. And a lot of them were not even Superman fans either.

I mean, not every story has to have this amazing plot with multiple layers and subtext to be effective or enjoyable. Not every villain has to have an elaborate back story or reason to kill. Sometimes murder and death have no rhyme or reason (even in the real world).

However, this argument that the story is one dimensional is a mute point, though. Obviously they would adapt the story of the Death of Superman into a script (if they were to ever do it). So the final written word from comic to screen literally has limitless possibilities."
Besides, movies have even been based off of or made from mere paintings before, too. So having a protagonist, antagonist, sub characters, and a basic plot with many detailed story boards is a huge head start when writing a script or film adaptation.

Last edited by James Bond; 02-11-2010 at 02:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-11-2010, 02:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond View Post
Adam:

Actually, I don't believe Superman was trying to kill Doomsday. At least, not at first, anyways. Otherwise he would have done something like this...

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/50389

However, your comment is funny, though. Minus the whole killing thing, your comment pretty much sums up the basic plot for just about every super hero movie in existence. In other words: Bad guy arrives - Stop bad guy.

Anyways, here is what I stated in my post on the previous page that addresses your particular comment in more detail, though...



Besides, movies have even been based off of or made from mere paintings before, too. So having a protagonist, antagonist, sub characters, and a basic plot with many detailed story boards is a huge leap forward in writing the movie script.


Side Note:

Oh, if they were to do a Doomsday Movie... I wouldn't have Doomsday talk. That sort of takes away the mystery and silent fear his character carries.

Those films can sustain themselves because they have more layers than that. Doomsday, as it stands, does not. Doomsday shows up and they fight for two hours ISNT a movie.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-11-2010, 02:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
Those films can sustain themselves because they have more layers than that. Doomsday, as it stands, does not. Doomsday shows up and they fight for two hours ISNT a movie.
Adam:

Again, movies have been made or based off things that are a lot simpler than the Death of Superman (as I already stated in my previous post). Obviously the movie wouldn't be taken word for word or panel to panel from start to finish for the entire run of the comic series. Not every comic adaptation does that. So I am sure they would add the necessary layers so that it could be a normal or emotionally driven film. Which is the point I am trying to make.

In other words: You have to look beyond what it is, and see it for what it could be. That is if you are a good screen writer with a descent imagination that is.

Last edited by James Bond; 02-11-2010 at 03:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-11-2010, 03:01 AM
so whats the point then? Why does it need to be Doomsday?

Supes very nearly died in Superman Returns. The wolrd held its breath while he was in the hospital. Even his own mother couldnt come inside to see if he was okay. It was heartbreaking.

What would be different?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-11-2010, 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
so whats the point then? Why does it need to be Doomsday? Supes very nearly died in Superman Returns. The wolrd held its breath while he was in the hospital. Even his own mother couldnt come inside to see if he was okay. It was heartbreaking.
What would be different?
Adam:

Really? That scene was heart breaking?

Anyways, the real difference is that Superman would actually be dead and the world would be without a Superman. The people that he was closest to would have to deal with him being dead and not by some near death incident. They would have to deal with him being gone for good (and not by some stupid space trip that he took because he was looking for his home planet). Oh, and on top of that, we wouldn't have to later deal with the fact that he has some kind of bastard child that is super powered and retarded either.

However, please check out my post below for even more reasons by either scrolling down or clicking on the following link...

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showpost...5&postcount=51

Last edited by James Bond; 02-11-2010 at 11:42 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-11-2010, 06:44 AM
I think that superman-Doomsday is a great idea to be in a film.There is alot of drama because of what superman symbolizes.He symbolizes hope in the world.So when people see him getting into a fight where he seems to be dying...its sad.I mean if they make a film and really feed off of that it could be epic.Think about it....everyone that goes to see a superman film 9and most of people alive) know who superman is.....they grew up with superman being the blueprint for superheroes.The director can make the scene where he is fighting and dying while doing so heart wrenching.No one (including children) want to see their heroe die.Add in the superheores who should be there feeling guilty they didnt do something....and the children watching supermans death unfold with their superman action figures in hand and/or superman t-shirts just crying because the guy who is their hero is dying.Very sad.This could be milked for all its worth in a movie.

I think that if they use doomsday then it should be done after a movie where superman fights a villian like braniac.have braniac getting loose the reason that doomsday gets loose.While superman is fighting braniac show glimpses of something underground breaking open with the final shot of the movie being doomsdays hand breaking out of the thing holding him captive.Then use doomsday in the sequal
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-11-2010, 08:11 AM
I think it' a dow right disgrace if Chris Nolan doe it, he is easiy one of the worst directors working in Hollywoood andwat he has done to the Batman films is disgraceful and if he touched Superman I would be so upset because he would make it all psychological and ruin it, ideally I would love Bryan Singer to comeback as he did such a great job on returns but as he is busy with xmen kids school I would love to see Mark Millars epic trilogy from origin to awesome hero
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-11-2010, 09:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorehound_88 View Post
I think it' a dow right disgrace if Chris Nolan doe it, he is easiy one of the worst directors working in Hollywoood andwat he has done to the Batman films is disgraceful and if he touched Superman I would be so upset because he would make it all psychological and ruin it, ideally I would love Bryan Singer to comeback as he did such a great job on returns but as he is busy with xmen kids school I would love to see Mark Millars epic trilogy from origin to awesome hero
Aren't you the same guy who refused to sign The Beatles?
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 02-11-2010, 11:19 AM
Difference Between A Doomsday Movie & Superman Returns:



1. It would not be a slow moving drama (that would put you to sleep).
2. It would not re-hash the same boring elements we seen a thousand times before.
3. It would have real action and kick ass battle sequences that would make your jaw drop.
4. Superman would be slowly beaten and then end up dead & not by some near death experience.
5. It would actually be a world without a Superman and not some dumb vacation trip he was on.
6. Superman would meet a villain who has greater physical strength than him.
7. We would not see Superman have a bastard child that was super powered & retarded.
8. We would not see Superman fly a big rock into space while Kryptonite was sticking him in the face.
9. There is the potential to involve other Super Heroes into this movie.
10. There is now a reason for the Justice League to be formed (with two JLA movies to follow). (Note: Check out my other posts)
11. The people Clark was closest to would have to find a way to move on without him.
12. The movie audience would be in absolute pause. Especially kids. "What Daddy... is he really dead?"
13. We would get to see kick ass visuals of a scary alien being kick the crap out of Superman.
14. We could see death and destruction within Metropolis like we have never seen it before.
15. There would be no dumb and unbelievable love triangle.
16. It would not have actors that made you think you were watching a big budgeted version of Smallville.
17. If done right, it could be a very notable comic book film, putting it on par with the popularity of the comic.
18. It will have mystery with the potential to reveal who sent Dooms Day in another movie.
19. It would be scary & suspenseful with a big non-talking monster murdering anyone in his path.
20. It will probably be Rated R (or it will at least have an Uncut DVD) because of the shocking trauma and extreme violence and death involved.

Last edited by James Bond; 02-11-2010 at 11:37 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-11-2010, 01:00 PM
I don't know much about Doomsday. Wasn't he a character created specifically for that storyline? Or was he a classic recurring villain? From what I know about the Doomsday story, it wouldn't be the best idea for a reboot. They need to make us care about Superman again, so his death has the appropriate emotional impact. It would be like if Nolan used Bane breaking Batman for the first batman film since Batman & Robin, just too soon. He had to reestablish Batman as a character worth caring about first. That's what needs to happen with Superman. Make us give a damn, then go for the throat. Doomsday would work well as a sequel in an established, respected Superman franchise.

Last edited by DaveyJoeG; 02-11-2010 at 01:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-11-2010, 01:24 PM
Davey:

Yeah, I would agree with that to some extent. However, the character is already pretty well established enough in many incarnations as it is for us to feel something for his character, though. You mention the name Superman and people instantly know who your talking about. That is why the death of Superman in the comic books was such a big deal within the media or newspapers (when it happened). So I still think they could make one really long movie (like Lord of the Rings long) and pull us into this particular world of Superman.

On the other hand, it probably wouldn't hurt to have a movie before hand establishing this particular universe of characters, though. So long as they didn't waste any time in filming the Doomsday Movie immediately after it (that is).

See the problem I have with a Reboot or a beginning story in the first place (at this point) is that we have been down this road a million times before. If there is nothing new to see... why should we even bother to see it?

I mean, we have...

1. Superman (1978)
2. Lois and Clark
3. Superman Animated Series
4. Smallville
5. Superman Returns

How many more reboots or interpretations of Superman do we really need?
Especially when everyone is already more than familiar with his character thru out history.

Last edited by James Bond; 02-11-2010 at 01:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-11-2010, 01:44 PM
Yeah, I agree that he is well established. Everybody knows who Superman is, what his weakness is, etc. But that doesn't mean they care. Look at some of the responses in this thread, while everybody knows who Superman is, some people think he's an outdated superhero. This reboot needs to make Superman a compelling character again. We need a Superman movie where the audience is totally sucked in and as soon as the credits roll, we want to hear about news for the sequel. Nolan did this exceptionally with the Joker card at the end of Batman Begins, but that wouldn't have worked if it wasn't a great movie that made people give a shit about Batman again.

Now, just to clarify, I don't want them rehash the same old origin story again. I would also prefer to see a villain other than Lex Luthor. But I think they need to focus on making a compelling franchise before bringing out the big guns(Doomsday).
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-11-2010, 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG View Post
Yeah, I agree that he is well established. Everybody knows who Superman is, what his weakness is, etc. But that doesn't mean they care. Look at some of the responses in this thread, while everybody knows who Superman is, some people think he's an outdated superhero. This reboot needs to make Superman a compelling character again. We need a Superman movie where the audience is totally sucked in and as soon as the credits roll, we want to hear about news for the sequel.
Davey:

See that just the problem. There a lot of folks who don't want to see the same old formula again. And a Reboot is precisely that. A retelling of the character's origins or beginnings. We already been down this road a million times before. I personally think they could introduce this new universe of Superman (and it's characters and origins) and still give us his death all in one big movie. Now, I am not saying this new reboot movie won't be good. However, it just doesn't interest me and or other people who are sick and tired of seeing the same old repackaged material again and again.

Quote:
Nolan did this exceptionally with the Joker card at the end of Batman Begins, but that wouldn't have worked if it wasn't a great movie that made people give a shit about Batman again.
True. But I don't think they need to waste any time in doing yet another reboot again in this particular case. In fact, the very idea of one turns me off even. I mean, there are plenty of movies out there where we only need one movie to get us to sympathize or care about the characters. I don't see why you would need two movies to accomplish this task. I think the audience would quickly sympathize with the characters and still feel the weight of the impact of Superman's death all in one movie (if the script and acting is good enough). In fact, I think people could potentially be pissed if you decided to do a Doomsday movie with their beloved cast of actors that they have come to love in a subsequent film. At least if you did it in one movie it is a complete piece of work for them to swallow in one sitting.

Quote:
Now, just to clarify, I don't want them rehash the same old origin story again. I would also prefer to see a villain other than Lex Luthor.
Well, that's just the thing. I don't think there really is this amazing origin story for Superman that we haven't already seen before or without pissing on what has come before. And not including the basic characters such as Lex (even though I don't like the character) would sort of make me feel like they were leaving something out.

Quote:
But I think they need to focus on making a compelling franchise before bringing out the big guns (Doomsday).
Personally, I think the big guns is the only thing that really excites me on any level at this point. If there isn't something new and exciting to see besides some dumb origin or retelling... I really have no interest in seeing it in the theater. And I wouldn't blame anyone else who felt the same way either.

Last edited by James Bond; 02-11-2010 at 02:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-11-2010, 02:34 PM
Sorry, what I meant to imply was that I don't want to see any origin story at all. That's been done to death with Superman. We don't need to see it again. I don't necessarily feel that a reboot HAS to include an origin story, and I don't think another origin story would help this franchise.

I'm trying to think not just of the next Superman movie, but the next 2-3 Superman movies. That's how the studios do it these days, and I guarantee that WB is trying to develop this franchise into at least a trilogy. You're right that they could make people care about Superman and kill him off in the same movie. But I still think the Doomsday story would have more emotional impact near the end of a successful franchise than at the beginning. If you kill him in the first film, where will the suspense be in the sequels? What villain can top the villain that killed Superman? It also may be a bit cheesy to have Superman die in the first film, and miraculously come back 2-3 years later for a sequel. It may work in comic books, but it won't play as well with the general movie going audience.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-11-2010, 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG View Post
Sorry, what I meant to imply was that I don't want to see any origin story at all. That's been done to death with Superman. We don't need to see it again. I don't necessarily feel that a reboot HAS to include an origin story, and I don't think another origin story would help this franchise.
Davey:

Agreed, and that is one of the things I am afraid of that they are going to do (is do an origin story of some kind). As a matter of fact, I don't even want to see a half cocked attempt at a reboot like Superman Returns, either.

Anyways, here is part of a review on Superman Returns that I found hilarious:

Quote:
"Giving her a kid (Surprise! It's Superman's!) is a mistake that cannot be underestimated. Put simply, Superman can't have a kid. There is literally not a single thing about the Superman story or his relationship with Lois that is improved by giving them a child. In fact, it makes everything a lot less interesting.

Plus, it makes Superman an asshole--and I'm not even going into how the new love-'em-and-leave-'em Supes factors into this. No, toss them a kid and there are two options. I'll give them to you along with ACTUAL STORY POINTS:

1) Superman doesn't know he has a kid with Lois Lane. When he returns and discovers her living with a guy and with a child who assumes the guy is his Dad, Superman seduces Lois on the roof of the Daily Planet--essentially saying, "This guy can't compare to me. I'm Superman." He's just reminding her of his superiority, knowing she'll leave the father of her child. In this option, Superman is an asshole.

or

2) Superman realizes the kid is his. Still, Lois is living with this guy and a child who has grown up thinking of the guy as Dad. But he's a Super-kid. So Superman decides instead to "check up on the kid," and flirt with Lois, knowing that she's going to leave the guy eventually--breaking up the family and separating father and son. In this option, Superman is an asshole.

Giving Lois a kid also performs the counter-productive function of making her boring. It takes away all her edge. Now she's not fearless, brassy reporter Lois. She's crying-Mom-worrying-about-her-son Lois.

And here's the worst part of the whole kid thing: we're stuck with him. He can't go anywhere. For a generation, whenever there's a Superman movie, there's going to have to be this kid. It took 15+ years to reboot the franchise last time. That means because three guys (Bryan Singer and two credited screenwriters) were arrogant enough to believe they could improve on Superman's basic ingredients, you will never have the chance to see a good Superman movie until at least 2030."
Oh, wait. We don't have to worry about this kid, anymore. They are simply rebooting the franchise, now.
Frigging hilarious.

Quote:
I'm trying to think not just of the next Superman movie, but the next 2-3 Superman movies. That's how the studios do it these days, and I guarantee that WB is trying to develop this franchise into at least a trilogy. You're right that they could make people care about Superman and kill him off in the same movie. But I still think the Doomsday story would have more emotional impact near the end of a successful franchise than at the beginning. If you kill him in the first film, where will the suspense be in the sequels? What villain can top the villain that killed Superman? It also may be a bit cheesy to have Superman die in the first film, and miraculously come back 2-3 years later for a sequel. It may work in comic books, but it won't play as well with the general movie going audience.
Yes, the Death of Superman movie could work as a JLA trilogy.

The Death of Superman (which also involves various superheroes) would be the first movie (called Doomsday). The second movie (called the JLA) would be the formation of the Justice League because of the death of Superman. By the end of the 2nd film we would see a hint or cliffhanger that Superman might be alive (Perhaps by the end of the movie we see a close up of the back side of Superman's legs and cape as he stands on a building. By the third movie (Which would be named whatever crisis the JLA had to face) would be the return of Superman. However, the threat has to be even greater than he and the JLA has ever faced before (and Superman should somehow be different or changed in some way) (In fact, maybe he is actually a clone or somebody else) (Perhaps the identity or memories and powers of the real Superman live on to some extent within this being). (So the legend lives on, even though this new Superman may not feel like he is worthy of carrying on the title and continue to lie to those around him after he discovers who he really is).

Side Note:
Oh, and the third movie would be very tricky one to handle. It would definitely have to involve some of the top screen writers in the industry, thats for sure. Furthermore, if Jackie Earle Haley didn't play the part of Rorschach in Watchmen, he would have made a perfect "Question" or Vic Sage within the JLA, too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_(comics)

Last edited by James Bond; 02-11-2010 at 06:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-11-2010, 06:39 PM
This is another reboot I kinda wish wasn't happening. I was very happy with Superman Returns. Yeah it focused on the drama moreso than the action (so what? The classic Richard Donner film did as well) and it was a bit surprising that Superman had a kid by the end of the film, but I really liked it and I wanted to know where Bryan Singer was going to take it from there. I also thought Brandon Routh did an excellent job at Supes.

But, at the same time, the film came out four years ago, and anymore in Hollywood you can't seem to have a sequel more than four years after the fact without dubbing the project a reboot anyway. So I'm just hoping that they make a great Superman movie without dumbing it down. I still want all of the great character moments that Richard Donner and Bryan Singer gave me, as well as exciting action.

The one thing I do not want to see is the Death of Superman angle. I liked the graphic novel, I liked the World Without a Superman plotline. But I want to see something fresh, not something that I can see just by picking up the graphic novel from my bookshelf.

Last edited by Mr. Fred Krueger; 02-11-2010 at 06:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-11-2010, 08:15 PM
BOND:

No matter what research you pull up it will not change the fact that "The Death of Superman" is one of the worst comic book stories ever to be put to ink. I know you like to cite the numbers saying it's one of the top selling stories but you need to really understand the industry at that point in time. With the invention of Spawn and Image Comics, hobbiests (not collectors and readers mind you) would scoff up anything that seemed special about a comic, foils, number 1s, big event bullshit ie, The Death of Superman. People didn't understand that it's the rareity not the availability that makes a comic worth money. They flooded the industry with this shit and DC decided to pull a stunt and "kill off" superman.

But, Doomsday is not a bad villain because of that. He's a bad villain because he is a complete roided out, stereotypical 90s villain, ala Venom. These characters have no emotional weight or consistency. Hell Doomsdays only been the villain for that story, and if he's ever shown its most likely as a one off beat down from Superman that ends kind of quickly. He's no real threat.

I know you think that a completely visual beat down is what the audiences want, but please realize that they need something they can connect with too. Look at how the audiences flock to Avatar. And as a viewer I'll know that superman will be back to life by the end of the movie, so there are no real stakes.

A villain like Luthor, Braniac, Parasite, Metallo, fuck even Bizzaro are more lucrative for the story then Doomsday ever could be. If we get Doomsday I can bet you a million dollars it'll be worse the Spiderman 3 and Venom.

Honestly they need to be looking at Grant Morrion's ALL STAR SUPERMAN which is unarguably considered an instant classic.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-11-2010, 09:34 PM
^^ Agreed. All-star Superman is an Instant Classic, one of the best things out there. Also good is the new Krypton stuff coming out right now, and I also really dug the Geoff Johns/Pete Woods run on the book a couple of years ago. All of that is real quality Superman stories.

Re sales of "death of"
It was also a different industry back in the day. These days, a very good selling comic is 90,000 issues a month. Death of Superman was way bigger than that. But you want to know what was way, way bigger than that? Early Silver age/golden age stuff. Back in the day when comics were dirt cheap and sold in supermarkets on spindle racks, and before they went into specialty stores. Sales is a very bad indicator of overall quality. Fables has some of the best stories there is in comics, and is beloved by fans, but barely sells 20,000 copies a month.

I'm not trying to knock down your memories of something, and for the record, I don't own a copy of Death of Superman, and I don't, and will never, sell a comic book that I own for any reason. I find the speculation in the industry to be utterly deplorable, a crime if ever there was one. You want to speculate? Buy stocks, buy bonds, buy mutual funds, stay out of comics. What do I do with my comics after I read 'em? The ones I know I'll read again go into my collection, the rest get donated to Children's Hospital and other charities via my local store. I got so much joy out of them, that I want other people to share that joy, who don't have the advantages I do, and to read and share the magic.

One other point, before going back to the Superman movie, please, check out Kingdome Come, if you want to see a really great Superman story that respects the character as more than just muscles, and gives Superman a threat that's more than just physical, but mental and emotional as well. I'm a big fan of the classics, and the thing I love about Kingdome Come is how it takes pains to align itself so closely with the Divine Comedy of Dante. For those who have read both, the obvious equality is:

Norman McCray = Dante

The Specter = Virgil

There are little touches to the Inferno throughout the book, and the intention of the thing is to put Superman, as a character, literally through Hell. The pivotal scene when Supes looks up to the sky, and hesitates for a second, but Billy Bastion doesn't, pure genius.

Now, onto the movie. One thing that I think should be stated at this juncture is that years ago, I remember the skepticism towards the retelling of Batman's origin story in Batman Begins. Here's the thing, I would say that Superman and Batman have this in common: there are no two better known origin stories in comics, but the story that people had for Batman before Begins was a cliff's notes version of the origin. You know his parents die, and that, as a result, he dedicates his life to fighting crime. Great. What else? You know the broad outlines, but you don't know any of the details. I remember people saying the same thing about Batman Begins on this site before it came out, that we don't need another origin story, blah, blah, blah. The point is people only complain about this when its bad.

Decades ago, to take another example, I thought, in the first season of Batman, the animated series, that introducing a female sidekick to the Joker was the stupidest idea of all time. There was no internet back in those days, so there was nowhere to vent, but just thinking about it, it sounds like the dumbest thing the mind of man (in this case, Paul Dini) every thought of. The Joker has had many, many lame attempts at sidekicks in the past and not one of them ever went anywhere. However, that female sidekick became Harlequinn, one of the most beloved characters in comics right now, and, in fan polling, consistently fan's choice as their second favorite batman villian behind only Mr. J himself. The point is that comics is testament to the fact that the dumbest idea, well executed, can be gold.

In the case of Superman, I don't think retelling his origin is a dumb idea at all. Superman has one of the great origin tales in the history of literature (and this is coming from a guy who is well read), its downright biblical in its scope and its meaning. I would agree that Smallville has done much to fill in the gaps on Clark Kent's younger years, and because you seem to like using popularity so much, I would remark that Smallville is the WB's highest rated show, and was second for years behind Gilmore Girls. Me, personally, I watch it every now and then, when a good episode is on the pike, and I think that when its good, like "Absolute Justice", its extremely good, but when it goes for the teen drama/angst angle, it really does turn me off.

Despite that, I also think there is a lot of backstory for this character that hasn't been explored, and I'm not talking about Clark's early years, I'm talking about going all the way back to Krypton and telling the story of how this planet, the crown jewel in the galaxy, came to be where it was. For Doomsday fans, telling this story has some motivation in that Doomsday, if memory serves, was a product of Krypton, and so, would probably have a storyline to serve as part and parcel of its destruction. To me, that story, a backstory for doomsday, that establishes the villian well before he and Superman have their throwdown, fleshes the character out, and makes the character more interesting that someone who came to earth and killed Superman.

Oh, and one other thing, I'm also not opposed to telling a simple story, so I don't want you to think that something has to be good on many levels to work for me. There is a place in comics, IMHO, for the simple and elegant. That's why I'm a big fan of the Iron Man movie, it didn't have the storytelling complexity of The Dark Knight, but it was a simple, elegant superhero movie that was flawlessly executed. I loved it, and if they took your suggestion, did a doomsday movie, and made it well, I'd probably dig it. What I don't want is a rehash of the comic book story, in this case, because I didn't think that story was very good, but if there was a way to improve the execution of the work, and make it workable, I'd be all for it.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 02-11-2010, 09:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post
^^ Agreed. All-star Superman is an Instant Classic, one of the best things out there. Also good is the new Krypton stuff coming out right now, and I also really dug the Geoff Johns/Pete Woods run on the book a couple of years ago. All of that is real quality Superman stories.

Re sales of "death of"
It was also a different industry back in the day. These days, a very good selling comic is 90,000 issues a month. Death of Superman was way bigger than that. But you want to know what was way, way bigger than that? Early Silver age/golden age stuff. Back in the day when comics were dirt cheap and sold in supermarkets on spindle racks, and before they went into specialty stores. Sales is a very bad indicator of overall quality. Fables has some of the best stories there is in comics, and is beloved by fans, but barely sells 20,000 copies a month.

I'm not trying to knock down your memories of something, and for the record, I don't own a copy of Death of Superman, and I don't, and will never, sell a comic book that I own for any reason. I find the speculation in the industry to be utterly deplorable, a crime if ever there was one. You want to speculate? Buy stocks, buy bonds, buy mutual funds, stay out of comics. What do I do with my comics after I read 'em? The ones I know I'll read again go into my collection, the rest get donated to Children's Hospital and other charities via my local store. I got so much joy out of them, that I want other people to share that joy, who don't have the advantages I do, and to read and share the magic.

One other point, before going back to the Superman movie, please, check out Kingdome Come, if you want to see a really great Superman story that respects the character as more than just muscles, and gives Superman a threat that's more than just physical, but mental and emotional as well. I'm a big fan of the classics, and the thing I love about Kingdome Come is how it takes pains to align itself so closely with the Divine Comedy of Dante. For those who have read both, the obvious equality is:

Norman McCray = Dante

The Specter = Virgil

There are little touches to the Inferno throughout the book, and the intention of the thing is to put Superman, as a character, literally through Hell. The pivotal scene when Supes looks up to the sky, and hesitates for a second, but Billy Bastion doesn't, pure genius.

Now, onto the movie. One thing that I think should be stated at this juncture is that years ago, I remember the skepticism towards the retelling of Batman's origin story in Batman Begins. Here's the thing, I would say that Superman and Batman have this in common: there are no two better known origin stories in comics, but the story that people had for Batman before Begins was a cliff's notes version of the origin. You know his parents die, and that, as a result, he dedicates his life to fighting crime. Great. What else? You know the broad outlines, but you don't know any of the details. I remember people saying the same thing about Batman Begins on this site before it came out, that we don't need another origin story, blah, blah, blah. The point is people only complain about this when its bad.

Decades ago, to take another example, I thought, in the first season of Batman, the animated series, that introducing a female sidekick to the Joker was the stupidest idea of all time. There was no internet back in those days, so there was nowhere to vent, but just thinking about it, it sounds like the dumbest thing the mind of man (in this case, Paul Dini) every thought of. The Joker has had many, many lame attempts at sidekicks in the past and not one of them ever went anywhere. However, that female sidekick became Harlequinn, one of the most beloved characters in comics right now, and, in fan polling, consistently fan's choice as their second favorite batman villian behind only Mr. J himself. The point is that comics is testament to the fact that the dumbest idea, well executed, can be gold.

In the case of Superman, I don't think retelling his origin is a dumb idea at all. Superman has one of the great origin tales in the history of literature (and this is coming from a guy who is well read), its downright biblical in its scope and its meaning. I would agree that Smallville has done much to fill in the gaps on Clark Kent's younger years, and because you seem to like using popularity so much, I would remark that Smallville is the WB's highest rated show, and was second for years behind Gilmore Girls. Me, personally, I watch it every now and then, when a good episode is on the pike, and I think that when its good, like "Absolute Justice", its extremely good, but when it goes for the teen drama/angst angle, it really does turn me off.

Despite that, I also think there is a lot of backstory for this character that hasn't been explored, and I'm not talking about Clark's early years, I'm talking about going all the way back to Krypton and telling the story of how this planet, the crown jewel in the galaxy, came to be where it was. For Doomsday fans, telling this story has some motivation in that Doomsday, if memory serves, was a product of Krypton, and so, would probably have a storyline to serve as part and parcel of its destruction. To me, that story, a backstory for doomsday, that establishes the villian well before he and Superman have their throwdown, fleshes the character out, and makes the character more interesting that someone who came to earth and killed Superman.

Oh, and one other thing, I'm also not opposed to telling a simple story, so I don't want you to think that something has to be good on many levels to work for me. There is a place in comics, IMHO, for the simple and elegant. That's why I'm a big fan of the Iron Man movie, it didn't have the storytelling complexity of The Dark Knight, but it was a simple, elegant superhero movie that was flawlessly executed. I loved it, and if they took your suggestion, did a doomsday movie, and made it well, I'd probably dig it. What I don't want is a rehash of the comic book story, in this case, because I didn't think that story was very good, but if there was a way to improve the execution of the work, and make it workable, I'd be all for it.
Do you think it would be wise to have Superman's origin, and than have him killed by Doomsday in the later half?
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 02-11-2010, 09:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Fred Krueger View Post
I was very happy with Superman Returns.
Quote:
The one thing I do not want to see is the Death of Superman angle. I liked the graphic novel, I liked the World Without a Superman plotline. But I want to see something fresh, not something that I can see just by picking up the graphic novel from my bookshelf.
Krueger:

See, that's just the thing. Superman Returns is a story that we seen a million times before. Minus the whole weird retarded super kid thing of course.

And to assume that the Death of Superman script would end being exactly like the comic is speculative at this point. We don't know how the movie would turn out or surprise you. It could very well be completely different than what you expect in comparison to the comic.

But hey, if you prefer dramas with poor acting, unbelievable situations, and bad love triangles with Superman having bastard childs... over an emotional story line filled with a ton of kick ass action, and a ton of destruction... hey, thats cool man.

Different strokes for different folks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooke Thompson View Post
BOND:
No matter what research you pull up it will not change the fact that "The Death of Superman" is one of the worst comic book stories ever to be put to ink. I know you like to cite the numbers saying it's one of the top selling stories
Brooke:

So your saying that any research I bring to the table or any numbers I point is not valid? Are you saying that the majority of reviewers at Amazon are all lying that they liked the Death of Superman TPB? Well, just because you don't like the comic, doesn't mean everyone else didn't like it.

Quote:
But, Doomsday is not a bad villain because of that. He's a bad villain because he is a complete roided out, stereotypical 90s villain, ala Venom. These characters have no emotional weight or consistency. Hell Doomsdays only been the villain for that story, and if he's ever shown its most likely as a one off beat down from Superman that ends kind of quickly. He's no real threat.
So that would mean the Hulk is a bad character, too?
Are you saying that there are no good stories to tell with roided out tough guy characters? Well, just to let you know: myself and many other comic fans would have to seriously disagree with you on that particular issue.

Also, as I stated before that the script doesn't have to follow the comic word for word or panel to panel. It can act sometimes as a story board for certain scenes and that is it.

Furthermore, the character of Doomsday could be completely different than they way we see him in the comics, too.

Quote:
I know you think that a completely visual beat down is what the audiences want, but please realize that they need something they can connect with too. Look at how the audiences flock to Avatar. And as a viewer I'll know that superman will be back to life by the end of the movie, so there are no real stakes.
Okay. You just proved my point for me. Most folks flocked to Avatar because of the ground breaking visual effects. Although a good portion of people did enjoy the story... it actually was a simple story line and was an exact rip off of Pocahontas, though.



So yeah, I think the Death of Superman will do extremely well because of the unique visual effects and epic action.

However, I agree that a story has to have you invested emotionally (preferably with the antagonist) in order for it to be good. However, Doomsday is like a raging thunder storm, though. And although they could give us a reason to get us more emotionally invested in his character (within the script), the story still can be gripping and suspenseful and carry out it's intended task without that. I mean, not every villain has to meet a certain cookie cutter formula to make a story work. I mean, there are movies based on natural disasters, too. And essentially, that is what Doomsday is. He is an unstoppable raging storm of destruction. So the emotion and layers of the script would have to be focused or directed in a way to reflect that in the best possible way.


Quote:
A villain like Luthor, Braniac, Parasite, Metallo, fuck even Bizzaro are more lucrative for the story then Doomsday ever could be.
See, here's the thing. I am not a huge fan of DC because a lot of the heroes and villains are just a bit too corny for me. However, that doesn't mean I don't try and keep an open mind and still read the books on occasion. In fact, I just recently read Batman Knightfall and although it had a pretty kick ass ending, the majority of the villains that escaped from Arkham were absolutely cringe worthy (Hatter, Film Freak, That Bird Dude Side Kick of Banes, ECT.).

I mean, honestly, Doomsday is one of the few villains that catches my interest because he is not like every other Joker, Riddler, Toyman, and Luthor out there.

He is a raging killing machine that can't be reasoned or bargained with. And that to me is more interesting because it isn't the norm of comic book villainy.

Quote:
If we get Doomsday I can bet you a million dollars it'll be worse the Spiderman 3 and Venom.
That is a subjective argument. There is no guarantee that any of those movies would end up being good. I believe a talented enough director and cast (with enough time and budget) can make just about any film amazing or good these days. So your assumption that it wouldn't be good is speculative at best.

Quote:
Honestly they need to be looking at Grant Morrion's ALL STAR SUPERMAN which is unarguably considered an instant classic.
Interesting, I will have to add All Star Superman to my reading list.

Last edited by James Bond; 02-11-2010 at 10:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-11-2010, 10:01 PM
Ok, look. I think we get it. You want Doomsday. We really dont.

Doomsday isnt interesting as a character or as a story.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-11-2010, 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post
^^ Agreed. All-star Superman is an Instant Classic, one of the best things out there. Also good is the new Krypton stuff coming out right now, and I also really dug the Geoff Johns/Pete Woods run on the book a couple of years ago. All of that is real quality Superman stories.

Re sales of "death of"
It was also a different industry back in the day. These days, a very good selling comic is 90,000 issues a month. Death of Superman was way bigger than that. But you want to know what was way, way bigger than that? Early Silver age/golden age stuff. Back in the day when comics were dirt cheap and sold in supermarkets on spindle racks, and before they went into specialty stores. Sales is a very bad indicator of overall quality. Fables has some of the best stories there is in comics, and is beloved by fans, but barely sells 20,000 copies a month.

I'm not trying to knock down your memories of something, and for the record, I don't own a copy of Death of Superman, and I don't, and will never, sell a comic book that I own for any reason. I find the speculation in the industry to be utterly deplorable, a crime if ever there was one. You want to speculate? Buy stocks, buy bonds, buy mutual funds, stay out of comics. What do I do with my comics after I read 'em? The ones I know I'll read again go into my collection, the rest get donated to Children's Hospital and other charities via my local store. I got so much joy out of them, that I want other people to share that joy, who don't have the advantages I do, and to read and share the magic.

One other point, before going back to the Superman movie, please, check out Kingdome Come, if you want to see a really great Superman story that respects the character as more than just muscles, and gives Superman a threat that's more than just physical, but mental and emotional as well. I'm a big fan of the classics, and the thing I love about Kingdome Come is how it takes pains to align itself so closely with the Divine Comedy of Dante. For those who have read both, the obvious equality is:

Norman McCray = Dante

The Specter = Virgil

There are little touches to the Inferno throughout the book, and the intention of the thing is to put Superman, as a character, literally through Hell. The pivotal scene when Supes looks up to the sky, and hesitates for a second, but Billy Bastion doesn't, pure genius.

Now, onto the movie. One thing that I think should be stated at this juncture is that years ago, I remember the skepticism towards the retelling of Batman's origin story in Batman Begins. Here's the thing, I would say that Superman and Batman have this in common: there are no two better known origin stories in comics, but the story that people had for Batman before Begins was a cliff's notes version of the origin. You know his parents die, and that, as a result, he dedicates his life to fighting crime. Great. What else? You know the broad outlines, but you don't know any of the details. I remember people saying the same thing about Batman Begins on this site before it came out, that we don't need another origin story, blah, blah, blah. The point is people only complain about this when its bad.

Decades ago, to take another example, I thought, in the first season of Batman, the animated series, that introducing a female sidekick to the Joker was the stupidest idea of all time. There was no internet back in those days, so there was nowhere to vent, but just thinking about it, it sounds like the dumbest thing the mind of man (in this case, Paul Dini) every thought of. The Joker has had many, many lame attempts at sidekicks in the past and not one of them ever went anywhere. However, that female sidekick became Harlequinn, one of the most beloved characters in comics right now, and, in fan polling, consistently fan's choice as their second favorite batman villian behind only Mr. J himself. The point is that comics is testament to the fact that the dumbest idea, well executed, can be gold.

In the case of Superman, I don't think retelling his origin is a dumb idea at all. Superman has one of the great origin tales in the history of literature (and this is coming from a guy who is well read), its downright biblical in its scope and its meaning. I would agree that Smallville has done much to fill in the gaps on Clark Kent's younger years, and because you seem to like using popularity so much, I would remark that Smallville is the WB's highest rated show, and was second for years behind Gilmore Girls. Me, personally, I watch it every now and then, when a good episode is on the pike, and I think that when its good, like "Absolute Justice", its extremely good, but when it goes for the teen drama/angst angle, it really does turn me off.

Despite that, I also think there is a lot of backstory for this character that hasn't been explored, and I'm not talking about Clark's early years, I'm talking about going all the way back to Krypton and telling the story of how this planet, the crown jewel in the galaxy, came to be where it was. For Doomsday fans, telling this story has some motivation in that Doomsday, if memory serves, was a product of Krypton, and so, would probably have a storyline to serve as part and parcel of its destruction. To me, that story, a backstory for doomsday, that establishes the villian well before he and Superman have their throwdown, fleshes the character out, and makes the character more interesting that someone who came to earth and killed Superman.

Oh, and one other thing, I'm also not opposed to telling a simple story, so I don't want you to think that something has to be good on many levels to work for me. There is a place in comics, IMHO, for the simple and elegant. That's why I'm a big fan of the Iron Man movie, it didn't have the storytelling complexity of The Dark Knight, but it was a simple, elegant superhero movie that was flawlessly executed. I loved it, and if they took your suggestion, did a doomsday movie, and made it well, I'd probably dig it. What I don't want is a rehash of the comic book story, in this case, because I didn't think that story was very good, but if there was a way to improve the execution of the work, and make it workable, I'd be all for it.
Soda, I've been coming to this site for some time and I always enjoy reading your posts especially your thoughts concerning Superman. I think you have the best gauge as to what a Superman film should be. I was never his biggest fan, but I think that's mostly from the writing but not the character itself. I also love Kingdom Come and Morrison's take on Superman was a blast to read. I still have to check out Red Son. I never got around to that one.

If it were up to me, Darkseid would be the main villain for Supes. I'm still amazed he hasn't been introduced yet. I think your idea a while back about a trilogy involving Darkseid would be the best direction for the series to take. There's a whole world of Superman that's never been explored before that I agree is far more interesting than his fight with Doomsday. Darkseid is the most interesting villain as well as Brainiac. It's a shame the creators of the films never thought to use these characters.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-11-2010, 10:39 PM
Bond:

First of all, don't take offense to this. You're wading in waters that are too deep for you right now.

It'd be different if you were putting up a real argument. Go on a real comic book forum like Comicbookresources or Newsarama, people fucking HATE DOOMSDAY.

Yeah the people on Amazon praise it, it's a piece of comic book history (unfortunately) they get off on the nostalgia factor. Let's be real its a fight scene told in Splash pages, it's pop-art not a story.

You're use of the Hulk is invalid because he's a character that is about a man struggling with his own duality. Doomsday serves one purpose, PUNCH SUPERMAN ENOUGH SO PEOPLE "THINK" HE'S DEAD. But you forget that Superman kicked his ass in no time.

There seems to be no use trying to explain the obsurdity of the Doomsday villain to you. You're not a DC fan, as you've noted, and you felt that Watchmen was far too talky. Frankly you're the audience that doesn't get it. If Warner was trying to cater to the fans of the Watchmen movie, then frankly nobody would see it.

You're Avatar comment completely missed the mark on what I was saying. People cared about the stupid tree being blown up. Not the big fight scenes they cared about what happened to the characters. No matter how rehashed the story was if you thought people just saw it for the effects you're very much mistaken. Every class I go to in grad school is discussing the depth and even the science of the film. Now, I'm not a fan of the movie but I see how audiences can connect with it. The whole "It's Pocahantas/Ferngully/Dances with Wovles" thing is getting annoying. People have been telling the same stories since the beginning of time.

And like I said a Death of Superman story has no stakes to it. You know that he's not going to die. Plain and simple, that cuts the emotional tie right there but if you have Braniac destroying the city with Luthor manipulating it all people would actually care. Parasite sucking the life out of Superman, they'd care. They know you wont kill off Superman, but what about Jimmy? Hell even Lois?

And Doomsday is not unique, he is as I said just like every Roided 90s villain. BANE, VENOM, DOOMSDAY, theses guys all they did was bring a fight and disrupt the characters life. But unlike Doomsday, Bane and Venom people actually care enough about to constantly reinvent and try and put in the depth that was never there to begin with.

Truthfully with Nolan now behind the project and DC getting their comic book writers involved in their movies ie, Mark Gugginhiem writing Green Lantern, you are more likely to see Robin in the Dark Knight Sequel than Doomsday anywhere near a Superman movie.

I don't dispute that with a good writer anything is possible but let's be real, they're going to go with villains that have a lot more depth and history with the Man of Steel then a one note monster of the week from the 90s.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-11-2010, 10:40 PM
And one more thing, anyone that want's to dispute Lex Luthor as the baddest of the bad need only read SUPERMAN RED SON. He beats superman with literally ONE SENTENCE. Not a punch. Not even a fight. One simple sentence and he shuts down the Man of Steel.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-11-2010, 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond View Post
Krueger:

See, that's just the thing. Superman Returns is a story that we seen a million times before. Minus the whole weird retarded super kid thing of course.

And to assume that the Death of Superman script would end being exactly like the comic is speculative at this point. We don't know how the movie would turn out or surprise you. It could very well be completely different than what you expect in comparison to the comic.

But hey, if you prefer dramas with poor acting, unbelievable situations, and bad love triangles with Superman having bastard childs... over an emotional story line filled with a ton of kick ass action, and a ton of destruction... hey, thats cool man.

Different strokes for different folks.



That's the thing, Singer was taking the old nostalgia from the great Donner flick and presenting the idea in a new way--and yes he did have to cover some familiar ground anyway seeing as his film was a reboot. And truthfully, I didn't find the kid angle retarded. There's absolutely nothing in canon that I'm aware of saying he can't have kids.

As far as "dramas with poor acting," I personally found the acting in SR to be great. Nothing Oscar caliber, but what superhero movie has that (besides The Dark Knight)?

And I'll take the precedence of character over "kick ass action" anyday. If that action does not have an emotional anchor, then I'm not going to care how many buildings Superman and any of his villains knock over.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-11-2010, 11:45 PM
Right. What was the finale of Dark Knight? Was it the showdown with Joker or the much less actiony showdown with Two Face?

It worked because of all the character and drama that came with Two Face. He was the driving arc in that story and the movie ended with him.

Doomsday offers NOTHING like that.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02-12-2010, 01:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
Ok, look. I think we get it. You want Doomsday. We really dont. Doomsday isnt interesting as a character or as a story.
Adam:

This is a call for a...





Quote:
Right. What was the finale of Dark Knight? Was it the showdown with Joker or the much less actiony showdown with Two Face? It worked because of all the character and drama that came with Two Face. He was the driving arc in that story and the movie ended with him. Doomsday offers NOTHING like that.
Well, I should be glad then. I really didn't care for the Dark Knight all that much (Besides the acting performance done by Heath Ledger of course). Now, I did like Batman Begins, though. However, I still feel it could have used a bit more action, though. Not that action defines or helps to make a movie great. But having action in a super hero movie is sort of like putting butter on toast. The two just go together.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Fred Krueger View Post
And truthfully, I didn't find the kid angle retarded. There's absolutely nothing in canon that I'm aware of saying he can't have kids. As far as "dramas with poor acting," I personally found the acting in SR to be great.
Krueger:

I am not sure what to say that. I suppose I will just have to say...
"agree to disagree", seeing I cannot mind meld my paint to you (in regards to Superman Returns).

Quote:
And I'll take the precedence of character over "kick ass action" anyday. If that action does not have an emotional anchor, then I'm not going to care how many buildings Superman and any of his villains knock over.
I actually posted that an emotional story line is important when writing a script.
Doesn't mean you can't have a nice balance of both action and an emotional story.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooke Thompson View Post
Bond:
First of all, don't take offense to this. You're wading in waters that are too deep for you right now.
Brooke:

Ha, ha, ha... awesome. Well, good thing I have my life preserver on then.

Quote:
It'd be different if you were putting up a real argument. Go on a real comic book forum like Comicbookresources or Newsarama, people fucking HATE DOOMSDAY.
Already a member at CBR for about a year now, thanks.
And fans who actually collect the comics are the minority within a general movie going audience.

Quote:
Yeah the people on Amazon praise it, it's a piece of comic book history (unfortunately) they get off on the nostalgia factor. Let's be real its a fight scene told in Splash pages, it's pop-art not a story
So their opinions don't count? Actually, I think their opinions would matter more seeing that they fall more under the general movie going audience (the casual reader)... and are not the minority of die hard rabid fans of the comics who have seizures or fits over minor changes.

Quote:
You're use of the Hulk is invalid because he's a character that is about a man struggling with his own duality.
So I can't sympathize with a being that has being created and killed countless times over? That is what Doomsday is. He was bred to be the ultimate indestructible killing machine. He is a rabid dog that had been kicked too many times to know any type of kindness.

Quote:
Doomsday serves one purpose, PUNCH SUPERMAN ENOUGH SO PEOPLE "THINK" HE'S DEAD.
Doomsday's wave of death and destruction was not only brought upon Superman's doorstep, it was revealed that he initially went on a killing spree across many planets. He also was involved in killing hundreds of Green Lantern's, as well. Also, his origin is tied to the very planet of Krypton itself, too. In fact, from the agony of continually dying during his creation process, Doomsday developed in his genes the ability to sense anyone Kryptonian, plus an overriding instinct to treat any such beings as an automatic threat. So he can't help but punch Superman until he is dead.

Now, was Doomsday's sole purpose to kill Superman only? No. As I pointed out his character was later used to show that his character had killed not just one important man but countless lives. However, was he originally created for the purpose of killing Superman? Yes. However, his character is not defined within the confines of the Death of Superman series. On the other hand, I personally preferred his character being shrouded in mystery in the beginning. Something is always scarier when it can't be explained or understood.

I mean, honestly. What's scarier or more riveting? A mad man who dresses up like a clown and carries out crime heists and mayhem? Or a hulking creature that is virtually unstoppable and kills entire planets because he is bred to?

Quote:
But you forget that Superman kicked his ass in no time.
True, but even though Superman had killed Doomsday once before, he was unable to do so again. Which still makes Doomsday pretty damn resilient and bad ass, if you ask me.

Quote:
There seems to be no use trying to explain the obsurdity of the Doomsday villain to you. You're not a DC fan, as you've noted,
Well, I grew up being a fan of Marvel Comics in the mid 80s to early 90s. My impression of DC back then was that it was always a bit too corny. Granted, that has changed a bit now with better writers and artists obviously. However, the very fabric of a lot of the characters remains the same. Robin still prances about in an outfit with green underwear that draws unnecessary attention to his nut sack. One of Superman's well known villains is the Toyman. Superman and Batman have yet to get their underwear inside their pants (like Captain America did with his new costume), ECT.

Quote:
and you felt that Watchmen was far too talky. Frankly you're the audience that doesn't get it.
Well, if you were to re-read my older posts you would read that I said that I enjoyed the Watchmen comic series (with all it's literary intricacies) by my third reading. So yes, I did get it.
However, that doesn't mean I am wrong for wanting to crave a bit more drawn out action within the panels of that series, though (to help it come alive a bit more).

Quote:
If Warner was trying to cater to the fans of the Watchmen movie, then frankly nobody would see it.
Okay. You seem to be contradicting yourself here. In the above sentence you stated that I didn't get it. Now you are on the opposite side of the argument saying that I am a fan of the book and only want a movie that is exactly like the comic. Which of course I would not want. As I said before: Comics need to be translated into a script. And the script can have a completely different approach or take on the original comic (in which it was based on).

Quote:
You're Avatar comment completely missed the mark on what I was saying. People cared about the stupid tree being blown up. Not the big fight scenes they cared about what happened to the characters. No matter how rehashed the story was if you thought people just saw it for the effects you're very much mistaken. Every class I go to in grad school is discussing the depth and even the science of the film. Now, I'm not a fan of the movie but I see how audiences can connect with it. The whole "It's Pocahantas/Ferngully/Dances with Wovles" thing is getting annoying. People have been telling the same stories since the beginning of time.
Maybe the people you talked to. However, most of the people I talked to said it was the visual effects that impressed them the most. They really didn't praise the story all that much.

In fact, I seen the movie twice, and although it was entertaining again the second time around... I really started to feel less attached to the protagonists and their dilemma.

Quote:
And like I said a Death of Superman story has no stakes to it. You know that he's not going to die. Plain and simple, that cuts the emotional tie right there
You obviously didn't read my post. I said that the real Superman would actually die and someone else would take over his appearance and identity (possibly a clone or someone else) by the third movie.

And lets say for the argument that you know that Superman is not going to stay dead and you know he is going to come back right before the end credits roll within the second film: So if he were to return, do you think that certain characters wouldn't have moved on with their lives? Do you think certain characters wouldn't know how to act around him? Do you think that certain characters wouldn't feel pain over him being gone? Do you think a world without a Superman is a more dangerous place to live? So yes. I would say there are personal stakes involved. If Superman dies... even for a short time... people in the real world are going to be effected and or even die (because he is not in it).

Quote:
but if you have Braniac destroying the city with Luthor manipulating it all people would actually care. Parasite sucking the life out of Superman, they'd care. They know you wont kill off Superman, but what about Jimmy? Hell even Lois?
Yes, but they never do. At least not in a movie anyways.
They wouldn't want to risk pissing off the fans.

Quote:
And Doomsday is not unique, he is as I said just like every Roided 90s villain. BANE, VENOM, DOOMSDAY, theses guys all they did was bring a fight and disrupt the characters life. But unlike Doomsday, Bane and Venom people actually care enough about to constantly reinvent and try and put in the depth that was never there to begin with.
Doomsday is not unique, huh? Well he grew up on Krypton and was created and destroyed countless times in the production of becoming an unstoppable killing machine. I say that is pretty unique. He made the world think he killed Superman. I say that's pretty unique. He murdered entire planets and a whole bunch of lanterns. I would say that is pretty unique. He didn't make it easy for Superman to defeat him a second time. I would say that is pretty unique. He isn't like one of Batman's cliche mad house villains. I would say that is pretty unique.

Quote:
Truthfully with Nolan now behind the project and DC getting their comic book writers involved in their movies ie, Mark Gugginhiem writing Green Lantern, you are more likely to see Robin in the Dark Knight Sequel than Doomsday anywhere near a Superman movie.
So your saying it isn't possible. Doomsday's last issue appearance was in December of 2009.

http://www.comicbookdb.com/character_chron.php?ID=4104

Who's to say that the writer of that book wouldn't suggest something to Nolan?

Quote:
I don't dispute that with a good writer anything is possible but let's be real, they're going to go with villains that have a lot more depth and history with the Man of Steel then a one note monster of the week from the 90s.
See, thats just the thing. He isn't just a one note monster from the 90s. He is the villain that killed Superman. And folks are never going to forget that. Most of your general movie going audience are not fans of the comics. So they would really have no idea who the other villains your talking about are. However, I know certain members of my family (who don't read comics) remember the head lines in the newspaper when the character of Superman died, though. They may not exactly remember the picture of Doomsday, but they definitely remember the Death of Superman being announced.

So even if you or other comic fans didn't care for the character or the actual story within the Death of Superman comics, you are in the minority because the majority of the movie going audience would have no clue to what your nitpicking about.

Last edited by James Bond; 02-12-2010 at 02:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-12-2010, 01:32 AM
Punch Superman. Kill Superman. That's all Doomsday has ever done. And no one cares how many other things he killed, especialy in a Superman movie. THATS why he is a one trick pony. And so far, youve not given a single arguement why that isnt true.

"But he killed Superman!" So freaking what. That doesnt mean it'll make a good movie. Movies need things like character development, plot, twists and flaws. Doomsday provides none of those things.

And with a cerebral director like Nolan overseeing the project, we can all agree that Doomsday will never set foot on the big screen. Thank fuck.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 02-12-2010, 02:20 AM
I wanna get your guys thoughts on this, i was contemplating this over a few days on how or why we dont need a remake or anything. And EVERYONE is on the right track with the Doomsday angle, but here is how it should be done and WHY....

Obviously we know where superman has come from (both in comics AND in the movie world) So we get the first new movie to be the DEATH of superman, and instead of rebooting the movie behind the scenes, do it ON THE SCREEN. Take the superman that has been in the movies (ala, continuing it) And have it die on screen by doomsday, New slate! And the Return of Superman can be part 2 obviously and BOOM, a new franchise has begun and keep it rolling.

Had to write it out before i forget after this.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 02-12-2010, 02:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
Punch Superman. Kill Superman. That's all Doomsday has ever done. And no one cares how many other things he killed, especialy in a Superman movie. THATS why he is a one trick pony. And so far, youve not given a single arguement why that isnt true.
Adam:

So your saying that the audience would not sympathize in seeing people die on screen? That's exactly the type of terror Doomsday brings. He doesn't kill just some people like various villains do. He kills.... everyone!!!!! I don't know about you but that's kind of disturbing.

As for him being a one trick pony:
Every villain has a predictable set of rules or pattern that they operate by. So I can say the same thing about them. However, who is to say that the movie version of Doomsday wouldn't be more tactically smart or devious, though?

However, what is interesting about the story of Doomsday is that Superman couldn't stop Doomsday physically in his second encounter with him. That has got to be a frightening prospect to Superman. Knowing that he can't immediately stop a raging hulk from potentially murdering more innocent lives. This goes to show you that the character of Doomsday is not only a punching killing machine, but he is also able to adapt and grow stronger to threats that he goes up against.

Quote:
"But he killed Superman!" So freaking what. That doesnt mean it'll make a good movie. Movies need things like character development, plot, twists and flaws. Doomsday provides none of those things.
As I stated a million times in my posts before: the script (if it was ever made) would more than likely be treated to include such elements. In fact, this argument is subjective because the script can be a completely differently animal in comparison to the actual comic.

Quote:
And with a cerebral director like Nolan overseeing the project, we can all agree that Doomsday will never set foot on the big screen. Thank fuck.
Yeah, I didn't say it was going to happen. I am obviously was hoping for a DC movie with a ton of kick ass action along with an emotional story line for a change. But that's just me.

Side Note:

However, just to be clear, I don't mind Nolan directing Superman. I am sure he will bring some interesting things to the table.

Last edited by James Bond; 02-12-2010 at 03:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 02-12-2010, 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond View Post
Adam:

So your saying that the audience would not sympathize in seeing people die on screen? That's exactly the type of terror Doomsday brings. He doesn't kill just some people like various villains do. He kills.... everyone!!!!! I don't know about you but that's kind of disturbing.
No. That isnt what Im saying at all. Im saying doomsday simply doesnt have the material to fill an entire movie.

Nobody is going to watch a movie with Superman and Doomsday punching each other for two hours.

Theres no PLOT. How are you not getting this?
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 02-12-2010, 05:55 AM
I just wanna say afew thing...some may be dumb...but hey.lol

1)Doomsday ,in my opinion ,can carry a movie.He is created for one thing...to destroy and kill.He can kinda just go from point A to point B killing everyone in his way.If the army gets involved...DEAD...if police get in his way...DEAD....civillian??.....DEADER.lol.He is pure hate.He symbolizes the worse in the world.While superman symbolizes hope.They can have superman fight doomsday more than once in the film.Have superman lose the first time not knowing what he was getting into.Jst doomsday kicks hiss ass and keeps it moving.Maybe superman can try to save some people from doomsday and it doesnt work and doomsday kills them.That would motivate superman to fight harder next time cuz he feels guilt.i think someone can write a good enough script for doomsday.But i do feel they should wait till maybe a sequal.

2)The origins can be done afew ways.I think the best way to get us to love superman is to do his origins in a way we can either sympathize or connect with the character.It can be done.And i wouldnt mind it as long as they tried to make it interesting without changing anything too much.Just do it with a different style.

3)I still think that a krypton movie would be perfect especially right now.Thius could make us get behind the character better when we know where he is from and what happened to his planet.Here are some things i would want to see in it

a)"Krypton's primordial era produced some of the most dangerous organisms in the Universe. It was for this reason that Krypton was chosen as the place to create Doomsday through forced evolution."
(Can anyone see a lobo scene or am i crazy)

b)Krypton is always descreibed as beatiful.Id like to see it on screen.lol

c)There was a war on krypton sometime right before it was destroyed.That would be cool.

d)they where highly advanced technology wise.Id like to see that.

e)the drama of Supermans father trying desperatly to save his planet would be cool.Get ppl to sympathize with im.Then when he fails and sends superman to earth the sympathy can be transferd to superman...maybe.

4)brainiac should be the villain in a superman movie.He ties into krypton and supermans origins.

5)Luthor should be in the background.I dont wanna see him as the main villian but i think he MUST be in any superman film.

6)I wanna see doomsday kill superman.But i also wanna see superman fight doomsday and his disiples
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 02-12-2010, 10:33 AM
Adam:

Please don't take offense. But honestly, I already addressed your concern on this issue. You have ignored my detailed responses back and have not given any of them a proper rebuttal in return. You just keep giving me the same blanketed mantra response that I am not understanding that a Doomsday movie can't work, and thats it. Please re-read my posts and respond to them individually if you want to debate the issue with me on an intelligent level. However, if you don't. Hey, thats cool, man. I totally understand. There is no real contest to win here. We both have differing opinions on this issue. And I don't think that's going to change. Unless of course strong evidence was brought to light that I was in error of course.


Venom:

Wow, I really like what you wrote. I guess you could say I am now warming up to the idea of doing a Doomsday movie as a sequel, now. Also, a movie involving Krypton would be very cool, too. Especially the way that you describe it. Well, you got my support, thats for sure, man. And it definitely would open up a ton of possibilities within the world of Superman that we have never seen before, as well. In fact, if Nolan gives us a bit more origin involving Krypton like this: I would take back everything bad I said about a Superman reboot being a bad idea. Granted, not that I don't think Nolan would ever do a bad job or anything. He is the genius that has made Batman good again, after all. So we are definitely in good hands. Whatever direction or areas he decides to take this new Superman Reboot into.

Anyways, thank you for sharing your creative thoughts on this new Reboot.
It is much appreciated, my friend.


Last edited by James Bond; 02-12-2010 at 10:37 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 02-12-2010, 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z_oasis View Post
I wanna get your guys thoughts on this, i was contemplating this over a few days on how or why we dont need a remake or anything. And EVERYONE is on the right track with the Doomsday angle, but here is how it should be done and WHY....

Obviously we know where superman has come from (both in comics AND in the movie world) So we get the first new movie to be the DEATH of superman, and instead of rebooting the movie behind the scenes, do it ON THE SCREEN. Take the superman that has been in the movies (ala, continuing it) And have it die on screen by doomsday, New slate! And the Return of Superman can be part 2 obviously and BOOM, a new franchise has begun and keep it rolling.

Had to write it out before i forget after this.
So basically introduce Superman, than kill him off, than reintroduce him in a sequel?
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 02-12-2010, 11:10 AM
Bond:

Alright seems like you were busy today so I gotta make a few of your points clear.

As for Doomsday's appearance in December. If you had read the issue he serves as mearly a small plot point. Nightwing, Flamebird, and MonEl (I can't remember which) fight Doomsday as part of a distraction by the big bad. So he does exactly what we've proved time and time again: he punches some shit then gets killed.

You're detailed plans for your fantasy Superman/JLA trilogy is a novel idea and all but you seem to not understand how the movie industry works. There was a small window of time where big stories were all made at once, KILL BILL, THE MATRIX RELOADED/REVOLUTIONS, and THE LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY. But, they don't make movies like that anymore. They don't make them all at once because there is a lot of money involved and the risk factor is too high. The last Superman movie bombed so Warner is very scared on how to handle the property their not gonna shoot themselves in the foot and plan for two or three movies when they don't even know if the first one will work.

And personally I think my main beef with Doomsday in this senario is your poor presentation of him. If I'm going to see a Superman movie I don't want to see Superman disappear in the first hour and not come back until the second film. You really don't understand this issue with "stakes being raised" it's a common filmmaking mode of operation. But, you're not a filmmaker so I'm not expecting you to understand. No one will believe that Superman is dead. Nobody. Maybe for a good ten mins and then they'll say "But the movie's called SUPERMAN, he'll be back in no time." So when he comes back its not that the auidenece is so happy he's alive, they'll just be relieved that he's back on screen. So he can what? Have a five min fight with Doomsday?


There seems to be no talking to you about Doomsday cause you're just not getting it, but I want to talk about some of the things you said back to me.


About Watchmen. My statement was not contradicting itself. Fans of the comic and fans of the movie are two different groups. Honestly the people who enjoy the shit out of the movie are the ones that picked up the Graphic Novel right after seeing the trailer or got it for christmas and like you took three times to read it cause it was too cerebral. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but when the Watchmen movie was turned into a compete mockery of that story it is. The Watchmen movies was like the retarded cliff notes cousin of the graphic novel. And the numbers don't lie, nobody cared enough to see it. That's what I mean by catering to the people that saw the Watchmen movie.

You've been a member of CBR for a year. Wow. Would you like some candy? I'm a young guy in my early 20s and I've been reading comics forever. So when you talk about comic book fans you're talking about my people. I know what we like and what we dislike even if I don't agree. And I wasn't discounting the Amazon readers comments. If you read my post correctly you'd see that I was trying to put it in perspective for you.

But, I don't need a lecture on who Doomsday is. Trust me I know his whole Kryptonian laced story. But you gotta realize with comic books, and Superman in general there are SO MANY BETTER STORIES to be told. Idk I see a man who locked an entire kryptonain city in a bottle (Braniac) much more clever and exciting when he's bringing the fight to Supes then Doomsday.

And Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about in regards to Robin. Right now Robin is being played by Bruce Wayne's psychopath son with Talia Gul. He's a loose cannon that'd rather kill then capture. It's pretty awesome. To play him as a tired old 60s joke about green underwear drawing to his nutsack is a little immature and off base. Same with Superman and Batman's costumes. And even Toyman. It's a fucking comic. It's POP ART. There are no rules, no budget, this is a world of make believe not realism.

Nobody cares for Doomsday except you and a couple people that never read the comic and just remember him "killing superman" which he never really did. Superman's body just goes into hibernation. HE NEVER DIES.

I don't know man. There seems to be no talking with you because you're not understanding anyone's viewpoint. We get it. You wanna see a Doomsday movie, there are some of us here that are trying to explain why we wouldn't. Why it'd be stupid. Why it just wouldn't work the way you present it.

Listen if you want to talk about the possiblities for a single movie then maybe you're arguement can have some more weight to it. But right now, as you present it, it just won't work.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 02-12-2010, 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond View Post
Adam:

Please don't take offense. But honestly, I already addressed your concern on this issue. You have ignored my detailed responses back and have not given any of them a proper rebuttal in return. You just keep giving me the same blanketed mantra response that I am not understanding that a Doomsday movie can't work, and thats it. Please re-read my posts and respond to them individually if you want to debate the issue with me on an intelligent level. However, if you don't. Hey, thats cool, man. I totally understand. There is no real contest to win here. We both have differing opinions on this issue. And I don't think that's going to change. Unless of course strong evidence was brought to light that I was in error of course.

LOL, man, I HAVE argued it. You just are refusing to listen to anything any of us is saying. We tell you it wont work and why, your only rebuttal is simply "Yes it will."
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 02-12-2010, 12:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by venom718 View Post
I just wanna say afew thing...some may be dumb...but hey.lol

1)Doomsday ,in my opinion ,can carry a movie.He is created for one thing...to destroy and kill.He can kinda just go from point A to point B killing everyone in his way.If the army gets involved...DEAD...if police get in his way...DEAD....civillian??.....DEADER.lol.He is pure hate.He symbolizes the worse in the world.While superman symbolizes hope.They can have superman fight doomsday more than once in the film.Have superman lose the first time not knowing what he was getting into.Jst doomsday kicks hiss ass and keeps it moving.Maybe superman can try to save some people from doomsday and it doesnt work and doomsday kills them.That would motivate superman to fight harder next time cuz he feels guilt.i think someone can write a good enough script for doomsday.But i do feel they should wait till maybe a sequal.
SNOOZEFEST. This is not a movie. A decent third act maybe, but a movie it aint.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 02-12-2010, 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooke Thompson View Post
Bond:
As for Doomsday's appearance in December. If you had read the issue he serves as mearly a small plot point. Nightwing, Flamebird, and MonEl (I can't remember which) fight Doomsday as part of a distraction by the big bad. So he does exactly what we've proved time and time again: he punches some shit then gets killed.
Brooke:

I already addressed this issue. I said it doesn't matter what the comic did. The script can be a completely different animal than the comic. So this argument is subjective.

Quote:
You're detailed plans for your fantasy Superman/JLA trilogy is a novel idea and all but you seem to not understand how the movie industry works. There was a small window of time where big stories were all made at once, KILL BILL, THE MATRIX RELOADED/REVOLUTIONS, and THE LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY. But, they don't make movies like that anymore. They don't make them all at once because there is a lot of money involved and the risk factor is too high. The last Superman movie bombed so Warner is very scared on how to handle the property their not gonna shoot themselves in the foot and plan for two or three movies when they don't even know if the first one will work.
I have read various film and writing books and have been involved in two independent films. I have had many deep discussions about the film industry for many years now.

However, if you were to re-read my post, I never said that they should film the trilogy back to back like the Lord of the Rings. I said they should immediately start filming the next movie after the first one was successful.

Big difference.

Quote:
And personally I think my main beef with Doomsday in this senario is your poor presentation of him. If I'm going to see a Superman movie I don't want to see Superman disappear in the first hour and not come back until the second film. You really don't understand this issue with "stakes being raised" it's a common filmmaking mode of operation. But, you're not a filmmaker so I'm not expecting you to understand. No one will believe that Superman is dead. Nobody. Maybe for a good ten mins and then they'll say "But the movie's called SUPERMAN, he'll be back in no time." So when he comes back its not that the auidenece is so happy he's alive, they'll just be relieved that he's back on screen. So he can what? Have a five min fight with Doomsday?
I never said that Superman should disappear in the first hour. He would die at the end of the first movie.

Quote:
There seems to be no talking to you about Doomsday cause you're just not getting it, but I want to talk about some of the things you said back to me.
Your point is invalid that a Doomsday movie won't work because the comic... is not going to be photo copy of the script. They have screen writers who will add those necessary elements that the story needs to make it emotional and more character driven.

The fact that you can't recognize the potential for these things to appear within the story is lack of vision or imagination on your part. Either that or it is an unwillingness to let yourself enjoy the story because you already dislike it.


Quote:
About Watchmen. My statement was not contradicting itself. Fans of the comic and fans of the movie are two different groups. Honestly the people who enjoy the shit out of the movie are the ones that picked up the Graphic Novel right after seeing the trailer or got it for christmas and like you took three times to read it cause it was too cerebral. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but when the Watchmen movie was turned into a compete mockery of that story it is. The Watchmen movies was like the retarded cliff notes cousin of the graphic novel. And the numbers don't lie, nobody cared enough to see it. That's what I mean by catering to the people that saw the Watchmen movie.
So there is no room for deviation? I thought they did a pretty darn good job at adapting the graphic novel. However, the problem with Watchmen's box office numbers didn't lie within the fact that it didn't live up to the potential of the graphic novel. It didn't do well because the average movie goer craves cheese fries, explosions, bad CGI, mindless action sequences, and hot chicks or tight bodies. They don't want to think too much. I mean, one of my friends (who is a huge collector of comics) didn't like Watchmen because he thought the movie was too slow and boring. Obviously the movie was too cerebral for him.

However, I still feel that the Graphic novel is not perfect. Not because I am not into cerebral story lines. But because they didn't utilize all the tools at their disposal to communicate the story as clearly. Granted, I suppose that is part of the whole point of the book was probably aiming for. But from where I stand. The number one rule of any good story is to communicate to your reader in the best possible way for him to understand your particular story.

Quote:
You've been a member of CBR for a year. Wow.
Not impressed huh?
Well, I did help to create three reading orders over there.

Civil War Reading Order:
http://forums.comicbookresources.com...&postcount=605

World War Hulk Reading Order:
http://forums.comicbookresources.com...0&postcount=92

Secret Invasion Reading Order:
http://forums.comicbookresources.com...&postcount=397



Quote:
Would you like some candy?
Yes. I would like some candy. Thank you.

Quote:
I'm a young guy in my early 20s and I've been reading comics forever. So when you talk about comic book fans you're talking about my people. I know what we like and what we dislike even if I don't agree.
I am a guy in his late 30s. I have been reading comics since the 80s.
However, there is no way for you to know how all comic book fans feel about particular issues unless you were to round everyone one of them up and ask them all. Personally, I think you and the people you have ran into just don't like the Death of Superman. Hey, it's cool. I get it. You want to validate your own opinion. So naturally you attract those people who would agree with you.

However, The Top 100 DVD sales chart for 9/18/07-9/23/07 revealed that the animated Doomsday film was placed at #4, and was two spots ahead of the season six release of Smallville. Variety made a report three months after the DVD's release, on DTV movies becoming very popular, and revealed that the DVD sold 600,000 copies, 30% more than what the studio predicted. As of today, Superman Doomsday is the highest selling movie from the DC Direct to Video series selling more that 9 million units worldwide.

So, the Death of Superman Trade Paper Back is a top seller and the Animated Doomsday DVD is a top seller. Hmmm, sounds like it is a successful story concept if you ask me.

Quote:
And I wasn't discounting the Amazon readers comments. If you read my post correctly you'd see that I was trying to put it in perspective for you.
Honestly, when it boils down to it: you were trying to dismiss their viewpoints and validate your own opinion over theirs. You were trying say that their viewpoints didn't hold any weight because most of the folks at Amazon are into things that are nostalgic. Which is simply not true.

Actually the fact the trade paper back is one of the top selling books helps to validate the positive feed back at Amazon.

So you can rally together all the comic fans you want who hate the Death of Superman. Still isn't going to change the numbers.


Quote:
But, I don't need a lecture on who Doomsday is. Trust me I know his whole Kryptonian laced story.
Apparently, I had to. You didn't care to want to bring up any facts that the character has an origin, too. You simply cited him from the Death of Superman. As if that was the only universe he existed in.

Quote:
But you gotta realize with comic books, and Superman in general there are SO MANY BETTER STORIES to be told. Idk I see a man who locked an entire kryptonain city in a bottle (Braniac) much more clever and exciting when he's bringing the fight to Supes then Doomsday.
A Honey, I Shrunk the Kids Super Man Movie?
Are you serious?

Quote:
And Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about in regards to Robin. Right now Robin is being played by Bruce Wayne's psychopath son with Talia Gul. He's a loose cannon that'd rather kill then capture. It's pretty awesome. To play him as a tired old 60s joke about green underwear drawing to his nutsack is a little immature and off base. Same with Superman and Batman's costumes. And even Toyman. It's a fucking comic. It's POP ART. There are no rules, no budget, this is a world of make believe not realism.
I am going to point out the problems within the DC Universe. Just as I would do the same thing for the problems that exist within the Marvel Universe or any other comic. We shouldn't have to apologize every time we pick up an issue. The world is becoming more and more educated because of the internet. It's about time people pulled their heads out of the sand and started creating superhero stories with a bit more reality and meat to them.

Quote:
Nobody cares for Doomsday except you and a couple people that never read the comic and just remember him "killing superman" which he never really did. Superman's body just goes into hibernation. HE NEVER DIES.
Doesn't mean that they can't kill Superman in the movies, though.
And possibly bring in a clone or someone else to take over his face and identity.

Quote:
I don't know man. There seems to be no talking with you because you're not understanding anyone's viewpoint. We get it. You wanna see a Doomsday movie, there are some of us here that are trying to explain why we wouldn't. Why it'd be stupid. Why it just wouldn't work the way you present it.
Well, you didn't think a Doomsday movie would do well at all.
But the animated DVD seems to be selling nicely. And I am sure the live action movie would do just as well (if handled correctly).

Quote:
Listen if you want to talk about the possiblities for a single movie then maybe you're arguement can have some more weight to it. But right now, as you present it, it just won't work.
How does it not work?
Please tell me. Is their a fully written script that you have seen that I should be concerned about?

The point is to see the potential for not what it is but what it could be.
And I don't believe I should have to write the script myself in order to prove that particular point to you.

Last edited by James Bond; 02-12-2010 at 12:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump