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
  #281  
Old 10-05-2010, 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anakinsrise View Post
Snyder has a great eye for detail i think we need an edgier darker Superman flick,and i hope they move on from Lex Luthor's land obssesion,or just go with another villain altogether....Braniac anyone?
Considering Nolan and now Snyder's involvement, I highly doubt that they will go for a more fantastical, supernatural villain. Zod seems like a logical choice. He looks human, like Superman, so they wouldn't have to get too outlandish. We'll see.
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 10-05-2010, 10:59 AM
C'mon now though, folks, I'm not happy with the choice of Snyder either, but do you really think Christopher Nolan would attach his name to a shitty film? I honestly believe the Nolan Bros. are the real ones at the helm here....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monotreme View Post
Considering Nolan and now Snyder's involvement, I highly doubt that they will go for a more fantastical, supernatural villain. Zod seems like a logical choice. He looks human, like Superman, so they wouldn't have to get too outlandish. We'll see.
I highly doubt that. In fact, I believe the reason they DID choose Snyder was because of his great visual style, thus opening the door for an elaborate villain.

Last edited by Smiert Spionam; 10-05-2010 at 11:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 10-05-2010, 11:13 AM
I cant see how they can make it non-childish
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 10-05-2010, 11:33 AM
I don't know where people are getting the indication Man of Steel will be a dark film; Snyder has made 3 rated-R films because they called for it and he recently made an animated film about owls. I think Nolan Bros. and Snyder know Superman isn't Batman, they just want to make him a modern character instead of creating another installment that wants to embody what we got during the Donner era.
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 10-05-2010, 11:52 AM
Zod is the villian here, so let's start casting him. Russell Crowe?
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 10-05-2010, 12:04 PM
I wonder whats happening with the Xerxes prequel now....
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 10-05-2010, 12:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieBuff07 View Post
I wonder whats happening with the Xerxes prequel now....
Hopefully in development hell where it belongs.
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 10-05-2010, 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by River Dog View Post
Zod is the villian here, so let's start casting him. Russell Crowe?
Might want to cast Superman first.
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 10-05-2010, 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
Might want to cast Superman first.
I think most of us are fine with Hamm.
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 10-05-2010, 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by River Dog View Post
I think most of us are fine with Hamm.
LOL, ok. I guess it's official then!
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 10-05-2010, 12:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by River Dog View Post
I think most of us are fine with Hamm.
If they wanna make this into a franchise then perhaps they'll want someone I don't know, younger!
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 10-05-2010, 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
If they wanna make this into a franchise then perhaps they'll want someone I don't know, younger!
We have already covered this a few pages back. Superman has always looked 35 to 40 years old in the comics. While Reeve was 26 when he did Superman, he looked like he was 35 years old as did most young actors at the time compared to actors today. 25 today looks like 25 or younger - a kid playing Superman. Hell, Margot Kidder looked 40.

We can't have some "child" playing Superman ala Welling. We need a MAN to play him and somone like Hamm could shoot Superman 1 and 2 back to back or during any time off from Mad Men. It's not like by the time Superman III rolls around, he would look like an old man.

If not Hamm, someone else 35 to 40 in age.
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 10-05-2010, 01:25 PM
I agree. My excitement for this thing tumbled when Snyder was announced to direct it. But Hamm is charismatic enough to get me interested in it again. I really like Hamm and think he'd make a great Clark Kent and a great Superman. River Dog is right too- Hamm looks like a man. He looks like a guy from the Harrison Ford/Bruce Willis school of action hero.
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 10-05-2010, 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by River Dog View Post
We have already covered this a few pages back. Superman has always looked 35 to 40 years old in the comics. While Reeve was 26 when he did Superman, he looked like he was 35 years old as did most young actors at the time compared to actors today. 25 today looks like 25 or younger - a kid playing Superman. Hell, Margot Kidder looked 40.

We can't have some "child" playing Superman ala Welling. We need a MAN to play him and somone like Hamm could shoot Superman 1 and 2 back to back or during any time off from Mad Men. It's not like by the time Superman III rolls around, he would look like an old man.

If not Hamm, someone else 35 to 40 in age.
Welling is 33.
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 10-05-2010, 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
Welling is 33.
And looks like a boy.
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 10-05-2010, 02:57 PM
I think Hamm would be a fine choice for Superman, would definitely love to see that happen. It's very much doubtful though, probably get some 22 year old unknown that can barely act.

Come on Nolan(s)/Snyder, be logical and cast people of their skill and whether or not they can 'fit' the part.
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 10-05-2010, 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post
I think Hamm would be a fine choice for Superman, would definitely love to see that happen. It's very much doubtful though, probably get some 22 year old unknown that can barely act.

Come on Nolan(s)/Snyder, be logical and cast people of their skill and whether or not they can 'fit' the part.
I doubt Nolan (Chris) would allow some unknown to be cast as the starring role while being completely surrounded by an all-star cast. Nolan likes his films to have the best of the best, almost likewise with Snyder who knows how to cast the right people for a specific role aside from Malin Ackerman and Matthew Goode in Watchmen.
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 10-05-2010, 04:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post

Its kind of the equivalent to a surgeon operating on a family member. He's not going to make the hard decisions necessary to make a stronger film because every part of the material is darling to him, and you can't make any adaptation without the heart-wrenching and often necessary decision of killing your darlings. Which as I've been told is part of any writing/filmmaking process.
First of all, excellent post! Let's take a look at some of the points that you made.

Regarding the editing/hard decisions. I do completely agree that hard decisions have to be made when something is adapted (sometimes, for no other reason than run time), and that, quite often, a fanboy isn't the one to do such things. Take Star Trek 10, a thoroughly forgettable movie (except maybe for the death of Data) that was written by a fan, for the fans, but that bombed at the box for very obvious reasons, and that, in the end, didn't even really please the fans. The next attempt, JJ Abrams Trek, did a lot better because it was written and made by someone who was never really a fan. Trek had gotten so redundant, by the end of its run, that it desperately needed a fresh look.

Also, take Batman Begins. I was talking with Ender a while ago (that is, we were arguing something on the books forum) and one of the things he brought up was how close Batman Begins was the to the source comics. On the one hand, there was no Lazurus pit, and there were fanboys who kicked and screamed about that. So, it wasn't a perfect, comic book, version of Ra's Al Ghul (they don't even go so far as to bother to pronounce his name right, which always annoyed me, its "Raysche" not "Ros"). However, the escape scene from Arkymn where Batman uses that thing in his boot to call for "back-up"? Anyone whose read Batman: Year One by Frank Miller knows that the scene was pulled, panel for panel, straight out of the book. There are an awful lot of things in Nolan's Batman that work that way. However, Nolan never just plugs something in and leaves it, he makes it his own.

Best example, the scene in TDK where the Joker has captured Rachel Dawes and Harvey Dent, and has them in two separate warehouses rigged to blow (aside: that "warehouses rigged to blow" sounds an awful lot like the horrific death of Jason Todd in "Death in the Family", doesn't it?). That's a superhero type scene (Smallville used the same scene in its season premier, with "two warehouses" replaced by "Lois in a burning field of corn" and "daily planet globe falling on people") and superheroes are "super" speficially because, whether its Spiderman saving MJ and the school bus full of Children, or Batman saving Chase Merridian and Robin, Superheroes ALWAYS save both.

Nolan's twist? (how he "made it his own") Rachel dies, a horrible death, because Batman believed the Joker when he told him where she was, and Harvey is transformed into one of Batman's most powerful enemies, Two-face. You can argue that, far from not saving either, Batman would have been better off if he'd done nothing, if he'd let both die (the scene at the end, where Batman is now on the run, would not have happened, Harvey would have died the people's hero, their white knight). That's how Nolan took the typical superhero type scene and twisted it. Its brillant.





Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
Plus, comics are ALWAYS retconning characters' bios. They clearly hold no sanctity to the creators, why should filmmakers have to adhere?
This is true, comics always are, because comics are generational things. Who we thought Superman was in the 70s is different from who we thought he was in the 40s is different from today. Heck, there's no better example of that then poor Hawkman, who I'd really wish they'd straighten out, now that Johns has done the right thing by Power Girl.

The difference is (and this is something that's more a DC thing) is that, in comics, changing someone's bio "counts". Every so often, the slate is wipped clean, and things are re-started from the beginning, but, in general, if you twist a character's story in a way that doesn't make sense, you'll hear about it, and the character will shortly be changed back. If you twist in a good way, that new way sticks.

Example, back in the day, DC de-powered Wonder Woman, took away her powers, and made her a regular girl who took karate classes. Readers, and women's groups, protested loudly. DC wisely chickened out, Denny O'neil went so far as to call the wonder woman thing "the biggest mistake of my entire career" and gave Wonder Woman her powers back after a few months. The point is, when a change like this happens in comics, and it obviously stinks, its usually A) changed back quickly, or B) happened right before a crisis, so it gets changed back because the whole thing is starting over.

Mr. Freeze is a good example of the other extreme. Back in the day, he was Mr. Zero, and there were all of two Mr. Freeze stories in comics. Then, Paul Dini wrote "heart of ice" and Mr. Freeze was an overnight star. He got played by Arnie a few years later, and he was firmly in the Rogue's gallery. When someone writes a hit like that, its quickly incorporated, and becomes the new status quo.

I never recommended dogmatic adherence to the book, or panel-for-panel translation. I only meant that kind of tongue in cheek. I think the film should take the best of what came from the books, give a new angle, and learn from the mistakes (ie, what doesn't work, like retconning the murder of Uncle Ben).


Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
Yeah, I know, you're saying "ITS Superman, everyone on this blue planet knows who Superman is. You don't need to reintroduce him!". Well everyone on this blue planet knows who Batman is and Chris Nolan revisited his constantly visited beginning and that worked, and then he made a mother of a sequel once he got all that initial re-introduction business out of the way.
I'm actually not who you need to talk to. Adam Johnson is the "everyone on the planet knows its Superman" band leader. I'm on the opposite extreme, if it were up to me, the whole first film would be about Krypton, and what happened there (can't get more OG than that) My point was more that everyone knows the Donner-verse version of Superman, not everyone knows Superman's origin story, and that this could be written is a new, and modern, way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
Well Smallville has the good fortune to be episodic television which allows for weekly updating and growth of characters, and long series spanning story arcs. The length and breath Smallville now clearly runs longer than Donner's first Superman.

However at the same time a TV series about a young Superman leads an audience impatient to get to the next thing they know once the whole "teen years" nuance fades. Which then causes producers, usually during the inevitable ratings dip (and wanting to keep their show on the air), throw those things in that the audience knows but waaaay too early than the original material says (Lois Lane showing up while Kent is still in high school?)

Now if you can accept that change in the core material than you can accept my premise that in order for said material to work in another media you have to make some hard choices about what goes in, what's taken out and where, and that sometimes a fanboy is not the one to do it.

Two things here:

first, Lois Lane showing up in season four was horrible. Simply no other way to put it. I always maintained that Smallville was Lana Lang's show, that's the way it should have been. They introduced Lois in season four, then gave her nothing to do for four years! I thought Erica Durance was a horrible, wooden actress for four years. Then, when the show moved to Metropolis, and Lois was more logical as far as plot, Durance suddenly became one of the best things about the show. They found the right Lois, they just did nothing with her while the show was still about Clark's formative years. Again, made zero sense, and I'm not saying I agree with every single decision/plot line the show had done. I thought all of season eight was soured because of the awful doomsday plot. They mutilated that one. Smallville is not blameless. Why do I watch? Because when they put on stuff like Absolute Justice, a two parter that gets it so right, it hurts, its' worth it.

Secondly, I can accept change in the core material, just like I didn't flip out about Ra's not having his Lazurus pit in begins, what I cannot accept is the film version of the Dukes of Hazzard. When I was a kid, I watched Bo and Luke Duke with my mom every chance I got. I'm not a Southerner, or a Redneck, but there was a spirit of wholesome fun that just made the show cool to watch. The movie changed a lot of that, because it was never meant to be an adaptation. Change is good, doing the Dukes in this century would require it, if for no other reason than the effects, but when you change the spirit of what made something successful in the first place, it changes what it is supposed to be. You can do Ra's without the Lazurus pit, but you cannot do Ra's without him being an eco-terrorist lunatic with a horde or evil minions who follow his every wish. Nolan knew what to keep, and what he could change.
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 10-05-2010, 05:06 PM
Well, I trust in Nolan. I am rooting for a kickass type of film. Hopefully Snyder doesnt fuck this up.

I could imagine the meeting between the two ending like this...

Nolan: "Oh also Zach before you go, would you do me a favor?"

Snyder: "A favor?!?! Why, why why yes of course your Majesty! Anything!"

Nolan: "Could you please knock off all that slo-mo bullshit for Superman? Its really fuckin annoying"

Snyder:"But but your Majesty, thats my personal schtick! I'm the slo mo guy"

Nolan: "Yes, I get that you twat but please do us all a favor and limit it okay?"

Snyder: "As you wish your Majesty"

Nolan: "Excellent, now make like a tree and get da fuck out of here!!!!"

Last edited by echo_bravo; 10-05-2010 at 05:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 10-05-2010, 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by echo_bravo View Post
Nolan: "Excellent, now make a tree and get da fuck out of here!!!!"
Do you know how much $ I'd pay to hear Nolan say that to somebody?

Foreals hahaha
Reply With Quote
  #301  
Old 10-05-2010, 05:25 PM
It's funny, John Hamm is actually in Snyder's film Sucker Punch. Hopefully Snyder has some common sense and pushes for Hamm as Supes.

Last edited by Heisenberg; 10-05-2010 at 05:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 10-05-2010, 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiert Spionam View Post
Do you know how much $ I'd pay to hear Nolan say that to somebody?

Foreals hahaha
Ha, word.
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 10-05-2010, 06:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiert Spionam View Post
Do you know how much $ I'd pay to hear Nolan say that to somebody?

Foreals hahaha
Co-sign
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 10-05-2010, 07:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post
First of all, excellent post!

First off, when I finished writing that last post I realized I was getting into a multi-quoted discussion/argument with soda, the encyclopedia of all that is comics, and only hoped that I'd get out of it without having my ass handed back to me in shreds.

So thank you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post
The next attempt, JJ Abrams Trek, did a lot better because it was written and made by someone who was never really a fan. Trek had gotten so redundant, by the end of its run, that it desperately needed a fresh look.
I'm glad you mentioned this, because for someone who is NOT a trekkie it was clearly evident that Abrams HATED Kirk just by amount of horrific abuse he had him endure throughout that whole movie.


Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post
Mr. Freeze is a good example of the other extreme. Back in the day, he was Mr. Zero, and there were all of two Mr. Freeze stories in comics. Then, Paul Dini wrote "heart of ice" and Mr. Freeze was an overnight star. He got played by Arnie a few years later, and he was firmly in the Rogue's gallery. When someone writes a hit like that, its quickly incorporated, and becomes the new status quo.
Or they incorporate a character that never existed in the comics: Harley Quinn


Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post
Secondly, I can accept change in the core material, just like I didn't flip out about Ra's not having his Lazurus pit in begins, what I cannot accept is the film version of the Dukes of Hazzard. When I was a kid, I watched Bo and Luke Duke with my mom every chance I got. I'm not a Southerner, or a Redneck, but there was a spirit of wholesome fun that just made the show cool to watch. The movie changed a lot of that, because it was never meant to be an adaptation.
I never watched that movie, but I did watch the TV show, so we're agreed... on all counts.

Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 10-05-2010, 09:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post
I'm on the opposite extreme, if it were up to me, the whole first film would be about Krypton, and what happened there (can't get more OG than that) My point was more that everyone knows the Donner-verse version of Superman, not everyone knows Superman's origin story, and that this could be written is a new, and modern, way.



i agree so damn much.No one really knows much about krypton.Even in the comics it has been updated so much .When i think of krypton i think of a utterly beautiful place.With animals that would frighten the average human.But amazing non the less.Also a very advanced technological civilization.Far far more advanced than earth.It becomes ugly and polluted as war and its imminent destruction become more apparent.Soda u rule!!!!
I say that people think they know what they will get with a superman film.but if they read more into krypton and just wipe the slate clean of all past superman films/shows...they could see y it would be amazing!
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 10-06-2010, 12:27 AM
Anyone get the feeling that Snyder is doing this as a really big favor for Warner Bros.? He's taking on a movie that apparently no one has any interest in, or even wants to make, including the studio themselves. I bet whatever he does after this is a pretty big vanity project.

That said, I really hope they keep the cast and continuity of Superman Returns.
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 10-06-2010, 12:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
Anyone get the feeling that Snyder is doing this as a really big favor for Warner Bros.? He's taking on a movie that apparently no one has any interest in, or even wants to make, including the studio themselves. I bet whatever he does after this is a pretty big vanity project.

That said, I really hope they keep the cast and continuity of Superman Returns.
You still want Superman with a kid?
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 10-06-2010, 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
Anyone get the feeling that Snyder is doing this as a really big favor for Warner Bros.? He's taking on a movie that apparently no one has any interest in, or even wants to make, including the studio themselves. I bet whatever he does after this is a pretty big vanity project.
Actually Aaronofsky was supposedly very close to helming the film, but Warners didn't want him because he takes too long to develop big budget films, and time is of the essence considering Warners will lose the rights to Superman if they aren't at least in principal photography by 2012. So, considering Zack Snyder churns out films faster than a motherfucker and is pretty much on Warners' own payroll (unlike all of the other directors on that shortlist, mind you), Snyder was the obvious choice to fulfill the studio's needs.
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 10-06-2010, 04:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Servo View Post
Actually Aaronofsky was supposedly very close to helming the film, but Warners didn't want him because he takes too long to develop big budget films, and time is of the essence considering Warners will lose the rights to Superman if they aren't at least in principal photography by 2012. So, considering Zack Snyder churns out films faster than a motherfucker and is pretty much on Warners' own payroll (unlike all of the other directors on that shortlist, mind you), Snyder was the obvious choice to fulfill the studio's needs.
That could be true but it might also be seen as Snyder stepping up for WB in a pinch. Time is of the essence for WB and they need to fast-track this project while also (hopefully) delivering a quality product. I think that has a lot to do with the fact that the list of 5(6) potential directors was so underwhelming. I don't like Snyder's films but the fact that I'm somewhat relieved at the final decision shows how much I disliked the other choices. Duncan Jones was the only real interesting selection, but I'm not surprised that he didn't make the cut.
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 10-06-2010, 05:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
You still want Superman with a kid?
Well, why wouldn't they keep the kid? He was the best thing about Superman Returns! I hope I wasn't the only one who couldn't wait to see that kid wearing the blue tights going on adventures with his dad, Superman.

They could finally take back the title of that awful 1994 Gerard Depardieu comedy and turn it into a positive: My Father the Hero: Superman Returns II. It's about time he gave something back to cinema.

Snyder would be a real Munson to not use the kid. Think about it.
Reply With Quote
  #311  
Old 10-06-2010, 10:30 AM
So according to THR, the villain really will be Zod. Dear fucking God, WHY?! I know Superman doesn't have the greatest rogues gallery, but for fucks sake, why are we retreading on shit that's already been done? And, like Doomsday, I'm sorry to have to say it, Zod is fucking boring. The only reason they keep him around in the comics is because he's a name due to the Donner films....

I fear we will never escape the Donner influence when it comes to Superman on film, which is a damn shame :/

Last edited by Smiert Spionam; 10-06-2010 at 10:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 10-06-2010, 10:44 AM
It is ultimately going to come down to the script and casting choices. Snyder is a visually competent director who hasn't had a good script to work with since Dawn of the Dead. I liked 300 and Watchmen, but 300 had a weak script, and Watchmen was just a surface adaptation of the graphic novel.

I have faith that with Nolan involved, Snyder will be given a good script and cast.
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 10-06-2010, 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicPuppet View Post
Well, why wouldn't they keep the kid? He was the best thing about Superman Returns! I hope I wasn't the only one who couldn't wait to see that kid wearing the blue tights going on adventures with his dad, Superman.

They could finally take back the title of that awful 1994 Gerard Depardieu comedy and turn it into a positive: My Father the Hero: Superman Returns II. It's about time he gave something back to cinema.

Snyder would be a real Munson to not use the kid. Think about it.
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 10-06-2010, 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Servo View Post
Wait, why should I upgrade to Photobucket Pro?
Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 10-06-2010, 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
You still want Superman with a kid?
It makes for interesting drama, which is something you just don't get in Superman movies.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Servo View Post
Actually Aaronofsky was supposedly very close to helming the film, but Warners didn't want him because he takes too long to develop big budget films, and time is of the essence considering Warners will lose the rights to Superman if they aren't at least in principal photography by 2012.
Uh, Warner Bros. owns DC. They couldn't lose the rights to something they own.
Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 10-06-2010, 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
Uh, Warner Bros. owns DC. They couldn't lose the rights to something they own.
http://www.movieweb.com/news/NE3OWa868DNR6a

Quote:
Warner Brothers and DC comics have lost a little bit of Superman, and could lose him completely come 2013. Judge Stephen Larson has given Superman's co-creator Jerry Siegel rights to additional works in the franchise, including the first two weeks of the daily Superman newspaper comic strip and early issues of both Action Comics and Superman comics. According to Variety, this means that the Siegel estate now owns the rights to all depictions of Superman's origins from the planet Krypton, his parents Jor-L and Lora, Superman as the infant Kal-L, and the launching of the infant Superman into space by his parents as Krypton explodes and his landing on Earth in a fiery crash.

What this means for Warner Brothers and DC Comics is that they've lost a little more control over certain aspects of the Superman character. DC still owns other important elements like Superman's ability to fly, the term kryptonite, the Lex Luthor, Jimmy Olsen and Perry White characters, Superman's vision powers and expanded origins. The main point to this lawsuit is figuring out how much the Siegels are owed from profits WB and DC collected from Superman since 1999, when the heirs legally took back half of the Superman copyright.

In order to get a new Superman or even Justice League film featuring the superhero off the ground, Warner Brothers and DC will have to get the project into production by 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 10-06-2010, 03:39 PM
Well, that's just... weird. Still, they obviously have control of all the current stuff, and most of the important characters. So aside from the origin stuff, this is a non issue for me. They weren't going to lose Superman, just the ability to do another origin storyline.
Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 10-06-2010, 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiert Spionam View Post
So according to THR, the villain really will be Zod. Dear fucking God, WHY?! I know Superman doesn't have the greatest rogues gallery, but for fucks sake, why are we retreading on shit that's already been done? And, like Doomsday, I'm sorry to have to say it, Zod is fucking boring. The only reason they keep him around in the comics is because he's a name due to the Donner films....

I fear we will never escape the Donner influence when it comes to Superman on film, which is a damn shame :/
Same thing was said about the Joker being in The Dark Knight. I have confidence that Zod will not be the only villain in the Superman reboot.
Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 10-06-2010, 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
They weren't going to lose Superman...
Quote:
Warner Brothers and DC comics have lost a little bit of Superman, and could lose him completely come 2013.
WB is sucking Nolan's dick to fast-track this mess.
Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 10-06-2010, 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
Same thing was said about the Joker being in The Dark Knight.
And? This really isn't the same case. Especially with it being quite clear that Zod is only coming back so there can be fighting on Superman's level.
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