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
  #321  
Old 10-06-2010, 06:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilpesh View Post
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.
It's been 30 years since the character Zod was used in a film. Just because the character has been done before doesn't mean it can't be improved upon. I mean, with that line of thinking why bother with the Superman reboot at all? It's not like Zod has been completely overused like Lex Luthor.
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 10-06-2010, 06:38 PM
If this movie ends up using Lex Luthor I doubt I'll see it, I don't even like the superman character, if it ends up using 2 overused uninteresting lead characters, then I won't be sitting through it.
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 10-07-2010, 12:02 AM
I think the reason why they are using Zod is because Superman as a character isn't cool and a total reboot with absolutely no connection at all to Donner's world is a really hard sell, even with Nolan aboard. I am not saying they are going to acknowledge Donner's use of Zod at all, but just having a familiar villian (if they are not using Lex) is probably a smart thing from their point of view.

Batman is different and I think that character will always do well for the most part (unless it's Clooney and nipples). I think a a new director could continue/reboot Batman after Nolan and it would still do big box office, because people love the character. He is certainly more marketable in movies over Superman anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 10-07-2010, 09:47 AM
Personally, I like Snyder. I thought he was the best pick available after Duncan Jones.

But all the news that's come out since he was announced has been disappointing. Bringing back Zod? And continuing the continuity of the Donner films? ZZzzzzzzzzzz…

I really had high hoped we could get a new villain on board this time around with a whole new interpretation of Supes.


And this article by Slashfilm that mentions that Goyer's script is a mess and needs a fast rewrite. http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/10/05/...tory-revealed/


All of a sudden, I'm starting to believe this could be as bad a train wreck as X-Men: First Class, with all the rushing of the development.
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 10-07-2010, 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by drc5145 View Post
Personally, I like Snyder. I thought he was the best pick available after Duncan Jones.

But all the news that's come out since he was announced has been disappointing. Bringing back Zod? And continuing the continuity of the Donner films? ZZzzzzzzzzzz…
Where are you getting info of this being a continuation of the Donner films? You must be getting this mixed up with Superman Returns. Snyder already said this is going to be a more modern version of Superman, and if Zod is indeed the villain then I'm pretty sure we'll get a much different version than what we got 30 years ago. Plus, he most likely won't be the only villain.
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 10-07-2010, 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by drc5145 View Post
But all the news that's come out since he was announced has been disappointing. Bringing back Zod? And continuing the continuity of the Donner films? ZZzzzzzzzzzz…

I really had high hopes we could get a new villain on board this time around with a whole new interpretation of Supes.

And this article by Slashfilm that mentions that Goyer's script is a mess and needs a fast rewrite. http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/10/05/...tory-revealed/
This. Goyer is a good idea man, but he desperately needs a co-writer. I was under the impression that was Jonathan Nolan. So his Zack Snyder gonna touch on the script as well? *shudder*
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 10-07-2010, 11:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
Snyder already said this is going to be a more modern version of Superman,
Shit. Shit. Shit. Shit.

Snyder said more modern? Crap. Shit. Fuck. I really hope 'modern' means whatever the hell Nolan tells him it is.
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 10-07-2010, 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
Same thing was said about the Joker being in The Dark Knight.
No one was ever against The Joker in a Batman movie. Ever. People even wanted The Joker in Batman Begins. A lot of the hatred towards Burton's Batman was because that film killed off the Joker. The Joker is practically everyone's favorite villain.

Zod on the other hand is a boring villain. I don't care how badass they try to make him, he'll never be an interesting character.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiert Spionam View Post
I was under the impression that was Jonathan Nolan.
So was I. Goyer has yet to wright a good script by himself. Also, Jonathan Nolan doesn't mean quality. He rewrote Terminator Salvation, and that script was pure shit.
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 10-07-2010, 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverload View Post
No one was ever against The Joker in a Batman movie. Ever. People even wanted The Joker in Batman Begins. A lot of the hatred towards Burton's Batman was because that film killed off the Joker. The Joker is practically everyone's favorite villain.

Zod on the other hand is a boring villain. I don't care how badass they try to make him, he'll never be an interesting character.
Co-sign.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverload View Post
So was I. Goyer has yet to wright a good script by himself. Also, Jonathan Nolan doesn't mean quality. He rewrote Terminator Salvation, and that script was pure shit.
If I recall, Nolan just did a polish on it (it isn't even credited on his IMDb).
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 10-07-2010, 03:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverload View Post
No one was ever against The Joker in a Batman movie. Ever. People even wanted The Joker in Batman Begins. A lot of the hatred towards Burton's Batman was because that film killed off the Joker. The Joker is practically everyone's favorite villain.

Zod on the other hand is a boring villain. I don't care how badass they try to make him, he'll never be an interesting character.
Actually, there were several people against the Joker being in a Nolan's Batman sequel because of the fear of him not being as good as Nicholson as well as Nolan making him 'too realistic'. Zod is one of Clark/Superman's connections to Krypton, in Superman II their relationship was never properly explored, and like I said I'm positive he won't be like what we've gotten before and he won't be the only villain.
Reply With Quote
  #331  
Old 10-07-2010, 03:21 PM
I don't mind Snyder, but, Zod again as a villain? Superman has other interesting villains besides Luthor and Zod.
Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 10-07-2010, 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
Or they incorporate a character that never existed in the comics: Harley Quinn
The history of comics is tantamount to this conversation, between editor and writer:

writer: so, I have this really cool idea for a new character, its [insert unusual angle here] and [he/she] teams with [insert established character here] and does [insert crazy shit here] and in the end [insert resolution that only makes plot more complex here]

editor: wow, really? Well, okay, you're [insert name of famous creator who has free reigns because the company owes them, big time, here] so, I guess we go with it.

Harlequinn was a perfect example (even though it was TV), DC had tried, for ages, to give the Joker a sidekick, and eventually, after decades of frustration, it was decided it just couldn't be done. Nobody told Paul Dini. The thing is, a sidekick to the Joker has to be an interesting character in their own right, while, at the same time, not upstagging Mr. J (you know what happens when Mr. J gets upstaged, he gets very killy) The beauty of the Harle-Joker dynamic is that they are both completely insane, but insane in very different ways that play off of each other. Same thing with the Harle-Poison Ivy relationship, and Harle-Catwoman, reading Gotham Sirens is a hoot (the harle-catwoman-ivy team-up book) because Ivy is crazy, she perfers plants to people, and she's a maniacal eco-terrorists who seduces men with plant based toxins. Catwoman is a Kleptomaniac, she steals everything that isn't nailed down, and some stuff that is. But, compared to Harle, Ivy and Catwoman are the the "straight" man.
Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 10-07-2010, 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiert Spionam View Post
I fear we will never escape the Donner influence when it comes to Superman on film, which is a damn shame :/
That's the problem with the Donner-verse, is that the guy who oversees DC entertainment (and by extension has his hand in every single DC movie project) is the incomparable Geoff Johns. Johns broke into show-biz as an intern on the first Superman movie, and he and Richard Donner are tight.



Yup, that's Richard Donner and Geoff Johns co-writing Action Comics a while back, pretty solid story.

So, on the one hand, you have the mind of the DCU being entrenched in the Donner-verse interpretation of Superman, and, on the other hand, you have TV shows like Smallville that are something of a break from the Donner-verse (making the Kents younger was a direct response to the movie). Its problematic, for a movie, because I, for one, would like to see a break from the Donner-verse. One of the reasons why Krypton looks the way it does? The budget of the 70's Superman movie.

It could be so much more, and you could do so much more, with it. Technology has caught up to the point where anything you can picture has a good shot at being reproducible on screen. It wasn't that way in the 70s, clearly. Again, like I said, the trick is to stay true to what's come before, but to give it a spin that makes it unique. For the record, I'm iffy on Birthright (which is what Goyer's script seems to be based on, it was a good story, BTW) as being the canonical representation of Superman's origins/early years.
Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 10-19-2010, 12:14 PM
Brandon Routh may be Superman again after all if you believe News of The World.

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/6373...an_reboot.html
Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 10-19-2010, 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by River Dog View Post
Brandon Routh may be Superman again after all if you believe News of The World.

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/6373...an_reboot.html
Emphasis on "if you believe news of the world", the british tabloind owned by the fox corporation. Every movie Fox touches turns to Rubbish, it seems, and they have their own agenda for the rumor mill.
Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 10-19-2010, 06:19 PM
I'm surprised no one posted this nugget of news.

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/10/18/...lar-comic-run/

So all of a sudden, it's not linked to any previous films and focuses on the early days of Superman.

This sounds like "Superman Begins" if you get my drift.
Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 10-19-2010, 07:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by drc5145 View Post
I'm surprised no one posted this nugget of news.

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/10/18/...lar-comic-run/

So all of a sudden, it's not linked to any previous films and focuses on the early days of Superman.

This sounds like "Superman Begins" if you get my drift.
I'd say this is the best direction they can go into if they want to make this thing into a trilogy.
Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 10-19-2010, 10:59 PM
God damn it. exactly the OPPOSITE of what they should do. Idiots.
Reply With Quote
  #339  
Old 10-20-2010, 12:33 AM
Does this mean that we will see Lois Lane's nipples? I mean Snyder loves his female nudity.
Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 10-20-2010, 12:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
God damn it. exactly the OPPOSITE of what they should do. Idiots.
Nolan is definitely not an idiot.
Reply With Quote
  #341  
Old 10-20-2010, 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Servo View Post
Nolan is definitely not an idiot.
It appears one of them is.
Reply With Quote
  #342  
Old 10-20-2010, 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
God damn it. exactly the OPPOSITE of what they should do. Idiots.
So you would prefer them to take the approach that's been taken in almost every movie about Superman where Superman is just dropped off in Metropolis, his origins aren't explored besides him talking to the ghost of his dead father, and Lex Luthor hating him for no particular reason other than his thirst for power?
Reply With Quote
  #343  
Old 10-20-2010, 10:48 AM
A Superman origins story is rather redundant though because everyone knows his origin story. It's not like Batman Begins, because prior to that movie, we had never really seen exactly how Bruce Wayne became Batman, at least on film.

On the otherhand, I like the idea of Clark being a journalist traveling the world. That at least does seem to indicate that they will be hopefully at least doing it in a somewhat fresh way.
Reply With Quote
  #344  
Old 10-20-2010, 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
A Superman origins story is rather redundant though because everyone knows his origin story. It's not like Batman Begins, because prior to that movie, we had never really seen exactly how Bruce Wayne became Batman, at least on film.
That's because the only concrete origin for Batman was his parent's getting killed behind the alley of a theater, the ninja stuff is a more modern retelling of Batman's beginnings. Once again, not everyone knows Superman's origins, not everyone has seen a Superman movie, picked up a comic, or were born in the 70s.
Reply With Quote
  #345  
Old 10-20-2010, 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
A Superman origins story is rather redundant though because everyone knows his origin story. It's not like Batman Begins, because prior to that movie, we had never really seen exactly how Bruce Wayne became Batman, at least on film.

On the otherhand, I like the idea of Clark being a journalist traveling the world. That at least does seem to indicate that they will be hopefully at least doing it in a somewhat fresh way.
We are really going around in circles with this thread:

This is from page 2 where we were arguing about the "oh everybody knows Superman's back story" thing

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG View Post
"Everybody" knew Batman's backstory but that didn't stop Nolan from putting the best origin story on the screen in Begins. All I know about Superman's origin is that his planet was destroyed and he was Fed-Exed to Earth where he lived with simple farm folk. So that's probably the jist of it, and you could say that I know Superman's origin. That doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy a dramatic depiction of it in a new film. Knowing an origin story isn't the same as experiencing it in a great film.
Reply With Quote
  #346  
Old 10-20-2010, 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
That's because the only concrete origin for Batman was his parent's getting killed behind the alley of a theater, the ninja stuff is a more modern retelling of Batman's beginnings. Once again, not everyone knows Superman's origins, not everyone has seen a Superman movie, picked up a comic, or were born in the 70s.
First of all, yes they do.

Quote:
So you would prefer them to take the approach that's been taken in almost every movie about Superman where Superman is just dropped off in Metropolis, his origins aren't explored besides him talking to the ghost of his dead father, and Lex Luthor hating him for no particular reason other than his thirst for power?
Secondly, yes I would, minus all three of the things you suggested. Start the movie with Supes kicking ass all over town and go from there. Start a new story with Clark ESTABLISHED as Superman, the hero of Metropolis.

No origin. No Lex. No dead Brando.
Reply With Quote
  #347  
Old 10-20-2010, 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
First of all, yes they do.



Secondly, yes I would, minus all three of the things you suggested. Start the movie with Supes kicking ass all over town and go from there. Start a new story with Clark ESTABLISHED as Superman, the hero of Metropolis.

No origin. No Lex. No dead Brando.
But bring back Otis as a wink to the Donner movies.
Reply With Quote
  #348  
Old 10-20-2010, 12:43 PM
Jigsaw, Superman is a pop culture icon, likened to Elvis Presley or Mickey Mouse. I dare you to walk up to ten strangers on the street today and be surprised at how few of them don't know the name of Superman's home planet and, subsequently, his one weakness. I'm not taking a stance on whether we should see an origin story or not, but to argue that there are many ppl who don't know where Supes came from because they never read a comic book or saw the Donner films is a tad ridiculous.

Last edited by Smiert Spionam; 10-20-2010 at 02:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #349  
Old 10-20-2010, 02:08 PM
Okay, let's settle this. Take this little test to see how much you know about Supeman's origin. It includes hard questions and easy questions, and medium questions.

Oh, and obvious caveat. All answers are available on wikipedia or google, so, no peeking. Remember, cheaters never prosper and properers never cheat.

1) What is the name of Superman's home planet?

2) what is Superman's weak against (there are two things, see if you can name both the obvious one, and the not obvious one)

3) why is Superman weak against the obvious weakness in question #2? (hint: there was an explanation given as to why that is, why is it?)

4) How did Superman leave his home planet?

5) What caused Superman's home planet to explode?

6) What is the source of Superman's super powers?

7) What are the names of Superman's biological parents? (both his mother and his father. His father's name everyone knows, can you name his mother)

8) what are the names of Superman's biological aunt and uncle? (hint: I think Nicholas Cage would be a super excellent choice to play Superman's uncle. The two look alike!)

9) What are the names of General Zod's two henchmen?

10) Where were they banished, and why?

11) What was the name of the city on Superman's home world that was shrunk?

12) Who shrunk it?

13) Why was the city shrunk?

14) What are the names of Superman's adoptive parents?

15) How did they come to adopt him? (that is, how did they "find" him)

16) Where did Superman grow up?

17) Who was his first love?

18) what is the name of Superman's artic stronghold?

19) why does Superman wear the "S" symbol on his chest? (there are two answers to this question, the "ancient" answer, which is what Seigel and Schuster had in mind, and the new, "modern" answer, which is what is widely accepted today.)

20) who created Superman's first costume?


Scoring:

1-5 correct - This is the range that "just anybody" should be able to get.

6-10 correct - this is a moderate amount of knowledge, and is something that I would think most of the schmoes on this site would be able to hit. Keep in mind, what people on this site "know" is very different from what most people "know"

11-15 correct - impressive, most impressive, your a certified expert on Superman's origin.

15+ correct - how do you put down that comic book long enough to post?

Last edited by soda; 10-20-2010 at 02:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #350  
Old 10-20-2010, 02:36 PM
I'll admit, I'm a bit rusty myself. I guessed on a few, as noted by the "?" at the end of some of them...

1. Krypton
2. Kryptonite and "magic"
3. The meteorites from Kyrpton were radiated by the Sun or the Earth's atmosphere when crashing on to Earth? Some shit like that
4. As a baby, he was put into a ship and sent off by his parents as Krypton was dying
5.
6. The yellow sun of our solar system
7. Jor-El and Lara (with the exception of his adopted mom and WW, every relevant female in Clark's life has an 'L' name, to my knowledge)
8.
9. Ursa and Non
10. The Phantom Zone
11. Kandor
12. Brainiac
13.
14. Jonathan and Martha
15. Kal-El's ship crashed near their farm
16. Smallville, KS
17. Lana Lang?
18. The Fortress of Solitude
19. The S symbol was found on the clothes he was wrapped in as a baby?
20. Martha Kent?
Reply With Quote
  #351  
Old 10-20-2010, 04:51 PM
I don't think it's realistic at all to assume what mainstream audiences do or do not know about Superman's origins. I bet they'd have a good laugh to hear that we're spending so much time debating on the level of comic book knowledge of the anonymous masses.
Reply With Quote
  #352  
Old 10-20-2010, 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG View Post
I don't think it's realistic at all to assume what mainstream audiences do or do not know about Superman's origins. I bet they'd have a good laugh to hear that we're spending so much time debating on the level of comic book knowledge of the anonymous masses.
Its safe to assume people know superman's origins. I once saw a documentary or news report where they held up a patch of the superman logo to starving children somewhere in Africa. They all knew who Superman was. They dont have a TV, cant read and and have no transportation. They all knew.
Reply With Quote
  #353  
Old 10-20-2010, 04:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
Its safe to assume people know superman's origins. I once saw a documentary or news report where they held up a patch of the superman logo to starving children somewhere in Africa. They all knew who Superman was. They dont have a TV, cant read and and have no transportation. They all knew.
So that proves what? That they recognize the superman logo. That doesn't prove that they know about his origins, or that they're sick to death of origin stories and want the reboot to just jump into an established Superman kicking ass and taking names. A lot of people who aren't comic book fans probably know Superman is from Krypton, and that his weakness is Kryptonite. That has nothing to do with a dramatic interpretation of Superman's origins.

People are assuming that an origin or young Superman story will be a retread, something we've already seen before, but that does not have to be the case at all.

Simply look at Batman Begins, everybody knew Batman's origin but nobody was prepared for the depth and emotional complexity that Nolan was about to show us with HIS origin story for Batman. If Nolan is the overseer to this project he's not going to give us something stale, he's going to give us a fresh take, like he always does.
Reply With Quote
  #354  
Old 10-20-2010, 05:00 PM
Tell ya what would be amazing. The movie ends with superman decapitating lex luthor with his super-boner. Now don't tell me you wouldn't pee your pants at that. Just dont.

Sorry, I'm in a silly mood tonight.

There is no way that we need an origin story AGAIN!. Everyone knows the origin of supes, and if I recall 'Superman Returns' didn't have people confused to what was going on.

Last edited by Heisenberg; 10-20-2010 at 05:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #355  
Old 10-20-2010, 08:02 PM
The only thing that confuses me is that people keep stressing "ANOTHER origin story?!" when we've only had one origin story on film, back in 1978. How is having a more up-to-date, possibly-closer-to-resembling-the-comics film in 2013 (that's 35 years later) the straw that breaks the camel's back?

Now, I scored pretty well on Soda's test, but honestly the reason I know most of those answers is because I grew up with a cousin who is a comic book freak. I didn't actually read any issues, besides perusing some Superman covers (the only reason I know Kandor exists), that gave intimate knowledge of Superman. Everything I know that I've actually experienced on an artistic, storytelling level concerning Superman's origin, was the Donner films.

So yeah, give me an origin story if it's closer to what Siegel and Shuster had in mind.
Reply With Quote
  #356  
Old 10-20-2010, 09:32 PM
1) Krypton

2) Kryptonite and Magic!

3) It was irradiated!

4) A cute little rocket ship thanks to his dad!

5) Rao was going super nova?

6) The sun and (last time I checked) his kryptonian biology.

7) Jor-El and er... Debbie.

8) Nicholas Cage and.... er.... Debbie?

9) Ursula and that guy.

10) Phantom Zone. Because they refused to follow the dress code.

11) Kandor!

12) Brainiac!

13) Brainiac is a collector!

14) Jonathan and Martha Kent!

15) Found his ship in a field!

16) Smallville, Kansas!

17) Lana Lang!

18) Fortress of Colditude.

19) Is one that it was on the blanket he was wrapped in? And the other that it was the Kryptonian family crest?

20) His mom! What a dork.
Reply With Quote
  #357  
Old 10-20-2010, 09:52 PM
Hey Gilpesh, might you happen to be the same Gilpesh from SuperheroHype?
Reply With Quote
  #358  
Old 10-20-2010, 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiert Spionam View Post
Hey Gilpesh, might you happen to be the same Gilpesh from SuperheroHype?
Formerly from there.
Reply With Quote
  #359  
Old 10-20-2010, 10:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Servo View Post
How is having a more up-to-date, possibly-closer-to-resembling-the-comics film in 2013 (that's 35 years later) the straw that breaks the camel's back?

.....
Everything I know that I've actually experienced on an artistic, storytelling level concerning Superman's origin, was the Donner films.
The biggest reason why I posted the "test" was to underscore an important point: most of the people on this site have a much better understanding of Superman's origin than the general public does. That's because the people on this site spend time thinking about it, and posting about it. An entire generation has passed since the Richard Donner films, which actually weren't that true to the comics of the time. However, it was a new interpretation that no one had seen before, so it stuck. That's how things become cannon.

There are, in my mind, two different questions:

Do you believe that an origin story is unnecessary because everyone knows it, so there's no reason to re-tell it?

That's not a sustainable point, because it has been a generation since the donner films, and that movie only went into it briefly.

Do you believe that an origin story is unnecessary because Superman, as a character, is not condusive to that kind of story-telling (ie, "its boring, I want to see him punch somebody, that's what people want") whereas Batman is?

This is a matter of opinion. I may disagree with it, but its a matter of opinion. The point is, these are two separate questions, and separate issues. I think that, for whatever reason, AJ believes the later, but is arguing the former.

To me, though, the point is that Superman, today, is in the exact same boat Batman was in in 2004. Don't believe me?

-the last movie bombed, and the character was left for dead.

-Nolan took over the helm

-People said "we don't need an origin story, everyone already knows it."

-People said I want to see him solve a mystery (be the world's greatest detective) / punch somebody, that's what people want to see.

The only reason why Batman origins being retold in Batman Begins is above reproach, at this time, is because it worked. Its like something somebody once said about the pyramids of Egypt: "nobody would have believed that the ancient egyptians, a society fresh out of the stone age, could build something like that except for the inconveniet fact that the pyramids are there."

I remember being on this site in 2004, and I remember what the talk was about Batman Begins at the time. I remember the doubts, I remember wanting it to be good so bad, and dreading that it would flop, and that Batman wouldn't get another chance for a generation. I remember when the first reviews started to come in, and people said the movie was good. I didn't want to believe it. I remember posting on this site, at the time, that Nolan didn't seem to get how comics worked, as evidenced by the fact that he made a major mistake by not coming to San Diego Comic Con in 2004 and showing preview footage of the film (he rectified that in 2007, for the dark knight, not only did Nolan come to san diego, his brillant marketing strategy was the talk of con.)

The point is, we've been here before. If Nolan re-boots Superman, and its a great re-telling of the origin that does what I think it can do, all doubts will vanish. Until that time, we're left to debate whether its a good idea or not.
Reply With Quote
  #360  
Old 10-20-2010, 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post
-People said "we don't need an origin story, everyone already knows it."
They, and especially I, never sad that though. We never had an origin story on film before. There was momentary flashes of it told in flashback, but it was never in detail - and it was never accurate. The Joker didnt kill Bruce's parents. That's why people wanted an origin story for Batman.
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