Page 79 of 94 FirstFirst ... 296975767778798081828389 ... LastLast
Results 1,171 to 1,185 of 1407
  1. #1171
    Extraordinary Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    Yes and no. I don't know that a Ragnarok style departure is necessary when we don't have any type of foundation in place yet. I don't think sending Cavill of to New Genesis necessarily would cure what ails the movies, though I think the reception of Cavill in Justice League was generally better (outside of the CGI upper lip) than BvS or even Man of Steel. And Man of Steel didn't really incorporate the secret identity or the Daily Planet in the traditional sense until the closing scene. Of all the issues with the DCEU movies, I don't think that was really the problem to be focused on fixing. It actually had a pretty non-traditional take on things and there's nothing of Clark Kent reporter in there. Similarly, most of that stuff was cut out of the theatrical BvS cut.

    I do agree a Golden Age/Morrisson style take on a relaunch would be solid. I've outlined that myself over in the Superman threads on this topic. I also think a take similar to King's Up in the Sky could work as a general framework.
    Well Cavill's most likely gone regardless. Next time we see Superman we're likely starting from scratch with a soft reboot/back to basics.
    Was any of that stuff really cited as being missed by the GA? They just didn't embrace this Superman in general fully, regardless of what he was doing.

    Maybe not to start the film series, but a more experimental cosmic story could as an individual installment within said film series. I think the Golden Age/Morrison style story could work as an initial shake up while still keeping things on Earth with humanity (though yet another origin story may be overkill, and those stories work best with a younger Superman not at the height of his powers) but the film series shouldn't be obligated to use the Daily Planet in every installment. Let the cinematic Superman, within the same continuity, show how versatile it is. If the cosmic film is good and audiences already love this Superman, they will go see it regardless. And Lois and the DP staff could show up again in the following film, or even elsewhere in the DCEU.

  2. #1172
    Astonishing Member phantom1592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    Yes and no. I don't know that a Ragnarok style departure is necessary when we don't have any type of foundation in place yet.
    Ohhh... there's a foundation. Of all superheroes that have EVER existed, the only that does NOT need... EVER... to go back to the basics is Superman. I would say the biggest problem that these reboots and reimaginings have is that they are trying to 'reinvent the wheel' and giving us substandard origins again.

    They solved this problem back in the 50's with George Reeves. Spend 59 seconds introducing the character and then get on with an all new adventure that the audience hasn't seen.



    That's really all you need. Between Smallville, STAS, Lois and CLark, Superman Returns, the 80's movies.... does anyone NEED to see the rocket crash again?? Throw in a quick flashback or a prologue and then give us an established heroic Superman. Even when they try to change it up... the foundation is STILL the same thing... just told worse.

  3. #1173
    Incredible Member OpaqueGiraffe17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    626

    Default

    I agree with SiegePerilous02 about keeping the next Superman flick, letís see stuff like Kandor, Bizzaro World and War World. Keep it mostly off earth for the first movie. Win over new fans by showing them stuff they havenít seen with the franchise. Because they do want NEW. Thatís why fricking Aquaman did better than most, if not all of the Spider-Man movies. People got sick of seeing movie after movie of Uncle Ben dying while the Osbornís do their scheming. Spider-man only finally made a billion dollar flick after they changed the mythos up a bit. Yeah coming after Endgame probably helped more than a little but still.
    That being said idk about using Ragnarok as example of how to do it right. I like that movie. But then I remember Taika Waititi sometimes used humor to undercut some of the dramatic scenes like when Asguard blew up. Can you imagine how heíd do the destruction of Krypton?
    Lara: My husband you were right! We are all going to die!!!
    Jor-El: well....this blows, ha! Get it Lara? Cuz the planet is about t-
    *KABOOM, the planet explodes

  4. #1174
    Mighty Member stargazer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,991

    Default

    A Superman movie definitely needs to show new stuff. More cosmic adventure mixed with Earth stuff. Go wilder with the Sci-Fi. This is why Braniac and Mongul are great villains to show other environments that can be scary and different and fantastical. Wow the audience with imagination and creativity. It's Superman! Take Superman to a red sun planet where he can be just normal for a bit. Not the whole time, just a bit to broaden the mythos on film. Show that he is a hero with out without his powers.

    Mr Mxy can also be a lot of fun. The Supergirl episode showed Mxy can work in live action and be very entertaining. Incorporate Lois and the Daily Planet in some ways. Show Lois and Clark as reporters working together or something. Show their romantic chemistry too. I need that, and I'm sure many other women like it too. Part of the story can be on Earth and the other in outer space until all collides. You really need to bring things back to Earth at the end. Make sure to show Superman interacting/helping people and just being nice and charming. We really didn't see that in the recent movies.. It's very important because that's who Superman is, he is a nice guy who cares for others.

    I think another thing Superman really needs is his portrayal. The Snyder movies failed to make his Superman really charismatic. Wonder Woman and Aquaman did it so much better and audiences fell in love with them. Snyder's Superman was too serious and bleak, unfortunately, though he had some nice scenes in Man of Steel. BvS, however... He had more personality and was more likeable in JL but the movie wasn't very good, unfortunately.
    Last edited by stargazer01; 09-12-2019 at 01:17 PM.

  5. #1175
    Mighty Member Yoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OpaqueGiraffe17 View Post
    I agree with SiegePerilous02 about keeping the next Superman flick, letís see stuff like Kandor, Bizzaro World and War World. Keep it mostly off earth for the first movie. Win over new fans by showing them stuff they havenít seen with the franchise. Because they do want NEW. Thatís why fricking Aquaman did better than most, if not all of the Spider-Man movies. People got sick of seeing movie after movie of Uncle Ben dying while the Osbornís do their scheming. Spider-man only finally made a billion dollar flick after they changed the mythos up a bit. Yeah coming after Endgame probably helped more than a little but still.
    That being said idk about using Ragnarok as example of how to do it right. I like that movie. But then I remember Taika Waititi sometimes used humor to undercut some of the dramatic scenes like when Asguard blew up. Can you imagine how heíd do the destruction of Krypton?
    Lara: My husband you were right! We are all going to die!!!
    Jor-El: well....this blows, ha! Get it Lara? Cuz the planet is about t-
    *KABOOM, the planet explodes
    A significant factor in Aquaman's success was its strong draw of women, based on the romance plotline with Alanna and Arthur's father, and Alanna and Mera as strong characters, not just Jason Momoa. So sidelining the romantic human factor in favor of a CGI spacefest isn't necessarily a recipe for success. And Spider-Man didn't really alter the formula all that much. It just refocused it on a younger, relatable teen Spider-Man and did a great job with it. It skipped the well known origin, but still focused on a relatively new and learning Spider-Man. In many respects a Morrison-like Golden Age take is exactly in the vein of formula that led to success of Spider-Man: Home Coming and Far From Home.

  6. #1176
    Mighty Member stargazer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    A significant factor in Aquaman's success was its strong draw of women, based on the romance plotline with Alanna and Arthur's father, and Alanna and Mera as strong characters, not just Jason Momoa. So sidelining the romantic human factor in favor of a CGI spacefest isn't necessarily a recipe for success. And Spider-Man didn't really alter the formula all that much. It just refocused it on a younger, relatable teen Spider-Man and did a great job with it. It skipped the well known origin, but still focused on a relatively new and learning Spider-Man. In many respects a Morrison-like Golden Age take is exactly in the vein of formula that led to success of Spider-Man: Home Coming and Far From Home.
    That's why Lois is important. She's smart and brave. Show it. And her romantic chemistry with Clark too. Of course, you need a really solid story, script and director to make it all work. Show other smart and brave females too. They can be aliens or human. Aquaman had a compelling Atlanna. I loved her. Ma Kent can be just as compelling in a supporting role even if she has no powers. She loves her son and that's great too. Maybe we can see Lara and Jor-El again in flashbacks. A Superman movie needs great action and visuals, but also some humor and lots of heart. Aquaman had all that.

  7. #1177
    Standing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,234

    Default

    Maybe a Superman movie needs to have a younger Lois and Clark because, in MAN OF STEEL, I was put off by the Lois Lane character. She was supposed to be this accomplished reporter--but I was told that rather than shown how she got that way. A movie should really show Lois at the beginning of her career and how she had to struggle to get a story and get that story published.
    celebrating 50 years of 4 beatles crossing a zebra

  8. #1178
    Mighty Member stargazer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    Maybe a Superman movie needs to have a younger Lois and Clark because, in MAN OF STEEL, I was put off by the Lois Lane character. She was supposed to be this accomplished reporter--but I was told that rather than shown how she got that way. A movie should really show Lois at the beginning of her career and how she had to struggle to get a story and get that story published.
    maybe not the beginning but the middle? A movie has little time to show so much detail. This is why she needs her own TV series. haha

    I also felt we didn't see how Lois and Clark started dating. They met in Man of Steel and suddenly were living together in BvS. Not sure living together but in a seemingly committed relationship. We missed some of the fun parts.
    Last edited by stargazer01; 09-12-2019 at 01:39 PM.

  9. #1179
    Incredible Member OpaqueGiraffe17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    626

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    A significant factor in Aquaman's success was its strong draw of women, based on the romance plotline with Alanna and Arthur's father, and Alanna and Mera as strong characters, not just Jason Momoa. So sidelining the romantic human factor in favor of a CGI spacefest isn't necessarily a recipe for success. And Spider-Man didn't really alter the formula all that much. It just refocused it on a younger, relatable teen Spider-Man and did a great job with it. It skipped the well known origin, but still focused on a relatively new and learning Spider-Man. In many respects a Morrison-like Golden Age take is exactly in the vein of formula that led to success of Spider-Man: Home Coming and Far From Home.

    Full disclosure, I’m pretty sure the cgi fests in the trailers helped very favorably for Aquaman, especially for foreign markets. Maybe if Shazam had more of that in their trailers, it would made more bank too (I liked that movie). So I’m thinking maybe we should be looking more at Morrison’s wacky silver age Superman works than his grounded golden age stuff for inspiration.
    Anyway I’m not saying you have to sideline Lois or any of the superverse’s other strong female characters in anyway to get that big over the top adventure story. There’d be plenty of ways to work her into the story and do their romance justice. While also having Clark outwit 4th dimensional imps or beating up tyranical alien suns, etc.
    Last edited by OpaqueGiraffe17; 09-12-2019 at 01:43 PM.

  10. #1180
    Extraordinary Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    A significant factor in Aquaman's success was its strong draw of women, based on the romance plotline with Alanna and Arthur's father, and Alanna and Mera as strong characters, not just Jason Momoa. So sidelining the romantic human factor in favor of a CGI spacefest isn't necessarily a recipe for success. And Spider-Man didn't really alter the formula all that much. It just refocused it on a younger, relatable teen Spider-Man and did a great job with it. It skipped the well known origin, but still focused on a relatively new and learning Spider-Man. In many respects a Morrison-like Golden Age take is exactly in the vein of formula that led to success of Spider-Man: Home Coming and Far From Home.
    Arthur and Mera are also not a romance the mainstream audience has seen much of, if at all. To a lesser extent, neither were Diana and Steve, most of the casuals who went to see that didn't watch the 70s show. They have been exposed to an abundance of Clark and Lois already. The romance would be a draw, but not by itself, and a CGI spectacle laden film could do well too.

    Lois definitely shouldn't be excluded from a cinematic Super-mythos as a whole, and she doesn't necessarily have to be excluded from a more "out there" film because there is more than enough precedent for her being involved in that stuff. But just doing another Earth based story with the Daily Planet and the romance, and just hoping it will be better executed than the last 2-3 go arounds, doesn't strike me as the shot in the arm the character needs. A single Superman story, just one, without Lois and maybe Lois making cameos in other DCEU films without Superman in sight could be a good wake up call to the casual audiences that, while they can be even better together, they work well apart as well.

  11. #1181
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    Maybe a Superman movie needs to have a younger Lois and Clark because, in MAN OF STEEL, I was put off by the Lois Lane character. She was supposed to be this accomplished reporter--but I was told that rather than shown how she got that way. A movie should really show Lois at the beginning of her career and how she had to struggle to get a story and get that story published.
    I have no issue with rebooting Lois and Clark with younger actors but I also can’t say I agree that it’s a problem to portray Lois as a super successful 36 year old woman (as she was in Man of Steel). I think it’s powerful in fact to accept that, in this story, we are dealing with an experienced woman—not an ingenue. And I appreciate that kind of story because we don’t get it often with women. Lois was very good at her job in Man of Steel and we saw it firsthand with the way she tracked him all over the globe. I certainly love and welcome an origin story from her POV but I have and had zero issue with a 36 year old successful woman as the lead. Her age was refreshing as hell.

  12. #1182
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20,443

    Default

    I'm not so much bothered with the stories of Superman going evil so much as I am sick of the idea that him going ruins everything for the entire universe. If your universe cannot survive unless Superman is alive and not evil, then there is something seriously wrong with your universe.

  13. #1183
    Astonishing Member phantom1592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    Maybe a Superman movie needs to have a younger Lois and Clark because, in MAN OF STEEL, I was put off by the Lois Lane character. She was supposed to be this accomplished reporter--but I was told that rather than shown how she got that way. A movie should really show Lois at the beginning of her career and how she had to struggle to get a story and get that story published.
    I'm the opposite of that. 1st of all... I'm going to see Superman. I'm not interested in a Lois Lane movie. There is a push nowdays to turn every superhero into a 'team' and make them the least interesting part of their own show... I don't want that for Superman. It's bad enough that movies already have a hard time balancing the story time with Superman and Clark Kent... I don't need deep dive focusing on Lois, Perry and Jimmy too.

    2nd, I feel we've already SEEN the whole 'Show from Lois's perspective' with Lois and Clark and Smallville. We've already seen a rookie Lois and it wasn't very interesting.

    3rd. I think it ruins her character to start there. Lois is MEANT to be the accomplished veteran who's made her mark and is a well respected journalist when Clark first walks into the Daily Planet. If we start her over from nothing... then it's going to just be ANOTHER movie about the poor misunderstood woman fighting to prover herself in a mans world... AND what will inevitably happen is this... She won't be ANYTHING without Superman there to write about. We've already seen shades of 'What would Lois be if she wasn't writing about Superman'... and this will cement it. Even with all those other stories making superman the center of her career... she still HAD a career before he showed up. Often times already won a Pulitzer. Lois needs to already be awesome before she even sees a cape.

    Honestly Amy Adam's Lois was my favorite thing about that franchise. It's the one thing I wouldn't change. (Actually liked Cavill too but everything he had to work with tarnished his performance to me) This was one of my biggest problems with Superman Returns. Lois was an award winning journalist... being played by a woman who was 23.... with a 5 year gap in the story... Meaning that her awards and everything 'Superman related' was before she was 18.... She was just... TOO young for that role.

  14. #1184
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20,443

    Default

    How was Smallville a show from Lois' perspective? She didn't even appear until the fourth season.

    I also don't understand why developing a supporting cast is seen as hurting the main lead.

  15. #1185
    Standing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phantom1592 View Post
    Lois was an award winning journalist... being played by a woman who was 23.... with a 5 year gap in the story... Meaning that her awards and everything 'Superman related' was before she was 18.... She was just... TOO young for that role.
    ACTING! She's Kate Bosworth playing Margot Kidder playing Lois Lane. Funny thing is, when SUPERMAN (1978) came out, I thought she looked too old for the part (nowadays I don't feel that way) and I knew that Kidder was older than Reeve. So maybe if you average them out, between Kate and Margot, Lois is about the right age in the end.

    Then there's Amy Adams, who should be too old for the part opposite Cavill. But I just have to think of her as "Hot Girl" from THE OFFICE and then I'm okay with the age difference.

    It's like Jennifer Lawrence in SILVER LINING'S PLAYBOOK--no way is she old enough for that character--but it's ACTING! It's like all those plays from high school, where fifteen year old kids were playing people in their forties. The actual age of the actor is not the same as the age of the character. Otherwise Judd Hirsch would be forced to play men in their eighties instead of men in their sixties and seventies.
    celebrating 50 years of 4 beatles crossing a zebra

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •