Mark Waid has a Superman movie idea - thumbs up or down on the prospect?

[Jokerz79]

I'd have to hear the idea before I could give it a thumbs up Waid like a lot of 80's and 90's writers is past his golden era but if a good idea I'd say give it a shot.

[kjn]

I would welcome a treatment of Superman in the movies that actually did adapt the old source material in some way--because no movie has done that yet. But I doubt that Mark Waid would make good on that, because when he did BIRTHRIGHT this is exactly what I was expecting. I thought if anyone (alive) could do justice to the original concept of Superman, it must be Mark Waid given his deep knowledge. Yet BIRTHRIGHT wasn't that--it may have had elements that were re-intrepreted from the old source material--but Waid tried to put his own stamp on the character. You were reading Mark Waid's Superman not Shuster & Siegel's, sort of like how Walt Disney's Tarzan isn't ERB's.

If someone wrote Superman just as Shuster and Siegel did, it would be dead and soulless, because that person isn't Shuster and Siegel, and does not live in their times; it would likely also bomb because it would have a lot of disconnect with the public expectations of the character. Adaptation and change is necessary for any character to stay relevant, and that's why Superman is still around.

Now, a creator might have a vision of the character that's out of tune with how many people imagine the character—that was arguably one of the issues with Zack Snyder's Batman films. But that doesn't mean that it's wrong for creators to contribute their vision about the characters, as Patty Jenkins or Christopher Nolan did. Or Richard Donner, back in the day.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Also, I understand Waid hated Man of Steel..

No, he's said a few different times that he doesn't hate Man of Steel and thinks there's a lot of really great stuff in it. His issues with the film were mostly the same as what you see with old school Superman fans--the lack of caring about the collateral damage he was causing and not trying to move it away from population centers, and the killing of Zod. Apparently, both he and Morrison spent a couple minutes one day coming up with dozens of alternate solutions to the rather dim-witted no-win scenario Goyer & Snyder felt so proud of cooking up in order to force Superman into snapping Zod's neck despite Christopher Nolan advising strongly against it.

I feel similarly. I absolutely adore some of the sequences and shots in Man of Steel. It is an utterly gorgeous film, but the tone and spirit of the film are way off-base. In trying so desperately to make audiences take Superman seriously, they lost the fun and joy of the character.

That said, this sequence is one of the all-time great superhero movie scenes.

[mrbrklyn]

If someone wrote Superman just as Shuster and Siegel did, it would be dead and soulless, because that person isn't Shuster and Siegel, and does not live in their times;

I don't see how that is the case. We do this thing all the time, a reinterpretation of something as we preceive it would have been done in another era or another author. And when done well, they often make for great stories. There are dozens if not hundreds of quality Sherlock Holmes stories and Plantary did another era and creative time with every issue.

[stargazer01]

No, he's said a few different times that he doesn't hate Man of Steel and thinks there's a lot of really great stuff in it. His issues with the film were mostly the same as what you see with old school Superman fans--the lack of caring about the collateral damage he was causing and not trying to move it away from population centers, and the killing of Zod. Apparently, both he and Morrison spent a couple minutes one day coming up with dozens of alternate solutions to the rather dim-witted no-win scenario Goyer & Snyder felt so proud of cooking up in order to force Superman into snapping Zod's neck despite Christopher Nolan advising strongly against it.

I feel similarly. I absolutely adore some of the sequences and shots in Man of Steel. It is an utterly gorgeous film, but the tone and spirit of the film are way off-base. In trying so desperately to make audiences take Superman seriously, they lost the fun and joy of the character.

That said, this sequence is one of the all-time great superhero movie scenes.

OK. I don't agree with all that, but I definitely think the tone could have been more optimistic in some parts. I actually enjoy that the film takes the character seriously, but Snyder took it a bit too far, but that's who he is.

[Jim Kelly]

The Jonathan Kent thing is a weakness, because it makes it seem like he's an abusive father--yet this is the guy that Clark is supposed to get his values from. But I can work with that--it didn't stop the movie for me. The big 9-11 battle didn't work--because it was triggering and because it went on and on and on. They used up so much film time on that battle that it became a computer game. It was too much effects without any heart.

Snyder made up for that with BATMAN V SUPERMAN, showing the same scenes with more emotional investment, but that was much too late. I'd like somebody to take all the footage from both movies and edit them together. Like was done with THE GODFATHER and THE GODFATHER II when it was aired on TV as THE GODFATHER SAGA. If scenes were moved around, deleted scenes added, there could be one epic work that all fits together as a good story.

[kjn]

I don't see how that is the case. We do this thing all the time, a reinterpretation of something as we preceive it would have been done in another era or another author. And when done well, they often make for great stories. There are dozens if not hundreds of quality Sherlock Holmes stories and Plantary did another era and creative time with every issue.

Correct—they are reinterpretations. They are rewritten into a modern idiom. I've read some Sherlock Holmes stories that have tried to emulate Arthur Conan Doyle's style of writing and storytelling, and they don't live anymore, because we no longer write like that or live in that cultural context, no matter how faithful the emulation is. Attempts like Gotham by Gaslight can work because they give ample scope for choosing which elements from the Victorian era to pick up, but it creates a Victorian era viewed through a lens of our time.

What makes for long-term cultural relevance are reinterpretations and adaptations based on some core elements and relations. That is true for Sherlock Holmes and it is true for Superman.

[Jim Kelly]

While there are some movies and TV shows that try to do a new take on Holmes, there have always been adaptations of the original stories and if there's any justice there will be in the future. Every week I watch another episode of SHERLOCK HOLMES starring Jeremy Brett and it's quite satisfying to see how they manage to be faithful to the character.

The original Superman is a firmly established character and one could quite easily adapt the stories, without changing the time period or the look of the character. In some ways, I think this would work better than trying to translate the current comic book Superman to the screen.

I always wanted a movie about the creation of Superman by Siegel and Shuster, where the real world scenes would be complemented by fantasy scenes set in the comic book reality. But that's a pipe dream, because DC would have to agree to it, and I don't think they ever would.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

OK. I don't agree with all that, but I definitely think the tone could have been more optimistic in some parts. I actually enjoy that the film takes the character seriously, but Snyder took it a bit too far, but that's who he is.

Yeah, I can't fault Zach Snyder for making the film the way he did. He is an exceptional visual filmmaker. Warner Bros. knew what they were getting in for when they hired him and were warned by both Diane Nelson and Geoff Johns that the film was too serious and needed more hope and levity, but they had studio execs were too fixated on the painfully grim and self-serious Dark Knight's billion dollar box office and wanted that. It also didn't help that the more fun and quippy Green Lantern had just bombed before Man of Steel started production. In their minds, Warner Bros. had tried emulating Marvel's lighter tone and failed miserably, so they were trying again to replicate the most recent thing that had worked for them.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

The Jonathan Kent thing is a weakness, because it makes it seem like he's an abusive father--yet this is the guy that Clark is supposed to get his values from. But I can work with that--it didn't stop the movie for me. The big 9-11 battle didn't work--because it was triggering and because it went on and on and on. They used up so much film time on that battle that it became a computer game. It was too much effects without any heart.

Snyder made up for that with BATMAN V SUPERMAN, showing the same scenes with more emotional investment, but that was much too late. I'd like somebody to take all the footage from both movies and edit them together. Like was done with THE GODFATHER and THE GODFATHER II when it was aired on TV as THE GODFATHER SAGA. If scenes were moved around, deleted scenes added, there could be one epic work that all fits together as a good story.

Years from now, when enough studio heads have left and the cost of CGI becomes less cost-prohibitive, we'll probably see a re-cut and re-edited version of Snyder's truncated trilogy. This fan-cut of the Battle of Metropolis shows how much potential there is in tightening up the links between the films.

[TheNewFiftyForum]

That's quite effective, but there's still absolutely no excuse for that idiotic "Bruce Wayne orders his employees to leave the building"-stuff.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

This one does a better job of balancing out the Superman bits with the Bruce Wayne scenes. It also makes for a pretty effective argument that there was nothing Superman could have done to prevent all that destruction and collateral damage while simultaneously showing why, from Bruce's perspective, it looked like Superman's actions were responsible for it. Fascinating viewing.



It's unfortunate they were never able to articulate a good enough reason for Superman to want to fight Batman. The Director's Cut does a better job than the frankly wretched theatrical version, but they don't go far enough for me to buy why Clark would just give up and start smacking Batman around instead of flying off immediately to start looking for Martha, who was easily found by Alfred in no time.

[friendly-fire-press]

Hmmmm. Not sure.

I remember Mark Millar had an idea for a Superman movie trilogy a few years ago ... I think I'd prefer to see that