View Poll Results: JJ + Superman?

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • I like it!

    11 33.33%
  • I don't like it!

    13 39.39%
  • I'm undecided!

    9 27.27%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 38 of 38
  1. #31
    Phantom Zone Escapee manofsteel1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Planet Houston
    Posts
    5,053

    Default

    [QUOTE=DochaDocha;4491639]
    Quote Originally Posted by manofsteel1979 View Post
    Oh I agree he should be referenced,but not as the main villian. All but two of the six Superman feature films (Superman III and BvS)/QUOTE]

    Guessing you mean MoS here?
    Yep. Sorry. Got abreviations confused there.

    It's really kind of embarrassing that really it's more or less been either an alternation between Lex and Zod or in the case of Superman III and IV ,knock offs or similar of Lex (Ross Webster) and Zod (Nuclear Man).

    Heck now that I think about it, Doomsday in BvS ticks off a whole host of boxes. He's the corpse of Zod mutated and reanimated by Lex and spliced with his own DNA created expressly to kill Superman,sort of like Nuclear Man. He's basically all the Salkind era villains rolled into one!

    Now I love Lex. He's my favorite Superman villain,but whatever form the next Superman movie takes ,Lex needs to take a back seat for a bit. If it's a soft reboot using the DCEU continuity, just go with the idea Lex is out there somewhere as a fugitive (because that's where he's at in Justice League) just make a reference to him somewhere and leave it at that. If it's a new continuity, do what MOS did. Mention Lexcorp, mention that he exists,but don't really deal with him. Build him up slowly as a presence, maybe show him in the second film, then in film three or four then fully reintroduce Lex and make him a real threat.

    But first movie out?

    Give us Brainiac. Give us Metallo. Give us Parasite. Hell give us Toyman or Prankster. Anyone but Lex or Zod or a variation of either.
    Last edited by manofsteel1979; 08-02-2019 at 09:34 PM.
    When it comes to comics,one person's "fan-service" is another persons personal cannon. So by definition it's ALL fan service. Aren't we ALL fans?
    SUPERMAN is the greatest fictional character ever created.

  2. #32
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    123

    Default

    I don't mind, but I'm not happy with the rumors of dropping Henry Cavill.

  3. #33
    Obsessed & Compelled Bored at 3:00AM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    4,273

    Default

    Whatever form the next Superman movie takes, it needs to be, first and foremost, a fun movie. Yesterday, I showed the Director's Cut of BvS to my nephew, which he thought was interesting, and then I showed him the Donner Cut of Superman II, which I was surprised to find that he enjoyed much more, despite being several decades old and unfinished, because it was genuinely funny.

    This is the secret ingredient to those old films. It's not necessarily the trappings of the Donner stuff, like the crystals & Brando's bored pontificating, that make those films so beloved, it's that they knew how to entertain the audience. They didn't take everything so seriously, nor was it lacking in real stakes and pathos.

    Singer's film was slavish in its devotion to Donner's films, but it lacked the heart and humor that defined them. Snyder's films are undeniably visual feasts with lots of thematic depth, but they are almost unbearably pretentious.

    JJ Abrams knows how to make fast, fun action films with heart. He also understands that a relaunched Superman can't simply repeat what Donner did. Vaughn is similar, even though his track record has more duds than Abrams. McQuarrie would have been interesting, but I think that ship has sailed when Cavill dropped out.

  4. #34
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,415

    Default

    Based on Star Trek and Star Wars: The Force Awakens , and thinking back on his series Alias, I've concluded that Abrams doesn't build stories when he deals with a franchise, he builds scenarios. He looks at what about a franchise was cool, or a signature component, and cranks the dial up on it as high as he can, regardless if it helps tell a story or not.

  5. #35
    Mighty Member stargazer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bored at 3:00AM View Post
    Whatever form the next Superman movie takes, it needs to be, first and foremost, a fun movie. Yesterday, I showed the Director's Cut of BvS to my nephew, which he thought was interesting, and then I showed him the Donner Cut of Superman II, which I was surprised to find that he enjoyed much more, despite being several decades old and unfinished, because it was genuinely funny.

    This is the secret ingredient to those old films. It's not necessarily the trappings of the Donner stuff, like the crystals & Brando's bored pontificating, that make those films so beloved, it's that they knew how to entertain the audience. They didn't take everything so seriously, nor was it lacking in real stakes and pathos.

    Singer's film was slavish in its devotion to Donner's films, but it lacked the heart and humor that defined them. Snyder's films are undeniably visual feasts with lots of thematic depth, but they are almost unbearably pretentious.

    JJ Abrams knows how to make fast, fun action films with heart. He also understands that a relaunched Superman can't simply repeat what Donner did. Vaughn is similar, even though his track record has more duds than Abrams. McQuarrie would have been interesting, but I think that ship has sailed when Cavill dropped out.
    I agree, but for me Superman Returns had heart and humor (more humor than the Snyder films, imo), I just think the movie had a boring plot, a very flawed story and it also needed more action and a supervillain for Supes to fight. It felt too nostalgic for the past films and didn't offer much new that was exciting for modern audiences.

    Man of Steel and BvS did offer more spectacle, but like you say, they were more pretentious, somber and lacked the joy that the Donner film had and what the Superman character is known for. First flight scene was amazing and joyful, but it just wasn't enough.

  6. #36
    Astonishing Member DochaDocha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stargazer01 View Post
    I agree, but for me Superman Returns had heart and humor (more humor than the Snyder films, imo), I just think the movie had a boring plot, a very flawed story and it also needed more action and a supervillain for Supes to fight. It felt too nostalgic for the past films and didn't offer much new that was exciting for modern audiences.

    Man of Steel and BvS did offer more spectacle, but like you say, they were more pretentious, somber and lacked the joy that the Donner film had and what the Superman character is known for. First flight scene was amazing and joyful, but it just wasn't enough.
    Hmmm, I'm trying to think of the humor in Superman Returns. All I can think of is when Lois returns from flying with Superman with messy hair. I guess I would politely disagree that the movie had humor. I think Singer had some passion for Superman, but it was more for the old Reeve movies than anything else.

    I still can't put my finger on how on or off point Man of Steel is. I mean, I can list a bunch of things that I didn't like, but I still feel like it's being harshly judged. If it made $400 million instead of $200-whatever it did, I think maybe we'd collectively be more forgiving of the movie (though it's also right to say if we liked it more, it probably would've hit that financial benchmark...). The general public complains about Superman like they do few other superheroes, so nailing the happy medium that makes the biggest number of people happy is no easy task and probably, and sadly, will require more trial and error.

    Edit: Full disclosure, I didn't go into SR thinking I'd like it. I read all the press I could leading up to the movie and knew in advance there would be a lot of things I hated, so I'm probably never going to be able to give an objective take on that film.

  7. #37
    Mighty Member stargazer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DochaDocha View Post
    Hmmm, I'm trying to think of the humor in Superman Returns. All I can think of is when Lois returns from flying with Superman with messy hair. I guess I would politely disagree that the movie had humor. I think Singer had some passion for Superman, but it was more for the old Reeve movies than anything else.

    I still can't put my finger on how on or off point Man of Steel is. I mean, I can list a bunch of things that I didn't like, but I still feel like it's being harshly judged. If it made $400 million instead of $200-whatever it did, I think maybe we'd collectively be more forgiving of the movie (though it's also right to say if we liked it more, it probably would've hit that financial benchmark...). The general public complains about Superman like they do few other superheroes, so nailing the happy medium that makes the biggest number of people happy is no easy task and probably, and sadly, will require more trial and error.

    Edit: Full disclosure, I didn't go into SR thinking I'd like it. I read all the press I could leading up to the movie and knew in advance there would be a lot of things I hated, so I'm probably never going to be able to give an objective take on that film.
    haven't seen SR in a long time, but I remember Jimmy and Kitty were pretty funny in several scenes. Also Routh as Clark in like 3 scenes made me laugh a lot. I don't remember Cavill making me laugh in the Snyder films.

    Regarding Man of Steel humor, I don't remember much. If you compare it to Wonder Woman and Aquaman, it's a much more serious and somber film. Diana and Arthur were also allowed to experience more joy and fun in more scenes than Clark, even as kids. That could be why those films were more accessible and entertaining to general audiences.

    I also have a few issues with the story in MOS, but overall, I love the film. I think it's one of the 4 best DCEU films, however, I can understand why many fans have many issues with it or think Superman was too serious and angsty, because he was, and even much more in BvS. MOS had better balance and allowed him to be more charming and confident. It's why I like it more, because it was about him mostly and he was allowed to shine more.
    Last edited by stargazer01; 08-05-2019 at 05:13 PM.

  8. #38
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,197

    Default

    Not reading the whole discussion but.....

    I voted "undecided." There's a lot of variables yknow? What do the WB execs want? What direction will they force the story? Who is writing the script? Who's playing the roles?

    JJ can make a damn good movie, and assuming he had a quality script to work with and WB wasn't being stupid, sure he'd be great. He could make a fun, entertaining visual spectacle that would get asses in seats, and Clark's character and mythos aren't beyond his ability to handle properly. But if WB tells him they want something stupid (like that Flyby thing or whatever it was called), or the script is just unusable? Then nothing JJ does will make the pile of crap smell any better, yknow?
    Higher, Faster, Further....More.

    Truth, Justice, and a Better Tomorrow!

    Bridge Four!

Posting Permissions

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