Superman reboots in the works; JJ Abrams producing.

[Superboy-Prime]

There's also a chance this could be a Steel movie.

I disagree.

[Vakanai]

Yeah, Kal-El was the Superman named in the official announcement of the project. It has to be him.

It's possible that it's going to be connected to Pattison's BM. There are too many SM easter-eggs in the Reeve movie to not think it's going to be the start of new shared universe.

On the bolded, considering the movie won't be out until next year, how do you know what the Easter eggs will be?

[Vakanai]

Yes, I find that to be irrelevant. Clark Kent is established in the public consciousness, there's no need to hold back from an alternate take on Superman. This isn't some case where the character hasn't gotten his due. Superman & Lois just started airing days ago.

Which means less than you think - Snyder thought the same thing, which is why he killed Superman in his second movie, thinking all the old films had established people's feelings on the character. But he was wrong, it did not, so Superman dying, that take on Superman dying, didn't have the effect that was expected. You can't just lean on old movies for this stuff.

[Superboy-Prime]

Which means less than you think - Snyder thought the same thing, which is why he killed Superman in his second movie, thinking all the old films had established people's feelings on the character. But he was wrong, it did not, so Superman dying, that take on Superman dying, didn't have the effect that was expected. You can't just lean on old movies for this stuff.

That's an entirely different thing. You're talking about Snyder failing to properly establish his version of Clark Kent as a character versus the General Audience's collective perception of Superman as a whole from across the different adaptations of the character.

The difference is that a reboot doesn't have to worry about character arcs from pre-existing films. That's like saying the MCU Spider-Man shouldn't lean on Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man when doing something new or whatever. I don't even fully understand what you were trying to say, to be honest, I just disagree from what I was able to grasp.

[Vakanai]

That's an entirely different thing. You're talking about Snyder failing to properly establish his version of Clark Kent as a character versus the General Audience's collective perception of Superman as a whole from across the different adaptations of the character.

The difference is that a reboot doesn't have to worry about character arcs from pre-existing films. That's like saying the MCU Spider-Man shouldn't lean on Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man when doing something new or whatever. I don't even fully understand what you were trying to say, to be honest, I just disagree from what I was able to grasp.

Not really - Snyder was banking that he didn't have to establish his version, that he could rely on the General Audience's collective perception - which matters here because we're talking alternate takes on Superman, as you said. Basically you're arguing that we don't need to get a normal Clark established anymore because he's been done before. As if it carries over. I'm saying that kind of proves it doesn't really carry over.

[manwhohaseverything]

i am gonna say that snyder's superman was established with mos(like it or not).It's just they didn't give the guy enough screen space or time in bvs which was basically about batman on top of that they cut out his parts.The only thing they relied on people knowing was superman saving cat from trees,stopping earthquakes,catching aeroplanes..etc.I would say,unlike captain america or tony stark.People didn't get a connection through a long journey with superman.People forget and lose touch with emotions.

[bat39]

i am gonna say that snyder's superman was established with mos(like it or not).It's just they didn't give the guy enough screen space or time in bvs which was basically about batman on top of that they cut out his parts.The only thing they relied on people knowing was superman saving cat from trees,stopping earthquakes,catching aeroplanes..etc.I would say,unlike captain america or tony stark.People didn't get a connection through a long journey with superman.People forget and lose touch with emotions.

I agree with you, and I say this as someone who regards BvS as a great (but in parts seriously flawed) film. Superman did not get much focus in BvS itself, which made his death a little underwhelming. And while we're told about how vast sections of the public loves and accepts Superman, most of the discource around Superman in the film is mired in negativity - politicians calling for accountability, Luthor fearmongering about him being a threat etc. So in the end, when we suddenly have the world mourning Superman and erecting a statue, it doesn't quiet resonate as much as it should. Contrast this with how Gotham mourns Batman in TDKR.

BvS is a film with a lot of discussion about Superman, but barely fleshes out the character himself. Literally all we get about the character is how much he and Lois are in love, how he's bothered by all the bad press, and how he thinks Batman is evil for his brutal methods. In stark contast, Ben Affleck's Batman, introduced in this film, gets fleshed out a lot more.

[Superboy-Prime]

Not really - Snyder was banking that he didn't have to establish his version, that he could rely on the General Audience's collective perception - which matters here because we're talking alternate takes on Superman, as you said. Basically you're arguing that we don't need to get a normal Clark established anymore because he's been done before. As if it carries over. I'm saying that kind of proves it doesn't really carry over.

No, that's really not the same. If Snyder thought he didn't have to establish his version of Clark Kent as a proper character, that sums up the problem with his movies. Developing an iteration of an adaptation of the character is not the same as the general existence of the character in all forms of media.

The entire reason the MCU Spider-Man was more tied to the Avengers and a protege of Iron Man's was because the other takes had been done before. Even though Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man left off on a cliffhanger. It's the same exact thing happening to Superman.

[Frontier]

No, that's really not the same. If Snyder thought he didn't have to establish his version of Clark Kent as a proper character, that sums up the problem with his movies. Developing an iteration of an adaptation of the character is not the same as the general existence of the character in all forms of media.

The entire reason the MCU Spider-Man was more tied to the Avengers and a protege of Iron Man's was because the other takes had been done before. Even though Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man left off on a cliffhanger. It's the same exact thing happening to Superman.

And the character was well worse off for it in my opinion.

[rpmaluki]

I miss Spider-Man's independence.

[manwhohaseverything]

Spidey was never the adult in the room.He was the teen who looked up to the likes of cap and tony.The characterisation was pretty standard.

[Vordan]

No, that's really not the same. If Snyder thought he didn't have to establish his version of Clark Kent as a proper character, that sums up the problem with his movies. Developing an iteration of an adaptation of the character is not the same as the general existence of the character in all forms of media.

The entire reason the MCU Spider-Man was more tied to the Avengers and a protege of Iron Man's was because the other takes had been done before. Even though Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man left off on a cliffhanger. It's the same exact thing happening to Superman.

Not exactly selling me on it here. MCU Spider-Man sucks. They’ve leaned way too hard into the Iron Man/Avengers connection to the point “Iron Boy” became a widespread criticism. There’s also how both of his villains so far have been tied to Tony Stark.

[Frontier]

Not exactly selling me on it here. MCU Spider-Man sucks. They’ve leaned way too hard into the Iron Man/Avengers connection to the point “Iron Boy” became a widespread criticism. There’s also how both of his villains so far have been tied to Tony Stark.

You should read all the discussion about the third movie on the Spider-Man forum .

[Gaius]

Spidey was never the adult in the room.He was the teen who looked up to the likes of cap and tony.The characterisation was pretty standard.

From what I can tell of Spider-Man I've read and Spider-Man fans I've talked to, this seems a modern thing. His entire thing is being treated as an equal despite his age.

[Vordan]

You should read all the discussion about the third movie on the Spider-Man forum .

I can guess lol, and I doubt another forum needs me ranting