Slashdot Mirror
Superman V: The Sordid Story
ThePuceGuardian writes "With Superman Returning from development hell next summer, perhaps Slashdot's readership would appreciate this summary of the 10+ years spent in development, and the sequel that never quite was.
Years of stupidity and outright seething contempt for the fans who were expected to shell out for the franchise are detailed, from the Kevin Smith era, through Tim Burton and including 'McG's short but not short enough association with the project. The summary ends in mid-2004, which is about a decade after the whole sordid affair should have been capped off, and right before the current production started up.I just have to include this quote:
"Michael Bay was offered to direct the film again, but he felt the script violated the essence of Superman and refused the offer."
WhenMichael Bay declines your project for reasons of artistic integrity, I think it's time to consider a new line of work.."
If superman returns he had better do it with a crutch and dentures. He should also be the strongest guy at his retirement home :)
For Free Computer Help, and Technical Answers
I think it's time to consider a new line of work..
And yet it'll be sure to bring in wads of $. I honestly don't believe that most movie goers give a rats nut about artistic anything. Just give them lots of flash, explosions, and the occasional breast and all is good.
All the lack of artistic interpretation will guarantee is that it'll not win an Oscar...
Did the script use Kryptonite for that?
mirror? it's already fuxed
I've enjoyed watching the behind-the-scenes video blog of the making of "Superman Returns", available at http://www.bluetights.net/>. It looks to be an interesting movie; the blogs are entertaining in their own right, watching the antics of director Brian Singer.
Yeah, if the director of Armageddon says, "this is just too goofy", then it's time to shelve the whole thing.
TPJ - Founder, The Amazon Basin
Superman V? But there was never a Superman IV. I saw a movie once called Supermaniv that looked like a Superman film at first, but it obviously was not a Superman movie.
When Michael Bay declines your project for reasons of artistic integrity
What's the problem with Michael Bay? Let me see.
# Armageddon (1998)
# Pearl Harbor (2001)
# Bad Boys II (2003)
# The Island (2005)
Oh, now I understand...
--
Superb hosting 2400MB Storage, 120GB bandwidth, ssh, $7.95
what it took to get here as long as it get's back to what Superman is about. I just want to see a good retelling of the story. No camp please.
Top 3 billing:
Kevin Spacey .... Lex Luthor
.... Clark Kent/Kal-El/Superman
.... Lois Lane
Brandon Routh
Kate Bosworth
Posted anonymously 'cause I don't need the karma.
Is that the script is excellent and Bay is so clueless that he passed on a great possibility.
Just trying to remain positive...
Download my free songs!
While I can't read the story because the server is currently in flames, the plot summary does sound a bit interesting. I like the idea of a world where superman, isn't needed. Having said that, he'll be needed by the end of the film. And couldn't they have gotten the same actors to reprise their roles? Except Christopher Reed of course, what with him being bound to a wheelchair before dying. In fact, the only one who IS reprising his role is Marlon Brando. And he's been dead for a year now. Now THERE'S dedication to his role.
On the other hand, I notice Bryan Singer is directing it. That's got to count for something.
Maybe Marlon Brando will also get a part?
seriously, who besides Gene Hackman survived from the original 1978 cast?
I mean look, the whole concept of Superman is fatally flawed to begin with. He's pretty much indestructable, so having him fight regular criminals makes for a pretty boring movie. So before you're even out the door you're having to invent increasingly powerful villians for him to do battle with. Problem is, once you're that powerful, why be a villian anyway? You can already do whatever you want. Anyone worth Superman's effort to be fighting should be busy running for Congress anyway. Everyone knows that's where you go if you want to be able to do some real damage...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
..."I wish I had a Kryptonite cross, because then you could keep both Dracula AND Superman away.".
He also said "You know what would make a good story? Something about a clown who make people happy, but inside he's real sad. Also, he has severe diarrhea.". So if Superman had a diarrhea (You could say a SUPER-diarrhea!)... We clearly need Jack Handy to redo the script of Superman V!
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
My guess is that they won't be able to resist the urge to use terrosits in the enemy / villian role. It's perfect for this type of movie. Anyone with half a brain will remember how awful the first 4 were and skip it. The ones with half a brain or less are bound to rush out to see a movie with an (all american) hero cracking some (middle eastern) terrorist head. I'll eat my hat if I'm wrong. (I'm really hoping the article didn't mention the story line now ;o))
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
http://www.superdickery.com/
Superman is a dick.
(Now I'd LOVE to see a movie that contains a good compilation of events from this site.)
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Jon Peters is producing it. Better expect that giant spider by the 3rd act and a no-fly zone.
My spoon is too big.
With Batman, he'd had a free hand to make it the way he wanted. However, the success of Batman meant that each future superhero movie had to not only make a decent film, but have characters and vehicles for Burger Kig tie-ins, action figures, etc.
So when he was offered the chance to direct Superman, he told us that it came with so much extra baggage that he couldn't make it the way he wanted to at the same time as keeping corporate partners happy. But he felt it was his own fault, partially, caused by his Batman movie's success back in '89.
I read, ok I skimmed the article and out of all the shenanigins it describes it doesn't go into how the current script and director, Bryan Singer, came to be. If even half of what is described in the article is true it's an understatement to say that it took a miracle for this movie to ever get made.
My initial impressions of the story that did develop from the point Bryan Singer joined were very negative, but after watching Bryan's video blog of the production, reading everything I could on the web and having seen the teaser trailer it looks like Bryan Singer has done the impossible and made a good movie. It appears to keep the best elements of the original movies -- Brando and Reeve's iconic performance, the generally serious treatement given to the Superman mythology, and breakthrough special effects -- while losing the slapstick comedy that worked in the 70's but doesn't work with a modern audience (Bryan is quoted somewhere that the comedy of the original series just wouldn't work today).
That said, it could be we've only seen the polish on the turd, so to speak and the finished product may very well suck. I thought he did an excellent job on Xmen and the follow up, X-2, so he certainly has the pedigree to produce a good comic book based movie.
They keep rewriting this story so much that it really is starting to make no sense. But the current problem is that in Smallville Clark Kent couldn't fly when he was younger. But in the teaser trailers he can seemingly jump football fields at a time.
Lois & Clark had him married, he came from Krypton as a fetus or as a boy in a spaceship. And I think he died once. What the hell is going on?
Will this take place before or after the Marriage to Lois? Will it say that ever happened or just write it off as "no one will remember" I really didn't care about the outcome of Lois & Clark, but I care for some continuity in my stories.
Cheers,
Ian
MacGyver, maybe?
I never liked Superman because he was too perfect. Someone with that kind of power remaining uncorrupt just never jibed with reality. Superman has been redefined though. Shows like Smallville have been rehabilitating Superman into a more believable character. Older comics seemed to gloss over Superman's internal motivations. But that is changing. Even so, most of the time writers still blame Superman's moral missteps on foreign elements such as red kryptonite or mind controlling aliens.
Won't comment much on the anti-American rhetoric buuut....at least we are trying to do something. Add to that we are very open about our own problems and choose to face them rather than hide them or pretend they don't exist.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
"The image of him swooping in and saving the day could be seen as a direct symbolic justification for American imperialism and foreign interventionism."
"American nationalism has always been something which the rest of the world has largely considered ugly...but that has become more true than ever before in the last three years."
Excellent observations, and they'd be relevant if Superman weren't created by a Canadian.
Nice anti-us troll though, way to try to slide it in there.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Yeah and European Imperialism of the 1400-1900's were a picnic and a sense of joy to you I bet. Shut the fuck up, it's a movie. Oh and suck my cock and Zonk's cock!
There is also Wonderwoman
Kneeeeeeeeeeeel Before Zod.
This has to be the most memorable line in movie history, after Khaaaaan!!!
I found this online: the stange and evil tale of the production of Superman V. It spans decades, $50,000,000 is spent before they even have even settled on a writer or director. It's so horrible. It's out of date as it stops in the middle of 2004, but it's so horrible, you have to read it.
The whole thing started in 1987. The Israeli producing team of Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus (who were cousins, by the way) had bought the film rights to Superman from Alexander and Ilya Salkind, the obnoxious father-son duo who made the first three films. WB gave Golan and Globus' production company Cannon Films $40 million bucks to make Superman IV, and Golan-Globus took the money and spent it all on their other pictures. They only spent $17 million on Superman IV, chopping out key plot sequences (a grand total of 45 minutes' worth of critical story material was excised) and gutting the FX in order to keep the costs down. Anyway, Superman IV bombed because of the hack job Golan-Globus did on it. But since they still had the rights to Superman, they decided to make a fifth film for release in 1989, with Captain America (the one with Matt Salinger and Ronny Cox) director Albert Pyun at the helm. They also planned to reuse all the edited material from Superman IV and to recast Superman with another actor (their antics on IV left Reeve outraged with them). However, Cannon fell on hard times and Golan left to make his own company, 21st Century Films (which went under in the early '90s--he's since re-founded Cannon), and the rights to Superman reverted back to the Salkinds. This was when Superboy was in full swing on TV, and the Salkinds decided to restart the Superman film series using Superboy as the prequel. Hence, Superman comic scribe Cary Bates and his Superboy writing partner Mark Jones were drafted to write a script pitting Superman against Brainiac in a story set in the bottled city of Kandor. Under the working title Superman: The New Movie, this film was to have been released in 1994, with Superboy star Gerard Christopher taking over for Reeve as Superman. (To this day, the deleted footage from Superman IV remains unaccounted for.)
Well, 1993 rolled around, and WB bought all the non-comics rights to Superman lock, stock, and barrel. WB forced the Salkinds to pull Superboy from the airwaves completely so as not to interfere with the planned Lois & Clark series (which Gerard Christopher auditioned for, and was turned down because he'd played Superboy--that's how Dean Cain got the part), and scrapped the Bates/Jones script. Deciding to base the movie on the "death and return" story from the comic books (they figured that the big sales figures the story racked up would translate into box office success), WB turned the project over to their pet producer Jon Peters--an illiterate, violence-prone wild man (I wish I was making this up, but I'm not--this is all true, every word of it) who got his start as Barbra Streisand's hairdresser/lover and produced the Tim Burton Batman films. Peters, who hates the classic Superman in every way imaginable, set out to reinvent Superman in the "sex, killing, rock & roll, and whatever movie was a hit last weekend" style that all of his movies are based in. So he hired Jonathan Lemkin to write the script.
Lemkin's draft had Superman dying in battle with Doomsday, but managing to impregnate Lois as he's dying by way of Immaculate Conception. Lois is killed off later in the story, but not before giving birth to a baby who grows 21 years in three weeks' time, and takes over as the new Superman and saves the universe from Armageddon. Lemkin's script--which even he proudly boasted was campy and silly--was scrapped because WB thought it was too similar to Batman Forever. So Peters hired porn veteran Gregory Poirier--who scripted Peters' Rosewood, and has since written the bomb See Spot Run and served as writer-director on the much-derided Tomcats--to start over. Poirier's script had an angst-ridden Superman visiting a shrink in order to
Stuff that matters: circuitbreakers, vacuum-cleaners coffee makers, calculators generators, matching salt+pepper shakers
That would be awesome. And at the end superman throws Bin laden into a giant office tower and...oops.
Anyway, the Strick script--which Burton adored--was rejected by WB. (In fact, low-level WB execs--then-WB head honchos Bob Daly and Terry Semel were in total support of Burton-Peters--were calling up Kevin Smith and complaining about how Burton and Peters were screwing up the project.) So Burton hired Akiva Goldsman--one of the writers initially considered to replace Kevin Smith--to rewrite Strick's script. Goldsman's rewrite was rejected. Then Burton hired Ron Bass to rewrite Goldsman's rewrite of Strick's script. Bass's rewrite was rejected. Then Burton hired Dan Gilroy to rewrite Bass' rewrite of Goldsman's rewrite of Strick's script. For the moment, WB was appeased. Meanwhile, Burton kept changing his mind about the film's design scheme, and was constantly ordering the art teams to change whatever it was they were doing every day and telling them they weren't doing things the way he wanted. Cinefex Magazine ran an article about Burton's slave-driving the art team, and concept designer Sylvain Despretz went on record as saying that the designs Burton and Peters wanted had little or nothing to do with either the comic books or with the traditional Superman image.
[However, Despretz thinks that movies based on comic books are what's dumbing down cinema--he doesn't believe comics deserve to be translated to film--and he said flat-out that the fans' complaints about Burton's attempted changes to Superman were petty and unimportant. "It's just a movie, everything they were complaining about was inconsequential," he claimed. So really, he and Burton-Peters were on the same page the whole time. Ditto for his fellow concept artist Rolf Mohr, who shared his lack of respect for the Superman character and stated that he went out of his way to avoid being influenced by the comics. Concept artist James Carson was even more anti-fan, asserting that if the fans don't like WB's intended radical changes to Superman, they should pony up the money and make their own Superman movie. Toy designers for Hasbro who were working on the film also complained about the fans, asserting that they should just get over the changes and accept them. Another designer, Brian Lawrence, justified the changes by saying that it was best to think of Burton's Superman as a completely new character who just happened to share the same name as Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster's creation. The only member of the art team who had any respect for the material and the fans was the aforementioned Pete Von Scholly, who openly stated that Burton and Peters were going about the project the wrong way and that it should have been turned over to fans of the comics from the start. He still feels that way, especially in light of the recent developments on the film.]
Nicolas Cage, having been fighting tooth and nail against Burton and Peters' vision of Superman (even though he'd been putting on a happy public face about working with them), angrily demanded that he be allowed to wear the classic Superman costume and fly. So WB relented much to Burton's dismay, ordering up a rubber Superman suit and flying FX tests. (According to Superman CINEMA, a chintzy, Sam Jones-as-Flash Gordon-type Superman suit was dished up as well, but it went over like a lead balloon.) However, when Cage tried on the rubber suit, it looked stupid. And when they stuck a long-haired wig on him, it looked even worse. And after Burton and Gilroy were finished with their rewritten script, WB looked it over and loathed it. Even worse, all of Burton and Peters' screwing around and causing trouble resulted in the film being budgeted somewhere between $140-190 million. So, in April 1998, just weeks before the film was to start shooting, WB put the film on indefinite hold. By this time, about $30-40 million (including the pay-or-play contracts for Burton and Cage--$20 million for Cage, $5 million for Burton) had already been spent on the project, with nothing to show for it. [It's well over $50 million now, given all the stupidity that occurred beyond this.]
It was at thi
Stuff that matters: circuitbreakers, vacuum-cleaners coffee makers, calculators generators, matching salt+pepper shakers
At any rate, this script sparked a horrific backlash in which the feedback was 95% negative (very, very, very few people liked it). An Internet petition was soon set up, garnering over 12,000 signatures and angry comments to date (including outraged responses from comic book pros Mark Waid, Stan Lee, Ron Lim, Kevin Smith, Tom Sniegoski, Ian Hannin, Tom Orzechowski, Mike Allred, and Larry Hama). But the outrage was swiftly silenced when WB dispatched Abrams to call up AICN sitemaster Harry Knowles--who himself reacted negatively to the script--and spin-doctor him into supporting the project. (An October 1, 2002 scoop at Superman CINEMA exposed Abrams' call as a PR stunt by WB to shut the fans up.) In his call, Abrams admitted that the script was the real deal, and claimed that the negative reaction to his script was due to Moriarty "having an axe to grind." The reason he gave for the script's poor quality was that he wrote it in four weeks, and he justified the changes he made to Superman by claiming that he doesn't want to "plagiarize Richard Donner's Superman" (which is a pretty neat trick, as every other incarnation of Superman followed the source material just as much as Donner did, and since the destruction of Krypton and the like is in the comics). At any rate, he claimed that the death scene was cut solely for time and pacing reasons, that WB ordered him to change Luthor back into a human, and that the "gay Jimmy" stuff was intended as verbal humor. Otherwise, he dismissed inquiries about the script's most visible flaws (Krypton not exploding, Superman's costume being alive, etc.) with a "We'll see."
Well, his "we'll see" turned out to be a "screw you," when WB sent out press releases touting the new script as a bold "re-imagining" of Superman and lavished praise on Peters and Abrams for masterminding said "re-imagining" together. (Abrams later bragged that he wasn't the least bit bothered by the negative feedback, and that he'd gotten far more accolades for his script than brickbats.) Furthermore, AICN's 10/2/02 "Weekly Recap" reported that WB immediately began pre-production on the film, with more talk of the film being the first in a trilogy. Even worse, the spin-doctoring worked, as Harry Knowles sold out Moriarty and reversed his stance completely, praising the Abrams script to the skies and bringing the fan uprising to a screeching halt. In fact, the fans did a total 180 and started supporting the script, proclaiming that change is good and so long as Superman himself stays the same personality-wise, any change WB makes is OK by them. Pretty soon, those opposed to the "re-imagining" were reduced to a much-mocked and derided minority. (The fans also started voicing claims that the traditional Superman "has had enough of a chance and is now a failure," and that these changes were just what the doctor ordered to make the character a sensation again. Any criticisms of the project were condemned by the fans as ignorant, ignoble, needlessly negative and faithless, and "being afraid of change." Worse still, many fans adopted the attitude that anyone unhappy enough with WB's plans to avoid the Superman movie has no right to utter one word of complaint about the project, that you can only complain about the movie so long as you go to see it anyway--in simpler language, you must be a two-faced, spineless WB tool in order for your opinions to be respected. This attitude is still in full swing, most notably on the message boards at Superhero Hype and Superman CINEMA.) As a capper to this whole mess, Superman CINEMA reported in a 9/27/02 scoop that the current brass at WB knows absolutely nothing at all about Superman; not only have they never read the comics, but they've never even seen the Christopher Reeve movies or any other incarnation of the character. This is why they're so supportive of the Peters/Abrams script; they're every bit as ignorant about the character as Peters is. Anthony Hopkins signed up to play Jor-El in the film soon afterwards, but admitted that he had yet to read th
Stuff that matters: circuitbreakers, vacuum-cleaners coffee makers, calculators generators, matching salt+pepper shakers
It's a children's story about a guy who jumps real high, runs fast, and can't get shot who beats up bank robbers. Get over yourself.
However, Variety and Superhero Hype painted a slightly different picture of the casting/budget fracas (while confirming the reports of Peters and Ratner going at it, complete with threats of gunplay and bodily harm), reporting that the casting was down to Fraser and Bomer (with The Count of Monte Cristo's Henry Cavill emerging as a dark-horse candidate), and that the budget for the movie was as high as $225 million, with WB trying to scale it down to $200 million (still a Titanic-level amount of money, but WB is 100% convinced the "re-imagining" is a sure thing). As far as the Superman costume, Superhero Hype reported that at the time, the suit--designed by Batman veteran Bob Ringwood--was dark blue, had a red and black S-shield (much like the Max Fleischer cartoons, Kingdom Come, and the post-"OWAW" Superman comics), would have muscle padding similar to the Spider-Man movie costume, and had no cape. Additionally, The Hollywood Reporter's March 17, 2003 scoop reported that Ratner's option to direct Superman expired the previous Saturday, and WB was planning to replace him on the project...which, of course, sparked Peters-puppet/AICN guru Harry Knowles to resume his campaign for Michael Bay, asserting that Bay was the answer to all the film's woes and Ratner was "WB's road to destruction." Then The Hollywood Reporter reported the very next day that Fraser and Bomer were both dumpstered, and that the casting process would be starting over from scratch. As if that wasn't enough, the film's targeted release date was pushed back from Summer 2004 to Summer 2005. According to the LSOK site, the replacement director list of Tarsem, Joseph Kahn, David McNally, and Antoine Fuqua was floated about again, this time with former director McG--who co-authored the offending "re-imagining" with Peters and Abrams--being listed among the hoped-for replacements (shades of Tim Burton being re-considered post-Sleepy Hollow). The Abrams script remained, though, and according to the LSOK site, "WB's dream Superman film is Michael Bay directing from a JJ Abrams script with Jon Peters and Joel Silver producing and Josh Hartnett as Superman." Never mind that Bay and Hartnett already turned them down hard, never mind that Peters and Silver hate each other and have totally incompatible sensibilities, and never mind that Alan Horn has already slammed the door in the faces of any and all potential producers not named "Jon Peters." However, MTV's website ran a scoop that same day where Ratner said that he wanted to cast Ralph Fiennes (Burton's pet choice for Superman, ironically) as Jor-El, Christopher Walken as Perry White, and Anthony Hopkins as Luthor...very bizarre, given that Hopkins was already locked in as Jor-El to begin with. Even weirder, The Westmeath Examiner reported that Steve Martin was in talks with WB to play Perry White. The Moviehole site confirmed rumors that Aussie actor Joel Edgerton (the young Owen Lars in the Star Wars prequels) was being offered one of the Kryptonian villain roles, and even Edgerton found it odd that WB was re-writing the Superman canon. Also, with Bomer's Guiding Light contract expiring later in the year, rumors abounded that he could still be in contention for the title role.
Ultimately, Ratner admitted to Variety that he was off the film, and Superhero Hype! ran a story where Billy Zane was rumored to be one of the candidates for Luthor. In a June, 5, 2003 report, WB told Esquire Magazine that it was Ratner's fault the budget ballooned to $225--not counting the $50-75 million marketing plan or the pre-production costs Peters and his various cohorts incurred over the past ten years. (Of course, WB went out of their way to slant the story to make Ratner look like the bad guy....) And in a weird twist of events, the LOSK site's final update before closing down included the following:
"By the way, I hear the script is gradually improving. Krypton blows up, but a part of it survives and Luthor is a millionaire businessman--not CIA."
Of course, given the way thi
Stuff that matters: circuitbreakers, vacuum-cleaners coffee makers, calculators generators, matching salt+pepper shakers
They should adapt and film the Death & Return of Superman (Return of Superman, not Superman returns) Graphic Novels and not just stick to the "Boy-Scout-Helps-All-and-Beats-Luthor" script.
How to Destroy Angels II
I've seen the original films, plus one or two of the cartoons, and some of the recent Lois and Clark TV series. I don't think there's a consistancy beyond a few basic axioms such as generally doing what's determined to be good by the establishment of the day. In a cartoon I saw on one of those "compilation of PD cartoons" you can get for a dollar at Big Lots (my SO and I are big Loony Tunes fans, this had a bunch of them, Popeye, and a bunch of deservedly obscurer pieces), he was killing (yeah, you heard that right) Japanese soldiers to help with the war effort. In the movie series, it was a general fight against crime, as it seemed to be, for the most part, with the TV programmes.
Is he a manifestation of American imperialism? In the sense that his image and values are tied to the US establishment, yes. The GP is right in saying that America's appearance of imperialism is especially unpopular right now. It'd be interesting to see if the new movie emphasises that aspect of him, and if so how it fares.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
" American imperialism and foreign interventionism...and we've seen how well that turned out."
Damn, I know! fricking americans beating up on the Nazis and communists! who have they ever hurt?
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
"I'm not sure the fact his creator was Canadian is much of an issue when Superman stands for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way"."
Of course it does.
Superman is a Candian CARICATURE of "truth, justice and the American way". Representing him as anything else is intellectually dishonest.
"I don't think there's a consistancy beyond a few basic axioms such as generally doing what's determined to be good by the establishment of the day."
No. This is completely wrong, and displays a serious misunderstanding of Superman as a character.
He does not do "what's determined to be good by the establishment" and in fact, his personal convictions clashing with the establishment is often used as a major plot device.
You're clearly not a fan, or else you'd realize how far from the truth your observations are.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
he was killing (yeah, you heard that right) Japanese soldiers to help with the war effort. In the movie series, it was a general fight against crime, as it seemed to be, for the most part, with the TV programmes."
I think you need so history lessons on which side the Japanese were on. Trust me, you should be happy that the US killed a ton of Japanese soldiers 50 years ago.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
I was with you on the first part.
Superman isn't a representation of American imperialism, but rather a symbol of the basic stance (which most would consider moral) that someone who has the power to do good, should, that has been manipulated throughout the centuries by power-hungry leadership into empire-building. He, like most other superheroes, exploits the innate human desire for a hero, a good guy, who won't let evil triumph and has the power see that through. Just because governments have subverted that desire to make themselves appear the hero (see the crusades, Manifest Destiny, etc) and manipulate the masses does not make Superman a politic tool.
Yeah and European Imperialism of the 1400-1900's were a picnic and a sense of joy to you I bet.
Those were bad times, but Europe grew up and left its barbarism behind.
It sounds like you're defending America's right to bring its own dark ages into the world, perhaps because it missed all the fun the first time around? ("If you did, we can too" was implied.) With the new religious fundamentalist state that is now the US, it's certainly going about it the right way.
Slashdotted already, I guess.
---- "A programmer is a person who solves a problem you didn't know you had in a way you don't understand."
I think you make some interesting points, but the scope of your perspective is not big enough. I have some points that might change your mind.
The image of him swooping in and saving the day could be seen as a direct symbolic justification for American imperialism and foreign interventionism...and we've seen how well that turned out.
Superman was created by a couple of Jewish guys who saw America as the hope for the world at a time when the world needed just that; Europe needed a Superman to defeat Natzism. We came into Europe to turn the tide in WWI, and it happened again a few years after Superman was created.
American Imperialism did not start with G.W Bush. The term is really an extension of Manifest Destiny that really began with Jefferson's Lousiana purchase. The imperialism part could be added, I guess, when Monroe issued his statement regarding European intervention in the Western Hemisphere; now known as the Monroe Doctrine. Still, that kept us here, and we weren't much more than a back water country until about the time of the Spanish American war of 1898, when we basically defeated the only European country weaker than we were. Still, we attempted to return to more or less Isolantionism until the First World War, and following that Wilson got us to try to end that with his idea of the League of Nations;where the Justice League came from, perhaps? Superman representing America as the strongest nation for good at the time? Anyway, then the second war came, and we could no longer be Isolationist. Right or wrong, and there is pleanty of evidence on both sides of that argument, we did not go easily into interventionism. It was the Brittish who did it before us while they were trying to make the world England.
With characters like Spiderman or Batman, it's possible to see them as somewhat more nationalistically neutral, but Superman and Captain America in particular are pretty much pure (and vulgar, most of the time) manifestations of jingoism.
Well, Captain America was created in WWII to be just that. Ironically, Uncle Sam was created as a anti-war icon protesting, if I remember correctly, the Spanish-American war. During the war, he was quite vulgar. Have you ever seen the propaganda showing the Jappenese? Still, we were at war, and nationalism was at it's peak. Stopping the Jappenese then was a good thing, so I guess it served it's purpose.
American nationalism has always been something which the rest of the world has largely considered ugly...but that has become more true than ever before in the last three years.
All nationalism is ugly. The very nature of the concept is "our tribe is better than yours." It leads to ethnocentrism and the uglist parts of humanity. To say that American nationalism alone is ugly is to ignore the face of nationalism in EVERY other country. A little nationalism can be a good thing I guess, helping in a crisis like that hurricane, but taken too far, and it's well, I don't need to give you an example.
America is a good place. Would we do better to pull back from the world stage a bit, perhaps, but who would take it? Would the world be better if we did? I don't know the answer, I only pose the question.
- Mike
Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
KNEEL!
"Service Unavailable"
You killed it! Wheres the mirror or coral cache?
He originally stood for Truth and Justice, but it was later changed to Truth, Justice, and the American Way after it was taken out of Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster's hands.
To me, as a Canadian Superman fan, he still stands for Truth and Justice.
>>All the lack of artistic interpretation will guarantee is that it'll not win an Oscar...
And now you know why Michael Bay declined the project. He does not work if its not worth an Oscar.
That proves to me even more so that AICN, both authors and fans, are completely full of themselves and full of shit, simultaneously.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
The link is to a forum reposting, and this appears to be the original article:
http://www.x-human.net/superman_5.shtml
Save one: The Spectre. (Warning: PDF) Superman is merely a super man; the Spectre, at least in some versions, has been presented as the literal Wrath of God.
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
Given the disaster that Superman II was, and let's not even mention Supergirl, my expectations couldn't be lower for anything in this franchise. Not having another movie in the last 10 years is a Good Thing. It gave us all a chance to forget what a mess Hollywood as made out of what is probably the top comic of all time.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Kingdom come is one of the best Superman stories ever.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Well, that's one tack to take. The other is to somehow nerf Superman. But how? I mean, you can't make him less invulnerable or strong or the like.
Aha! You can make him stupid. And, indeed, you'll frequently see that Superman is dumb as toast. Now, Batman has no superpowers whatsoever, so he doesn't actually need any nerfing. So he's way smarter than Superman, which is why he'd totally kick Superman's ass. (See The Dark Knight Returns.)
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
A lot of the films which grossed big bucks were also very expensive to make. A better scale is return on investment. The top 20 films, based on (box office)/(budget) are:
Film ROI-Dom ROI-World
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs 185 185
The Rocky Horror Picture Show 134 134
Rocky 117 117
American Graffiti 115 115
Gone With the Wind 66 130
My Big Fat Greek Wedding 48 71
Star Wars 42 73
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest 37 37
Grease 30 63
The Sting 27 27
Porky's 26 26
Platoon 23 26
The Godfather 22 22
Jaws 22 39
Fahrenheit 9/11 20 37
Look Who's Talking 18 37
The Exorcist 17 30
The Empire Strikes Back 16 30
The Passion of the Christ 15 24
Good Will Hunting 14 23
Snow White made it's budget back a whopping 185 times over, domestically and internationally. This is far and away better than any other film in history.
The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
I watched a DVD with interviews of Kevin Smith director of Dogma and other movies, he had been aproached to write a script for superman 5 (he is a superman fan) and apperently the producer wanted to add stuff like giant mechanial spiders, armies of mutant polar bears at his hidout in the north pole, and other strange stuff. (that producer went on to do wild wild west with will smith, remember the big spider thingy) Anyway I think I would have been cool if Kevin Smith had done the movie.
-- My site
And the MPAA/Hollywood Execs wonder why they are losing money....
"just give them lots of flash, explosions, and the occasional breast and all is good."
Sounds like sex with my girlfriend.
Nice anti-anti-us troll though, way to slide it in there.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
I'm thinking specifically of Frank Miller's depiction of him in "The Dark Night Returns". In that story he was literally a tool of the American government.
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
In the dvd "An Evening With Kevin Smith", Kevin goes into great length about this Superman story.
It's realy fun to watch, my favorite part is about Jon Peters.
For example you learn that Jon requires that:
* superman must NOT fly for no obvious reason
* superman must NOT wear a cape because it's gay
* superman must fight a giant-fuckin-spider
As a sidenote the spider made its way to the Peters-produced movie of the time "Wild Wide West"
Favorite quote:
J.P: "Spiderman must fight a giant spider"
K.S: "Why ?"
J.P: "Do you know anything about spiders ?"
K.S: "No"
J.P: "They're the fiercest killers in the insect kingdom!"
And the same goes on later with White Bears !!!
Seriously, this Jon Peters guy is so messed up !!
Hehe, google to the rescue, here's a transcript from http://www.anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=12916::
Supermoron (long)
After seeing Mallrats, Warner Brothers producer Jon Peters considered hiring Kevin Smith to work on Superman Lives. Smith visited Peters in his Hollywood monster home to discuss the project. Peters, who climbed the Hollywood ladder from the lowest rung (Barbra Streisand's former hairdresser), began by telling Smith he was perfect for the project because, like Peters, he understood Superman. "You know why we understand Superman?" he asked. "Because we're from the streets."
Smith, who grew up in suburban New Jersey, did not argue the point and Peters continued. Smith could do whatever he liked with the story, said Peters, with three exceptions. "I don't want to see him in the suit," Peters began, explaining that it made Superman look gay. Secondly? "I don't want to see him flying..."
If Smith was speechless, he had yet to hear the third demand: "I want to see him wrestle with a giant spider in the third act." Why a spider, Smith asked. "Do you know anything about spiders," Peters replied. "Theyre the fiercest killers in the insect kingdom!"
As so often happens in Hollywood, a director (Tim Burton) was soon attached - and insisted on bringing in his own writers. Smith, who had a nasty feud with Burton (after claiming that he had stolen the idea for Planet of the Apes from a comic book) noticed that the spider promptly disappeared from the script. Some time later, however, he went to see another Peters production: Barry Sonnenfeld's Wild Wild West:
"I'm watching this thinking, this is really a piece of s---," he later recalled. He had the laugh of his life, however, as the plot unfolded. The plot? President Grant assigns two U.S. Marshals (Will Smith and Kevin Kline) to stop a deranged madman (Kenneth Branagh) from wreaking havoc on the country... with a giant mechanical spider!
[Many critics called Wild Wild West the worst film of the year.]
Smith, Kevin Patrick (1970- ) American writer, actor and director [noted for his work on such comic book series as Daredevil (Marvel Knights) and Spiderman (2002); and for his roles in (and direction of) such films as Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001), Dogma (1999), Chasing Amy (1997), Mallrats (1995), Clerks (1994), Mae Day: The Crumbling of a Documentary (1992)]
If they want a character that isn't Superman, why not just invent a new character? Why bother going after a built in audience if that audience is going to hate the changes you made, changes that will be very clear from a movie trailer?
Anyway, my hopes are that movie making tech will continue to get cheaper and smaller, which it will. I've seen a good number of great small films this year with budgets in the five to six figure range made with equipment bought at high end electronics stores. I saw a wonky little time travel flick (whose name escapes me, sadly... Primer?) that cost $12,000, and I was more entertained than Superman III and IV and the last two Batmans combined.
My advice to all you fellow geeks is the STOP giving money to these hack jobs. I can't count the number of times I have read comments from people who know a film is going to blow white hot chunks, but they are going to go see it anyway, dammit! If you are that OCD about it, at least wait until it's on HBO or even regular cable or a bittorrent where your viewing is not detected and registered as a vote of approval.
Well I can understand using old footage, since Brando is dead. But will it match up? We're talking about 1978 film here, few movies looked good back then (grain, sharpness,color). Its going to take alot of photoshop'n to get that 1978 film up to 2k5 snuff. Then again, they could go for a retro look, and that would solve the problem, but I doubt many places still make film the 1978 quality standards....
I love to slaughter the english language.
Thats how I'm going to walk into this movie, with a sense of dread. Comic book movies have been relatively succesful lately (Xmen, X2, Spiderman, Punisher) and this one is touching some sensitive areas. The supermans released in the 70's and 80's were a different breed entirely. He was corny, and awkward, and a boy scout. Current superman images are mixed at best. Comic books show him in a variety of different ways, Smallville shows him as a young man (which I've never watched), and cartoons show him as I personally believe he should be portrayed. I think Superman: TAS and Justice League are the only steps in the right direction for a superhero like superman. People may complain about his invulernability and boy scout attitude, but to me its those 2 things that make some of his moral problems difficult to solve. Watching a movie where this 2 criteria are not considered, would give me a headache. I've been a superman fan for a majority of my life, and I can remember how shocked I was when he died at the hands of doomsday. To me, that would be one of the best movies they could make about him, but unfortunately could also turn into the biggest bust of all (if half of the idiocy took place that was mentioned in OP) I hate to say it, but Superman: TAS didn't last long. Justice league unlimited on cartoon network has a blurry future, and now this movie comes out. This just might be the deciding factor on whether superman has a future with our children, and I hate to leave decisions like that in the hands of the WB.
Superheroes from the comics are usually just human beings who have one or two superhuman powers. They are not really godlike. Superman, on the other hand, is not human. As a being from an ultra-advanced civilization, he is perhaps more plausibly superior to human beings in every respect - stronger, faster, smarter, immortal, and so on - he really IS godlike. Beings from a civilization that advanced could conceivably take any form, so even his looking perfectly human isn't too far of a stretch. Kryptonite is the really implausible thing about Superman, in my mind, thrown in as a cheap plot device. But kryptonite is not really Superman's greatest weakness. His greatest weakness is his humanity: he is principled.
Superman essentially embodies a projection of human ideals. All of our human faculties - strength, speed, our senses, our mobility, our thought and memory, our ability to manipulate objects, our ability to manipulate fire - all of these things are taken to their greatest extreme in Superman. But what is also taken to the extreme, and what really makes Superman interesting as a character, is his principles. Superman's unswerving morality, his individual-centered ethics - (meaning he will not sacrifice individual needs for the greater good) - are an extreme extension of American cultural values. Superman's principles do not allow him to let one person die in order to save a million others. He HAS to save everybody.
What we don't see often enough is Superman in situations where he faces just those sorts of dilemmas. Stories that present characters with impossible choices are much more interesting than stories where every character is black and white good or evil. That's clearly the reason why Smallville is so hugely popular. We see Lex Luthor not as a purely evil madman, but as a real person struggling in a way we can genuinely sympathize with, and we see Superman facing such dilemmas and realizing that despite all his powers he really can't save everyone and fix everything every time. The most engaging storytelling with the Superman character is not when he is tossing cars around and beating up other not-quite-as-super-strong bad guys, but when he is struggling against adversaries who do not share the burden of his principles. Lex Luthor is ruthless, and that gives him a power over Superman.
As a comic book superhero, Superman is pretty boring because he either has to fight other trumped up supervillains all the time or he has to be weakened by kryptonite. But as the personification of human strengths, he has the potential to lay bare the complex nature of social and interpersonal relationships - he allows stories to explore the nature of strength and weakness, power and helplessness, in a purely symbolic way.
I think that is why Superman appeals so much not only to children, but to the child in all of us.
A-Bomb
I've a gut feeling your knee jerked at something you thought I wrote or implied, and I'd be curious to know what you think I was saying, as I can't respond to your comment in any useful way as is.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Transformers is going to give him tractor trailer loads of credibility.
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
Yeah, but that was a story out of continuity, so it's not really representative.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
The story I had always heard was that it was created by a couple of Jewish kids as a reinterpretation of Christianity.
In Hell:
Peter: Hey, what are you doing here?
Superman: I killed a hooker. She made a crack about me being faster than a speeding bullet so I ripped her in half like a phonebook.
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
Its really just awful. Its like they won't come up with something new, so they sort of do, paste it to the side of "superman", and then drag it on for years and years with no FX budget so they come up with more "people" stories. But then somebody gets on the internet and tells us how much they enjoyed it.
But then, people will come here and claim that Quantum Leap was really good, so I think that's proof that if you laid a turd in the middle of the street, somebody will tell you how much they enjoyed it.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
To be fair, if he refused to be a tool they were going to destroy the bottle city of kandor extinguishing his race.
Now the question I have is why they haven't left the bottle and resettled on an appropriate planet out there somewhere.
--
I also disagree the first post was a TROLL. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a troll. As an imperialistic american, I can appreciate that many other countries of the world dislike us. I think that's unavoidable even when we try to avoid it given our size and wealth. That's the bad thing about slashdot moderating.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
When the basis of the character (who was created by a Canadian) is a caricature, then it most definately matters. Fruit of the poisoned vine.
The rest of your post is a weak attempt to justify a weak position.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Awesome post... the only thing I would add to it.
The characters were not created by the U.S. Government as propaganda figures.
The characters were created by a PRIVATE business to SELL comics in America.
Their primary purpose was to make money and sell comics. I'm assuming a german hero that hated americans wasn't going to sell a lot of paper during the time these characters were created.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I only read through the first few pages and the account seemed so absurd as to be unbelievable. But then I remembered Batman & Robin and how it had ice skating villains.
Any crap is possible. Hollywood sucks.
Casting the Gauntlet: Action Comics and The Authority
Basically, Superman versus Wildstorm's Comics The Authority. They could've made that into a movie, except it would be impossible to do Superman's origins and also The Elites' origins in one movie... Of course, they have to do Superman's origins again, right...
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
The characters were not created by the U.S. Government as propaganda figures.
The characters were created by a PRIVATE business to SELL comics in America.
Their primary purpose was to make money and sell comics.
Too true...
I'm assuming a german hero that hated americans wasn't going to sell a lot of paper during the time these characters were created.
well... not in American, anyway...
- Mike
Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
Super Star Destroyer vs. The Enterprise... who wins.
Intresting, you will attack the obvious in a hero but not an even older villan in Dracula. Do you see the parallel in both Supes, Dracula and the big cheese in JC? You'd rather have fangs and be neurotic about sunlight over having the full power of a god. There is more hidden in front of your nose than you could possibly imagine, and yet even more in total silence.
This reminds me of a caption in The Dark Book (I think that was the name) a sort of encyclopedia of supervillians, "Nobody likes Captain Nazi" under a picture of Captain Nazi.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Original article.
> I never liked Superman because he was too perfect.
If it makes you feel better, the bulge in his tights is fake.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The best part was Batman appearing as a crotchety anarchist dissident. Frickin' awesome. Especially the hat.
I liked the underlying message, that Superman isn't a really deep thinker; he's a believer in mom and American apple pie 'cause that's what he was raised on, but stick him in the Ukraine and he'll fight for truth, justice and the expansion of the Warsaw Pact.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
That being said, the first two movies were rather good, the first having some dramatic merits and the second because the bad guys were just so damn kewl. After that I think the franchise had run out of steam, and the fact that they made a bad third movie and then found a way to make an even worse fourth movie indicates to me that this particular franchise ought to be consigned to history.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"Police Academy 8" is in development, if anybody cares.
In "The Dark Knight Strikes Again", he was in thrall to Luther, who held the threat of Kandor's destruction against him. In "The Dark Knight Returns", he worked for Reagan, because he was a tool. ("They'll kill us if they can, Bruce. Every year they grow stronger. Every year they hate us more. We must not remind them that giants walk the earth.")
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Hell, he's about the only guy Alan Moore's version of Swamp Thing was even slightly afraid of. (When Batman warns him never to threaten his city again, or he'll kill him, Swamp Thing say, "yes... yes, I do believe you would.")
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Ah, I remember The Authority. I was all excited because, come on, Warren Ellis! But no, each event followed the same arc:
(1) Bad guys appear.
(2) Bad guys do evil. Ooh, evil! Aren't they evil! So evil! They usually knock down a major city of three, which will inexplicably be rebuilt for the next arc.
(3) The Authority arrives and kills the bad guys.
Well, that was fuckin' boring.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
> Even weirder, The Westmeath Examiner reported that
> Steve Martin was in talks with WB to play Perry White
Umm, the Westmeath Examiner? A regional Irish midlands newspaper more commonly known for reporting on the price of beef and local politics? Where'd they get that scoop?
Well at least you agree that Smallville is making the character more belivable.
:) You don't go around "pushing" everyone just because you're "bigger" and you can. And that's what makes him so "super" in that he understands that his enemies are just "mis-led" and thus does what he can without letting any "harm" come to anyone. Even Superman was "born" and thus does not play "God"!!!
;)
The audience gets to see why Superman is really "super". It's not because of his powers, but all the virutes and values given to him by his Earthly parents. He could've easily been a "Super"-villian if the Luthors had found him (which by the way if you watch the show, they show that the Kents finding Kalel was no "accident"). At the same time, you also get to see how Lex is becoming what he's destined to become!!
And why can't Superman be "that good and perfect"? *Spidey-sense*: "With great power comes great responsibilty"!!
Personally I think Super-man was perhaps inspired by the Hindu deity Hanu-man. He has similar powers but none of the weaknesses.
(A first of its kind new animated film is out from India on the character.)
Superman was created by 2 kids in 1933. One of them, was born in Canada, but moved to America 10 years earlier at age 7. That is he grew up in America from age 7->17 prior to co-creating Superman. They other creator was pure American. You seem to want to always have half-truths in just about everything that you say.
So in your words, nice anti-truth troll.
And modders, Just remember that Google (and his past postings) is your friend, when it comes to this guy.
Deep Throat cost $22,500, and likely made over $100 million--in 1970s money. (According to Wikipedia.)
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The real reason this movie is failing is because it lacks the presence of General Zod. He rules! Kneel before General Zod!
Bring General Zod to power!
Thats really a really weird thing for him to say. Tim Burton made two great Batman movies. Batman in 89, and Batman Returns in 92. Those were really the only two good superhero movies that came out of that era. After that, that was pretty much it. The genre wasn't really re-energized. I can't really even think of any other superhero movies from the 90's. The only ones I can think of are the next two Batman movies, directed by Joel Schumacher, were utter crap. It wasn't really until X-Men came out in 2000, a full eight years later from the last good superhero movie, that something came out that proved a superhero movie could be something other than a complete cheesefest. It's huge success, coupled with Spider-man's in 2002, is what is really responsible for this slew of new superhero movies. But we're seeing the same pattern again. A few good movies, and then a slew of crap. League of Extraordinary Gentleman, Fantastic Four, etc. We're also seeing a lot more superhero movies now because Hollywood is out of ideas. Nothing original really seems to be getting made now, and superhero movies fit nicely in with the Hollywood strategy of playing it safe. X-Men and Spider-man showed that superhero movies once again could be profitable. So they start producing tons. They already have a built in fan base. It's safe and easy to just start churning em out. Just pick a comic book hero and make a movie out of him. No thought required. It's like Awesome-O is behind this, not Tim Burton. I generally like his movies, but he didn't re-energize a thing.
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
you forgot "Snootchie-bootchies."
wait, you mean that's not canon?
This movie will likely make a lot of money, but they are not going to get my $8.50. If you want to object to $300 million being spent on crappy movies (I think that NO movie should cost over about $25-50 million, look at www.startwreck.com and tell me otherwise). Actors making more on one movie than you and I can make in a lifetime, athletes that can't read worth more than CEOs of large companies, folks, there is a HUGE imbalance in the economy right now. The only way to stop this nonsense is to support small independent films and boycot the blockbusters! Really, how many more War of the Worlds and King Kong remakes do we need?
I'm waiting for Powdered Toast Man: The Movie! Now THAT'S worth my $8 matinee admission.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
So news for nerds now encompasses random annoymous forum posts?
"In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
well, first of all the communists did most of the fighting and dying against the Nazis in WWII. without the Russians on our side, it's pretty likely the Germans would've taken Europe, including GB, before the U.S. made any difference at all. also note that America's attempts to "beat up" the communists seldom went well: witness the Korean and Vietnam wars. we "beat" (or rather outlasted) the Russian communists almost explicitly by not trying to beat them up, combined with Reagan actually softening his rhetoric and actions as the Soviet Union was decaying, encouraging an easy transition rather than a violent one. and finally, it's very hard to lump in WWII with other legitimate examples of American imperialism since, well, we weren't doing any empire building (unlike with our very dirty history in the middle east and south america).
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
America's attempts to "beat up" the communists seldom went well: witness the Korean and Vietnam wars.
I like how you forgot that N.Korea conquered South korea until McArthur landed at Incheon. We defeated the communists in Korea becasue south korea still exists. Vietnam is the opposite of that, but only because by the time the military had a good counter to the VC, congress chickened out.
Your failure to mention the defeat of communism in all of Latin america aside from cuba and in Afganistan is interesting though.
Ignoring the fact that Hitler and Stalin were initially allies is also interesting. More Russians died because they were stupid. Stalin killed all his genreals so they had no idea what to do.
Are you seriously saying Reagan was softer then Jimmy Carter? good god! even Carter says the opposite of that.
you seem to have read or heard some incredibly tainted stuff regarding history. Pick up a real book or better yet, read the actual newspapers from the time if you can get your hands on them. Filtered histroy sucks and leads to posts like yours.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
At the heart of Superman is the question of morality and leadership! That's why Lex is he's arch enemy. He also has what Superman has; influence & leadership to shape the world, but it will just be a dark and morally corrupted world. Not to put it too bluntly; Superman is just Jesus with the occasional fist fight. As societies morality becomes more blurred characters like Superman loss there mainstream appeal. It's the "dark hero's" which in a former time might even have been the villain that are popular. People want violent vengeance, not valiant super heroes that are all about peace and justice.
Now but superman in a time when there's morality ambiguity and see how he comes to deal with a world that "doesn't want to be a great people". Then you could address superman's dark side, how does he choose to solve the problems presented? Is it violent or peace without force?
Have you guys seen the trailer for this movie, where it basically says that Kal-El loves mankind so much he sends his only son to earth in order to save us? I only go to church once every couple years, but I found it extraordinarily pretentious and offensive.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
A plan so secret, it hasn't made it into any history books?
Or is there some other reason for bringing up this irrelevant fact?
I can play too, "Ignoring the fact that Truman and Stalin were initially allies is also interesting."
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
The Lord of the Rings was a best-seller in the 1950s. There were numerous failed attempts to make a movie out of it since then, two bad partial results, and finally a pretty full treatment by the 21st century.
I felt the same way about Armageddon when I first saw it, but it actually gets better when you watch it again. There is a lot of Unintentional Comedy in the sheer excess in every aspect of Armageddon's production. The plot is ridiculous. The religious overtones are heavy-handed. The effects are way overdone. The dialog is laughable. The music is manipulative. Even the casting is over the top. Every last detail has been attended to.
Armageddon is actually a bit like Starship Troopers. The major difference is that I get the impression that Paul Verhoeven wants his movies to ridicule the action genre with excess violence and social commentary. OTOH Michael Bay just can't help himself; he has to crank everything up to 11 and comedy ensues.
Take off and nuke the site from orbit.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
It's almost like "Atlas Shrugged", where the enemies use the main character's own virtue against them.
I would be interested in seeing a combination where Hank Rearden's character was Lex Luthor, and another "villain" was introduced, breaking Lex Luthor's traditional business sensibilities using primarily political power to muscle over Lex's business empire (This ignores Lex's later political ambitions). Now Superman has a choice: Does he side with the gov't out of a sense of patriotism even though the gov't is now changed to something more villianous? Or does he side with Lex Luthor, and the relatively less evil business world? Of course, the new villian needs Superman's image to sway public opinion, which I would imagine is naively given at first, possibly even making Lex and Superman enemies in this story for the first time.
But siding with Lex to restore the US gov't to a democratic and fair one would have Superman disavow to, or at least revise, his original ideals. I think doing so would do a lot to bring Superman to a new audience.
"Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." -- Max Planck
" first of all the communists did most of the fighting and dying against the Nazis in WWII"
that claim was total BS. The communists were allied with the nazis at the beginning and then got their asses kicked. I also like how you forgot that these communists did NOTHING to fight the japanese and declared war just before the A-bomb was dropped.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Well, this would go neatly together with Spiderman being based on The Fountainhead as objectivist creator Steve Ditko intended. J. Jonah Jameson is totally Gail Wynand.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Some characters are easier to write stories for. It is much easier to write Spider-Man, Wolverine, or Batman stories as those guys have a lot more depth than a Superman or Captain America.
But if you find a good author who loves the character, you can have a great story. Mark Waid wrote a Captain America arc a few years ago where three shape-shifting aliens come to earth to get revenge on Cap for various reasons. They kidnap Cap and put handcuffs on him that were designed for shape-shifters, so he can't Houdini his way out of this one. One impersonates Cap and calls a major news conference while the other two pose as humans out in the audience. The impersonator tells the world that it has been invaded by hostile shape-shifting aliens, and the two out in the audience reveal themselves to be Skrulls. So Captain America has to free himself, and then try to stop the world from tearing itself apart from panic.
And as far as "invulnerability" goes, Superman is not invulnerable. Kryptonite can kill him, lead blocks his sight, he wont kill, some guys are smarter than he is (Luthor, Batman), and enemies can attack his friends. But he has one other vulnerability that doesn't get much press: magic.
In fact, the fans did a total 180 and started supporting the script, proclaiming that change is good and so long as Superman himself stays the same personality-wise, any change WB makes is OK by them. Pretty soon, those opposed to the "re-imagining" were reduced to a much-mocked and derided minority.
I'm skeptical. There are a lot of "Comic Book Guy's" out there that wouldn't turn around and support the studio because Some Dude said to on Some Website.com. However, all the stupid dumb shit they wanted to do to Superman sounds like some of the stupid crap they wanted to do for Batman Begins. Ideas floated around included having Bruce Wayne being a homeless man, the Batmobile being a suped up Oldsmobile, and Alfred was going to be a black mechanic named Big Al.
Overheard at typical Hollywood genius story pitch.
... what we gotta do. We gotta give this Superman
... geez why didn't we think of this before? ...
(Hi JJ!)
JP!
JP,
character an angle, see?
Who's gonna care about some guy who can fly and
has super-powers?
This Superman Guy
this Superman guy, see? He's gay!
Let's run this up the flagpole...
he's gay, he's troubled, yadda yadda...
there's a lot of story shit there!
The press will eat it up!
etc. etc.
Hmmmm...maybe this is a good time for an off topic link for the petition to get revised "Donner" version of Superman II released.
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
Okay...so all these's details are neat to think about, but what I'm interested in, is to see all these alternate scripts, alternate outfits, storyboards, etc..
Are any of these actually available?
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
I always thought a Dark Knight Returns movie was what I wanted to see. Then Kingdom Come appeared and now that's the source material for what I really want to see. Like almost everything else I want to see it's got the word "Impossible" written all over it. No way it could ever be made without destroying pretty much everything I love about it.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
I thought Bryan Singer did a pretty good job with X-Men, so it's possible that he pulled Superman back out of the fire.
Although, Superman returning from Krypton does not sound like a good start...
We'll see. Maybe it won't suck.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Superman though his image is sweeping in to save the day, does not mean he is some foreign imperialistic invader who thinks he's better than everyone else. (I for one do not like the path that america is going down but superman is not an icon of propaganda to be associated with what america is doing now. That accusation completely defaces who superman is, hear me out:)
Let's look at 2 things:
1. Lex Luthor - he is Superman's arch nemesis and Lex stands for capitalism, cronyism, greed, power, money, corruption and the power of technology over hope and goodwill. These things more represent the ideas of an imperialistic icon invading other nations and forcing its ideology upon others. Superman is not Lex Luthor.
2. Clark Kent - he is the humble, common working person. He grew up on a farm, not rich and elite like Lex Luthor. He is not the egotistical, ideology pushing icon of american imperialism. He embodies the struggle within all of us geeks to remove people's reliance on perception, and look within to see the true self.
We saw a preview of superman this weekend.
The preview puts Superman in a Jesus-the-savior-of-humanity role.
Obviously whoever produced this idiotic contortion
of the original story thinks that its an improvement.
"Hulk SMASH!"
-FL
Well, actually, it is a big deal, movies being the powerful source of mind-control and social engineering that they are.
"Truth, Justice and the American Way!"
Ugh.
Interestingly. . , there was another version of the alien 'Superman' story which changed the way people thought and behaved, way back in the nineteen thirties. . . It was, in fact, one of the more subtle and screwed up ingredients which drove people into the second world war. In that particular version of the story, the alien race of supermen was blond haired and blue eyed. From a distant, lost planet, the ancient inhabitants known as the, 'Vril', were the blood-line from whom certain dictators and fascists believed the Aryans were descended. Some Germans who read the book believed, much in the way L. Ron Hubbard's followers believe, that Edward Bulwer-Lytton's book, "The Coming Race" was rather less fiction than the cover claimed. They formed the real life, 'Vril Society' (of which Hitler was a member), and the monies raised by them went on to fund the backbone of the Nazi party.
Bet they never taught you that in history class. Reality is a damned strange place when you start to get to know it. . .
"Truth, Justice and the American Way."
Now our current Christians demonstrate some similar very scary belief systems. For instance. . .
Armageddon cannot take place until the Jews have taken the lands of ancient Babylon. (Iraq). When this happens, the 'Christ' will come and the bloodbath will begin in earnest, where all the believers will be sent to Heaven and everybody else goes to swim in a lake of fire. --And of course, all the idiot Christians think that they will be among the few who are not, "Left Behind", and so many actually look forward for this creepy end of times event to happen. --In fact, many of them will vote Neo-Con and turn a blind eye to all the evils of war in the hopes that Armageddon will arrive in their life-time and so that all the people who laugh at them and have good sex will burn, burn, BURN!! --Which one would think, by the dogma of their own religion, would make them seem rather unsuitable for a Heavenly zip code in the afterlife. But who am I to judge?
Anyway, when 'Armageddon' arrives you can bet your pants that the powers that be will have something lined up to hit the stage. --I wonder what kind of superman they are planning to have show up? It certainly won't be Jesus. That guy is way too cool for the Neo-cons. ("Neo" = New. Thus, the "New Con". Get it. . ? Patterns, Patterns. .
Okay. It's late. I'm gone.
Up, Up and Away!
-FL
>> "American nationalism has always been something which the rest of the world has largely considered ugly...but that has become more true than ever before in the last three years."
> Excellent observations, and they'd be relevant if Superman weren't created by a Canadian.
Don't forget. Hitler was Austrian.
In every previous version of Superman that I've seen (and I'm sure I haven't seen them all), Superman is sent to earth to save him from the destruction of krypton, not to save the earth. So I'm offended because it's yet another example of the producers mangling the story, and in this case it's to make SM more Christ-like.
I don't really mind movies using the Bible/Christianity as inspiration (see the Matrix), but it was so frickin blatant in this trailer(practically quoted John 3:16)--coming out right before Xmas. It felt like they were pandering to the Passion of the Christ audience. Good marketing, probably.
And if you don't care, why did you reply?
As for your critcism of my religious behavior....that's just trolling, dude.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
There's another alternative Superman Story, written in collaboration with John Cleese (of Fawlty Towers fame): Superman: True Brit has Superman arrive in Weston Super Mare in the UK where "our union jack attired do-gooder has his work cut out for him when the Queen gives Superman three 'impossible' tasks (involving railway timetables, NHS waiting lists, and the quality of BBC television programmes)".