Warner Bros Wants To Reboot Superman Again!

FionnMatthew

Fysh wrote: »

In fairness, this thread has seen about 3 to 4 screens of extensive discussion defending the ideology of a fictional character from the devastating onslaught that was one comedian's 30-second joke. To claim that those arguing the "Batman's betteR" side in this argument are unbiased would be to tell a pork pie of truly Desperate-Dan-scale proportions.

I didn't say that Batman was better. I may gravitate towards Batman stuff, as a matter of personal preference but that doesn't mean I think "Batman is better," and would intend neither to imply not argue that here.

Regarding the dismissal of Superman, I find it hilarious that you'll analyse and dismiss Superman as being improbable while defending another superhero whose basis is that he is an Olympic-level athlete, a world-class expert in several martial arts, a world-class detective, a genius-level technologist and inventor, and the CEO of a major global conglomerate.

I don't dispute any of that. But none of those things, nor the disjunction of any of them, are physically or logically impossible. Just highly improbable. It's a whole different level of improbability.

Batman is a guy in a suit with some conceivable, but rather unlikely skills. Superman is an invulnerable demi-god xenomorph.

But I'm not trying to deride Superman. The point I was making was no more than that making a Superman movie with the same plausibility factor/epistemics as Nolan's Batman movies would entail cutting out a good deal of what makes Superman Superman. That implausible stuff is, as it were, sort of essential to the Superman franchise.

Seriously. I'm not saying nobody can enjoy Batman, I'm not saying I haven't enjoyed the Nolan movies as being more grounded in realism than the previous films, but claiming that Superman is far too unrealistic to be enjoyable while defending Batman as being an entirely probable phenomenon is just ridiculous.

Straw man. Nobody said that.

FionnMatthew

Fysh wrote: »

I'll be perfectly honest, while it's theoretically good comics are being taken seriously, I still maintain that there's a limit to how seriously anyone should be taking the concept of people who dress up in brightly-coloured spandex-style outfits and "fight crime".

I most sincerely disagree with that, if I may.

I don't think superhero comics are substantively different to the epic poetry of the ancients. In fact, I think they are the closest thing we have to a living, invested mythology analogous to the Greeks' cultural mythology.

They take place in the context of dynamic mythologies, which are able to accommodate multiple tellings of the same event, often with radical differences. Their mythologies are expanded by the tradition of storytelling within them, working out and expanding the narratival substance for specific effect and ends. They epitomize certain ideals - the ideal is one of the most central and notable, explicit features of both the epic and the comicbook. Stories follow typical formuale, often identical to the epics, but which differentiate from by variation on themes. Their protagonists are super human or enhanced humans, with prowess and attributes greatly exceeding the average. Something is always exceptional. They meditate on the nature of the heroic, and on the different types of heroism, and encourage a discourse about which virtues are best. Their themes are those of choice, of the good, of the just, and of the of the moral comportment of the human condition. They present simple, "big" situations, in a schematic fashion, so as to put into sharp relief the confrontation with moral choice and action, and the exigency of the situation. People can make moral points by reference to them, and can mediate their own self-conceptions through the discourse of power, responsibility and ethical choice as schematized in them, as is commonly adduced in the Aristotelian virtue-ethics tradition. Literacy in the comics is literacy in conceptualisation of life-situations in key schema, conditioned by the sort of literature or mythology it is. Finally, comics eventually incorporate, as did the Greeks, the tragic element into their mythologies, tragedy being one of the most literary and recurrent of cultural topoi. Frank Miller, for instance, epitomizes "comic book" tragedy.

I think they are a pretty important, and vital part of our culture, and I don't think we can take them too seriously.

Fysh

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Batman is a guy in a suit with some conceivable, but rather unlikely skills. Superman is an invulnerable demi-god xenomorph.

But I'm not trying to deride Superman. The point I was making was no more than that making a Superman movie with the same plausibility factor/epistemics as Nolan's Batman movies would entail cutting out a good deal of what makes Superman Superman. That implausible stuff is, as it were, sort of essential to the Superman franchise.

To be clear here, are we talking Batman the cultural phenomenon (ie the Batman most people are vaguely aware of through the films, cartoons, TV show and miscellaneous bits and pieces) or Batman specifically as the comics character?

Batman in the comics is presented as being one of the greatest detectives on the planet, as well as being of Olympic-level athletic ability, near-infinite (depending on who's writing him) ability to "plan ahead", a genius-level scientific mind, an inspired and prolific inventor and CEO of a succesful multinational corporation. Basically we'd be talking someone along the lines of Thomas Edison crossed with Linford Christie, Sherlock Holmes, Steve Jobs, and a few others for good measure. Oh, and in case that wasn't enough, he dresses up in a special costume to spend his nights "fighting crime".

Personally, that's so wildly improbable as to be on the same scale as "near-omnipotently powerful being that shares enough DNA with humanity to be visibly identical who fights for truth justice and ma's american apple pie while wearing gaudy spandex and a cape", i.e. definitely fiction-only.

Nolan's films have downplayed the factors I mentioned above sufficiently for the current movie Batman to be a different entity to the comics, but with the same core (man using considerable resources to fight crime after the death of his parents) - and given that, I would say it's at least possible to have a Superman film that works without being completely unbelievable. The core of the character is what he's supposed to represent, not the made-up handwavy gubbins they use to explain how or why he's so powerful or whatever. Arguably that core is the hard thing to find - an interpretation of Superman that can still be relevant to contemporary concerns and compelling enough to build a new world around. Once the charater's core is established, Superman need not be any more unbelievable than Batman.


Edited to add:

Regarding superhero comics as mythology: I've recently read an article that reads surprisingly similarly to your post, and frankly I don't care. They're a genre. People enjoy them. That's great. That does not mean they represent the medium, nor are they the pinnacle of what the medium can create. For every one superhero comic that genuinely evokes the notions you mention (encouraging a discourse on which virtues are best, for example) there are easily 10 which are god-awful teenage power fantasies with mediocre art, awful dialogue and little or no redeeming feature.

I'm no Golden-Age or Silver-Age enthusiast here - I think most superhero comics from the past have aged considerably worse than other material, even when the context is put in place. For example I can happily go back and read Krazy Kat or Little Nemo in Slumberland despite those comics being nearly 100 years old, and yet the material in a lot of 50s & 60s comics features dialogue so hideously wooden and writing so often wooden, lumpy and awful as to be frankly embarassing to even witness, much less encourage.

And the worst thing of all? All those things that you cite as being great about superhero comics can be done without superheroes at all. You can have stories about heroic individuals and their merits in war comics, sports comics, detective comics (hohoho), historical or biographical comics, or in fact any story in which the writer wants to examine those themes. American-influenced western culture over the last 50-80 years has conditioned people to associate those themes with superhero comics, as though they were the only venue for them to be present.

Watchmen is one of my favourite comics, and possibly one of the best comics I've ever read. But to hold up the entire genre of superhero comics as being intrinsically worthy is to claim that the genre has the merits rather than the work, which is preposterous. Individual pieces of work within that genre have merit. Others do not. The genre, however, has no more or less merit than any other genre. As such, individual works can be taken seriously and discussed for their literary merits, but the genre shouldn't, because one can no more talk about the intrinsic merits of all superhero comics than one can say that all television programmes have inherent merits.

Edited again to add:

The article I was referring to is this one, in case you were wondering.

indough

FionnMatthew wrote: »

A realistic alien, if such exists, is probabilistically unlikely to instantiate the disjunction of the following qualities:

A) Indistinguishable from a large male human at peak physical fitness,
Capable of antigravitational activities by mere mentation.
C) Capable of shooting laser beams out of his visual organs (if he has them).
D) Not only capable of almost unlimited strength, but also of calling off the laws of physics in his vicinity, so that the law of the lever doesn't apply, for instance.
E) Invincible and immortal

Seeing as some of those qualities are impossible to instantiate, and others are simply highly, highly unlikely. He may, however instantiate some of the following:

1) Suspending respiratory function (if he does breathe) indefinitely.
2) Great strength
3) He may "see" using different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, which may render certain opaque sorts of things (to us) transparent to him.
4) He may have a more marked rejuvenatory response to the light of a yellow sun than us.

I should add that I don't particularly mind that Superman is in many cases impossible. It's fun. I just don't think a Superman done in a strictly "realistic" style, that is, that doesn't have him instantiate any impossible qualities, would be very good. We're able to do that with Batman because we don't lose too much. Supes, however...

this is all just your own opinion

still it remains that an alien with superpowers is more realistic than a rich guy who can fly just because he has a cape on (of course thats providing we've suspended belief to the point where we believe in aliens)

Jack B. Badd

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Literacy in the comics is literacy in conceptualisation of life-situations in key schema, conditioned by the sort of literature or mythology it is.

What exactly does this mean? It appears to be business-speak of some sort...

As for superhero comics being a "pretty important, and vital part of our culture", they don't appear to be a sufficiently mainstream cultural phenomenon to warrant this kind of consideration. The American-style comics market is (still) very niche.

Full_Circle

indough wrote: »

still it remains that an alien with superpowers is more realistic than a rich guy who can fly just because he has a cape on (of course thats providing we've suspended belief to the point where we believe in aliens)

Jebus, I wouldn’t agree with that at all! I think if you asked most people, they'd say that the idea of a costumed vigilante is far more believable than a flying alien!

Nolan tried to ground his Batman films in the real world, but I don’t think thats something that would really work for the Superman franchise. Superman will always require a much greater suspension of belief, simply because of the type of super-hero he is, and the extreme powers that he possesses. And I don’t see why super-hero movies have to be so gosh darn realistic anyways.

For example, I'm not particularly happy with the Batman that Nolan has created. I think he’s tailored the character and his world to suit a wider audience, making the whole thing less interesting and more generic than its comic book origins. Many of Batmans most popular villains would no longer fit into the continuity that Nolan has created and I think he’s really backed himself into a corner (a topic that’s been already scrutinised in another thread here).

I would hate for a similar approach to be taken to Superman. Realistic script, dialogue, characters and emotions are all totally do-able without having to rob the franchise of fantasy or fun (something I think both of Nolans films really lacked).

Nerin

Good thread,the fighting takes away a bit. Imo i prefer batman,a few tweaks and he seems to stay with the times. As someone already said,superman is oldfashioned in the truth justice american way stuff. I hate to say it (puts up flame shield) but smallville comes close to bringing it up to date. The human side weakness is explored more (easier with teenage angst methinks) and while some of the filler episodes can be boring and samey,i like it more than the films. Look at what they did to green arrow,i like it.

ryoishin

I ve just glanced through the posts, have nt had time to read them properly in work.

But its entertainment. Thats why I go to the cinema.

bus77

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I had to laugh about the dark tone too for Superman. It reminds me of Kevin Smith writing a script for Superman with Jon Peters telling him he doesn't want Superman wearing a costume or actually flying.:pac:

:pac: Just watched him telling that story here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgYhLIThTvk

Pure gas

Handsome Bob

bus77 wrote: »

:pac: Just watched him telling that story here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgYhLIThTvk

Pure gas

What the hell was Peters and his perfect quif smoking?:D He sounds like a right tool, Burton had his run ins too with the guy on B89.

Red Sleeping Beauty

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Dark eh? Not sure how well Superman will work set in a dark tone. He's not quite the conflicted and vigilante-like Batman. Superman has a clear way of doing things, that is why he clashes with Batman at times in the comics.

I had to laugh about the dark tone too for Superman. It reminds me of Kevin Smith writing a script for Superman with Jon Peters telling him he doesn't want Superman wearing a costume or actually flying.:pac:

Superman didn't fly in the original interpretation and genesis of the character. The flying bit was added for the radio plays of it.

Handsome Bob

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

Superman didn't fly in the original interpretation and genesis of the character. The flying bit was added for the radio plays of it.

OK, what about the lack of a costume?:pac: And fighting Polar Bears and giants Spiders?:D;)

Red Sleeping Beauty

LZ5by5 wrote: »

OK, what about the lack of a costume?:pac: And fighting Polar Bears and giants Spiders?:D;)

No costumes in the tv show Smallville is there ?
I dont know , I sort of agree with the general feeling that Superman has always been a fairly grounded and universally interpreted character and changing it would just seem naff. I think Bryan Singer said that the reason why none of the reboots got off the groun during the 90's was because they didn't work, didn't make sense. Although I think that a lot of the "popular" opinion on the internet about the backlash towards a darker superman reboot is from dark knigth fans. People I dont like and can't understand.

Handsome Bob

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

No costumes in the tv show Smallville is there ?
I dont know , I sort of agree with the general feeling that Superman has always been a fairly grounded and universally interpreted character and changing it would just seem naff. I think Bryan Singer said that the reason why none of the reboots got off the groun during the 90's was because they didn't work, didn't make sense. Although I think that a lot of the "popular" opinion on the internet about the backlash towards a darker superman reboot is from dark knigth fans. People I dont like and can't understant.

I don't think Kevin Smith's script was an origin story.:pac:

It's like Spider-man, Superman is not a dark character. Brooding suits Batman, not Superman.

Red Sleeping Beauty

LZ5by5 wrote: »

It's like Spider-man, Superman is not a dark character. Brooding suits Batman, not Superman.

That is true. I agree.

Handsome Bob

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

That is true. I agree.

I don't really see what the problem is anyway chief, I liked what Singer did. He only made one mistake for me, and that was giving Superman a kid.

xbox36016

o no more super man

Bonzo1970

Didn't like Superman Returns because it really didn't add anything. It was simply a remake (almost) of the original Film. Why not a darker or at least greyer version of Superman?? Why not have him dealing with marital difficulties? Accidentally killing a friend? There is huge scope. I cant see why RED SON cant be done? With deteriorating relations with Russia is it not time for a Red Scare film!!?

liberation

They want to reboot it because of the success of the Dark Knight but alot of that movies success is down to Heath Ledgers Death

Handsome Bob

Really? Because the people that you are referring to, people who wouldn't have gone to see it otherwise, probably and most likely only saw TDK once.

If anything it has more to do with 'fanboys' going to see the film 10 times, 20 times, 30 times etc etc(and who would have gone that amount of times regardless of Ledgers death).

That and it is hands down the best comic book adapted film ever, right up there with and beyond The Crow and S-M2.

robby^5

liberation wrote: »

They want to reboot it because of the success of the Dark Knight but alot of that movies success is down to Heath Ledgers Death

You're very wrong, very very wrong.

Johnny Bitte

Listed just a few of his enemies that they could have choose for the recent film but instead they pick Luther and at that the ****ing worst story every.

Doomsday would be my fav to really kick the **** out of Supes. he can figure out some great way to win but god damn we wanna fight. A diry low down, dust up partner!!

Yeah this would be the first reboot as this was considered a sequel.

Oh oh I have one, Luther puts a bounty on Supermans head, and then a couple of these guys show up!

Zod
Brainiac
Darkseid
Doomsday
Myzplytyk
Metallo
Manchester Black
Parasite

OK-Cancel-Apply

Superman is a failhero IMO. Outdated and irrelevant.

liberation

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Superman is a failhero IMO. Outdated and irrelevant.

Stupid comment just because your not a fan doesnt make it irrelevant.

liberation

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Really? Because the people that you are referring to, people who wouldn't have gone to see it otherwise, probably and most likely only saw TDK once.

If anything it has more to do with 'fanboys' going to see the film 10 times, 20 times, 30 times etc etc(and who would have gone that amount of times regardless of Ledgers death).

That and it is hands down the best comic book adapted film ever, right up there with and beyond The Crow and S-M2.

well superman has as many fan boys as Batman so that cancels that argument.

To me the amount of hype surrounding that movie because of heath ledgers death contributed to how well it did at the box office

OK-Cancel-Apply

liberation wrote: »

Stupid comment just because your not a fan doesnt make it irrelevant.

'Stupid' for having an opinion. Cheers.

Handsome Bob

liberation wrote: »

well superman has as many fan boys as Batman so that cancels that argument.

To me the amount of hype surrounding that movie because of heath ledgers death contributed to how well it did at the box office

No it doesn't. I was just pointing out the fallacy of your argument as the people who went to see it due to Ledgers death most likely only went once. That wouldn't really significantly contribute to what TDK made.

Karl Hungus

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

'Stupid' for having an opinion. Cheers.

To be fair, there's a significant difference between saying a comment is stupid, and a person is stupid.

Galvasean

Let's not overlook the real reason why TDK did much better than Superman Returns at the box Office. It was a much better film!

Jumpy

MagicMarker wrote: »

They should make it a drama, where superman falls off a horse and paralyses himself.

THey could call it "Brokeback Mounting"