Superman Reboots
Sep. 6th, 2008 10:19 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
seriousficOkay, I know the news is beyond cold, but let's take this thing by numbers.
1. Following in the success of TDK, all forthcoming DC movies are going to be "dark." This is stupid on the face of it. The new Batman series worked because it did two very important thing.
A. It stayed true to the character. They read through Batman: Year One and The Man Who Falls, got a handle on what kind of Batman they wanted to present, and then...
B. Brought it out into an internally consistent universe. You won't find Nolan's Joker in the Batman comics, but it's still recognizably, essentially Joker and it works within the context of the film in a way that, say, Paul Dini's Joker wouldn't. It's not the only way they could've done it, and who knows, maybe there was a better way, but they way they picked worked and worked well.
So Batman is a dark character, hence the creators made a dark movie. Superman is a light character, so they should make a light movie. Making a dark Superman movie would be kind of like making a light Batman movie... anyone remember the last time they tried that?
2. Unlike many on my f-list, I'm not too sad to see Singer's Superverse go. When you think about it, it's pretty friggin' pretentious to make a movie to introduce all the characters, while saving all the good bits for the sequel. I know, I know, Singer was going to "go all Wrath of Khan" on movie two, but did that really mean we had to sit through the equivalent of The Motion Picture? If the Star Trek movies had started with Khan, would anyone have minded?
This completely defeats the purpose of doing a sequel to the Donner series (why do you have to introduce all these characters if they're already there?). The only real revelations were that Lois was married with a kid, and that her kid was Superman's. There's a time and a place for this kind of introduction. It's called the first act. Why'd we have to suffer through a boring, wordy remake of the first Superman? It's the 21st century. You don't give us X-Men then X2. You give us X2 quality right off the bat, then improve on it. You don't give us a movie that's so boring it has multiple people wishing for Michael Bay's version.
1. Following in the success of TDK, all forthcoming DC movies are going to be "dark." This is stupid on the face of it. The new Batman series worked because it did two very important thing.
A. It stayed true to the character. They read through Batman: Year One and The Man Who Falls, got a handle on what kind of Batman they wanted to present, and then...
B. Brought it out into an internally consistent universe. You won't find Nolan's Joker in the Batman comics, but it's still recognizably, essentially Joker and it works within the context of the film in a way that, say, Paul Dini's Joker wouldn't. It's not the only way they could've done it, and who knows, maybe there was a better way, but they way they picked worked and worked well.
So Batman is a dark character, hence the creators made a dark movie. Superman is a light character, so they should make a light movie. Making a dark Superman movie would be kind of like making a light Batman movie... anyone remember the last time they tried that?
2. Unlike many on my f-list, I'm not too sad to see Singer's Superverse go. When you think about it, it's pretty friggin' pretentious to make a movie to introduce all the characters, while saving all the good bits for the sequel. I know, I know, Singer was going to "go all Wrath of Khan" on movie two, but did that really mean we had to sit through the equivalent of The Motion Picture? If the Star Trek movies had started with Khan, would anyone have minded?
This completely defeats the purpose of doing a sequel to the Donner series (why do you have to introduce all these characters if they're already there?). The only real revelations were that Lois was married with a kid, and that her kid was Superman's. There's a time and a place for this kind of introduction. It's called the first act. Why'd we have to suffer through a boring, wordy remake of the first Superman? It's the 21st century. You don't give us X-Men then X2. You give us X2 quality right off the bat, then improve on it. You don't give us a movie that's so boring it has multiple people wishing for Michael Bay's version.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 10:01 pm (UTC)