You know, I think one of the problems with doing a Superman movie in the current superhero movie craze is that he's so well-known. With Iron Man or Green Lantern, you can just put the origin out there and they're obscure enough that audiences are surprised, while fans are happy to see the Iron Man Mark 1 suit on screen. With Superman, everyone knows his story, so the natural temptation is to deliver "not your daddy's Superman!" And between Tim Burton's Superman, J.J. Abrams' "Kryptonian kung-fu" script, and even Superman Returns, that's where everyone has failed. There always has to be a twist. And they might be right, but obviously, no one has found what that twist is yet.
But maybe Superman's pop culture significance is more like Star Trek. Think if someone tackled a movie with the same reverence/familiarity that J.J. Abrams did last year. Since everyone has Star Trek 101 down, the filmmakers just ran with it. So it was "Hey, look everyone, Scotty!" not "Hey, look everyone, Scotty's a gay Polynesian rentboy! EXTREME!" Similarly, instead of going "so there's this planet named Krypton, and it exploded, but there was this baby, here's him growing up and here's him deciding not to be a football player and here's him deciding not to be a research scientist," you just jump straight in and tell whatever story you want to tell.
Maybe instead of doing two-hour movies about why Superman is still relevant, people should just assume that a character who's currently being widely read about, has a TV show that's run for ten years, and who's getting a big-budget movie made about him is relevant, and go from there.
ETA: It's a shame Star Trek already did the time travel storyline, because doing the "Legion of Superheroes travel back in time to save a young Clark Kent from a future-villain" would be a great way to retell the origin fast while still telling a cool new story. You could do the Cliff Notes on his decision to become Superman, his falling-out with Lex, and set-up a Legion spin-off. Even Smallville knew that was a good story. Hell, take a note from Smallville and have Brainiac be the bad guy, then set up Brainiac 5 by having the LoS say they're going to reprogram what's left of him.
But maybe Superman's pop culture significance is more like Star Trek. Think if someone tackled a movie with the same reverence/familiarity that J.J. Abrams did last year. Since everyone has Star Trek 101 down, the filmmakers just ran with it. So it was "Hey, look everyone, Scotty!" not "Hey, look everyone, Scotty's a gay Polynesian rentboy! EXTREME!" Similarly, instead of going "so there's this planet named Krypton, and it exploded, but there was this baby, here's him growing up and here's him deciding not to be a football player and here's him deciding not to be a research scientist," you just jump straight in and tell whatever story you want to tell.
Maybe instead of doing two-hour movies about why Superman is still relevant, people should just assume that a character who's currently being widely read about, has a TV show that's run for ten years, and who's getting a big-budget movie made about him is relevant, and go from there.
ETA: It's a shame Star Trek already did the time travel storyline, because doing the "Legion of Superheroes travel back in time to save a young Clark Kent from a future-villain" would be a great way to retell the origin fast while still telling a cool new story. You could do the Cliff Notes on his decision to become Superman, his falling-out with Lex, and set-up a Legion spin-off. Even Smallville knew that was a good story. Hell, take a note from Smallville and have Brainiac be the bad guy, then set up Brainiac 5 by having the LoS say they're going to reprogram what's left of him.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-13 07:44 pm (UTC)aka: THIS.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-14 05:52 pm (UTC)Mongul. Darkseid. Metallo. Doomsday. Bring back Zod. Parasite.
Someone Supes can have a nice knock down fight with. Supes as a person is usually only interesting when he's interacting with another hero with a different worldview, usually Batman, Wonder Woman, or sometimes Supergirl or Big Barda. But if they won't make that movie (and they won't, apparently), then at least give him something to do that's more compelling and fun.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-14 06:31 pm (UTC)Of course, my ideal Superman movie involves Superman interacting with Scott Free, an alien refugee who's grateful he's been exiled from his home, and fighting the forces of Apokolips, so what do I know.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-14 06:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-14 06:44 pm (UTC)As for Superman Returns, it should be the number one argument against "movies as extended trailers for other movies." The whole point of sequelizing the Donner films was that you didn't have to set everything up, so what does Singer do? He sets everything up. There's a time and a place to go over plot points like "Superman has a son" and "Lois has a new man" before you get to the robot-punching. It's called the first act.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-15 02:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-15 02:52 am (UTC)Basically, think of Lex as the Ten Rings in the Iron Man movies. He isn't the villain just yet, but wait until the third movie, after he's run for President...
no subject
Date: 2010-12-15 03:21 am (UTC)Their first encounter would end with Superman surrendering the power source/info crystals of the Fortress of Solitude, since that's the best source of info on Krypton that still exists and collecting info is the main thing Brainiac does. Superman would not be presented as beaten at that point, but doing what's best for Earth. He can continue fighting long term, and he's confident he'd win, but the amount of destruction isn't worth it.
But it turns out to be the wrong move. Kryptonians are known as a rather self-absrobed arrogant people and Supes handing it over is rather OOC for the average Kryptonian. It makes him a bit curious about Earth setting up the big fight where Superman has to completely repel him.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-15 03:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-16 11:03 pm (UTC)