Untitled Superman Film (JJ Abrams)

[Chedwiggen]

I'm going to pass on this reboot, WB is clearly intent on making DC films one big epic disaster. Hope Cavill gets another franchise, maybe Bond.

[Darkstream]

I've been thinking a lot lately, as a comic book fan, I've always wanted to see the characters as close to the comics as possible when adapted for screen --- not just the color of their costumes, nor the color of their skin, but even down to the color of their hair and eyes sometimes. I'm a comic book loyalist. But we all have to accept creative license and various artistic interpretations, and in this day and age there is a strong sense of needing diverse racial and gender representation. I understand this and I support it.

But while I would normally argue to have that representation done by creating new characters or adapting and elevating characters that already do exist which represent a particular race or gender (like maybe John Stewart/Green Lantern, or Black Lightning, or Vixen), I realize studios, like WB, are inevitably going to be lazy and will see more value in reusing a famous name like "Superman" as a draw for the audience, choosing to reinvent that character, despite the controversy it may cause.

At this point, though, I don't care. I have my Superman already. Various versions of the Superman we all know and love already exist. I'm not living for these movies anymore, and there will always be other movies to watch, from the past and in the future, so what should I care if there's a black Superman now? If this was the only version of the character to be on film, then, yes, there's something to complain about, but it's not. And it's not like continuity is strong with DC Films anyway, so why not? It may be pandering, it may even be viewed as a gimmick, but if it sells, that's all the studios really care about. If it doesn't interest you or doesn't look good, just don't see it. If you do see it, try to put your bias aside and criticize it based on its own merits as a film. The way I look at it is that if it makes most fans happy, especially some young person of color who dreams of seeing a black Superman, then who am I to argue against it?

[mwynn]

I would like to once again point out that Calvin Ellis is an established character. He is not kal-el/Clark Kent.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by mwynn

I would like to once again point out that Calvin Ellis is an established character. He is not kal-el/Clark Kent.

How do you know that's who they are doing?

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by darkstream

how do you know that's who they are doing?

:d

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by mwynn

:d

[Monterey Jack]

Refuse to watch this.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by Darkstream

Guess the smile does not work. Lets continue this if i am right about the Russo's.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by mwynn

Guess the smile does not work. Lets continue this if i am right about the Russo's.

The Russo's?

I must have missed something. Is that who you think might direct this?


EDIT: Nevermind. I just saw your post where you mentioned that rumor. That would be interesting if true. Better choice than JJ Abrams doing it himself, that's for sure. But I wonder what that could mean for the Russo's Gatchaman/Battle of the Planets movie.

[Platitude]

Originally Posted by captveg

Maybe, but I doubt their versions of the characters will ever meet up in a film.

Who knows, maybe they decide to have this Superman set in the world of Reeve's Batman? (I'm leaning towards probably not but it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility).

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by mwynn

It has been almost 40 years since John Byrne, gave new life to Superman. Since that time he has had one shinning moment with Superman Unchained with Jim Lee.

All-Star Superman by Morrison and Quitely

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by robomole

I didn't care for Black Panther. But there's no denying the impact the film had. Would it have had the same impact if it was originally White Panther, and they just changed the race? I highly doubt it. What would be more impactful for young kids? Race flopped Little Mermaid, or an entirely new and unique black Disney Princess! Adapt existing black DC superheroes or best of all, write new ones that black actors can take ownership of instead of just being the "black version". It's just so damn lazy. Hollywood if you want diversity, create and adapt good original diverse characters. Simple as that.

I think it is more impactful if you free a character from race constraints. Superman is an alien. Just what exactly makes him white? Nothing. Writers projected their own race on Superman. So for nearly a century white writers saw him as white, it is only appropriate a black writer sees him as black.

Originally Posted by Vince McMahon

Because he’s the best actor to portray Superman that’s why.

I like Cavill a lot but he’s not a better actor than Michael Jordan.

Originally Posted by mwynn

I would like to once again point out that Calvin Ellis is an established character. He is not kal-el/Clark Kent.

I think it should be Clark Kent. It sends a better message. That black Superman ain’t some fringe variation. No, actual proper Superman now is black. No ifs or buts.

Originally Posted by mwynn

Guess the smile does not work. Lets continue this if i am right about the Russo's.

I don’t think there’s a chance on hell russo’s direct. The script will definitely be cerebral and discuss the black experience. I dunno if Russo are qualified to tell a story like this.

I 100% the director will be black.

[ben6543]

Originally Posted by slumcat

I think it should be Clark Kent. It sends a better message. That black Superman ain’t some fringe variation. No, actual proper Superman now is black. No ifs or buts.

you have 2 already established alt earth black superman use one of those

[The Swan Returns]

These are unprecedented levels of “I’m not racist, but...”

[Dunemoon]

Originally Posted by slumcat

I think it is more impactful if you free a character from race constraints. Superman is an alien. Just what exactly makes him white? Nothing. Writers projected their own race on Superman. So for nearly a century white writers saw him as white, it is only appropriate a black writer sees him as black.



I like Cavill a lot but he’s not a better actor than Michael Jordan.



I think it should be Clark Kent. It sends a better message. That black Superman ain’t some fringe variation. No, actual proper Superman now is black. No ifs or buts.



I don’t think there’s a chance on hell russo’s direct. The script will definitely be cerebral and discuss the black experience. I dunno if Russo are qualified to tell a story like this.

I 100% the director will be black.

Tell that to Jerry and Joe. Wakanda doesn't exist either. So, should it be reworked as Whitecanya?

[JamesKurtovich]

Yawn.

[mojohand]

Originally Posted by Chedwiggen

I'm going to pass on this reboot, WB is clearly intent on making DC films one big epic disaster. Hope Cavill gets another franchise, maybe Bond.

Cavill would be an excellent Bond. They just need to steer clear of rubbish stories like and Spectre and make more Casino Royale and Skyfall...

[ArchiTech]

Originally Posted by slumcat

MOS - He's a depressed introvert who barely has lines in the movie. HIS movie.

BvS - Shafted to a supporting role, a humiliating loss to Batman and even dies.

JL theatrical - A cameo appearance basically, less screentime than Cyborg and Flash and Aquaman who are new characters.

I think you have a superficial interpretation of what depression is. The movie presents the struggle of an alien trying to figure out his role in a world that fears his very existence, which makes ‘Man’ of Steel more accurate than a title using Superman.

His sequel did get shared billing with DC’s prized cash cow Batman, but it also was simultaneously a way to fast track the world building of the DC Universe. Only the online dissent curbed a future meaty role for Superman in a sequel.

JL has yet to be seen, considering it was mostly reshot to alter the trajectory of the universe.

2 movies (could be considered 1&1/2). The last one being released in 2016. The director has since explained that Superman’s arc was being told through 5 films. We’ve never had that kind of progression for the character before. He’s always been presented outright as Superman vs his latest foe in episodic installments.

An unhindered version of Cavill’s Superman would’ve been an outsider rising into his role as rookie superhero, his untimely death, the rise of his super family with an imminent threat, the resurrection of his character, the proving of his worth, and finally establishing himself as the character we all recognize universally as the Superman.

I may not have had the 2 films meet my expectations for the character, but I recognize the value in telling the story in this way. It’s perfect for this generation of binge-watchers. It just hasn’t had it’s fair chance of presenting itself as a story, because most people never knew where it was going and believe we’ve had 3 movies already (the last being essentially a failure)- but we’ve actually only had *2. There is still more for Cavill to do.

*I’m not clear whether the studio interference occurred in the 2nd film enough to alter the director’s plans. Their interference obviously affected the runtime for its theatrical release.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by ArchiTech

I think you have a superficial interpretation of what depression is. The movie presents the struggle of an alien trying to figure out his role in a world that fears his very existence, which makes ‘Man’ of Steel more accurate than a title using Superman.

His sequel did get shared billing with DC’s prized cash cow Batman, but it also was simultaneously a way to fast track the world building of the DC Universe. Only the online dissent curbed a future meaty role for Superman in a sequel.

JL has yet to be seen, considering it was mostly reshot to alter the trajectory of the universe.

2 movies (could be considered 1&1/2). The last one being released in 2016. The director has since explained that Superman’s arc was being told through 5 films. We’ve never had that kind of progression for the character before. He’s always been presented outright as Superman vs his latest foe in episodic installments.

An unhindered version of Cavill’s Superman would’ve been an outsider rising into his role as rookie superhero, his untimely death, the rise of his super family with an imminent threat, the resurrection of his character, the proving of his worth, and finally establishing himself as the character we all recognize universally as the Superman.

I may not have had the 2 films meet my expectations for the character, but I recognize the value in telling the story in this way. It’s perfect for this generation of binge-watchers. It just hasn’t had it’s fair chance of presenting itself as a story, because most people never knew where it was going and believe we’ve had 3 movies already (the last being essentially a failure)- but we’ve actually only had *2. There is still more for Cavill to do.

*I’m not clear whether the studio interference occurred in the 2nd film enough to alter the director’s plans. Their interference obviously affected the runtime for its theatrical release.

I write scripts too recreationally, maybe some will be produced some day. I recently wrote a script with 20 characters with a big lead character and several characters were fully fleshed out. And it is the same length of MOS.

Which is to say, MOS had plenty of time in a single movie to develop the character and it did not.

Look at Superman 1978. Beautifully etched characterization. You get a fully formed version of not only Clark but also Superman. Look at Hemsworth in Thor 1, goes on a journey.

I never got that feeling with Cavill in MOS. I did not feel I knew him after MOS or even BvS.

You know who I thought was better developed? Wonder Woman in her solo movie. Again I felt I knew her by the end of the movie.

The writing and execution with Cavill's Superman just has been botched. I just don't think they have created a compelling version.

That is why nobody gave two shits when he died. I felt nothing.

I just think overall the characterization has been a complete failure and a do over might be the best course forward.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by slumcat

I Which is to say, MOS had plenty of time in a single movie to develop the character and it did not.

Hard disagree. He's developed just fine in Man of Steel. He goes from an unsure outsider alien who doesn't know his heritage, to discovering his heritage, to choosing his adopted home while instilling the core principles of his alien ancestry. That's a lot of character development. Is it the same character development of other Superman works? No. It is different. But it is not *absent*. Were they also planning to go further? Yes, they were, including arriving at the end to the classical fully formed heroic character, but this doesn't mean breaking down those steps to get there with more details is a lack of development.

I get that you don't like the movie because it doesn't get Superman to where you want him fast enough. However, many of us are interested in the angle and longer process of Journey of Snyder's approach. Hell, many people saw Smallville take 250 TV episodes to cover what Superman '78 does in an hour. Neither approach is incorrect. They're just different.