ZACK SNYDER ISN’T MIMICKING RICHARD DONNER

He may very well steer cleer of Donner's tone, but since they seem to be doing yet another fucking origin story for Supes, it's hard to think how original this is going to be.

Here's hoping Nolan brings the win WRT story here, as Snyder's not showing himself as someone who can deftly handle plotting and character development. His visual senses seem like a perfect match for this, but it's the story that's going to make or break this one.

see the origin aspect of this does not bother me as much as some. As long as their are big scaled super powered smack downs then I'll be happy.

 I'm not going to boycott this one in the way I will with Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man...

Bizarre. Webb's SPIDER-MAN seems like a much better bet than this, and I say that as someone who hates the notion of rebooting that franchise.

And *why* does everyone rate Gerard Butler so much?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

Bizarre. Webb's SPIDER-MAN seems like a much better bet than this, and I say that as someone who hates the notion of rebooting that franchise.

 

And *why* does everyone rate Gerard Butler so much?

Its more to do with drawing a line in the sand when they are rebooting a franchise that isnt even ten years old yet. Enough is enough. Also Webb has directed one fairly entertaining film with no action in it. Snyder is a master at action scenes, love the slo-mo or not they guy can craft a set piece. Plus no shaky cam, hence more excitement....

SUPERMAN has a franchise picture that isn't ten years old yet too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

SUPERMAN has a franchise picture that isn't ten years old yet too.

Yes but there was nothing wrong with Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies (except 3) but Bryan Singer's movie is generally agreed to be somewhat flawed. i would rather see then continue with the old Spider-Man cast even if Raimi was not involved, I liked the continuity and characters they built up. A reboot just seems so unecessary.

I'm not so sure Snyder is a master of action scenes. He paints a pretty picture that looks cool in the moment, but it's wrapped in so much artifice that you never feel any of it is really happening. 300 works fine because both the book and the comic are beefed up and sexed up, propagandist myth, but he brought Watchmen low which such highly choreographed wankery.

Removing Snyder from the equation, I, in theory, don't have all that much of a problem with another origin story. If you look at the advertising campaign for Superman Returns, it was such a poor decision to graft that film so closely to the Donner film as there was a whole generation of kids who didn't know about them and couldn't give a fuck. Superman was returning from what? They were required to communicate to people that this new film was effectively tethered to a series that had lost cultural inertia twenty-five years earlier. Nothing in that film felt new, just extended, and it failed to prove its own thesis: "Why does the world need Superman?"

The origin being revisited can be looked at as an opportunity to redefine Superman in the 21st Century, redefine his mission and to try to figure out what that character means today (fucking Smallville certainly isn't the way to do it). Will any of that happen? Well, I think the intention will probably be clear, but any sense of humanity will probably be drowned out by all of the superawesome jackmeoff visuals that Snyder trafficks in.

Also, if Sucker Punch doesn't catch, Snyder's already uphill battle will be that much steeper.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

I'm not so sure Snyder is a master of action scenes. He paints a pretty picture that looks cool in the moment, but it's wrapped in so much artifice that you never feel any of it is really happening. 300 works fine because both the book and the comic are beefed up and sexed up, propagandist myth, but he brought Watchmen low which such highly choreographed wankery.

 

 

I'd argue that the action, in and of itself, in WATCHMEN was executed really well - it was easy to follow, had energy and style, and wasn't boring. The problem is that the style and tone of the violenece seemed so antithetical to the (attempted) underlying ideas and themes (especially of the source material).

Based on WATCHMEN and 300 (and the trailers from SUCKER PUNCH), I've no problem conferring mastery of lensing action to Snyder. It's what undergirds that action that's worrisome.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

 

 

Also, if Sucker Punch doesn't catch, Snyder's already uphill battle will be that much steeper.

 

 

In terms of the studio wanking around with the in-process/finished Supes movie? I dunno. If they think SUCKER PUNCH is going to be another 300, they're more delusional than Charlie Sheen. And since he has the Supes gig already, I think he's relatively safe...for now. I think the performance of Snyder's Superman movie will have a lot more bearing on what happens after than the BO for SUCKER PUNCH.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

Bizarre. Webb's SPIDER-MAN seems like a much better bet than this, and I say that as someone who hates the notion of rebooting that franchise.

 

And *why* does everyone rate Gerard Butler so much?

Agreed, agreed and agreed. Gerard Butler has flushed any and all appeal down the toilet post-300. And even with that film, I didn't really get what all the fuss what about because it was too bombastic for me to appreciate.

Also, re: Snyder's action chops: my biggest problem is while his action and visual approach is undoubtedly "pretty" to look at, it *almost* never feels visceral to me. With the exception of the opening fight scene with The Comedian (which I have to admit was amazing), it all feels like way too much spectacle. I don't *feel* any of the blows because it's all so manufactured and over-stylized. When you speed-ramp or slow down a blow to that degree it's like, "eh, that doesn't look like it hurts."

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

I'd argue that the action, in and of itself, in WATCHMEN was executed really well - it was easy to follow, had energy and style, and wasn't boring. The problem is that the style and tone of the violenece seemed so antithetical to the (attempted) underlying ideas and themes (especially of the source material).

 

Snyder's action IS executed well in the sense that's shot and edited well but, like everything else he does, leaves me feeling completely detached. Action-scenes are supposed to be exhilirating but whereas a scene like Singer's opening for X2 makes me want to jump out of my seat, Snyder's stuff bores me to death.

I just want to see some super villain punch Superman through a building and out the other side in Snyder's patented slo-mo speed ramping.

Just close your eyes and imagine that for a moment.......

On Butler: He's a good actor, and charismatic, and he was good in RocknRolla, though I don't have a whole lot of love for that film. The problem is that he's trying to hit those four quadrants instead of just looking for good work, and his taste in projects is fucking terrible.*

I think Snyder chose well when he chose Butler for 300, and I wouldn't mind seeing him as Zod and it might be a nice change of pace seeing him as a villain. Mortensen is a more prestigious and more talented choice, but because he is more prestigious and more talented, I'd rather he'd do something else.

*Though I sometimes wonder if the reason to accept a role as the male lead in a Jennifer Aniston vehicle is less financial and more prurient. That's awful and sexist and based on nothing but rumor and innuendo, but I still kind of wonder...mainly because I would totally do that if I was an actor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeypants 

 

Also, re: Snyder's action chops: my biggest problem is while his action and visual approach is undoubtedly "pretty" to look at, it *almost* never feels visceral to me. With the exception of the opening fight scene with The Comedian (which I have to admit was amazing), it all feels like way too much spectacle.

I love the Comedian fight at the start of WATCHMEN, but even then the way Snyder pauses the whole fucking thing and focuses in on Comedian's "it's all a big joke" line like it's this amazingly important bit of dialogue, drives me batty. That right there crystallises my problem with Snyder's film-making - no subtlety, a shallow grasp of theme and a lack of understanding of the mechanics of adapting pre-existing work of different mediums.

Evi and Joeypants - is the lack of emotional impact in the action a fault of how it's shot, or of the underlying story? I'd argue that it's mostly the latter. If you clip any action sequence from any film, you're going to lose a lot of the intended visceral effect (not all - I agree that the "how" can and does influence the emotional heft of action sequences); without knowing what's at stake and without knowing what the consequences of the action are, it's hard to be invested.

I'm not worried about how Snyder's Superman action sequences will look; I'm wondering, along with you, how they'll feel based on the story in which they're set.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

I love the Comedian fight at the start of WATCHMEN, but even then the way Snyder pauses the whole fucking thing and focuses in on Comedian's "it's all a big joke" line like it's this amazingly important bit of dialogue, drives me batty. That right there crystallises my problem with Snyder's film-making - no subtlety, a shallow grasp of theme and a lack of understanding of the mechanics of adapting pre-existing work of different mediums.

Exactly. You nailed the aspect of that fight that I DON'T like. I just meant that I enjoyed that one scene and found it effective from an action-photography/choreography standpoint.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

Evi and Joeypants - is the lack of emotional impact in the action a fault of how it's shot, or of the underlying story? I'd argue that it's mostly the latter. If you clip any action sequence from any film, you're going to lose a lot of the intended visceral effect (not all - I agree that the "how" can and does influence the emotional heft of action sequences); without knowing what's at stake and without knowing what the consequences of the action are, it's hard to be invested.

 

I'm not worried about how Snyder's Superman action sequences will look; I'm wondering, along with you, how they'll feel based on the story in which they're set.

Well, it's both. Sure, I'd care more if I gave a shit about the characters in his films. But regardless of whether I did or I didn't, I still wouldn't feel anything watching most of his fight scenes. Talk shit about Nolan's action directing all you want, but I feel something when I watch those. I wince when Batman is beating the shit out of the Joker in that interrogation scene.

Does anyone here feel an emotional connection with shaky cam action scenes? Or do you just turn away and check out? I'm just wondering because in Watchmen i found that in the final confrontation between Nite Owl, Rorschach and Ozymandias my blood was a pumping. Likewise in the confrontation between Nite Owl, Silk Spectre and the knot top punks in the alleyway. It felt to me like there was emotion and story running underneath these scenes, plus they were shot in a way that thrilled and didnt make me feel sick. I sometimes feels like Ive been watching a different movie when it comes to Watchmen, I can't understand a lot of the negativity...

if I'm watching a Paul Greengrass or Tony Scott movie, yeah I appreciate their skill with getting good performances from actors and yeah their screenplays are generally quite well written. As soon as shit kicks off though and the camera starts moving like a six year old who has had red mountain dew and has epilepsy, I tune out because I prefer to see what is going on rather than get a vague impression.

Of the two approaches I know which I prefer...

Lloyd - for me, good shaky-cam is a lot more visceral and affecting than slo-mo exaggeration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

Lloyd - for me, good shaky-cam is a lot more visceral and affecting than slo-mo exaggeration.

Different strokes for different folks I guess, i remember the days when John Woo was seen as revolutionary...I guess I never got over the early 90's.
 

Snyder's use of the word 'presupposes' gave me flashes of Owen Wilson in a cowboy hat talking about Custer at Little Bighorn.

I have it on good authority that Zack Snyder has indeed always wanted to be a Tenenbaum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lloyd Dobler 

Does anyone here feel an emotional connection with shaky cam action scenes? Or do you just turn away and check out? I'm just wondering because in Watchmen i found that in the final confrontation between Nite Owl, Rorschach and Ozymandias my blood was a pumping. Likewise in the confrontation between Nite Owl, Silk Spectre and the knot top punks in the alleyway. It felt to me like there was emotion and story running underneath these scenes, plus they were shot in a way that thrilled and didnt make me feel sick. I sometimes feels like Ive been watching a different movie when it comes to Watchmen, I can't understand a lot of the negativity...

 

if I'm watching a Paul Greengrass or Tony Scott movie, yeah I appreciate their skill with getting good performances from actors and yeah their screenplays are generally quite well written. As soon as shit kicks off though and the camera starts moving like a six year old who has had red mountain dew and has epilepsy, I tune out because I prefer to see what is going on rather than get a vague impression.

 

Of the two approaches I know which I prefer...

Paul Greengrass is a better director than Tony Scott. Period. Look at the emotional content of his action sequences. He's interested in leading the audience through a subjective experience, that is very easy to understand if not always visually comfortable to experience. Tony Scott is interested in causing epileptic fits. If you've never taken speed on top of being drunker than shit, you've probably never experienced the world as Tony Scott shoots it. 

The problem with the fights in Watchmen is that are not contextually appropriate. Virtually no (normal) character in that film does anything a human can physically do, Silk Spectre and Nite Owl outright fucking murder people in that alley fight and you just know that Snyder gave not a second thought to how that completely messes up those characters, he just thought it looked cool, and on and on. Imagine if you were watching Die Hard, and at some point John McClane got a hold of some circular saw blades and started pitching them at Karl all Commando style. Imagine how jarring that would be and how it wouldn't agree with anything you'd seen in the film up until that point. Snyder strikes me as the kind of filmmaker that would do that shit and not even blink.

I thought the point of that scene though was to show that the violence re-ignited something in the two of them which is why they both give each other that look at the end as they catch their breath. For me the excessive violence of the scene is appropriate because it was something that needed to happen to give the characters their mojo back. So I dont see how it messed up those characters. Also going back to a real world scenario, I cant recall specific injuries in that scene but I'm fairly certain a (exceptional)  human being is capable of inflicting that kind of damage no?  I'm not saying Superman should be punching holes through peoples heads because hey its Superman, but for me the level of violence and stylization seemed appropriate in Watchmen considering the real world version of superhero's they were portraying...
 

Double post, whoops

triple post, sorry

Them giving in to their violent tendencies isn't supposed to be positive or cool, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

Them giving in to their violent tendencies isn't supposed to be positive or cool, though.

so you must just hate the movie then?

@jacknife

The difference being that Die Hard is supposed to feel real, authentic, believable from the get-go. The special appeal of McClane is the fact that he's like us, a normal guy in an unsual situation. Same goes for Damon in Green Zone and the Bourne flicks.

300 and Watchmen aren't supposed to feel like that. At all, and you can't criticise him for that. You'd need to strip Watchmen of the bright colors, the super powers and the stylized dialogues, then it'd feel similar. Just reducing slow-motion and adding camera dynamic doesn't make the tone feel different. Especially the Vietnam scene. It's never intended to hit hard, to crush you. It's not that he failed at creating a really dark tragedy moment that otherwise may have stuck with you.

And Supes? Do high rise pulverizing fight scenes between super beings from space need to have a believable Superman? I think there was enough moping in the last one. This one ought to be fun. Fun, spectacle, wowing, with lots of money shots. Thrilling, maybe, but not overly emotional, dramatic or gritty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lloyd Dobler 

I thought the point of that scene though was to show that the violence re-ignited something in the two of them which is why they both give each other that look at the end as they catch their breath. For me the excessive violence of the scene is appropriate because it was something that needed to happen to give the characters their mojo back. So I dont see how it messed up those characters. Also going back to a real world scenario, I cant recall specific injuries in that scene but I'm fairly certain a (exceptional)  human being is capable of inflicting that kind of damage no?  I'm not saying Superman should be punching holes through peoples heads because hey its Superman, but for me the level of violence and stylization seemed appropriate in Watchmen considering the real world version of superhero's they were portraying...
 

 

That moment is in the book and they didn't need to kill anyone to have it. The fact that they do murder some of the thugs tears down the barrier between them and someone like Rorschach, and it doesn't even do it for thematic reasons. Also, there's at least one instance of a superkick across the alley and into a wall, so no, you can't do that in real life.

@Chris Meyers

Oh, I believe I can criticize Watchmen for that, because the highly stylized, non-reality of everything that's going on is part of the problem. And the Vietnam scene as well as many other scenes in Watchmen are absolutely *supposed* to hit you hard, the problem is that delivering genuine human drama is not one of Snyder's strengths.

Snyder can do no wrong by me. I'm also confused by the outcries of "not another origin film". I'm pretty well versed on Superman movies and there is but only one that I know of.. right? Sure there are animated stuff but none of that was mainstream.

I'm looking forward to this.

Fully agree with Jacknife about Dan and Laurie's 'reinvigorating' fight scene.  Sure, it looked cool, but it felt so utterly wrong for the characters and the movie.  And this is coming from someone who liked Watchmen enough at the time to see it 3 times in theaters.  I've cooled on it a lot since then, but that scene never felt right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke 

Snyder can do no wrong by me. I'm also confused by the outcries of "not another origin film". I'm pretty well versed on Superman movies and there is but only one that I know of.. right? Sure there are animated stuff but none of that was mainstream.

 

I'm looking forward to this.

The complaint, as I've gathered, is that it's Superman and everyone knows that story so why run through it again?. As I mentioned above, I don't completely agree that it isn't worth revisiting on some level, but I also understand why people aren't digging it.

Can I just say that I really, REALLY hated that fight at the end of Watchmen? The one with Nite Owl, Rorschach and Ozymandias jumping around like cartoon characters? I hate to be all "the book did this better" broken record, but look at the casual way Ozymandias dispatches Nite Owl and Rorschach with silverware and proceeds to calmly explain his plan to them. If Snyder felt like he needed a big three-way fight, then he was catering to the wrong audience. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syd 

Can I just say that I really, REALLY hated that fight at the end of Watchmen? The one with Nite Owl, Rorschach and Ozymandias jumping around like cartoon characters? I hate to be all "the book did this better" broken record, but look at the casual way Ozymandias dispatches Nite Owl and Rorschach with silverware and proceeds to calmly explain his plan to them. If Snyder felt like he needed a big three-way fight, then he was catering to the wrong audience. 

 

 

That fight is pretty much objectively bad. It's a shitty action/fight scene and it's a horrible disgrace to the book in my opinion.
 

Snyder creates compelling dioramas of his action sequences. But they aren't, in essence, action sequences. They never feel like they are advancing the plot or the story, they're PURELY decorative. If we're lucky, the best we'll get out of this Superman movie is a film filled with iconic poses, epic fight concepts and some visually intriguing stuff. Essentially exactly what you already get from the comics, because Snyder is visualist, but he ain't no storyteller.

Snyder has the potential to create some stunning action sequences when he's in the right element.  For example, the Comedian's death in Watchmen was so visceral, thrilling and perversely beautiful, and the deleted scene of Nite Owl I's death had much the same feeling.  In addition, he has managed to wring some emotion out of his scenes before:  Rorschach's final conversation with Dr. Manhattan was beautifully directed, with a very nice visual touch at the end in the snow (of Snyder's own design) that made me tear up just a little.

Funnily enough, though, Nolan's involvement doesn't make me anticipate that good of a story.  He's a better storyteller than Snyder to be sure, but I've always thought that too many of his plots are bloated, unnecessarily convinced of their own profundity and slight in areas where they are not too excessive.  In terms of action, The Dark Knight had its moments but certain scenes, such as the final confrontation, were incredibly uninspired, and Inception was entirely a mixed bag that was redeemed solely by its hallway sequence.  And I must be one of the lone contrarians who found Inception to be intriguing in concept but dull in execution with its characters especially.

Even though, Bryan Singer...Tried, and spectacularly failed to mimic Richard Donner's Superman, the even worse scenes had Kal-El as a...SuperStalker, checking in on his former love and asthmatic SuperSon!  The Donner Superman was fun, and whimsical. Donner's Man Of Steel fought...Lex Luthor, in his secret base below Grand Central Station!  When Richard Lester took over from Donner in Superman II, Superman fought...3 EEEEEEEEEEvil Kryptonians who possessed similar powers to he.  Also in Superman 2, there was that...Awe-Inspiring fight in NYC right near the Daily Planet (the Daily News Building 42nd St between 2nd and 3rd ave)!  Lois and Clark, The New Adventures Of Superman had...Better fight scenes, a...Much Better Lois in Teri Hatcher, a better Clark Kent/Superman in Dean Cain, a better Perry White in Lane Smith etc, Than Singer's Superman!  I think Zack Snyder will hit...Superman The Man Of Steel out of the park!  I...Love Watchmen!  A Superhero/Mystery to excite the senses.  Watchmen is my...Favorite Superhero film, at least until...The Avengers Assemble!

Inception redeemed by the hallway sequence? Thats just crazy talk. Goyer's idea for Superman hopefully is a great one (Nolan sure seemed to think so).

I have some big advice for Warner's let Bruce Timm add a polish to this film. If I was Snyder i'd have Timm and Nolan on speed dial.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

The complaint, as I've gathered, is that it's Superman and everyone knows that story so why run through it again?. As I mentioned above, I don't completely agree that it isn't worth revisiting on some level, but I also understand why people aren't digging it.

 

Everyone, as in man-children and comic geeks (which I suppose I fall into). Or people old enough to have seen the Donner films. Mainstream youth today probably know more about *insert anime/videogame character HERE* 's origin than they do Supes'. I don't mind a retelling, as long as it doesn't take up the entirety of Act 1. As a symbol, he's recognizable, but character history...? I doubt any recent JLA cartoon dwells on his background. The New Batman/Superman Adventures last aired in 2000 (11 years ago!). SUPES RETURNS (which I'd argue wasn't all that kid-friendly or "cool") is already 5 years old, and didn't get into the origin all that much.

Supes (beyond an occasional DTV flick) doesn't have the youth awareness he once did, unless their parents are particularly nostalgic. As far as comic characters go... Spidey, Bats, Iron Man, Wolvie, and Hulk are the ones with toys still on shelves in varying degrees.
 

I don't know why people are discussing Nolan at this point. He did his pass on the script, selected a director, and that's it. He's not going to have anything to do with this film beyond that. As far as everyone knowing the origin of Superman? I'm pretty confident most people know that Superman is from a doomed planet, that he was raised by human parents, and that his secret identity is Clark Kent. Then of course, for the younger generation, there's Smallville, which contains all of the basics and fills in the blanks with a whole lot of terrible. I'd wager that the general populace knows at least the very, very basics of Superman. Whether it's worth revisiting is all about what the script brings to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

I don't know why people are discussing Nolan at this point. He did his pass on the script, selected a director, and that's it. He's not going to have anything to do with this film beyond that.

It sucks, but it's true. They been pretty explicit that Nolan really has already done his part.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 
Then of course, for the younger generation, there's Smallville, which contains all of the basics and fills in the blanks with a whole lot of terrible.

Do kids (the ones that are going to need to be targeted to bring in the BO #s on this new one) watch that show? I don't know any that do. Teens to adults maybe.

The new Supes has to be 4 quadrants to be successful and hopefully kickstart a franchise (instead of just another reboot). The young'uns are going to have to get a taste of  Superman's origins in this for it to work for them. Mark my words.

I'm gonna come right out and say it- I think this will fucking rock.

I love the fact Snyder is making it his own thing, its like a different run in the comics. It wont diminish Donner's original and it may just be a good film in its own right.

Certainly with the casting it seems to be going to a new place.

My only worry is rehashing the origin story. We are all so familiar with it get it over and done with quick a la The incredible hulk. Start the film for real with a scene on the farm with Costner's Pa Kent imparting some homespun wisdom onto a 18 year old supes- just about to head off for the bright lights of metropolis

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

As far as everyone knowing the origin of Superman? I'm pretty confident most people know that Superman is from a doomed planet, that he was raised by human parents, and that his secret identity is Clark Kent.

I'd wager lower.  I would say that most people really could only tell you that............A).  Superman is invincible and can fly.  B).  Only Kryptonite can stop him.  C).  That his alias is Clark Kent and he wears glasses.  D).  They can probably name Lex Luthor and Louis Lane.

If you polled the under-20 age group, that is probably everything that most could tell you.  Think about it.  Most people that watch/watched Smallville and/or the animated series (and movies) are in their late-20s to early-30s right now........in addition to the comic fans.  We are the element that keep those things going, not newcomers.  While I am sure they hope they attract new fans with them, the core group of people buying and renting those new DTV films are fans.  Superman Returns most likely made most of its money off of our age group and older.  It didn't bust the box office because it didn't nab the younger set as well.  Most people I know younger than me (and quite a few the same age) find Superman boring.  They usually single out him being too invulnerable as one of the core reasons.  Another, I suspect, is the fact that most have really only seen him face normal human opponents where their is no risk to Supes outside of "his rock allergy" (as I have heard some put it).  Superman is considered outdated by a lot of the younger crowd.  That's why Returns didn't rake in the dough.  It relied, for better or worse, way too much on the viewer having seen the original films and having a decent knowledge of Superman lore.

Are fans tiring of the Superman origin?  Of course.  But is everyone else?  Doubtful.  Outside of television, Superman's origin hasn't truly been told in cinematic for since 1978.  That will have been 44 years ago by the time Snyder's film comes out.  I'm not suggesting that audiences should be given the long version of the story (ala Donner's film), but it should certainly be touched upon.  Doubly so with the inclusion of General Zod & co.  They will need to set up Krypton, the family conflict with Zod, the circumstances of Clark's arrival on Earth, and his adoption.  We don't really need to be shown his Smallville years, as his interactions with his now older parents (Costner & Lane) can easily convey their relationship and the type of Earthbound environment that he was raised in.  If I had to guess, any info dealing with Krypton will be dispensed by Jor-El's image or by Zod himself.................outside of any prologue they might do.  I'm just glad that Snyder was nice enough to let us know that they are not being hindered whatsoever by rights and lawsuits when it comes to storytelling.  Makes sense though, as the creators' estates would stand to make a whole lot more money if they gave WB free reign to make a good movie.

Long story short?  We don't need to worry about an origin rehash.  At least not in my opinion.  What we would need to worry about is if they were planning on going with a villain without superpowers.  For better or worse, audiences don't want to see a super-powered hero battling powerless villains.  Equal terms is what they are looking for.  Batman and Iron Man can get away with taking down crime bosses and terrorists because they are normal people who are either highly trained or have the technology to do so.  No one wants to see Spider-Man or Superman doing it though, at least not if they are the main villains of the piece. 

Do you know how many people I heard during and after SR showings make comments along the lines of "why doesn't he just fly Luthor to the cops" or "why doesn't he just chuck his ass into space and be done with it"?  A LOT!  Are these comments stupid?  Of course they are.  That is what they are up against when bringing Superman to a new generation though.  If they give Supes a challenging villain, they can get away with a lot of depth in the character development and storytelling....................................just so long as he still punches people through buildings from time to time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

 

Do you know how many people I heard during and after SR showings make comments along the lines of "why doesn't he just fly Luthor to the cops" or "why doesn't he just chuck his ass into space and be done with it"?  A LOT!  Are these comments stupid?  Of course they are.  That is what they are up against when bringing Superman to a new generation though.  If they give Supes a challenging villain, they can get away with a lot of depth in the character development and storytelling...just so long as he still punches people through buildings from time to time.

Exactly. I hope Zack finds balance here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

Another, I suspect, is the fact that most have really only seen him face normal human opponents where their is no risk to Supes outside of "his rock allergy" (as I have heard some put it).  

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

 

Are fans tiring of the Superman origin?  Of course.  But is everyone else?  Doubtful.  Outside of television, Superman's origin hasn't truly been told in cinematic for since 1978.  That will have been 44 years ago by the time Snyder's film comes out. 

34 years!  But that doesn't really change the solid point you're making.

It's not just retelling Superman's origin, though. It's the utterly bankrupt onscreen rendering of ANY superhero's origin. The origin story has been done to death, across the board.

Though I understand apprehension about revisiting the origin of a character most are well acquainted with, the idea that's out there among some of you guys that origin stories should be done away with full stop, strikes me as kind of ridiculous. A lot of characters from the Golden Age didn't really have origins, or if they did, they were just sort of sketched in (Krypton was damn near an afterthought up until the 50's) , but virtually all of the survivors of that era, the strongest characters, have origins that provide motivation along with explanation.

If the thought is that it's all tired, Campbellian regurgitation, I get that, but that's more to do with repetitive structure than anything intrinsically offensive about understanding where a character comes from and what makes them tick.