You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Who would you like to Direct Superman?

Posted: Fri, 24th Sep 2010, 10:22pm

Post 1 of 45

Joecool1081

Force: 460 | Joined: 7th Oct 2006 | Posts: 221

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

Christopher Nolan and Emma Thomas have started interviewing directors for the upcoming Superman reboot, reports Deadline.

These are some of the directors on the Rumored list.

Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code)

Jonathan Liebesman (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning,
Battle: Los Angeles and just-signed for Clash of the Titans 2)

Matt Reeves (Cloverfield, Let Me In)

Tony Scott (True Romance, Unstoppable)

Zack Snyder (Watchmen, 300).

Post your answer and why you want them to Direct
Also if none of these directors are ones you would want then you can put another name and why you chose them instead
Posted: Sat, 25th Sep 2010, 1:57am

Post 2 of 45

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Jonathon Nolan or David Goyer.

Because it's going to happen, inevitably.
Posted: Sat, 25th Sep 2010, 4:40am

Post 3 of 45

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Superman is the most uninteresting comic book hero created so far - I just don't see the point in rebooting him again.

But if they have to do it, I'd love to see Clint Eastwood doing it. If just to see WHAT he does. smile
Posted: Sat, 25th Sep 2010, 5:42am

Post 4 of 45

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Instead of rebooting the same old story again, they should do Red Son, with Zack Snyder directing.

OR, do the same old superman, but let Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach have it. I honestly think that Anderson could make superman relevant again, and I'd love to see him try. smile

Either way, it needs a drastic change.
Posted: Sat, 25th Sep 2010, 12:26pm

Post 5 of 45

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

I want Snyder or Brad Bird.

Here's how to make Superman interesting:

- No kryptonite
- No Luthor
- No mention of Krypton
- Limited amount of whining about Lois Lane

- Villain who is powerful enough to fight Superman physically so we can have a Spider-man 2/X2/Transformers/Iron Man/Hulk showdown between Superman and the villain on equal ground where mere mortals are useless and they smash half Metropolis in the fight, fly up to stratosphere and keep on fighting etc. Just make the last of Spider-man 2 look small and boring.

- Convince the audience that Superman doesn't have this one in the bag because the villain actually has half a brain (not some complete bullshit plan like Luthor had in Superman Returns).

- Minimal use of the character Clark Kent (and drama surrounding him). Make his part of the story only an excuse to make us care about whether Superman lives or dies in the final fight. Peter Parker is in high school. He has big problems making ends meet, still Spider-man's troubles usually takes front-row seats in the films. Superman has even more power, therefore even more responsibility.

- Think Star Trek 2009. Take everything that exists in the Superman universe and twist it to ensure maximum adventure/popcorn movie effect.


Reasons Bryan Singer's film failed as a pop-corn film:

- The coolest action set-piece was before the middle of the film.
- No epic battle at the end.
- Completely asinine villain-plan.
- Re-boot instead of re-make (I did not think the whole premise of the film was explored very well). The idea was that Superman left and that the world and Lois Lane moved on and that SPOILER!!!! Lane has Superman's child. It was a decently told story, but you can't just use your story, you have to exploit it, and by that I mean squeeze every conceivable action scene, heartfelt moment, character arc you can out of it. Superman Returns was like a bad episode of a good TV-series. It had no proper start and no proper end. Superman was old enough for a 2000s VFX makeover/remake. Think Star Trek and Batman Begins. They had way younger predecessors, and those films exploited superior VFX and storytelling techniques of today to wipe the floor with their predecessors. Why did Singer want to be so respectful of Donner's work (it's very outdated, sorry fan-boys)? Nolan wasn't going to be bogged down by Burton's 15 year old work (heck Nolan threw a lot of the classic Batman goofiness from the source material out the window). Just saying.

Superman has never had a "Batman Begins". I think there is a great film in there no matter how "un-interesting" people keep telling me Superman is. That just leaves room for a really interesting villain.
Posted: Sat, 25th Sep 2010, 12:31pm

Post 6 of 45

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Think Star Trek... to wipe the floor with their predecessors.
Ah, the innocence of youth...
Posted: Sat, 25th Sep 2010, 3:06pm

Post 7 of 45

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Staff Only wrote:

Think Star Trek and Batman Begins. They had way younger predecessors, and those films exploited superior VFX and storytelling techniques of today to wipe the floor with their predecessors.
Superior storytelling techniques? As much as I love the new Star Trek... I don't see how it employs "superior" storytelling than it's predecessors... many of which had much stronger stories.
Posted: Sat, 25th Sep 2010, 5:34pm

Post 8 of 45

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

I knew that would happen. No I don't mean Abrams "won" over TOS or TNG. I have seen all the episodes multiple times and if a TNG re-run is on I still drop what I'm doing to watch (often for the 5th or 6th time). I became a TNG-fan when I was 5 years old (yes, seriously I was the only one in my kindergarten. I was a nerd before I could write properly).

Abrams wiped the floor with all the recent Star Trek theatrical films. Now you can scream Wrath of Khan all you want, but Generations, Nemesis etc. failed. Star Trek did not.
Posted: Sat, 25th Sep 2010, 5:57pm

Post 9 of 45

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Abrams wiped the floor with all the recent Star Trek theatrical films.
The only Star Trek film worse then the 11th one was "The final frontier" for me. Nemesis and Generations are about on the same level as the new one as far as I'm concerned. But Abrams Version doesn't stand a chance to First Contact and Undiscovered Country (my favorite ones of the theatrical films).

I know they weren't nearly as big box office hits, but then again, that isn't necessarily corelating with a films quality - especially storytelling wise. It mostly just means the film is for the masses.

And I give Star Trek XI that, always did: It's much more for the masses with it's flashy explosions, rather charmless crew (save Karl Urban, who was fantastic) and pretty lens flares. wink
Posted: Sat, 25th Sep 2010, 6:00pm

Post 10 of 45

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Staff Only wrote:


Abrams wiped the floor with all the recent Star Trek theatrical films. Now you can scream Wrath of Khan all you want, but Generations, Nemesis etc. failed. Star Trek did not.
Okay, I'll give you that. Out of the eleven films, only six (including Abrams') are any good. And with the exception of First Contact, the Next Generation films are quite bad.

And as for Superman... I've just never found him as interesting as other superheroes. I just don't think the quality of the whole Superman "concept" or "world" compares to the rest of the superheroes out there. Batman, Spiderman, and just about any other superhero I can think of are all just stronger, more interesting characters.
Posted: Sun, 26th Sep 2010, 1:15pm

Post 11 of 45

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Micheal Bay. After years of lame and boring superman movies, I need someone to just blow stuff up, have great action scenes, and childlish humor.

In order words, I don't really care anymore about the 'story' or Superman. I've seen enough Smallville to know what I need to know. The only thing Smallville can't do is big budget epic fights, and I only know of one director who can make EVERYTHING epic.

So forget lame character drama about Clark Kent being an idiot whom Lois couldn't care less about, and have EPICNESS (and plenty of US Army product placement!)
Posted: Sun, 26th Sep 2010, 1:54pm

Post 12 of 45

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

RodyPolis wrote:

(and plenty of US Army product placement!)
I'm sorry, but that alone would mark the end of Superman like Schumacher's Batman and Robin to Batman.
Posted: Sun, 26th Sep 2010, 4:38pm

Post 13 of 45

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Well realistically if you think about it, if there was big threat to the Planet, the US Army (and any other army for that matters) would be getting involved. Just picture the slow motion shots of soldiers getting into jets, and the helicopter flying in front of the sunset!

One thing I liked about the Transformers movies is the fact that they didn't just have the helpless humans stand by and let the Autobots protect them. So really, Superman or not, I think it would be best to include a storyline about humans doing stuff to. And if Micheal Bay did direct it, we all know those 'humans' would be the US army.
Posted: Sun, 26th Sep 2010, 4:44pm

Post 14 of 45

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

RodyPolis wrote:

One thing I liked about the Transformers movies is the fact that they didn't just have the helpless humans stand by and let the Autobots protect them.
Wow, that was the one thing I hated about the first Transformers film (don't get me started on the second one). I'm in love with this trope so that explains it. Superman (and Transformers source material for that matter) is all about that trope. Having pro-military propaganda in a Superman film would almost be even more nuking the fridge than having the US Army show up at the end of The Hobbit.

I would agree with you to having the army in a Superman movie if they showed up, did everything they could and got defeated in a scene like this. (Fun fact: before I actually saw any of the King Kong films and only knew about the Empire State scene from popular culture I just assumed that Kong defeated all the planes, defeated all of New York and went into the sunset. Puny humans? No problemo.)
Posted: Sun, 26th Sep 2010, 9:40pm

Post 15 of 45

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Ya that's the difference between you and I. They have to show that humans defending the planet.

A lot of people say they wish the TF films didn't have human main characters...I don't think they really mean it. If it's an animated movie then anything is acceptable (look at that new movie with the Owls. Seriously? Owls?), but a live action movie with no humans???

Anyways, back to Superman. I'd still like to see a military involvement in the movie.
Posted: Sun, 26th Sep 2010, 9:46pm

Post 16 of 45

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I want to see Superman against Darkseid. He's a bad*ss in the cartoon, so a live-action Darkseid vs Superman battle, smashing buildings all over the place, would be freaking awesome. He could have an army to fight the military, which would ensure that the movie wasn't 80 minutes of talking and 10 minutes for the final punch-up at the end. Large-scale Superman combat? Yes please.
Posted: Sun, 26th Sep 2010, 9:53pm

Post 17 of 45

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

RodyPolis wrote:

(look at that new movie with the Owls. Seriously? Owls?)
Your point? I'm really looking forward to that because of two words: Zack Snyder. Then there's the fact that Toy Story 3 looks like it was made in 1999 compared to the animation in Legend of the Guardians (I'm not saying Pixar couldn't easily have made flashy borderline photoreal over-the-top CGI if they wanted, but I think flashy borderline photoreal over-the-top CGI is BAD ASS.)

Anyway, yeah: back to Superman.

Terminal Velocity wrote:

Large-scale Superman combat? Yes please.
My point exactly! It's a no-brainer. It was insane that in 2006 Singer thought Lex Luthor and a 2-hour homage to Donner was in any way appropriate for a Superman re-boot (which should have been a Batman Begins style re-make). As Empire put it at the time: "We needed more Man of Steel and less Danielle Steel."
Posted: Sun, 26th Sep 2010, 10:26pm

Post 18 of 45

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

No disrespect, but seriously, how can anyone watch the trailer for the Owl film and not think it looks like one of the stupidest (though potentially extremely funny for that very reason) animated films EVER created. I am literally not exaggerating my opinion, because other bad animated films don't usually take themselves all that seriously, or they aren't this...embarassing. I don't care how much they paid the artists to create cool looking 3D rain, emotion fueled, owl aerials. I'm sure the kids will love it though, and it's for them, so that's all good. I love the trailer though, always makes me lol.


Also, Pixar's artistry in Toy Story 3 is hard to compare to a 3D fantasy-style film more akin to Land Before Time. It's got it's own style, which frankly impresses me much more than anything I've seen from the owls.

I agree with Rody, not in the director choice, but in the direction they should take Superman. Let's go back to the over-the-top propagandaish Superman, for the sake of being classic. I think a good writer and director could really put a cool spin on that concept. Go back to the comic roots. Superman is pretty boring otherwise.

Last edited Sun, 26th Sep 2010, 10:30pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 26th Sep 2010, 10:29pm

Post 19 of 45

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I'd definitely like to see Zach Snyder on this, and for the movie to talk more about Superman's godlike status and how that aligns him with the rest of the world. Give him massive battles against entire armies and whatnot, stuff that we haven't seen before, and make it super-stylized with cold war-era themes.

Superman stuff thus far seem to only have focused on his weaknesses. Focus on his STRENGTHS!
Posted: Mon, 27th Sep 2010, 12:03am

Post 20 of 45

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Staff Only, my point about the Owl movie is that if it's animated, people won't care as much what the characters are (whether they are toys, cars, bugs, bees, or freakin Owls), but spending good money on making a live action Alien Robot movie with no humans would just be dumb. That was the point I was making about Transformers fanboys who wanted the movie to be set on Cybertron.

And ya, when I first saw the trailer for the Owl movie, I thought "WTF, THEY'RE OWLS!!!!" My mind just wasn't ready for that smile
Posted: Mon, 27th Sep 2010, 12:31am

Post 21 of 45

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Come to think of it, none of the live-action Superman movies let him just "cut loose", as he says in the cartoon. Even against villains of his own caliber, he pulls his punches. It's time to see him being stronger than a locomotive, instead of just taking people's word for it. Heck, you could even rip off the "world of cardboard" speech from the cartoon. Just some bone-smashing, asteroid-tossing, completely ridiculous Superman fun.
Posted: Mon, 27th Sep 2010, 3:43am

Post 22 of 45

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Staff Only, you obviously weren't paying very close attention during Toy Story 3 if you think it looks like it was made in '99... That film was one of the best looking Pixar has ever done.

And yeah, the owl movie looks absolutely terrible.
Posted: Mon, 27th Sep 2010, 7:26am

Post 23 of 45

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Saw the Tomatometer for Legend of the Guardians. Forget everything I said about it. I'm not looking forward to it anymore. razz I get that the trailer sucked, but what I don't get it why there seems to be anything wrong with owls. Why are; rats, cars, squirrels, penguins, lions etc. fine, but owls wrong? Just curious.

Anyway, Superman cutting loose is exactly what I want. Pooky said it best:

"Superman stuff thus far seem to only have focused on his weaknesses. Focus on his STRENGTHS!"


I'm going to use that next time someone disses Superman in real life, Pooky. smile Thanks.
Posted: Mon, 27th Sep 2010, 9:49am

Post 24 of 45

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

I actually think that action in Superman is probably the least interesting aspect, and the reason lots of people find the character boring: when you have a character that superpowered, nothing is a credible threat, which is why you need to insert either tertiary characters to be in peril (hi, Lois) or plot devices (kryptonite).

Where the potential in the Superman character really lies is with his allegiances, in how he interacts with the rest of the world. The simple fact of Superman living in America is a HUGE thing. Would it stabilise or destabilise the world? What does it mean to have a god-like alien on your side?

This, of course, is what Dr Manhattan is about in Watchmen. Except in that case he truly is disconnected and god-like, above the petty concerns of humanity. With Superman, he's very invested in humans, for some reason, so it's quite different.

This is why the Red Son comic is so fascinating: its main idea is "what if Superman's spaceship had crash-landed in Soviet Russia instead of the American mid-west?"

It's also why the comics in which Batman and Superman both feature are interesting, as you see the direct clash of their ideologies: vigilante sociopath versus patriotic, unquestioning hero.

A Superman movie that is about supervillains or evil plots and big action will always be a bit dull, I think - at that scale, action loses any meaning or emotional investment.

I think people that consider Superman to be boring are presumably people that haven't read the classic comics, and have only encountered him through the derivative movies/TV shows/etc.

Basically, Superman is at his most interesting when the stories are political. It'll be interesting to see is Nolan and chums have the balls to go in that direction.
Posted: Tue, 28th Sep 2010, 11:51pm

Post 25 of 45

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

when you have a character that superpowered, nothing is a credible threat
Unless you have an equally superpowered character against him. Such as...
Personally I think this fight scene is pretty cool, and could be even better if it were live-action and a bit more credible.

EDIT: Maybe he knows kung fu.
Posted: Wed, 29th Sep 2010, 8:18am

Post 26 of 45

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Possibly, but then it could just end up as a VFX-fest with no actual emotional or story investment, like the Neo-Smith fight at the end of Matrix 3.
Posted: Wed, 29th Sep 2010, 4:02pm

Post 27 of 45

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Possibly, but then it could just end up as a VFX-fest with no actual emotional or story investment, like the Neo-Smith fight at the end of Matrix 3.
Sure if you're not good at your job as storyteller/fight choreographer. The most epic/badass fight I've seen is Aang vs. The Firelord in the finale of Avatar: The Last Airbender. The problem with Neo vs. Smith was the same as with Obi Wan vs. Anakin:

- They couldn't harm each other/they were exactly equal
- The fight got slower and slower as time went on (Try watching the part of the Neo/Smith fight after Smith knocks Neo out of the sky, it's slow and boring. Same with Anakin/Obi-Wan; right after part of the mining thing breaks off the whole fight becomes boring and the choreography slow and repetitive.)
- We didn't really feel like any of the people fighting were in any real danger of dieing during the fight itself. Of course in both fights one part eventually looses/gets hurt/dies but that happens in "obviously planned" melodramatic moments.

In the Aang/Ozai fight:

- They are both in grave danger of dieing at any time.
- They are the the two most powerful/overpowered people in their world.
- There are moments in the fight where one of them gains the upper hand and almost kills the other one i.e. actual tension, not just a bunch of flashy choreography.
- The fight doesn't fizzle out like so many "Two uber people fighting an epic battle" fights do. It constantly gets more impressive/takes new turns.

And it works. You just have to sidestep the usual mistakes. Like in The Phantom Menace. Many people love the three-way Lightsaber battle. The most ferocious/super-fast fighting part is when Obi-Wan gets through the force-field after SPOILERS!!!!!!



Qui-Gon dies. He goes at Maul in a series of super-fast moves and gets Forced-pushed into a hole. After stopping that impressive attack on him from Obi how does Maul die? Obi does a super drawn out flying-then-front-flip over Mauls head that takes 4 seconds to complete. Maul has his sword drawn through all this and doesn't parry the super obvious attack that's coming. The fight just lost all credibility. (Lucas makes this mistake a lot.)

You just need to know what you are doing and a fight between to super-powered people can be ten times better/more exiting than the more credible "Harrison Ford/Bruce Willis brawling with a big henchman" fight.
Posted: Wed, 29th Sep 2010, 11:29pm

Post 28 of 45

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Possibly, but then it could just end up as a VFX-fest with no actual emotional or story investment, like the Neo-Smith fight at the end of Matrix 3.
Yeah, it could, but it very well could not. Superman's a pretty iconic character, and if he were put in some appropriately dangerous situations or took a bad enough beating, emotional reaction would be almost automatic. Seeing Superman bleed? Extremely unsettling. That's one of the problems I've seen with the Superman movies: he's rarely in any real danger, so a bit of the possible emotional resonance is not present. It's like "OH NO HE'S...deciding whether to save Lois or the kid. Wait. He's not in danger? He'll just save them both, then."
Posted: Thu, 30th Sep 2010, 12:18am

Post 29 of 45

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

SuperUser

But the reason he is never in any real danger is the simple fact that he IS Superman. He has no weaknesses other than Kryptonite. Which gets old by the second film. but unless you bring in some Kryptonite to humanize him a bit, his powers are pretty much unlimited. He can take any hit anyone can give him, he can fly fast enough to reverse time (while pushing an entire planet), his skin in impervious to penetration by anything, including bullets, he is strong enough to move entire planets... this is the point.

The fact that he is Superman is the problem with making a good Superman film. He is way, way too powerful. The only way to change that is to change the character, but then he isn't Superman anymore.
Posted: Thu, 30th Sep 2010, 12:38am

Post 30 of 45

Biblmac

Force: 852 | Joined: 12th Jun 2007 | Posts: 1513

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Wikipedia wrote:


As presented in the original 1930's comic strip, Superman's powers were inherent in all indigenous Kryptonians because of their advanced evolution. In the origin stories of the comic books and comic strip, Kryptonians were shown using the same powers that Superman would have on Earth. Krypton's larger size and gravity was also given as an explanation for the character's powers.

Superman's original powers mainly consisted of enhanced strength, speed, senses and durability. When introduced in 1938, he was considerably weaker than even the Modern Era Superman. Superman was only strong enough to lift a support beam or lift a car with only one hand. He was only fast enough to pass an express train. He couldn't fly, he could only make powerful leaps. He could only withstand bullets and smaller artillery. This means that larger, heavier weapons, or a speeding train, could kill him.

Siegel and Shuster did equip Superman with telescopic vision, at least in their earliest draft weeklies. [2]

Originally in the early comics, Superman had the ability to change his facial expression by using his somewhat superhuman control of his face muscles. However, this ability eventually phased out and never used again.[citation needed]

Powers
* Enhanced Strength, speed, endurance, and stamina.
* Durability
* Superhuman control of face muscles.
* Telescopic Vision
I say go back to the "Golden Age" power set. Before he was completely invulnerable. I think this would make it much more interesting...

Have a wonderful day!
Posted: Thu, 30th Sep 2010, 1:39am

Post 31 of 45

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Axeman wrote:

But the reason he is never in any real danger is the simple fact that he IS Superman. He has no weaknesses other than Kryptonite. Which gets old by the second film. but unless you bring in some Kryptonite to humanize him a bit, his powers are pretty much unlimited. He can take any hit anyone can give him, he can fly fast enough to reverse time (while pushing an entire planet), his skin in impervious to penetration by anything, including bullets, he is strong enough to move entire planets... this is the point.

The fact that he is Superman is the problem with making a good Superman film. He is way, way too powerful. The only way to change that is to change the character, but then he isn't Superman anymore.
Actually, I've seen other weaknesses in Superman. Kryptonite is the biggest, but magic is another one. And invulnerable he may be, but keep getting a bigger gun and eventually you'll have something big enough. Part of the reason I like the animated series/movies: he's invulnerable, but there are lots of enemies that are just as big as him.
Posted: Thu, 30th Sep 2010, 2:25am

Post 32 of 45

Biblmac

Force: 852 | Joined: 12th Jun 2007 | Posts: 1513

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Terminal Velocity wrote:

but there are lots of enemies that are just as big as him.
Bizarro anyone?
Posted: Thu, 30th Sep 2010, 8:23am

Post 33 of 45

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Axeman wrote:

The fact that he is Superman is the problem with making a good Superman film. He is way, way too powerful. The only way to change that is to change the character, but then he isn't Superman anymore.
Or, as I mentioned earlier, to change the perspective. Don't make it about Superman fighting bad guys, make it about what it means to the world to have Superman in it.

You can still have epic action, just don't have it as the main feature.
Posted: Thu, 30th Sep 2010, 11:45am

Post 34 of 45

NuttyBanana

Force: 730 | Joined: 23rd Nov 2004 | Posts: 711

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Axeman wrote:

The fact that he is Superman is the problem with making a good Superman film. He is way, way too powerful. The only way to change that is to change the character, but then he isn't Superman anymore.
Or, as I mentioned earlier, to change the perspective. Don't make it about Superman fighting bad guys, make it about what it means to the world to have Superman in it.

You can still have epic action, just don't have it as the main feature.
Isn't that what Iron Man 2 did? I enjoyed it but alot of people didn't rate it, not as much as the first film anyway.

I myself love Snyders work, especially his style, and 300 is one of if not my favorite film. I can't help but wonder what Snyder could accomplish with Nolan there for guidance along the way.

As for story, I've never read any of the comics but I suppose as a 'general viewer' to Superman I'd like to see him again someone/thing closer to his stature. The thing I remember most about the old films is Zods gang - at lease I think it's Zod, haven't seen the film since being a kid so forgive me if I'm wrong! To be honest though I tire of Lex very quickly and once the plane scene in Returns passed the film dried up for me. It's about time Supes had a proper challenge in todays standards of film making and with Snyder pushing the action I'd be first in line.
Posted: Thu, 30th Sep 2010, 4:40pm

Post 35 of 45

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Tim Burton.
Posted: Thu, 30th Sep 2010, 5:53pm

Post 36 of 45

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Biblmac wrote:

Terminal Velocity wrote:

but there are lots of enemies that are just as big as him.
Bizarro anyone?
Or Darkseid or Mongul.
Posted: Thu, 30th Sep 2010, 6:20pm

Post 37 of 45

Biblmac

Force: 852 | Joined: 12th Jun 2007 | Posts: 1513

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Terminal Velocity wrote:

Or Darkseid or Mongul.
Or Zod. Lobo was pretty close in strength, as well as Metallo. Another person, not known nearly as well would be Ultraman. Just to add to the list.
Posted: Tue, 5th Oct 2010, 12:13am

Post 38 of 45

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Zack Snyder it is.

Last edited Tue, 5th Oct 2010, 2:18am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 5th Oct 2010, 1:28am

Post 39 of 45

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

YAY!
Posted: Tue, 5th Oct 2010, 1:48am

Post 40 of 45

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

This makes me happy. I just hope Lex Luthor has nothing to do with this movie. Give Superman a villain that he can actually use his power against. Please!
Posted: Tue, 5th Oct 2010, 2:11am

Post 41 of 45

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

If he directs this movie like he directed 300, I personally will be very happy. Superman has been characterized pretty well over the various media adaptions; more of it would be somewhat gratuitous. It would be cool to see a hint of machismo given to him to replace the blue Boy Scout.
Posted: Tue, 5th Oct 2010, 3:38am

Post 42 of 45

The Strider

Force: 493 | Joined: 27th Jan 2008 | Posts: 230

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Snyder and Nolan make for an interesting combination. I'm very curious to see whether their distinct flavors coalesce. I concur with Tarn, the best way to find conflict -- or, in my case, to make Superman interesting at all -- is to explore the relationship such a being would have with the real world.

The problem with a Superman film is the same problem we find with most genre pictures; they start to rely on the tropes of the genre rather than reality. Speculative fiction is better when it's grounded. There's only true magic in a world where magicians are seldom seen. I think this is the logic behind DC's decision to avoid crossovers between characters. Superman, Batman, and the Green Lantern have so many fascinating facets on their own that mixing them -- revealing the existence of more "magic", if you will -- quickly reaches a saturation point. It's why I don't read most comics.

'Superman IV' actually has the kernel of an idea I would like to see properly realized; what would really happen if this super-powered person, who has already allied himself with one nation, walked up to the U.N. General Assembly and announced his attention to rid the world of nuclear weapons, personally? The scale of a modern blockbuster is there, along with endless potential for philosophical and political conflict.
Posted: Tue, 5th Oct 2010, 8:18am

Post 43 of 45

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

The Strider wrote:

'Superman IV' actually has the kernel of an idea I would like to see properly realized; what would really happen if this super-powered person, who has already allied himself with one nation, walked up to the U.N. General Assembly and announced his attention to rid the world of nuclear weapons, personally? The scale of a modern blockbuster is there, along with endless potential for philosophical and political conflict.
Absolutely! I'd highly recommend reading the comic 'Rising Stars' if you can find it. It deals in a 'real world' treatment of the existence of superheroes, including the concept of one of themn deciding to disarm the entire world single-handedly, and subsequent personal and political fallout.
Posted: Wed, 6th Oct 2010, 6:00am

Post 44 of 45

The Strider

Force: 493 | Joined: 27th Jan 2008 | Posts: 230

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Nice! I always wondered if someone had taken a pass at it. Thanks for the tip, Tarn.
Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010, 5:56pm

Post 45 of 45

DX6channel

Force: 496 | Joined: 9th Jul 2009 | Posts: 110

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

It seems like a Superman vs. General Zod fight would look similar to the last Neo vs. Agent Smith fight in Matrix Revolution but with more destruction.