Let's not forget we may know the story of Superman's orgin, but there are plenty of audiences members who don't know it or remember it
That's very true. That's why comics repeat or reprint origin stories every so often, because there are always new readers coming in, usually a lot of younger newbies who don't know or can't afford to hunt out the earlier issues where those stories first appeared. I know that as a kid it was years before I even found out what Batman's origin was; it's so often reprinted, rewritten or even just mentioned today that it seems impossible that anyone would not know, but back then it just didn't come up -- and I got lucky, seeing it first as a reprint of the original Bob Kane/Bill Finger two pager from Batman #1.
Let's not forget we may know the story of Superman's orgin, but there are plenty of audiences members who don't know it or remember it
Yeah, but with google, Wikipedia, forums, etc someone interested could easily research. When I'm curious about a character's origin or trying to figure out who a character is, I research. Before I saw Dredd, the extent of my knowledge was the prior film. Once I saw the Dredd trailer, I researched the character to know what to expect.
Let's not forget we may know the story of Superman's orgin, but there are plenty of audiences members who don't know it or remember it
Yeah, but with google, Wikipedia, forums, etc someone interested could easily research. When I'm curious about a character's origin or trying to figure out who a character is, I research. Before I saw Dredd, the extent of my knowledge was the prior film. Once I saw the Dredd trailer, I researched the character to know what to expect.
M
To be fair, that's not the norm for movie goers - or even of a typical movie structure, to say nothing of a comicbook movie structure. I'm also not sure that it's fair to assume that something that is intended to draw more people to a character or genre should require that they first do research into the material before going to see the movie. Granted, it might force historical fiction film-makers a little more reality bound if it was understood that the majority of film-goers do research the topic in advance (then we would collectively be less likely to believe that William Wallace sacked York). Even so, where is the line that defines where reseach is required vs where it's OK to go in blind?
Let's not forget we may know the story of Superman's orgin, but there are plenty of audiences members who don't know it or remember it
Yeah, but with google, Wikipedia, forums, etc someone interested could easily research. When I'm curious about a character's origin or trying to figure out who a character is, I research. Before I saw Dredd, the extent of my knowledge was the prior film. Once I saw the Dredd trailer, I researched the character to know what to expect.
M
To be fair, that's not the norm for movie goers - or even of a typical movie structure, to say nothing of a comicbook movie structure. I'm also not sure that it's fair to assume that something that is intended to draw more people to a character or genre should require that they first do research into the material before going to see the movie. Granted, it might force historical fiction film-makers a little more reality bound if it was understood that the majority of film-goers do research the topic in advance (then we would collectively be less likely to believe that William Wallace sacked York). Even so, where is the line that defines where reseach is required vs where it's OK to go in blind?
You're right. To be honest I researched Dredd before I saw the movie. I researched the world of Oz after seeing Oz: The Great & Powerful. To some extent, I hate movies/characters to have to be overly explained to audiences. When I first started reading comics, I had no idea what origins were, but further reading (old school style; floppies) to find out. I actually think this 'spell everything out/dumb it down' idea promotes people to be lazy.
Whether its comics, movies, sports, etc, if I don't know something, it drives me to research it. Of course, I conduct investigations for a living, so maybe its just natural for me.
Let's not forget we may know the story of Superman's orgin, but there are plenty of audiences members who don't know it or remember it
Yeah, but with google, Wikipedia, forums, etc someone interested could easily research. When I'm curious about a character's origin or trying to figure out who a character is, I research. Before I saw Dredd, the extent of my knowledge was the prior film. Once I saw the Dredd trailer, I researched the character to know what to expect.
M
To be fair, that's not the norm for movie goers - or even of a typical movie structure, to say nothing of a comicbook movie structure. I'm also not sure that it's fair to assume that something that is intended to draw more people to a character or genre should require that they first do research into the material before going to see the movie. Granted, it might force historical fiction film-makers a little more reality bound if it was understood that the majority of film-goers do research the topic in advance (then we would collectively be less likely to believe that William Wallace sacked York). Even so, where is the line that defines where reseach is required vs where it's OK to go in blind?
You're right. To be honest I researched Dredd before I saw the movie. I researched the world of Oz after seeing Oz: The Great & Powerful. To some extent, I hate movies/characters to have to be overly explained to audiences. When I first started reading comics, I had no idea what origins were, but further reading (old school style; floppies) to find out. I actually think this 'spell everything out/dumb it down' idea promotes people to be lazy.
Whether its comics, movies, sports, etc, if I don't know something, it drives me to research it. Of course, I conduct investigations for a living, so maybe its just natural for me.
M
I don't disagree, though I would prefer, in most cases, to do my research after the fact. Part of that is my wanting to be able to go in to a book or movie and let the story unfold and ride the roller coaster. From a sales and marketing perspective, I think that it's far better to give viewers a taste of a well developed past and leave them with a hunger for more than to create a homework assignment.
I have fond memories of going to see Dune in the theater back in the early 80's. As we walked into the theater, an usher handed each person in our group a printed glossary sheet (one page, front and back - I still have my copy) for use during the movie. Unfortunately, this was only useful of you were really good at cramming vocabulary words or were already familiar with the material as the sheets were illegiible after the house lights went down. Still a fun memory of my mother looking at it and, as the lights wen't down leaning over and asking if I was aware that there was going to be a quiz. I suspect that there were a lot of other things hurting that movie's chances of success, but the necessary prep work to get into it probably didn't help.
I cant fathom how even casual comic fans aren't ready to explode ready to see this. It looks gigantic. Also if a movie has tongue and cheek tie ins to Gillette and Hardees, I fail to see how the movie looks "dark and joyless". It looks thrilling and new.
BIggest problem this movie has is the Donner films...which if you're being truthful, and really pretty bad. I love aspects of them. They conditioned the movie going public to think of Superman as a cat saving "gee willikers" cornball. Feels like anything that deviates from crystals and silliness is a hit against this movie.
I already have midnight screening tickets. I have this sense that It could be massive because people WANT and exciting Superman movie...and it will genuinely feel new.
That last spot is pretty amazing. Even ends on the All Star Superman flying pose!
I cant fathom how even casual comic fans aren't ready to explode ready to see this. It looks gigantic.
Yeah, but a gigantic what? That's the real question. It looks like it has promise, but it also looks like it has problems. That's why it's a 'wait and see' for me. I'll be going to see it, no mistake, but WB already had one Superman film stall at the box office in recent years; just because this one's taking a different tack is no guarantee it won't also stall.
Also if a movie has tongue and cheek tie ins to Gillette and Hardees, I fail to see how the movie looks "dark and joyless". It looks thrilling and new.
The washed-out palette they're using help to foster that opinion. This shouldn't look like another Dark Knight film with dark and subdued colors; it's Superman! Primaries should be sparkling all over every inch of this film! And half of the shots I've seen of his face show him as moody and introspective. I don't want a moody Superman -- didn't we get enough of that kind of pensiveness in the last film? I want a charged-up, determined hero who can smile brightly in the face of adversity. And then... there's that new costume...
BIggest problem this movie has is the Donner films...which if you're being truthful, and really pretty bad.
No. Truthfully, the Donner films -- which were the first two -- were terrific. Sure, there were flaws and a few dopey things that could have been left out, but the films had the basic heart of what a Superman film should be. And they had Christopher Reeve, who rose above any of the flaws of the film. If Cavill has even a quarter of the charisma Reeve brought to his films, this movie could still turn out all right.
I love aspects of them. They conditioned the movie going public to think of Superman as a cat saving "gee willikers" cornball.
No, the Silver Age Superman comics achieved that status already; the movie only reflected that. And what, honestly, was wrong with that anyway? If it makes him seem like a cornball or a hick -- well, why not? Aside from the fact that he was raised on a farm, that was a genuinely good characteristic. Again -- this isn't Batman. This guy is the guy who should be stopping to rescue cats in trees... and helping old ladies cross the street. He's a Boy Scout. I'm good with that.
Feels like anything that deviates from crystals and silliness is a hit against this movie.
No, I'm good with deviating from the crystals -- that was one facet (pun intended) of the Donner films I could live without -- and the silliness. But, judging from the previous statement, I think we might disagree as to what was and what wasn't silly.
My Superman was and always will be a "cornball". if there is one thing sadly missing in comics, comic book movies, movies and the world in general nowadays IMO, its a little "gee willikers". Superman is a boyscout. thats the character. thats the charm and appeal. thats the difference between he and Batman and every other character. Superman is the quinisential pure-heart "good guy"... not a moping 20 year old leftist tool in a wetsuit.
not he as an individual as per the trailer teasers and commercials to date. but the subtext is everywhere nowdays. everything about the character, the movie, and dc comics in general scream that agenda at every turn and its just incredibly tiresome, annoying frustrating.
not he as an individual as per the trailer teasers and commercials to date. but the subtext is everywhere nowdays. everything about the character, the movie, and dc comics in general scream that agenda at every turn and its just incredibly tiresome, annoying frustrating.
Now I'm curious; can you please give an example of how the subtext came off as leftist. I've watched these trailers & TV spots several times & have never thought "damn hippies!"
That was one of the biggest deterrents I had with Amazing Spider-man. Raimi's movie was 10yrs ago. I know that's forever for movie studios, but it seemed to recent in my memory.
M
I cut the new Spider-Man some slack, though, because it didn't tell the same version of the origin as Raimi's, and it looks like this origin is going to drive the story throughout at least the first few films in a way Raimi's version didn't. If anything, it's probably what helps distinguish this new series from the previous one.
That was one of the biggest deterrents I had with Amazing Spider-man. Raimi's movie was 10yrs ago. I know that's forever for movie studios, but it seemed to recent in my memory.
M
I cut the new Spider-Man some slack, though, because it didn't tell the same version of the origin as Raimi's, and it looks like this origin is going to drive the story throughout at least the first few films in a way Raimi's version didn't. If anything, it's probably what helps distinguish this new series from the previous one.
Yeah, and this version will focus more on the parents then Raimi's...which I believe weren't even mentioned. I do think extending the origin through the trilogy could also hurt the series. When Sandman was crowbarred into Incle Ben's death, I rolled my eyes.
If there's an origin, I'd prefer to keep it in the 1st movie. RDJ commented Iron Man 3 was great because the origin & father/son stuff was over.
Open discussion is cornerstone of America and by extension this forum. That being said, my God if Ur a geek and not jazzed by the last trailer because of leftist subtext of the media in general and his origin 75 years ago then save Ur money.
The silver screen was built to see Krypton explode and Christopher Reeves moped in Superman 2 also. Let's talk about something truly controversial, an African American Electro. Who the hell do they think they are? Damn Hippies in Hollywood ruining our superhero movies.
Actually, a 'leftist' depiction of Superman isn't out of order, given his New Deal roots in the original stories by Siegel and Shuster (and revisited by Grant Morrison). I'd love to see a Superman movie where juggles wife-beating bullies in mid-air or gets in the face fat-cat bankers and investors of the One Percent persuasion. There's one reason why I'd come to prefer Luthor as a business magnate rather than a mad scientist.
Actually, a 'leftist' depiction of Superman isn't out of order, given his New Deal roots in the original stories by Siegel and Shuster (and revisited by Grant Morrison). I'd love to see a Superman movie where juggles wife-beating bullies in mid-air or gets in the face fat-cat bankers and investors of the One Percent persuasion. There's one reason why I'd come to prefer Luthor as a business magnate rather than a mad scientist.
I'm aware of all that but my point is..................Who cares? and more importantly................Why would it matter based on that trailer?
Actually, a 'leftist' depiction of Superman isn't out of order, given his New Deal roots in the original stories by Siegel and Shuster (and revisited by Grant Morrison). I'd love to see a Superman movie where juggles wife-beating bullies in mid-air or gets in the face fat-cat bankers and investors of the One Percent persuasion. There's one reason why I'd come to prefer Luthor as a business magnate rather than a mad scientist.
I'm aware of all that but my point is..................Who cares? and more importantly................Why would it matter based on that trailer?
Obviously, I would care, especially since I have reservations about the film based on every trailer I've seen thus far. Not because of any 'leftist' subtext -- frankly, I don't see Superman's origins or core beliefs as being 'leftist' to begin with, but as humanist -- but because I think they're trying a little too hard to distance themselves from the previous film (and probably from ALL previous Superman films, for that matter) and may instead give us a turkey of a different flavor.
Actually, a 'leftist' depiction of Superman isn't out of order, given his New Deal roots in the original stories by Siegel and Shuster (and revisited by Grant Morrison). I'd love to see a Superman movie where juggles wife-beating bullies in mid-air or gets in the face fat-cat bankers and investors of the One Percent persuasion. There's one reason why I'd come to prefer Luthor as a business magnate rather than a mad scientist.
I'm aware of all that but my point is..................Who cares? and more importantly................Why would it matter based on that trailer?
Obviously, I would care, especially since I have reservations about the film based on every trailer I've seen thus far. Not because of any 'leftist' subtext -- frankly, I don't see Superman's origins or core beliefs as being 'leftist' to begin with, but as humanist -- but because I think they're trying a little too hard to distance themselves from the previous film (and probably from ALL previous Superman films, for that matter) and may instead give us a turkey of a different flavor.
Are'nt you looking at this with a microscope? Is'nt this movie just a piece of pop culture when you boil it down? Throw away entertainment, mass culture consumption at it most basic. I just think we all base too much context on a trailer designed at it's very nature to appeal to as many people as possible. Superficially it looks exciting and engaging. I just find over-analysis so damn tiring. And based on what the trailer shows it's no "turkey".
I'm curious too, to all the sckeptics, What did you want? What could the trailer show you to make it a Superman movie you wanted? I accept you did not like it, which is cool, I just do not see what you sckeptics are seeing or that it matters that much.
Actually, a 'leftist' depiction of Superman isn't out of order, given his New Deal roots in the original stories by Siegel and Shuster (and revisited by Grant Morrison). I'd love to see a Superman movie where juggles wife-beating bullies in mid-air or gets in the face fat-cat bankers and investors of the One Percent persuasion. There's one reason why I'd come to prefer Luthor as a business magnate rather than a mad scientist.
I'm aware of all that but my point is..................Who cares? and more importantly................Why would it matter based on that trailer?
Obviously, I would care, especially since I have reservations about the film based on every trailer I've seen thus far. Not because of any 'leftist' subtext -- frankly, I don't see Superman's origins or core beliefs as being 'leftist' to begin with, but as humanist -- but because I think they're trying a little too hard to distance themselves from the previous film (and probably from ALL previous Superman films, for that matter) and may instead give us a turkey of a different flavor.
I'll have to do some research, but didn't you bash Superman Returns? That acknowledged the Donner movies. And didn't the movies stay away from the serials that came before?
Should Batman Begins acknowledge the movies of the 90s...even the horrible Batman & Robin? For that matter, should Burton had acknowledged the 60s series or the serials from the 40s?
Look, there's something nostalgic about Superman (1978), but I hope MoS stays away from what happened before. I think keeping the continuity in Superman Returns restricted & hindered the movie.
I say distance the new film from the previous ones as much as they want. What's the point in re-doing what's already been done? Superman Returns was seven years ago, and the Reeve films are a couple generations back at this point. I'd bet the majority of today's audience isn't even familiar with them.
My Superman was and always will be a "cornball". if there is one thing sadly missing in comics, comic book movies, movies and the world in general nowadays IMO, its a little "gee willikers". Superman is a boyscout. thats the character. thats the charm and appeal. thats the difference between he and Batman and every other character. Superman is the quinisential pure-heart "good guy"... not a moping 20 year old leftist tool in a wetsuit.
"moping 20 year old leftist tool"? I know insults are never the way to go here so I wont go personal despite the obvious urge but I have to say you are misreading the trailer. Kal-El says "He will be a God". Pa Kent tells him he has to decide what type of person he will become. Lois Lane gives me a massive hard-on. He's not moping, he's torn. He's not a "moping..... tool", he is a confused 20 year old because he knows he can F#&k us all up but knows he should not because he was raised in the heartland of America which instills non-leftist values. I cant believe there is any question over the trailer. It's the best trailer I've seen in a while.
All I know is I'm there opening weekend. Actually the Tuesday 11:45am show because that's my Friday night! I told all four of my kids they are going or I disown them. I hope it does not turn them into Rachael Maddow.
Actually, a 'leftist' depiction of Superman isn't out of order, given his New Deal roots in the original stories by Siegel and Shuster (and revisited by Grant Morrison). I'd love to see a Superman movie where juggles wife-beating bullies in mid-air or gets in the face fat-cat bankers and investors of the One Percent persuasion. There's one reason why I'd come to prefer Luthor as a business magnate rather than a mad scientist.
I'm aware of all that but my point is..................Who cares? and more importantly................Why would it matter based on that trailer?
Obviously, I would care, especially since I have reservations about the film based on every trailer I've seen thus far. Not because of any 'leftist' subtext -- frankly, I don't see Superman's origins or core beliefs as being 'leftist' to begin with, but as humanist -- but because I think they're trying a little too hard to distance themselves from the previous film (and probably from ALL previous Superman films, for that matter) and may instead give us a turkey of a different flavor.
I'll have to do some research, but didn't you bash Superman Returns? That acknowledged the Donner movies. And didn't the movies stay away from the serials that came before?
I might have. I don't recall. But that wasn't what I was saying here. I'm saying that, thus far, it feels like they're trying too hard to break away, to the point of going to the exact opposite degree and losing the essential core of the character in the process. I'm okay with breaking away and starting over; I just don't want a dark and brooding Superman in place of a cheerful, crusading Man of Steel.
Actually, a 'leftist' depiction of Superman isn't out of order, given his New Deal roots in the original stories by Siegel and Shuster (and revisited by Grant Morrison). I'd love to see a Superman movie where juggles wife-beating bullies in mid-air or gets in the face fat-cat bankers and investors of the One Percent persuasion. There's one reason why I'd come to prefer Luthor as a business magnate rather than a mad scientist.
I'm aware of all that but my point is..................Who cares? and more importantly................Why would it matter based on that trailer?
Obviously, I would care, especially since I have reservations about the film based on every trailer I've seen thus far. Not because of any 'leftist' subtext -- frankly, I don't see Superman's origins or core beliefs as being 'leftist' to begin with, but as humanist -- but because I think they're trying a little too hard to distance themselves from the previous film (and probably from ALL previous Superman films, for that matter) and may instead give us a turkey of a different flavor.
I'll have to do some research, but didn't you bash Superman Returns? That acknowledged the Donner movies. And didn't the movies stay away from the serials that came before?
I might have. I don't recall. But that wasn't what I was saying here. I'm saying that, thus far, it feels like they're trying too hard to break away, to the point of going to the exact opposite degree and losing the essential core of the character in the process. I'm okay with breaking away and starting over; I just don't want a dark and brooding Superman in place of a cheerful, crusading Man of Steel.
While I totally get people not wanting too brooding of a Superman (and, of course, we won't know what the movie is actually like until we see it-- it could be that they are pushing the brooding in the trailers in a way that is not representative).
But a general question-- are there are any lead film characters in not just superhero movies, but even action movies that could really be described as cheerful? Was much time even in the Donner films spent with a cheerful Superman having a good day? Considering the demands of the three act structure, and the need to make the audience feel like the main character is up against potentially overwhelming odds, as well as the reversals and changes of status that tend to come about in that structure, is there really much space for cheerful? That seems more of a TV energy, in a serial format dealing with smaller dilemmas, than what there is room for in the larger, higher stakes storytelling of a film.
Actually, a 'leftist' depiction of Superman isn't out of order, given his New Deal roots in the original stories by Siegel and Shuster (and revisited by Grant Morrison). I'd love to see a Superman movie where juggles wife-beating bullies in mid-air or gets in the face fat-cat bankers and investors of the One Percent persuasion. There's one reason why I'd come to prefer Luthor as a business magnate rather than a mad scientist.
I'm aware of all that but my point is..................Who cares? and more importantly................Why would it matter based on that trailer?
Obviously, I would care, especially since I have reservations about the film based on every trailer I've seen thus far. Not because of any 'leftist' subtext -- frankly, I don't see Superman's origins or core beliefs as being 'leftist' to begin with, but as humanist -- but because I think they're trying a little too hard to distance themselves from the previous film (and probably from ALL previous Superman films, for that matter) and may instead give us a turkey of a different flavor.
Are'nt you looking at this with a microscope? Is'nt this movie just a piece of pop culture when you boil it down? Throw away entertainment, mass culture consumption at it most basic. I just think we all base too much context on a trailer designed at it's very nature to appeal to as many people as possible. Superficially it looks exciting and engaging. I just find over-analysis so damn tiring. And based on what the trailer shows it's no "turkey".
I'm curious too, to all the sckeptics, What did you want? What could the trailer show you to make it a Superman movie you wanted? I accept you did not like it, which is cool, I just do not see what you sckeptics are seeing or that it matters that much.
I'm no more certain that this film is going to be a turkey than I am that it won't be. I'm skeptical towards it because, based on what I've seen thus far, I'm afraid it could be because of what appears to be an attempt on the studio's part to mimic the superficial qualities of the Dark Knight films in order to make this movie successful, since the attempt to mimic the superficial qualities of the 70's Superman films didn't work. I'm concerned that they're overcompensating and that doing so could make this movie just as bad, but in a different way. Now, I don't know that this will actually happen, and my concerns could very well be misplaced. I hope so. But I won't know until it comes out and I see it.
But right now, I'm not really encouraged by the tone of the trailers. So I remain skeptical.
What do I want out of a goodSuperman film? More than just superficial pop entertainment; I could get that from Howard The Duck. I want really, really, REALLY good, deep, satisfying pop entertainment.
My thoughts on Superman, much like my thoughts on life, the world, and I myself it seems, are thoroughly outdated, old fashioned and wrong. so be it. I just want to love Superman again and I dont expect to anytime soon if ever and that breaks my heart. This movie looks like it will no doubt have plenty of eye candy and stuff to enjoy. Im sure ill enjoy it moreso than not.
My thoughts on Superman, much like my thoughts on life, the world, and I myself it seems, are thoroughly outdated, old fashioned and wrong. so be it. I just want to love Superman again and I dont expect to anytime soon if ever and that breaks my heart. This movie looks like it will no doubt have plenty of eye candy and stuff to enjoy. Im sure ill enjoy it moreso than not.
I'm not trying to go on the attack here, I'm just trying to understand what you saw in the trailers & TV spots. I may not agree with you, but I always try to understand where the other person is coming from.
When people tell me they hate Tom Brady, I don't agree with them, but I always want to know why. More times then not, the answer I get is "just because," which is really a non-answer.
Comments
M
Whether its comics, movies, sports, etc, if I don't know something, it drives me to research it. Of course, I conduct investigations for a living, so maybe its just natural for me.
M
I have fond memories of going to see Dune in the theater back in the early 80's. As we walked into the theater, an usher handed each person in our group a printed glossary sheet (one page, front and back - I still have my copy) for use during the movie. Unfortunately, this was only useful of you were really good at cramming vocabulary words or were already familiar with the material as the sheets were illegiible after the house lights went down. Still a fun memory of my mother looking at it and, as the lights wen't down leaning over and asking if I was aware that there was going to be a quiz. I suspect that there were a lot of other things hurting that movie's chances of success, but the necessary prep work to get into it probably didn't help.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nZ56XA1z6ow
I cant fathom how even casual comic fans aren't ready to explode ready to see this. It looks gigantic. Also if a movie has tongue and cheek tie ins to Gillette and Hardees, I fail to see how the movie looks "dark and joyless". It looks thrilling and new.
BIggest problem this movie has is the Donner films...which if you're being truthful, and really pretty bad. I love aspects of them. They conditioned the movie going public to think of Superman as a cat saving "gee willikers" cornball. Feels like anything that deviates from crystals and silliness is a hit against this movie.
I already have midnight screening tickets. I have this sense that It could be massive because people WANT and exciting Superman movie...and it will genuinely feel new.
That last spot is pretty amazing. Even ends on the All Star Superman flying pose!
(Or does autocomplete just know to add that in whenever you are making a list of things you don't like?)
Movie is looking good. I'll see it! Keep up the great work everyone, the party needs your support!
M
The silver screen was built to see Krypton explode and Christopher Reeves moped in Superman 2 also. Let's talk about something truly controversial, an African American Electro. Who the hell do they think they are? Damn Hippies in Hollywood ruining our superhero movies.
I'm curious too, to all the sckeptics, What did you want? What could the trailer show you to make it a Superman movie you wanted? I accept you did not like it, which is cool, I just do not see what you sckeptics are seeing or that it matters that much.
Should Batman Begins acknowledge the movies of the 90s...even the horrible Batman & Robin? For that matter, should Burton had acknowledged the 60s series or the serials from the 40s?
Look, there's something nostalgic about Superman (1978), but I hope MoS stays away from what happened before. I think keeping the continuity in Superman Returns restricted & hindered the movie.
M
All I know is I'm there opening weekend. Actually the Tuesday 11:45am show because that's my Friday night! I told all four of my kids they are going or I disown them. I hope it does not turn them into Rachael Maddow.
But a general question-- are there are any lead film characters in not just superhero movies, but even action movies that could really be described as cheerful? Was much time even in the Donner films spent with a cheerful Superman having a good day? Considering the demands of the three act structure, and the need to make the audience feel like the main character is up against potentially overwhelming odds, as well as the reversals and changes of status that tend to come about in that structure, is there really much space for cheerful? That seems more of a TV energy, in a serial format dealing with smaller dilemmas, than what there is room for in the larger, higher stakes storytelling of a film.
But right now, I'm not really encouraged by the tone of the trailers. So I remain skeptical.
What do I want out of a good Superman film? More than just superficial pop entertainment; I could get that from Howard The Duck. I want really, really, REALLY good, deep, satisfying pop entertainment.
I interrupt the debate to point to where you can find a very long preview of the music.
I just want to love Superman again and I dont expect to anytime soon if ever and that breaks my heart. This movie looks like it will no doubt have plenty of eye candy and stuff to enjoy. Im sure ill enjoy it moreso than not.
When people tell me they hate Tom Brady, I don't agree with them, but I always want to know why. More times then not, the answer I get is "just because," which is really a non-answer.
M