web
counter
 

Superf*cked

By TK | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (32)



superman-17.jpg

Oh, crap.

The announcement that Zack Snyder would direct the next iteration of Superman was met with much trepidation. Snyder certainly has an eye for special effects and atmosphere, but is rather hollow as a storyteller. The news that Brandon Routh likely won’t return was also a little disheartening — a lot of people agree that while Superman Returns wasn’t a great film (though I think it was certainly a good one), Routh wasn’t the problem (although now there are rumors swirling that Snyder is considering him, so who knows).

Anyway, now we’ve got the very early plot details from Snyder himself:

As I have already explained, the film will focus on early days of Superman, so there will be no links with other films. This is not a remake then. Similarly, although I still can not talk about the script, I can assure you that this new Superman will not be based on a comic book in particular.

No. No no no fucking NO.

OK, it’s a little unclear, but the idea of focusing on the “early days” is a pretty stupid one, especially if he wastes audience time with an origin story. How can there be “no links” to the other films? The first one is all about his early days?

The problem, of course, is that Bryan Singer kind of fucked future Superman films with his version. Unless you want to make a film where Superman suddenly has (spoiler!) a superpowered son with Lois Lane and she’s engaged to some other dude, you kind of have to roll the clock back a bit. Which is unfortunate, because frankly, I am fucking tapped out on superhero origin stories. Particularly ones like Superman, because somewhere in the jungles of Brazil, there’s an undiscovered tribe of indigenous people who are going “origin? who the fuck doesn’t know his origin?”

So it’s likely that he’s throwing out Superman and Superman II, considering the early days idea and General Zod as the hero (both are adequately covered in the first two films). Which is fucking stupid, and essentially makes it a reboot. A reboot of the most well-known superhero film and character in comic book history. Great. Swell.

Ideally, it’d pick up after II, ignore III and IV altogether (dear God, let’s please ignore those atrocities), and go for something that takes place in between II and Returns. But who the hell knows how Snyder’s mind works. The idea to not base it on a comic book arc is probably a good one anyway — Superman is one film series that has, for the most part, completely ignored its comic book counterpart, so why start now and confuse people.

Fuck it. I’m just going to have to content myself with DC’s animated movies.

(source: Slashfilm)









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



What Does the Full-Season Renewal of "Outsourced" Mean for "Community" and "Parks & Recreation"? | I'm Drunk and I'm Seldom Sober | "Boardwalk Empire," S1/E5 "Nights in Ballygran"









Comments

The fact that his quote is snide proves its authenticity.

I was really hoping for Brainiac. How I loathe Snyder.

Posted by: Sam at October 19, 2010 10:25 AM

They lost me a little bit when they hinted at General Zod now they've probably completely lost me.

Posted by: John W at October 19, 2010 10:30 AM

Oooh, I wonder who they're going to pick to play Supes. I think they go in a completely neew direction and cast someone unusual. I'm thinking someone like Nic Cage, maybe.

Sweeeeeeeeeeeet.

Nevermind.

/sarcasm

Seriously though, please don't fuck this up, Snyder.

Posted by: Snath at October 19, 2010 11:02 AM

As long as he sticks to the script Nolan gives him, i see no reason to panic.

I can't wait to see Nolan's interpretation of the Light side. if it works as well as the Dark side of batsie then, we are looking at a mind-blowing supes movie.

just the thought alone makes me all happy inside.

Posted by: haplo at October 19, 2010 11:14 AM

I'm sick of this "painted into a corner" crap, i.e. the previous sequel went in a direction with the story that makes all future sequels HAVE to follow that path, therefore a prequel is the only way to go. UNTRUE. Just off the top of my head, I can think of several sequels that ignored the events of a previous film and yet, somehow, did not feel the need to go all the way back to the bgeinning in order to continue with the series.

This is a bad example, but you could say that the Halloween series did the same thing by going into the whole "Thorn" storyline. But then H20 (granted, no masterpiece) came along and moved forward, while ignoring previous events.

There's simply no reason why there couldn't be another Superman where "Superkid" and Lois' fiance couldn't be completely put on the back burner or swept under the rug altogether, a'la Jar Jar Binks. Period.

Posted by: Case at October 19, 2010 11:16 AM

May I just point out that I am twenty-seven years old and that Superman I-III all were released before I was born. Wanting a director to orient a new film between Superman II and Superman III is patently absurd. Who would be the audience that would understand that? Forty-year-old comic book fans? The film wouldn't even make back its catering budget.

Posted by: dk at October 19, 2010 11:21 AM

May I just point out that I am twenty-seven years old and that Superman I-III all were released before I was born. Wanting a director to orient a new film between Superman II and Superman III is patently absurd. Who would be the audience that would understand that? Forty-year-old comic book fans? The film wouldn't even make back its catering budget.

Posted by: dk at October 19, 2010 11:21 AM

Quoted for delicious truth.

I saw Superman II in a theater. I am old.

However, I am aware of two things: 1) I am not the mass market audience that a comic book picture MUST capture. 2) Mythic heroes get re-invented. Frequently.

Besides all of that, we will never get too far out from the origin story, because that's what's most interesting and usually best executed. Frankly, everything after the origin story for most comic books is pathetic time marking to sell periodicals. For most heroes, there's about one worthwhile story a decade that isn't a retcon of his/her origin. The rest of the time is usually filled with the same pablum that combines to form soap opera plots, only with more spandex and energy blasts. The origin is about the only thing the comics themselves do well with any regularity.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at October 19, 2010 11:34 AM

How about this (it's crazy, so brace yourselves):
Why not just make a movie about Superman, without an origin, set in Metropolis, and with Lois Lane our intrepid reporter as a damsel in distress/side-kick/love interest? No kids. No James Marsden. No continuity. Just a fresh, fun Superman adventure without any of the baggage. How 'bout that, hm? What d'ya think?

"But Matthew," you're saying (to me -- that's my real name) "how could we possibly pull off such a feat? There have already been 5 Superman movies! Surely, you cannot deny their cultural relevence or thier impact on the modern zeitgeist."

To which I respond, "Hey. Shut up. Who asked you?"

To which you cleverly respond, "You just did."

To which I gun you down and leave the corpse to rot on the highway, where some late-night trucker will pummel you to a pink, gooey mess as he fights off drowsiness. And nobody wants that, especially your mother.

I know. Crazy, right?

Posted by: superasente at October 19, 2010 12:29 PM

ZombieScientist must be absolutely feasting on human grey matter, because he's pretty on the ball. Maybe that's just his old age? Zing!

Anyway, I don't see where the confusion lies in Snyder's quote. He said it wasn't going to be connected to the other movies and was going to be about Superman's early years -- when did the concept/plot of Batman Begins get confusing? It's a new take, it will have to mine the origin at least somewhat (though, I am on board with hoping its not explicitly an origin tale), and it may or may not star the last movie-Superman because he was pretty good. That last part, I'll admit, might be a little confusing to Jackass 3D audiences (oooh! thread cross-over burn!), but it's really no different than a new writer taking over the comic book but keeping the same penciler.

It doesn't have to be connected to the previous movies in any way whatsoever. Are people confused every time a new Robin Hood movie comes out? Did they think Russel Crowe was supposed to be a young Kevin Costner, and that Costner was Errol Flynn's... great nephew, or something? Superman is like Hercules at this point, take the ingredients and mix however you like. Mass audiences will eat it up, and there's nothing wrong with it. I'll agree, being a comic book fan, I'd like to see some actual comic-stories being adapted (like they do with novels), but I get why they don't need to, or have to.

Oh, and the script for this was written by David Goyer, not Nolan. Goyer has a 50/50 track record, and this was rushed. I wouldn't pin my hopes there...

Posted by: RobP at October 19, 2010 12:32 PM

Maybe it's time for a 5-7 year moratorium on any and all comic book films. It's sad, perplexing and damn bizarre for Snyder's comments to be a complete and full disconnect from the reality of ALL the previous 'Superman' films. What's worse...he attempts to speak with a voice of knowledge and authority. Such willful ignorance should be treated like Old Yeller.

Posted by: Barnes78 at October 19, 2010 12:32 PM

Who would be the audience that would understand that? Forty-year-old comic book fans? The film wouldn't even make back its catering budget.

GET OFF MY SUPER LAWN JUNIOR.

-Frob

Posted by: frobme at October 19, 2010 12:34 PM

Good movie? BS SR might have been technically good looking but everything from the characters to the plot was completely and utterly horrible. Truly a perfect example of what happens when you let a fanboy try to make their dreams come true

He is damn there should be no connection to the Superman movies. They were bloody awful. Good for the 80's but terrible for nowadays. If Superman is EVER to achieve something it needs a massive reboot. And keep the production as far away from fanboys as possible

Posted by: Yesplease at October 19, 2010 1:12 PM

Snyder won't base the movie on a comic? That does not compute! Snyder is unable to make movies when he cannot copy a comic one-to-one.

Posted by: FabMax at October 19, 2010 1:13 PM

Why is there a need to place this before Returns? Can't we just agree that never happened? I know I do it with Superman IV.

That's right. Superman IV: The Quest for Peace never happened!

And I've always wanted to see Superman off the leash. So give us Brainiac or Darkseid or Zod or someone who can go toe-to-toe with the Boy Scout!

Posted by: Fredo at October 19, 2010 1:20 PM

seriously, if he DID do an origin story, I PRAY he takes inspiration from the first episode of the superman animated series and leaves clark a baby and makes braniac and jor-el going at it... for like 99 minutes of the movie.

and make the movie only 101 minutes.

Posted by: gp at October 19, 2010 1:24 PM

I'm a forty(ish) comic book fan.

And I think it's stupid to keep rehashing the origin of Superman. The only origin story that's more well known than his is about a certain person born in Bethlehem.

If you need to know what's happened before rent the movies from Netflix and enjoy them.

Posted by: John W at October 19, 2010 1:32 PM

No more origin stories. Ever.

Posted by: ChristianH at October 19, 2010 1:39 PM

The only origin story that's more well known than his is about a certain person born in Bethlehem.

Batman?

Posted by: superasente at October 19, 2010 2:36 PM

When the vast majority of your potential audience doesn't know the origin, it's not a re-hash. The fact that the people here are all familiar with Superman's origin does not mean that everyone is familiar with Superman's origin.

Survey 100 completely random people. Nearly all of them will know who Superman is. You will be shocked out of your socks by how few of them know anything at all about his origin.

Asking your friends doesn't count, nerds. They're probably nerds like you. That's what we in the science biz call "selection bias."

Normal people, if they have been exposed to this information at all, promptly drop it in their mental wastebasket.

Since most here like to wear their INDIE badge prominently, I'm sure it is some consolation to you that you are NOT the mass market. You are a special snowflake. A commercially un-viable special snowflake that no one with any sense will market a high-budget movie towards.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at October 19, 2010 3:13 PM

That's not the point, ZombieScientist. It doesn't matter whether or not everyone is aware of the origin story; what matters is that it's already been told many many times in different mediums. It's been covered in film. It's been covered several times on TV. Magazines. Cartoons. Comic Books (obviously -- and within that medium it's done every 5 years or so). Radio.

It's out there. For the people who aren't aware -- sure, it's new and fresh. But for the people who HAVE seen it, it's beyond redundant. It's tired, old and frustrating.

So no. You're right. Not everyone is aware of Superman's origin. Not everyone wears deodorant. Not everyone believes gays should marry. The world is full of wacky varieties of people. But that doesn't mean we make big budget films for those groups, especially when there is already a library covering the material.

Posted by: superasente at October 19, 2010 3:52 PM

How many ridiculous millions of dollars will it cost to make a good Superman movie?

What kind of profit are they expecting/wanting?

These questions ultimately trump the ever-loving heck out of not pissing off the population fragment that actually gives a shit about Superman.

Origin stories are marketable. Period. In Superman's case, it's also the only way to make him particularly sympathetic without starting with a dissertation on Darkseid that no audience would sit through.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at October 19, 2010 4:00 PM

@ZombieScientist: Your ideas are intriguing to me. I'd like to sign up for your newsletter.

I totally get where you're coming from, superasente, we're cut from the same cloth. But ZombSci is just being pragmatic. It isn't popular among the passionate, but it's necessary to function in the real world without going crazy. Just ask the POTUS.

Posted by: RobP at October 19, 2010 4:14 PM

Pragmatism doesn't generally make me popular. But I got bored with howling against the rain storm a few years back. The rain storm doesn't even notice me getting blue in the face, much less care.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at October 19, 2010 5:22 PM

I see why it's tempting to do another origin. And I see why doing another origin seems pragmatic. I do. Sometimes it's just simpler to scrap a confusing history and start fresh.

But audiences just want to see Superman rock someone. We're ready for a spectacular, high-flying rock-em/sock-em brawl, without all of the heavy exposition and character development. We know who he is. We know where he comes from (many of us). And we know what he's about.

We should be using those tools to create a good story about who the character IS, not who the character WAS.

Posted by: superasente at October 19, 2010 6:18 PM

They should make a movie starring Bizarro. I'd watch that.

Posted by: Lucas at October 19, 2010 9:18 PM

I for one would like to see them do for Superman what Nolan did for Batman, so as long as it attempted to do something new and interesting with the character, perhaps with major change in tone from the previous movies, I would be interested to see what they come up with.

Fuck you, I want my Superman gritty reboot.

Posted by: Chugga at October 19, 2010 9:55 PM

You are a special snowflake.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at October 19, 2010 3:13 PM

I'm melllltttiiinnnggggg...

Posted by: Uriah Creep at October 19, 2010 11:03 PM

I don't see the big deal. I loved Superman I and II, but there's no need to pick up where Donner and Reeve left off. If they don't want to do a fresh take on Supes, then why make another movie at all?

I might be misreading this, but I assume Snyder is saying that the story isn't based on one specific comic storyline.

I'm not a big fan of Zack Snyder either, but I'm not panicking either. Nolan has said that he and Goyer have worked out a good story, so I'm cautiously optimistic.

Posted by: Turtle at October 20, 2010 2:19 AM

I think there's still a place for origin stories as long as they show us something we don't already know. I mean, if they're going for a different take on the character then why not start at the point where it branches off from the version we all know? Batman Begins did it perfectly.

But I think everyone can agree that we don't need to see another retelling of 'baby in space capsule lands in field, is found by fairytale country-folk'. I'm sure that Visionary Director Zak Snyder thinks he can make his own mark, but Visionary Director Zak Snyder would be surprised at just how little some obnoxious slow motion could add.

Posted by: Jim at October 20, 2010 4:15 AM

i would think the target movie going audience is up to it's eyeballs in origin/young superman mythology since the popular show, smallville is in the midst of its 10th season and has based its entire story on how an alien boy grew up to be superman.

when you couple that with how ubiquitous superman is in our culture--and i am repeating what's already been said--70 years worth of comics, radio serials, television cartoons, live action tv, animated movies, live action movies, i would be hard pressed to think of a cultural commodity more familiar to people.

there's a strange disconnect between animation and live action. i believe the choice to go early superman has everything to do with being able to provide a younger cast for target audiences to relate to or ogle. period. nothing to do with there being some imaginary bottomless fodder in origin stories. same thing is being done to spiderman. yet in cartoons, and comics(which have a greater proportion of young audiences) it's perfectly acceptable for supes or any hero to be a full blown adult who just goes about his day having seriously rocking adventures.

in comic books, frank miller revitalized batman by portraying him as an old man.

i do think smallville took all the elements of spiderman's character that made him endearing--his angst between duty and personal wishes, his pathos, his alienation and loneliness--qualities people could relate to--and translated them onto superman quite successfully, but as said we are a decade deep in that story and could maybe escalate for a new film. that target film audience, after ten years of smallville is now bursting at the seams to see superman unleashed. they might buck if just as the tv show ends, someone tries to sell them a movie by asking "hey, how'd you like to see superman in highschool?" and certainly adult audiences are never overjoyed to see superheroes as teenagers. batman and iron man attain some of their audience and legitimacy as stories because they are stories about adults.

Posted by: idleprimate at October 20, 2010 4:23 AM

Another Superman origin story is absurd, agreed - but your idea to make *another* movie set between Superman II and III, between II and Returns even, is just way overcomplicated.

Personally, I think Superman Returns has no real audience. It's aimed at people who thought III sucked, which is pretty pompous even if you agree it sucked, and it was meant to reinvigorate and reintroduce the franchise, yet it was obsessively grounded in the story and production values of Superman II - a thirty-year-old movie. You'd have to be an obsessive compulsive Superman fan just to get it to begin with.

Of course, it stank anyway. The plot was reheated Superman: The Movie, the actors were doomed to imitate the characterisations of past actors, and it was long, boring and silly. But oh well. Glad to see history has snubbed it.

Hope the new one's good. Watchmen was, ehh, okay.

Posted by: Grafty at October 20, 2010 4:38 AM

The Origin Story has a period of time that was completely skipped over in the movies (the period of time between his father's death and the appearance of Superman). In the movie, he went into the crystal chamber and emerged as full-blown Superman.

So... if this movie deals with the time in between, there is plenty of fertile ground. Unfortunately, Smallville is more or less plowing it as we speak. It can still be done well, though, if they take it in a totally different direction.

Posted by: Leaf at October 20, 2010 10:12 AM