Make that release even bolder and do it on TikTok exclusively…
1 Like
Is it that “bold” to release them all in the same year? I would say it’s the safest way to play it: to the extent people are going to stay interested, I can more easily see them making four trips to the cinema in one calendar year than sticking with the saga over four or even 8 years. Plus if the studio pours all their money into one mega-marketing drive in a single year, that’s got to work out cheaper than running 4 different campaigns in 4 different years. And there’s less of a wait before they can recoup any possible losses by issuing an all-inclusive home video/streaming package of the complete saga.
Releasing them all in one year makes this at least a novelty, or in the best case “an event.” As they say in the article, it’s never been done before. Since 90% of the whole cinema game these days is event-staging as opposed to filmmaking, that’s a win: they gain the right to at least claim a “first” even if it doesn’t live up to expectations. It’s like the 1989 Batman: at a certain point it became irrelevant whether the film itself was good or not, because the marketing boys managed to make it “The Summer of Batman.”
Anyway nothing so far is making me more likely to pay to see this.
4 Likes
1 Like
Now that’s one funny poster:
1 Like
5 Likes
4 Likes
Some of my thoughts on Superman:
After The Flash, I hope Zod is given a MAJOR rest for a LONG time. WB seems to have a hard-on for having Zod always be a villain, even in non-Superman movies! From being the only real villain in one movie, to being turned into another villain (Doomsday) in another, being reused again in another timeline, it’s time too move on. Using Zod at this point is as lazy as using Lex as a solo villain again and again. Relating to this topic, I’m actually kind of scared if just Lex and the Authority are the only villains of this movie. I know Brainiac is heavily rumored, but I think they need to reveal him now. It would also be bad if he is just a third act reveal. At this point, I would take Toyman as a villain. He does have potential to be a great villain. I’ve been writing my own Superman screenplays because the movies don’t explore his mythology like they should have. It’s time for WB to have Superman face a new, fresh threat (from his comics), that proves that both his world and our world truly need him on a daily basis.
Secondly, I hope James Gunn doesn’t overdo his trademark humor at certain points. That might be the MCU’s excuse when they’re on autopilot, or all else fails. Or WB should have realized beforehand that Zack Snyder was too dark and polarizing too handle a big shared universe. However, James Gunn has the chance to do something great here. If he can truly mix the two styles together, there is hope for DC movies’ future.
These two things can apply to the Supergirl movie as well.
1 Like
4 Likes
I have faith in his ability here. He adores Donner‘s film so I‘m game.
3 Likes
This feels like make or break for Superman as a live action prospect. Even if the movie is good it needs to make money. The character has been mismanaged with long droughts and poor characterisations, with the possibility audiences may not be interested anymore. If this underperforms it’s hardly a strong foundation to launch yet another cinematic universe. Gunn has a steep mountain to climb.
4 Likes
Indeed. If this one is not a financial mega success (Superman returns did make money, only not enough), Gunn‘s plans for DC will be shelved.
Maybe WB can sell DC to Disney then.
3 Likes
Superman is an incredibly unmined property on film in comparison to what is present in the comics. Now isn’t the time to play it safe and hold your fire for future instalments. They may not happen and it hasn’t happened in the past. Superman Returns was one and done with Lex Luthor again. Man of Steel was essentially a rejigged Superman II with Zod and friends, and after BvS Cavill was essentially done - with Batman being his main focus (Doomsday was there, but in a very limited role).
Apparently his dog Krypto will feature in the new movie and rumours are strong for Brainaic. That’s the type of thing I want to see. Something new and different. I’m much more of a Batman fan, but under the right circumstances I can become excited for Superman. My advice to James Gunn is to shoot for the stars. Go all out and put it on the screen. It’s a miracle another solo film is happening in the first place.
4 Likes
I agree with sharpshooter that this is likely a make-or-break enterprise for Superman as a film property. I’m a major fan of the character, but that’s been largely in spite of Hollywood and not because of it. I’m cautiously optimistic Gunn can do something fun with him, but the ability to keep hope alive for a decent adaptation of Superman to the big screen at this point is almost a super power in itself.
I also agree there’s much to be mined from the mythos: villains like Brainiac and Metallo, concepts like the Phantom Zone (let’s see inside it) and the Bottle City of Kandor…it’d be cool to see a wonder-filled Fortress of Solitude instead of what looks like a haphazard pile of frozen firewood. The “Superman and Lois” show did a cool/scary take on Bizarro (even if it ultimately fizzled) so there’s possibilities there. Heck after what he did with Starro in the Suicide Squad movie, it might be fun to see Gunn present a battle between Superman and Titano, the Super-ape. It’s frankly discouraging to see Lex Luthor coming back yet again (enough with that guy), but if we’re getting Krypto (this is the first I’ve heard of it), that’s pretty exciting. I’m a little unnerved by the addition of Metamorpho, Hawkgirl, Guy Gardner, etc because it suggests there’s not enough confidence that Superman can carry his own movie…but in fairness, it’s not like the filmmakers don’t remember all the failures as well as I do, so maybe they’re right to hedge bets. Basically I don’t know what to think.
On the upside, a big “Omnibus” volume of Silver Age Superman comics is due in a couple of weeks time, so if nothing else I’ll get my fix the old-fashioned way.
3 Likes
Great insights @David_M we think similar. It is also nice to see so many Superman fans on here that care about the character and his universe. I feel that the Salkinds could have easily done with Superman what EON did for Bond. I get that movies are a business, but the Salkinds were WAY too greedy and rude. They continuously screwed people out of money, and they paid for it with karma. Ever since Richard Donner and his crew left, Superman has not recovered in cinema. As EON continuously said, when in doubt go back to Fleming. With the continued overuse of Lex and Zod, it would be like EON alternating between Goldfinger and Blofeld as villains: the series wouldn’t have continued positively. Brainiac, Parasite, Metallo and several other Superman villains are pure great cinematic storytelling. I think WB should do the same with Superman, it’s time to explore the mythology of the character. They’ve done it with Batman numerous times, and have generally succeeded with the character, more often than not. Superman is one of the greatest characters ever made, it’s time that cinema helped prove he is.
3 Likes
To me, the Salkinds were almost like caricatures of the “Movie Producer” type. They were canny enough to at least imagine – where others could not – the possibility that a Superman film could be a true blockbuster and not just niche kiddie fare, but even then that could have just been the typical producer mindset of “there’s a fortune to be made here” as opposed to any artistic instincts or respect for the property. In retrospect, the fact that Richard Donner ended up on the film is nothing short of miraculous, and likely the only thing that made the first film work. He was not only the right guy for the job, but maybe the only one who could’ve pulled it off.
On the other hand, the unique success of the Donner era has resulted in an outsized, even strangling influence on later efforts, as witness the recycled Williams score, the prominence of Zod (never a major player in the books pre-S:TM), the tedious over-reliance on Lex Luthor and the tremendous missed opportunity of “Superman Returns” with its inexplicable determination to “continue” a franchise that had ended decades before (and even then only picking up after “2” and ignoring the rest) rather than try for anything new.
Then of course we got the worst of both worlds with “Man of Steel,” which threw most of what makes the character work out the window but was careful to keep Zod, since these days superhero movies are all about fights with villains who have the same power set as the hero.
As many have noted, DC properties almost always do better as TV animation than cinematic live-action, while with Marvel the opposite is true. I still haven’t come up with an explanation for that, but I definitely believe it’s true. Anyway maybe Gunn can break the curse: there’s a definite air of the absurd and outlandish in the Superman mythos and those are qualities Gunn has shown an ability to lean into successfully, rather than shy away from. Just the mention of Krypto has encouraged me, since it doesn’t get much sillier than a flying dog in a cape, but if anyone could pull it off it would be that guy.
3 Likes
I was going to write about my few memories from 60s/70s Superman when I saw you already mentioned the exact elements that fascinated me and which are sorely lacking in the cinematic Superman so far.
My own theory - more of a sieve; not holding too much water due to inconsistencies* - is that Marvel’s output aims to infuse our reality with fantastic elements but tries to keep our world recognisable. While DC starts out from a foundation that resembles our own world but is already two steps removed and recognisably (Metropolis, Gotham, Smallville) not ours. Consequently adaptations that don’t bother with too much realism but embrace the fantasy of it all - Burton’s Batman for example - work the best.
That would also be the only way to approach cities in bottles or a future where a younger main protagonist Superboy is part of a Legion of Super-Heroes and switches back and forth between these pastimes. Donner’s Superman had that mindset of ‘who cares’ in principle and ran with it. What they not yet had was the CGI and, after Brando, the budget for more impressive sets.
*Marvel’s early Fantastic Four/Doctor Doom/Inhumans/Namor stuff for example is certainly pure fantasy and embraced magic and faerie tale elements wholeheartedly.
2 Likes
That’s as good a theory as any.
I remember being awed by Donner’s take on Krypton and charmed by his Smallville – both aimed at carefully constructing a scenario in which maybe all that stuff could really be happening, just off our radar – but once Superman spins out of that revolving door and flies into action in Metropolis, it’s no longer possible to accept that the film is occuring in our world. We don’t live in a world with superheroes. So in a way all that set-up time is wasted: why not just start the film in a world where there is a Superman and forget trying to make him work in ours? That may help explain the popularity of the second, inferior film, which dispenses with origins and world-building and jumps feet first into the (fantasy-based) action. Marvel has New York, a real-life city. DC has Metropolis, Gotham, Star City, Coast City, Central City…it’s not even supposed to be our Earth. (Literally…we live on Earth-Prime).
And I agree about the 1989 Batman: Anton Furst’s Gotham City was obviously no place in our world, and it’s easier for me to accept it than to suspend my disbelief that Bale’s Batman could really operate in a recognizable Chicago. The Burton films are far from perfect, but I don’t spend all my time thinking about how crazy it is that other characters are carrying on a straight-faced conversation with a guy in a bat costume like I do with the Nolan films. But at the same time the Burton/Schumacher Gothams always felt setbound and artificial, and consequently made Batman’s adventures seem claustrophobic and low stakes.
I think DC’s utter dependency on Batman these days – in comics and on screen – results from their trying to emulate Marvel with “realistic” stories set in something close to our world, only (somehow) more bleak and hopeless. Of all their characters, Batman comes closest to working in a gloomy world devoid of childlike wonder and unfettered imagination, but characters like Superman, The Flash, Green Lantern, etc rely on a certain degree of whimsy, which isn’t currently “kewl.” But, I would argue, it’s one of those magical things that whoever has the vision to work into a film will find the audience was waiting for all along, and will gladly give their money to see.
4 Likes
Especially in our time and day. It feels like we’re craving something along the lines of the Flash Gordon serials, a joyride of bonkers sensations and adventures without the need to constantly claim relevance or realism.
3 Likes