Went to Dark Night yesterday and really liked it. I didn't like it as much as the Avengers but they are totally different types of movies.
Bane was a good villain but they really messed up his voice, sounded like a cross between Dr Evil and Darth Vader.
The story was great and I think it was a perfect way to end the trilogy.
I wouldn't mind seeing Batman retired for a little while. DC needs to start building some of their other characters. If Marvel can do it I don't see why DC can't. Starting over with Superman is a good start. Hopefully Flash is in the lineup.
I was obsessed with Superman as a kid. Loved the old movies. As an adult, I have to acknowledge that Superman is a major challenge. Superman is an exceptionally difficult character to do as a film these days and get taken seriously. Very difficult. I think it will suffer the same pitfalls of "Thor" and "Green Lantern"... which is to say that when you base a significant portion of your character on unexplainable magic-esque powers from unrelatable alien worlds... it's very difficult for modern audiences to suspend their disbelief. What I'm saying is... you might be able to come up with a cheesy popcorn flick (like Thor and Green Lantern), but there's no way you're going to come up with a "great" film that is critically acclaimed (like The Dark Knight). I just can't see it happening.
First, can you think of any modern film that was critically acclaimed while leaning heavily on an alien planet? "Prometheus" was alright, but not great. It succeeded more, because it avoided really explaining much. The Star Wars prequels were weak. "John Carter from Mars" was weak. When you're looking at Azgard in "Thor" or the alien planets in Green Lantern, it's too easy to just check out mentally and think it's ridiculous. My girlfriend brought up "Avatar", but we both acknowledged it was successful mainly because of the otherworldly special effects and innovating techniques. Most critics would acknowledge "Avatar" was sorta a crap story beyond the eye candy. And even then, it's a lot easier to buy into a primitive species on an Alien planet 150 years from now. With "Superman", you probably start the film with some aliens on a distant plant arguing politics.
Then his powers. I love his powers, but his powers are ridiculous. How does he manage to see light and color using his x-ray vision? That's ridiculous. How does one manage to shoot fire out of his eyeballs? That's ridiculous. Pretty much all of the successful superhero films lean on some sort of genetic mutation or advanced technology to allow folks to relate to the story and keep it somewhat grounded in reality. Think of Iron-Man, Hulk, Batman, Captain America, Spider-man... it's all some pseudo science backing it up. Undeniably unrealistic pseudo science, but it's enough for people to latch onto mentally. You can't really use pseudo science to explain Superman. About the only thing they can really say is that he's invulnerable, because his alien body is made up of denser cells or something. That doesn't explain his ability to fly at will and freeze people with super breath. In "Chronicle", they based all their powers on telekinetic ability... since they could move objects with their mind it allowed them to eventually move themselves with their mind. It also benefited heavily by explaining NONE of their origin.
I was thinking there were two paths to potentially make a good Superman movie.
#1 - You keep the character and back story distant from the audience. You don't blatantly explain anything. You don't show Krypton at all. You glimpse his life at different intervals. Basically.. you do "Tree of Life", but with Superman. Less is more. Maybe you eliminate some of his more ridiculous powers. The audience gradually learns he's different... that he's "alien" to this world. And you keep it at that. Think of the first half of "Phenomenon" before John Travolta realizes he has a brain tumor. For part of that movie you buy into his sudden freak abilities and enjoy them without explanation. Maybe that would work. Or, maybe you explain his powers by going "What the Bleep" on it. Some wonky quantom physics or higher level science. Here's what I'm saying... we know that as humans the amount of the world we are actually able to visually see with our eyes is miniscule. Less than 1/1,000,000 of a percent of the electro-magnetic spectrum is visible in light. Someone else much smarter than me could explain this better. Basically... as humans there is very little energy, light, color and particles we see with our human eyes and human brain. There is an entire world in front of us that we don't see. People have talked about this before... that if you go beyond cellular level and start getting into atoms and particles, you realize that everything in this entire world is connected. Technically I could stand 1000 feet away from another person and we'd technically be "touching" via a long string of atoms. Maybe Superman's advanced alien brain and body allows him to visually see more of the electromagnetic spectrum. Maybe he can see and hear energy waves and atomic particles that our eyes are incapable of seeing... perhaps that's how he can see through buildings. You'd need to show a shot from his perspective... and have the world look ENTIRELY different than how we see it. The light, color, depth, energy waves, sound waves... everything entirely visible through his alien eyes. Show that. Maybe the fact that this entire world is connected via atomic energy is the explanation for his ability to fly. It's also the basis for telekinesis, actually. It's the idea that I can move something with my mind, because technically I'm already touching it through energy. Maybe Superman's advanced alien body can grasp ALL of the world we don't see. Problem is, the more you delve into this "Tree of Life"/"What the Bleep" version of Superman... the less it will start to feel like Superman. And then... what's the point? BTW, from the brief trailer I saw of "Man of Steel", i thought it was interesting that the shots actually did remind me a bit of "Tree of Life". I wonder if they are going in that direction. I have very little hope, though. I fear Zach Snyder is a total hack.
#2 - I think this is the second path you could take to make a "critically acclaimed" Superman movie. Set it sometime between the 1930s-60s, make it HIGHLY stylized and forget about trying to shoehorn Superman into a "realistic" world. Just make it really fun, somewhat campy and have a blast with it. For example, if you set it in the 50s during an "innocent' period where people were deftly afraid of flying saucers... it might work. By highly stylized I mean... movies like "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow". Not a very good movie, but that's what I'm talking about. "Sin City" is another example of a highly stylized movie based on a comic. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying make Superman like "Sin City"... "Sin City" is a very dark comic. I'm just saying "Sin City" is an excellent example of being hyper stylized, based on a comicbook... and still work. You don't have to worry about making Superman fit into "The Dark Knight" world. Just have fun with it. I adored "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World". It was a fantastic little movie and partially, because it didn't bother with trying to be "real". While I was enjoying the crap out of "Scott Pilgrim", I never stopped to say... "wait a second... these fight sequences don't mesh with the real world". Do that with Superman. Why not? Stay true to Superman. "The Incredibles" was an excellent movie, but it had the benefit of being a computer animated cartoon where expectations are different. I still think you can make a true-to-the-comics over the top comicbook hero movie... you'd just need a capable director who doesn't mind embracing the content for what it is. If done well... it could still be critically acclaimed. I'd love to see a humorous take on the Mad Men era, extremely stylized... with Superman being his badass self without the burden of trying to make sense in the real world. Don't apologize for his ridiculous powers, ridiculous secret identity and ridiculous origin. EMBRACE them and make it as fun as possible. It is entirely possible to make a "great" film based on Superman... you just need to completely change your expectations and go in the complete opposite direction of where the trend is heading.
Basically... would it be so terrible to do a live-action version of the 1940s cartoon... set in the 40s... with all the ridiculous and wonderful aspects that came with it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYMynm63A-kWhy not?
Just my opinion.
Topic: Superhero/Comics Movie Thread (Read 166956 times)