Superman: Legacy

Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I still prefer the Donner/Reeve production design. No textured de-saturated costumes, no oddball logos, etc.

'Superman Returns' needed work but it did a lot of things right.

There are other superheroes who benefit from the modern-dark-gritty treatment. Supes isn't one of them.
 
Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I still prefer the Donner/Reeve production design. No textured de-saturated costumes, no oddball logos, etc.

'Superman Returns' needed work but it did a lot of things right.

There are other superheroes who benefit from the modern-dark-gritty treatment. Supes isn't one of them.
I don't think they're going that direction. Not saying I trust Gunn implicitly, but I think he gets it.
 
We’ll never go back to the Donner era, and though I love that screen version, I don’t need it again.

Nor do I need a 60’s version of Batman.

Things change and superheroes are meeting new expectations.

As long as they capture the spirit of Superman and skip the dark brooding, destroy half a city fighting Zod, I’m cool.
 
I have a good feeling about this movie. I haven't seen anything with the actor who's playing Superman. So that's a good thing for me. Lois casting seems perfect. I think I saw her once in that spy TV show. And the guy who plays Lex is good in every movie I've seen. He was really good in The Menu.

The only doubt I have comes from that last Suicide Squad movie which was ok in parts. But wasn't something I would own. And the fact that this is not a full reboot.
 
We’ll never go back to the Donner era, and though I love that screen version, I don’t need it again.

Nor do I need a 60’s version of Batman.

Things change and superheroes are meeting new expectations.

As long as they capture the spirit of Superman and skip the dark brooding, destroy half a city fighting Zod, I’m cool.

IMO the Donner movies did Superman more justice than the 1960s TV show did for Batman. Different franchises.

I don't need Supes to be living in the Donner movie world. But I want him to be that guy. The MCU's Captain America was that guy in a modern setting and it worked. At the costume level, I just don't think de-saturated colors and an overly stylized logo is how Supes would want to present himself. He's straightforward. Let him be.

IMO the way these costumes are handled in modern movies is a bit of a crutch. The filmmakers don't want to stick their necks out and portray these characters in the classic way. Pulling off that loud cheesy 1970s outfit is a high-risk-high-reward thing. You can see it when you watch the old audition tapes for the Donner movie role. Christopher Reeve completely owned it and the other actors looked ridiculous.



I get that the traditional comic book appearances aren't always valid for cinema. Batman was only ever wearing blue/gray because black is impractical for comic art. Spandex became the perceived standard outfit material for these characters because the comic artists basically just drew muscular naked human figures and then inked colors over the flesh. Etc.

But Superman actually belongs in something pretty darn straightforward. I can compromise on the skin-tight or the material texture. But I want the bright colors and the simple logo. He's not trying to hide. He doesn't need protection on his knees or elbows. The skin on the bottoms of his feet is tougher than the strongest combat boots. The only purpose of his outfit is to be a billboard for who he is.

In Superman's fictional world, that S-logo has not already been around for a century. It doesn't need to look 'fresh' because nobody is tired of a dozen older ones. I don't expect them to use the 1930s logo today but IMO it does need to be reasonably clear what letter it is. This new logo (in the James Gunn movie) looks like you'd only recognize it if you have the context of knowing what Superman is.
 
Last edited:
I don't need Supes to be living in the Donner movie world. But I want him to be that guy. The MCU's Captain America was that guy in a modern setting and it worked. At the costume level, I just don't think de-saturated colors and an overly stylized logo is how Supes would want to present himself. He's straightforward. Let him be.

THIS. Superman and his movie need to be brightly colored, I daresay like the WW84 version of Wonder Woman. Superman is an optimistic character.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The heart and conscience of Superman come from Jonathan Kent:


You do the right thing in the moment no matter what. You don't let kids die on a bus to prevent an international incident of some kind. You don't destroy half a city to murder a villain. The needs of the many DO NOT outweigh the needs of the few. You don't trade lives. Do the right thing now. Always.
 
Last edited:
I don't know, listening to interviews he's done, I'm not sold on Gunn's filmmaking sensibilities. I'm curious how it will go though.

As far as the production design, I understand the need for uniqueness but I do agree with batguy that '78 had it perfect. Well, it had everything perfect. I don't like the de-saturation of colors or the overly textured suits either but I do understand changing the emblem even though again, '78 had it perfect. They want something that's easily recognizable as this version of Superman. Think of the various Batmans and how you can easily recognize them just by their Bat symbols. I'm sure marketing plays into that as well.
 
I have faith in Gunn telling emotionally genuine stories with relatable well-written characters. Marvel's loss is DC's gain.
 
I have faith in Gunn telling emotionally genuine stories with relatable well-written characters. Marvel's loss is DC's gain.
I was just having this conversation today with a friend of mine concerning how characters are written, specifically Superman. One criticism I hear a lot is that Superman isn't relatable (I know you weren't necessarily referencing Superman in particular but rather characters in general to which I agree). Being relatable is fine but I don't need to find them relatable. I just to need to understand them. I should also say there's plenty of things relatable about Superman or more specifically Clark Kent but I digress. I would hope Gunn doesn't go down the path of making Superman as equally fallible as your average person. The character still has to be a paragon of virtue. In that way, I shouldn't be able to relate to him. I should aspire to be him. I'm not sure Gunn feels the same about the character or...maybe he does. I'll be happy to be surprised if he does. I have to say though his opinion of Burton's Batman greatly soured my interest in what he has to offer.
 
I have to say though his opinion of Burton's Batman greatly soured my interest in what he has to offer.

I love the 1989 Batman flick but most of JG's criticisms were valid.

I don't agree about the whole movie being TERRIBLE on the whole. (The batsuit? The soundtrack? Really?) But IMO it was the right movie for 1989. It wouldn't be the right movie to make today. At that time everybody was so desperately relieved that it wasn't the cornball 1960s TV show approach. Michael Keaton wasn't hamming it up. The public was okay with them erring a few steps too far in other directions.

As for Nicholson playing his 'Shining' character . . . Umm, yeah. It was a great idea. Too bad Nicholson didn't look the same in 1989. They should have given him the Joker role on the condition that he lose some weight.

IMO 'Batman Returns' is the one that deserves criticism. When Hollywood does something like that today, the fans (rightly) call it out for being a bait-and-switch.
 
I hope that we see the return of the greatest of the Super Powers:

“The Awesome Colossal Cellophane ‘S’”!!!

IMG_3525.jpeg
IMG_3526.jpeg

 
Last edited:
I love the 1989 Batman flick but most of JG's criticisms were valid.

I don't agree about the whole movie being TERRIBLE on the whole. (The batsuit? The soundtrack? Really?) But IMO it was the right movie for 1989. It wouldn't be the right movie to make today. At that time everybody was so desperately relieved that it wasn't the cornball 1960s TV show approach. Michael Keaton wasn't hamming it up. The public was okay with them erring a few steps too far in other directions.

As for Nicholson playing his 'Shining' character . . . Umm, yeah. It was a great idea. Too bad Nicholson didn't look the same in 1989. They should have given him the Joker role on the condition that he lose some weight.

Funny thing, I had a film review on in the background and the clip of Nicholson laughing came up and for a second I thought it was from Batman until I realized it was from The Shining. Yeah, it's the same character and yeah I'm totally fine with it too. It worked.

Back to Gunn. That's what I mean. "TERRIBLE"?! Okay, so it's not his cup of tea but, "TERRIBLE"? That's extreme. Especially in regard to the Elfman score. Even saying it's average is extreme imo. It's a great movie. Maybe it's not his ideal version of Batman. Okay, fine. There's many aspects of the Nolan films that aren't my 'ideal' Batman either but I still recognized why they worked so well. A guy in his position, heading up his own division of a studio has to look beyond his own tastes and understand why it was and still is a popular version of Batman. Like you said, it was the movie Batman fans needed. If Gunn were in charge in the late 80's, would he have greenlit Burton's Batman, recognizing its potential despite not liking it personally? Because that scenario could happen now and he might not have the sense to realize it.

IMO 'Batman Returns' is the one that deserves criticism. When Hollywood does something like that today, the fans (rightly) call it out for being a bait-and-switch.

How so?
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top