Superman: Legacy

[batguy]

It is concerning to have so many of the comic characters in the trailer. They all need storytelling reasons for being there, unless they are pretty minor cameos.


The Joker was the main villain in 'Dark Knight'. No question. But Two-Face was also totally integral to the story. You couldn't put together a shortened TV edit that has Harvey Dent's scenes removed. You couldn't edit a version where Harvey doesn't become Two-Face. He's totally necessary.

Same with 'Dark Knight Rises'. You couldn't cut out Catwoman, or Talia Al Ghul, or Robin. They are all structural to the story. That's why the heavy villain load in that movie works. The only one you could cut was Scarecrow. But he had a major role earlier in the series, and his screen time in 'Rises' was a brief cameo.

If that final Scarecrow cameo in 'Rises' had been a new actor playing the Riddler . . . now that would have felt totally tacked-on. "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

 

[Paul Andrew]

After the GotG movies I trust Gunn enough to put together a coherent and heartfelt story. This looks like a Superman you can cheer for. I'm ready.

 

[Cephus]

That's why I cancelled my Disney+ subscription years ago. It's 99% garbage, and the 1% isn't worth the fee.

There is nothing on Disney+ that I would ever watch, even if I was willing to give Disney one red cent of my money, which I'm not. Any movies they ever did that I want to see, I already have on DVD.

 

[blewis17]

Got to agree, way to much going on for my liking. The old Christopher Reeves movie still ranks as the best for me. Man of steel was great. Superman returns was... What's the word... Forgettable

Which is really a shame, because I think Routh made a good Clark Kent/Superman.

 

[batguy]

"Returns" was a weird case.

I once read a comment that was comparing it to the Star Wars prequels. There were some good components but they were not assembled well. It should have been a better movie than it was.

Routh worked as Supes. But some of the other players like Lois Lane were miscast.

Kevin Spacey was more Dr. Evil than Lex Luthor. Like the way Jack Nicholson overshadowed his own character in the first Batman.

The movie's biggest problems weren't the cast so much as the script and the directing & editing pace. Bryan Singer seemed to want to recapture the wrong aspects of the Donner movies.

 

[asalaw]

"Returns" was a weird case.

I once read a comment that was comparing it to the Star Wars prequels. There were some good components but they were not assembled well. It should have been a better movie than it was.

Routh worked as Supes. But some of the other players like Lois Lane were miscast.

Kevin Spacey was more Dr. Evil than Lex Luthor. Like the way Jack Nicholson overshadowed his own character in the first Batman.

The movie's biggest problems weren't the cast so much as the script and the directing & editing pace. Bryan Singer seemed to want to recapture the wrong aspects of the Donner movies.

I watched it once in the theater, and I haven't watched it again since. I was very put off by the fact that Routh and Bosworth both looked like teenagers, yet they had a six-year-old boy. And even without the kid (a character I thought was superfluous anyway), they both just looked too young for their roles. Reeve and Kidder were bang-on casting-wise, the perfect ages to give credibility to their characters, and had phenomenal chemistry. It truly was lightning in a bottle.

Superman needs a certain amount of gravitas to pull off the "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" shtick with earnestness that doesn't feel naive, and Lois Lane needs a little mileage to play the hard-bitten, cynical Metropolis reporter who falls for the small-town true believer. You can't just stick twelve-year-olds in those roles and hope they'll grow into them.

 

[drusselmeyer]

A 12 min interview in a Superman film is pretty much a red flag that the pacing will suffer when there are so many other characters and obvious plotlines.

We'll see if it goes from sluggish to frenetic soon enough.

 

[batguy]

I watched it once in the theater, and I haven't watched it again since. I was very put off by the fact that Routh and Bosworth both looked like teenagers, yet they had a six-year-old boy. And even without the kid (a character I thought was superfluous anyway), they both just looked too young for their roles. Reeve and Kidder were bang-on casting-wise, the perfect ages to give credibility to their characters, and had phenomenal chemistry. It truly was lightning in a bottle.

Superman needs a certain amount of gravitas to pull off the "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" shtick with earnestness that doesn't feel naive, and Lois Lane needs a little mileage to play the hard-bitten, cynical Metropolis reporter who falls for the small-town true believer. You can't just stick twelve-year-olds in those roles and hope they'll grow into them.

I thought Routh & Bosworth were old enough to have the kid. But Supes & Lois aren't supposed to have a kid out of wedlock, period. It's deconstructionism.

Routh was decent but he didn't really have a good movie.

Christopher Reeve is setting the bar too high IMO. James Bond, Han Solo, Rocky Balboa, Mad Max . . . these iconic roles can be re-cast with a serviceable new actor. But they rarely ever match the first one. The new one always disappoints in some way and you just have to roll with it.


Batman is an exception. I don't think we have seen the perfect live-action Batman yet. I think Christian Bale might have been pretty close in a different set of movies. But the Nolan trilogy leaned so hard into realism that Bruce/Batman never got comfortable in his own skin.

 

[HeartBlade]

To be fair, we know that Superman is having an interview with Lois Lane. The appearance of many different characters could be Superman regaling one of his adventures or Lois proposing a hypothetical as trailer bait (would be scummy). I agree too many characters ruin a film (Spiderman 3 being a notable example) but I think Gunn knows that as well and wont overload the film with too many characters (hopefully).

 

[AJTaliesen]

I’ll go see it. I like everything in the trailer except the dog.

The dog might be the best part of a comic or cartoon, but in live action it makes my eyes hurt from rolling.

Also (this is very minor) but I’ve never liked the modern concept that he just seems to fly by lowering his personal gravity with his thoughts. Older movies in TV does he had to put his arms up and actually PUSH a bit to take off. Like jumping but one step beyond. Now in every movie he just floats up and down on a thought. Like if he’s not careful he might float away in his sleep.

 

[scottsusernames]

I’ll go see it. I like everything in the trailer except the dog.

The dog might be the best part of a comic or cartoon, but in live action it makes my eyes hurt from rolling.

Also (this is very minor) but I’ve never liked the modern concept that he just seems to fly by lowering his personal gravity with his thoughts. Older movies in TV does he had to put his arms up and actually PUSH a bit to take off. Like jumping but one step beyond. Now in every movie he just floats up and down on a thought. Like if he’s not careful he might float away in his sleep.

The original concept of Superman had him so strong that he "could leap tall buildings in a single bound", i.e. jump so high and far that it would appear that he was flying. Kind of like the contemporary Hulk.

 

[AJTaliesen]

The original concept of Superman had him so strong that he "could leap tall buildings in a single bound", i.e. jump so high and far that it would appear that he was flying. Kind of like the contemporary Hulk.

Yeah, going all the way back he was a lot weaker in many ways, no X-ray vision, no super breath, strong enough to lift cars and bend bars, and apparently one quote was "nothing short of an exploding shell can pierce his skin"

Over the years that evolved to: can float with a thought. Strong enough to lift entire continents, able to see through anything except plot armor, and invulnerable to all weapons except kryptonite and batmen.

I may not be alone in this, but probably am in the minority in saying that the original concept was a more compelling character.

 

[batguy]

IIRC the "leap tall buildings in a single bound" graduated up to literally flying in the early Fleischer cartoons. It was easier to animate a flying character than trying to do jumps that aligned with physics.


Looking forward, IDGAF what they do with the flying power. But he needs to be able to conjure that giant cellophane 'S' logo.

 

[Bloop]

To be fair, we know that Superman is having an interview with Lois Lane. The appearance of many different characters could be Superman regaling one of his adventures or Lois proposing a hypothetical as trailer bait (would be scummy). I agree too many characters ruin a film (Spiderman 3 being a notable example) but I think Gunn knows that as well and wont overload the film with too many characters (hopefully).

I'm not sure if she's actually supposed to be interviewing "Superman." I know Clark has his glasses off, but I thought it might be that Lois is using Clark as a practice interview for "the real" Superman, not knowing he's actually Superman, and Clark is actually answering genuinely. I could be wrong, obviously, but I kind of hope Lois doesn't know Clark is Superman so soon in this new incarnation.

 

[Bloop]

Yeah, going all the way back he was a lot weaker in many ways, no X-ray vision, no super breath, strong enough to lift cars and bend bars, and apparently one quote was "nothing short of an exploding shell can pierce his skin"

Over the years that evolved to: can float with a thought. Strong enough to lift entire continents, able to see through anything except plot armor, and invulnerable to all weapons except kryptonite and batmen.

I may not be alone in this, but probably am in the minority in saying that the original concept was a more compelling character.

Yes, limits are good for storytelling. But, at the same time, I'd like a story where a person has incredible power, can be anywhere on earth in no time, and struggles with balancing his personal life while trying to save "everyone." I don't think we've had something quite like that yet. Not saying this will be it, but it could be a compelling tale.

 

[Paul Andrew]

I'm not sure if she's actually supposed to be interviewing "Superman." I know Clark has his glasses off, but I thought it might be that Lois is using Clark as a practice interview for "the real" Superman, not knowing he's actually Superman, and Clark is actually answering genuinely. I could be wrong, obviously, but I kind of hope Lois doesn't know Clark is Superman so soon in this new incarnation.

My understanding is that Lois and Superman are already a thing, and she knows his identity. Not sure where I read that tbh

 

[batguy]

Telling Lois that he's Superman is a big deal.

She seems to know by the end of the movie. But it doesn't look like their romance is the dramatic center of the movie. So she probably already knows from the beginning.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

Telling Lois that he's Superman is a big deal.

Nah…he can have fun with it and tell her he’s Superman all the time and then just use his “magical kiss” power to wipe her memory.

I’ve seen the Lester cut of Superman II.

 

[drusselmeyer]

Not telling anyone a secret identity is not so much for the protection of the individual, but for all the related people around the secret identity.

It is for her protection, not his. It is a big deal.

 

[blewis17]

Not to de-rail this discussion of the upcoming film, but rather than start a new thread, I thought I would ask this Superman related question here.

In the 1978 Richard Donner Superman film, Lex Luthor hijacks 2 military warheads after their planned launch, as he has re-programmed them to new targets. So... why was the US Military launching these 2, ACTIVE WARHEAD 500 megaton bombs in the first place? For TESTING purposes??!! To test WHAT?! Where were the bombs ORIGINALLY supposed to target/detonate?