Dredd at San Diego Comic Con?

[Buddy]

I'm actually pretty interested in the new Supes movie, Zack Snyder did what most people thought impossible- bringing Watchmen to the big-screen faithfully

I think I seen a different version of Watchmen than you.

[blackmocco]

Nothing but truth, sadly. Warners loses the rights to make a Superman movie pretty soon if they don't have one in production so this is getting pissed through the pipeline. Lame. Also, I wouldn't get too excited about Christopher Nolan's involvement. It's in name only, apparently, to get seats on bums.

[Buddy]

Yeah, that's what I've heard too... this Superman film is being fast tracked to retain the rights and Snyder got the gig 'cause he'll do what he's told and get a fast turn around on it.

I mean.. Lindsy Lohan is in it! (and for that reason alone I'll never watch it)

You have to ask yourself just how serious they are taking this.

[JOE SOAP]

Nothing but truth, sadly. Warners loses the rights to make a Superman movie pretty soon if they don't have one in production so this is getting pissed through the pipeline. Lame. Also, I wouldn't get too excited about Christopher Nolan's involvement. It's in name only, apparently, to get seats on bums.

Chris Nolan yes has fuck all really to do but, it's from his brother's story, so it's not that black & white.

[Beaky Smoochies]

However it turns out, it can't be much worse than Bryan Singer's snooze-fest Superman Returns, I mean, Singer said if he had to do it again, he'd just remake Donner's timeless 1978 movie... words fail me...

[blackmocco]

Nothing but truth, sadly. Warners loses the rights to make a Superman movie pretty soon if they don't have one in production so this is getting pissed through the pipeline. Lame. Also, I wouldn't get too excited about Christopher Nolan's involvement. It's in name only, apparently, to get seats on bums.

Chris Nolan yes has fuck all really to do but, it's from his brother's story, so it's not that black & white.

Aye, his brother's involved but it's David Goyer who figured out how to approach the movie. God help us all.

Chris Nolan: "..What it is, while David Goyer and myself were putting together the story for another Batman film a few years ago, you know thrashing out where we might move on from the Dark Knight, we got stuck. We were just sitting there idly chatting and he said "by the way, I think know how you approach Superman".. and he told me his take on it. I thought it was really tremendous. It was the first time I've been able to conceive of how you'd address Superman in a modern context I thought it was a really exciting idea. What you have to remember about Batman and Superman is that what makes them the best superhero characters there are, the most beloved after all this time, is the essence of who they were when they were created, when they were first developed. You can't move too far away from that."

I hope it's good. I really do but Goyer's a disaster when left on his own and throwing Snyder into the mix just gives me the wrong vibe. He just didn't understand Watchmen. Paid attention to all the wrong scenes and hashed over all the parts of the book I thought were interesting. (I'm not saying there was anyone else who could have pulled it off, mind you but someone with a little more understanding of subtlety would have been welcome.)

Personally, Superman just doesn't work for me as a character too well. He's too powerful, too impervious and I s'pose, just too clean-cut for my tastes but I'd love to see a movie done well on the same scale as the 1978 version. I know it's pretty cheesy to look at these days but making one of these movies that can cater to a general audience and the core fanbase so effortlessly seems to be something of a lost art these days. Would have loved to see what Aronofsky would have done with this...

[Beaky Smoochies]

C'mon, you think the Richard Donner 1978 movie is "cheesy to look at these days", REALLY?  I would still put it up there as THE definitive comic-book adaptation to date; thrilling, spectacular, funny, and genuinely touching, not to mention THAT theme tune, what more could you ask for (the only thing wrong with it is that Donner didn't return to complete Superman II)...!?  But the upcoming Dredd movie will hopefully give it a run for it's money (in a different way, of course, given the very different source material)...

[blackmocco]

It's cheesy in the sense that it didn't have to be particularly inventive to grab an audience's attention. Obviously, it was 1978 and the bar hadn't been set very high in terms of comic-to-movie adaptations. I still love it, don't get me wrong and Chris Reeve is still the Superman to be bettered. It's a perfect adaptation. It really is. It has everything: The scale, the cast, the running time, the soundtrack even if to this day, I still don't quite understand the ending!

As for Donner, it's no surprise to me why the first X-Men worked so well. He's a director (Well, producer in X-Men's case) who understands how to bring these movies to life...

[JOE SOAP]

It's a perfect adaptation.

...apart from Lex luthor, who's played like a Vaudville villain and the deus ex machina of turning-back-time to save Lois.

[JOE SOAP]

But the upcoming Dredd movie will hopefully give it a run for it's money (in a different way, of course, given the very different source material)...

Not in terms of box-office, it won't.

[blackmocco]

It's a perfect adaptation.

...apart from Lex luthor, who's played like a Vaudville villain and the deus ex machina of turning-back-time to save Lois.

Yeah, still don't quite understand the end! Haha! If he saves Lois by going back in time, does that mean he doesn't actually do all the other stuff he was doing while she was dying...? Stopping the flood, saving the train...?

[vzzbux]

Nah it means he is in two places at once and when old supe catches up in time he ceases to exist. You know timey wimey stuff.





V

[Woolly]

Nah it means he is in two places at once and when old supe catches up in time he ceases to exist. You know timey wimey stuff.

Thats how i've always read it too. And the Earth doesnt turn backwards - its just a visual metaphor to show that Supes is going back in time.

Also, that ending was originally for Superman 2 - they ended up using it for Superman 1 because production was rushed to get it out in time, and at that point they hadn't written the actual ending! (if you get what i mean, my english aint great!) 

[JOE SOAP]

And the Earth doesnt turn backwards - its just a visual metaphor to show that Supes is going back in time.

I don't think anyone argues with that but my gripe is he interfered with 'Earth's' history -stated clearly by his father- and is a dramatic cop-out which destroys the emotion, the impact of losing Lois, the point of the moral conflict in the previous 'hero' scenes and Supe's stress of desperately trying to save everyone in the first place. The end consequence more or less saying ' it all didn't matter cos he went back and saved her anyway so he needn't have worried 'bout having to do it all at once in the first place.' A total cop-out.

[blackmocco]

Nah it means he is in two places at once and when old supe catches up in time he ceases to exist. You know timey wimey stuff.





V

I guess it says more about me than the movie itself that it's taken 33 years for that to finally make sense to me. Never considered there'd be another Supes. Haha! Even as a kid, all I was thinking was "wait, who's saving the train now...?"

Fucking time travel.