Amph Waiting For Superman: Gunnverse DCU/Elseworlds

Besides, you've got a movie that tells you how Ra's came to be what he was. It's called Taken.

 

Character Origin like X Men First Class and the 2009 Wolverine?

Yeah, I've heard such joke before.

 

That is silly. Straight up. Reading their names does not do anything. Reading their names will not make me know who they are. Their names should be there- credits are necessary and good and right... but I don't think they made the film to get their name on a screen. They got paid. They contributed to the work, in whatever way they did, and that's it. They should get credit, again, but, for an audience member, the credits are like interesting info if you know something about film or music, and it is fun to read sometimes, but...

They don't know you stayed. They don't care. And if they do, they shouldn't. So, you're helping no one.

I paid them money to see their film. That is plenty. I go to the theater. I do not download. If I like it, I will spread it by word of mouth and that is worth a lot more than watching the credits.

Credits can be up to six minutes long (easily noted when multiple songs play). But really, it varies. And, for the record, I usually do stay, especially when alone (most people want to leave asap, so I'm not going to force them to sit with me).

Very very few people die making films. Heath Ledger, I would argue, did not die making TDK. Brandon Lee died making The Crow... but even then, your phrasing makes it seem as if the weight of making the film had something to do with it, like it's such a horrible burden that some even die and how dare you not look at their name. If you love what you do, you don't do it to get credit. If you don't love it, you do it for the money- it's a job. Normally it's a mix of both.

I just nearly completely disagree. It's nice to stay and watch for the reasons you stated, but as a duty? or looked at from a step back, realistically? No. It's completely unnecessary. Enjoy the film. That is enough. That's what they made it for.

-roger that.

-You're right. I have thought about that. It's really all fine, but, personally, as a purist, as someone who enjoys choice, I want my film complete and I don't want to feel forced into doing something. But there's fun to it and... actually it does help the flow of traffic in the theater. (since some leave immediately) and it's a bit of a club of people in the know, but then again, everyone is in the know, so..... but generally I've found those people care a bit more.

-fair point.

-yeah, but that's a bit cowardly, to me, to be honest.

I will say I love the pixar outtakes that roll during the credits. If we're talking about making people stay, that's brilliant and fun AND they cap it with a stinger that is FUNNY. But then, that distracts from the credits themselves, which maybe calls into question how much they care about you reading them???

haw.

 

True, but there was no way to do the Mandarin without offending China and since they're a major international box office hot spot, Marvel needed to do something to get away with it. This was it.

How is it wrong?

No, it was more of a set up for a shared universe. Goyer and Snyder confirmed that. The reason for a lack of one in MOS, was that Deborah Snyder said that they didn't want to advertise another film that way. Hence no surprise cameo.

Or, if you want, you can just wait until the film comes out of DVD and Blu-Ray and then just fast forward to it. That's what I've done. I wait and ask where the teaser is and then depending on my mood, I either stay and wait, or head on out. Besides, the teasers go back to "Blade". There just wasn't a post credits or mid credits teaser until "Daredevil". Actually, I amend that. "Superman" had a thing at the end of the credits saying that the sequel would come out next year. This was, of course, prior to Donner being fired.

 

I'm Chinese American myself, most of the Chinese fans I met are also very disappointed with the change.

Whiplash is also a minor villain in the comic.




Rewatched my fanmade video, I really think a great villain is very important to the quality of the movie. Ralph Fiennes would be awesome to play a Superhero movie villain.

 

Slowpokeking to your first point, that's little more than semantics.

Now, as to what Snyder has to say about all this...

"...It's a nod of the hat and a tribute, absolutely. I wanted to do something for me that acknowledges the amazing partnership and friendship that I have with Chris. I wanted that in the movie somehow... There's a couple other little things in the movie that point to this DC expansion, though I'd say our main focus and our main goal was to get Superman to work 100%. I don't even know what it means, to be honest, having those things in there, other than to say, 'Yeah those things are in there.'" [abbreviated for clarity]

So................. yeah.

source: interview starts at 16:59. DC line of questioning starts at 18:42. He later says the JLA rumor mill is a little much. 20:38.

 

Tunny how aDC thread is invade with Mmarvel. Not hat I care but I know some people do.

 

Well, to turn it back to DC, thanks to local TV stations running effective two hour ads for Man of Steel -- i.e. reruns of the original '89 Batman and Superman 2 -- I actually got a chance to reacquaint myself with them. (The S-2 I watched seems to be a Donner cut -- it came with a more modern Warner Bros logo than the original film should've had, so I suspect without looking into it that this was a Donner cut or a reissue of some kind.)

Few random bits and pieces on rewatching them...

(1) My suspicion of some months ago was proven right: Clark doesn't have sex with Lois Lane until after he's been in the "Red Sun" chamber. This particular cut puts the afterglow after that scene, when he's an ordinary man; indeed that seems also to be the main story driver, that he can't or is not permitted by destiny/his Mom/Kryptonian genetics to have intercourse with a human until he's depowered. So, for what it's worth, Superman Returns doesn't have a gaping hole on this (and neither does Lois Lane's uterus, clearly) -- his kid turns out to be superpowered ala "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?", it's under the same circumstances as that story: just because a Kryptonian's depowered doesn't mean he can't pass his abilities onto his children.

(2) To me, the infamous "mindrape" scene comes off a lot lighter in context. Yes, Clark somehow removes Lois's memories (along with other assorted superpowers he, Zod and company demonstrate over the film, including telekinesis) but the context does make it understandable: Lois ahead of that act is explicitly in emotional agony prior to Clark kissing her memories away, and it's possibly the best acting Margot Kidder does in the part. She analogises being in love with Superman as being in love with a doctor: he's there, but when the call comes, he's not and there's nothing you can do about it but wait and hope. She also makes it explicit Clark is the only one she can love now she knows his identity, that anybody else on the planet runs a pretty poor second. And it's fascinating watching that bearing in mind the original Donner intent was to show that Clark having an attachment to Lois -- saving her -- was primed with karmic retribution in the form of the three Kryptonians (if I remember the story right). In a sense, this act is as much an attempt by Superman to "set things right" as it was turning back time. It does not come off as a selfish act in the slightest: by that point in the movie Clark was entirely content with letting Lois know his secrets.

(3) That aside, time has not been kind to this movie. Donner's film you can forgive its filming and technology for the soaring, messianic story contained within it. Donner knew how to frame his shots and how to capture the mood of a scene. Richard Lester just isn't in the same ballpark, and it shows all too painfully. Zod et. al. steal the movie and thereby save it from a very unfortunate demise (to mix some metaphors) and there are flashes of greatness from the dialogue and Reeve's really intense stare, which gets a big workout in this film. But most of it really feels more like a telemovie than a movie with a capital M.

(4) Best moment for me personally was when Clark finally drops the pretence to Lois and turns to face her as Superman. It's all just posture and muscle movement, but it happened so flawlessly I thought for a second there'd been some sort of morphing going on. You all know the scene in S-1 where Clark for a moment is tempted to tell Lois who he is, and how he shifts between Clark and Kal. This one scene from S-2 didn't even have Reeve facing the camera to do it. Anyone who thought he didn't understand acting needs to see that one scene if nothing else.

(5) People complaining about collateral damage in Man of Steel need to rewatch S-2. Seriously, the only reason they weren't throwing each other through buildings was because the technology and budget wasn't there -- and that even happens, at Kal-El's hands no less, at least once in the film. Clark does save a civilian during the fighting, it's true, but for the time there's an awful lot of innocents put at risk. And this is a Superman at the full height and control of his powers, with no attempt to take the fight out of the city other than "Would you like to step outside?"

(6) Onto Batman '89. First thing that struck me while watching Michael Keaton in the role is that I think I figured out what his secret is, or was: he basically played an anthropomorphic bat. It's a common acting technique, to try and immerse yourself in the mannerisms of an appropriate animal to portray certain features of a person, and that's exactly what he did here. It's not just the "hanging upside down from a bar" thing -- all of Keaton's movements play into being a bat: he doesn't slowly turn his head, it's a quick, sudden flick of the head ... like you'd expect a bat to do when it listens to something or is tracking on something. Even cooler was when Keaton takes off his sunglasses outside listening to the speech on the steps -- because that's the only scene in the movie where he doesn't twig on to what the Joker's mimes are doing until the last moment. He's a bat. During the day, he's blind! You didn't get the sense of there being two personalities, or at least it wasn't drawn out quite as strongly as in the Nolan films, but it is there: Bruce Wayne actually doesn't exist. There's only the Bat. It's just that this bat is a more secretive, survivor species of bat than the vampiric monster the Nolan (and Miller) bat seems to be.

(7) I was actually surprised how strong Kim Basinger's character actually was. It's not a standard damsel in distress thing. For a start, she has a fetish for bats from the first scene we see her in. And her character doesn't just passively react to everything: she has a brain, is able to make connections, and does have her own street-smart agenda. Vicki Vale actually presents as a stronger feminine role model than Lois Lane in either the Margot Kidder or Amy Adams incarnations.

(8) I got the very firm impression '89 Batman is much more aimed at the 1940s, 1950s Batman. Even with the odd anachronistic element in there, you can't get away from the 1940s costuming that pervades the entire film. Tim Burton films always seem to exist in some weird Elseworlds dimension, and this one is no exception.

 

Quick P.S.: The S-2 I looked at must have been the Richard Lester version with a new front end put on it by Warner Bros in the past ten years or so, I don't know. This definitely was not the Richard Donner cut, just reading about that project on the Net.

 

Superman Returns is fine for Superman fans, but not something the general audience wanted to see.

 

Well, it's more the government than the people, really. They're not happy with Chinese characters being portrayed as villains.

So? It's not like a minor villain cannot be remade into a major one. General Zod was not the threat that he's been since "Superman" and "Superman II" came out. Before then, he was a joke and the real threat was Jax-Ur. But thanks to the films, he's been used as a major threat in the comics, films and "Smallville" and became part of the pop culture lexicon.

No, but it was an issue way before then. Regardless of how he was going to be portrayed.

The thing with "Superman Returns" is that because the Brando footage was locked up tight while he was alive, there was no way to get the full version out there. Once Brando passed on, his estate was willing to deal and that's how the footage wound up in Singer's film. It wasn't until after that was going, that the Donner Cut was given the green light. But because SR would come first, there was no way for Singer to put over Donner's material. So this is why he says that the second film happens in a vague sorta way. He leans heavily towards Donner's material, but knows that more people were familiar with Lester's work.

Right. The original intent was for the missile to free the Phantom Zoners and thus helping to prove Jor-El's point about interfering. But the time travel was originally meant to revive Lois in the second film, who was killed by Ursa and Non. It was pushed to the first film to make it more dramatic at the end. However, the Donner Cut makes it clear that the agony was more that they couldn't be normal even around each other, more than being a couple.

It's not that Lester was a poor director, but he didn't have the same passion for it that Donner did. Lester was doing it for the cash and was rushing to get the film out on time, since under Donner, it was taking longer than the Salkinds preferred.

Yes, but there's a difference. Non and Ursa were going to toss a bus full of people at him. Zod, Faora, Jax-Ur, Nam-Ek and the rest didn't exactly do that. Clark doesn't show concern until the end with Zod, but that's because we finally had a scene with civilians in immediate danger, just like in "Superman II".

 

He does not need to be a Chinese, but replace him with Killian is just stupid.

 

Only to angry fanboys.

 

No, it's like replace the Joker with some clam black gentleman.

 

Is Deathstroke's name Slade Wilson like Deadpool's name is Wade Wilson

 

That's cool

Also Marvel has a Scarecrow of their own, they seem take characters from DC

 

Thanos is also based on Darkseid.

 

"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as millions of racist Batfans cried out in outrage and were suddenly silenced."

Oh wait, no they didn't, and no they weren't.

 

So now you know the Mandarin twist is stupid.

 

No, the only stupid part is people who insist you basically have to look exactly like the comic book incarnation in order to play the character credibly. There was the same stupid purist crap around Nolan daring to cast Heath Ledger as the Joker, around the Joker's entire look, and now Dark Knight is basically the best DC superhero film ever made in terms of box office.

EDIT: It's a doubly stupid idea given how many licks from the movies have seeped into the comics. The S on Superman's chest representing anything other than "Superman" came from the Donner films first. It had nothing to do with the comic. IIRC Byrne picked up and carried that concept with the Man of Steel reboot.