Thursday, February 26, 2009

Why Superman can be good and you can like him for it...cast!

Well, I know what you may be thinking: Rumors abound that the next film may be a sequel to Returns. Why focus on the cast?

Well duh! First, I'm hoping it's not. Starting from zero has the better chance of producing a good film(even for you, guys who loved Returns. Do you want to see the death of Richard and Jason?) Secondly, I think they can do better, frankly. Don't look at me with those soft round eyes! You know I'm right. Sure, you might have liked Routh or Spacey, but let's speculate of who could be directed to do better. Plus, I'll examine wich black people could play the role if they where chosen. Wll, I AM curious(black!)

Clark Kent/Superman.
This guy was pretty cool in Stardust. And he was in the second Narnia movie. Can't tell you if it was any good, but he looked kickass. Yeah, he's no muscle toned wrestler. But that can ba arranged and, to be frank, I don't want HHH as Superman.

Curious (Black!) Superman?
What? He's awesome in all of everything.

Lex Luthor:There's two choices I think can be good. The firs one is Steward Head. He was in Repo: the genetic opera. I suggest you watch it if you haven't. You will not regret.

Kiefer Sutherland could also play Lex. A different kind of Lex, but not in a bad way.

Black Lex Luthor? Collin Salmon!

Lois Lane: Rosario Dawson! Yeah, I know this ruins the race alternator. But for what it's worth, I think she should be Lois Lane. Try this: Search for a picture of Lois in Google. Now, Eliminate Smallville and Returns from the search. Do you see any pattern in the results, other than dark hair? Exactly.
If you don't like that choice, pick Mila Kunis.
Check Back Later!

Monday, February 23, 2009

Why Superman can be good and you can like him for it Parte Tres

Oh, the origin story. There are many who feel this element of Superman mythology is played out, worn up, and should just freakin' stay home today. That jumping to Superman as just Superman in a movie would be a great idea. I am here to adress that.

First of all, haven't we kinda been throught that already? Remember, the last movie, where they just skipped throught all that and jumped straigth to the Superman story at hand? Well, that could have been, better, couldn't it? While that works for fans of the character, whenever you're trying to sell the audience the character you start at the beggining, unless the character is supposed to be misterious or have a misterious past, like Wolverine. Why, they didn't do that with Spider-Man.

Second of all, dude, it's been 30 years since the last movie. It was released before I was born! And, yes, the Superman origin is a series of sentences that most of the Western World knows by now. He was Born on Krypton. They Sent him away because to save his life. He was adopted ang grew in a farm. And at some point he became a cape-wearing crime fighter. The good part of that is that it is extremely open to multiple interpretations and takes of various angles of the stories. Like, say add a villain(the first movie added Zod, the animated one Brainiac) to the mix.

Doesn't help that the origins is one of the best and most beloved parts of the franchise either.

More importantly, the origin enables the audience to take the ride with the character, to see what shaped him. You knew Spider-Man was gonna get bitten by a Spider, and Batman's parents were gonna get gunned down(I say, as far as played out, this one is even more than Superman's). And yet, the movies where entertaining .

It also allows the filmmakers to address concerns regarding the characters mythology that non-fans would have a problem suspending their disbelief over. Such as the glasses as disguise.

And finally, If you were handed the reigns of such an Iconic franchise, would you now want the full range of expression within it? Would you not want to take it in a direction that is yours? I know some folks wouldn't, like Bryan Singer. He was handed the keys to the Superkingdom, but all he could see was the past attempts. The inbred creative effort of trying to make it as much as it was is what led us to the current apparent quagmire.

No, DO start at the beggining. A sequel or semisequel to Returns would only further complicate things. I'm not throwing it overboard already and saying it's doomed to fail, but I see many a problem and nary a good solution.

A reboot without origin. I enjoy a mindless flick now and then, but without the origin that's bound to happen. If you haven't established (in film) exactly what Superman is about, and how he feels and what are his philosofies, then what? Is it gonna be "I'm Superman, flying around...OH LOOK IT'S DOOMSDAY, SUPERFIGHT!). Like Batman Begins, Superman needs to reestablish that he "isn't your father's Superman". And that can't be done withot cleaning the slate.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Why Superman can be good and you can like him for it Part DEUX

Now, a lot of talk has been done about about wich villain should be in a new movie. Recent news would have it that the sequel to Returns would be called: Superman Unleashed. The movie, as far as I've heard, is about Superman becoming mad as hell and dating an Indian scientist(?).

Before you hear my thoughts on this, though, let me tell you something. While many believe Lex Luthor is played out and should not be in a future movie, I disagree. See, Lex Luthor, when done right, can be a facilitator to villainy, even a Supervillain himself(by way of his Armor, as well as any other gain of powers). Don't discount Luthor because of what happened in the last couple of films. As a mad Scientist he can invent things to destroy Superman, or create his villains(Bizarro). As a white collar criminal, he can be the one guy Supeman can't just punch.

Now, who do I think should be the villain? Let's have a look.

Doomsday: Doomsday, while famous because of the death of Superman story, is not, in fact, all that great. A fight with Doomsday can't be paused, he just destroys and destroys and he doesn't stop. While that's good for a bit, building a story around Doomsday doesn't sound all that good to me. And after last time's "Superman's almost death", does anyone really think the Death of Superman is a good follow up?

My personal thoughts on Darkseid is that he's a good choice after being set up for. He should not apear in a first movie because he's a hard act to follow. You see, while Doomsday may be the character that broke Superman physically, Darkseid is the character that would break his spirit. In the animated series he MADE HIM CRY! So, at least for me "just bring in Darkseid" doesn't cut it. Besides, Darkseid doesn't just ever arrive by himself and he would never work for anyone else.

Brainiac is such an open ended villain, I think he has the best chance of being the next villain. And there's various lessons about being human and having emotions wich could be learned. Brainiac is probably one of the better choices.

Metallo: Metallo is a good choice, too. Though, again, Metallo IS just a Superrobot. He's good as a threat, but the motivation, I don't know if it's there.

Zod: Why not, since Synger apparently can only emulate the Donner films, he might as well pull of this. Again, Zod would be kind of cool, but it's 2009: We've Seen Spider-Man punch Doctor Octopus, we've seen The Neo/Smith fight and we've seen Hancock. A Superfight between Zod and Superman shouldn't involve a bunch of grandstanding like last time.

Bizarro: I think Bizarro, Superman's failed clone, could make a couple of interesting stories. Plus: Superfights.

Those are the basic choices most people think about. I want to Suggest something else, though, because I just thought about it yesterday.

Superman vs The X-Men.
No, not really. I mean, If Superman were to face a group of Metahumans including Livewire, Parasite, Atomic Scull, Toyman or even Intergang. The importang thing is that it doesn't have to be one really strong guy(irl) who battles Superman. And certainly, while Livewire isn't gonna sell the movie, we learned from X-3 that a good amount of fan favorites can pack the theater. A group with the power or technology should amp up the ante without it becoming a sequel to Hulk. Here's a list.

In fact, DC comics is owned by Warner wich means they can use whatever villain DC comics has.

The door's open for something really good and innovative. Hopefully, Bryan Singer and the dumbasses at WB won't screw it again. Now, look to the Spider-Man movies. They sought out the villains that would really make a cool movie experience. They didn't say "Oh, let's have the Jackal show up!" Come on, it's not that hard. You don't have to be a hardcore fan to realize wich villains would be good.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Yes. Yes I am.

Monday, February 9, 2009

Why Superman can be good and you can like him for it.

Now, the title of this post is very telling, so I should just jump to the rice and beans of the whole thing. Since Warner Bros executives recently spoke of treating the Superman franchise "like Harry Potter"(make one for every two books?), along with Batman(dum-dum, DAH), it would seem we are heading into a future film featuring the Man of Steel.

But should there? The last film was a disapointing affair for most people involved. There are those who would say that Superman is a boring boy scout character in an age of Dark Knights and Wolverines, of DR House and The Shield. Goody-good is out. Dark conflicted and just plain nasty is in. And besides, Superman is invulnerable. That should be boring, right?

You might think so. But you might be wrong. You see, I will point out to an example and you will know then that it can be done.

The story of Robocop, in case you don't know, is about police officer Alex Murphy. At the beggining of the movie Murphy is gunned down by the towns main criminal outfit, led by the guy who plays Red Foreman in That 70's show. His is revived and turned into the titular Robocop, an invulnerable machine, by mega corporation OCP. and Outfitted with "prime directives", rules by wich he must act. They included "upholding the law" and "Protect the innocent". A fifth directive, however, is blocked.

So he sets out to dole some justice, firing of like a rocket after his...well his killers. As he walks towards them all their bullet fire bounces of, and one by one they fall. Until, that is, until the character Kurtwood Smith up. Robocop WANTS to kill the guy in cold blood, but the directive "uphold the law" pops up. He coughs up the info(and some blood as well) that he works for Dick Jones, CEO of OCP.

Robocop walks up to Dick Jones tries to arrest him. But oops! That fifth directive was that he not intervene with OCP personnel.

Yeah, why am I bringing up that 80's movie? Where does Superman come in? Well, Robocop is a morally righteous character in a morally corrupt world. He sets out to clean it up from the bottom up, but as you start moving up, the more powerfull elements of corruption, the wants you can't just punch, start getting prevalent. Could this not be the case with Superman? What about Robocops invulnerability to conventional weaponry? It is not until the mid point of the movie where he begind to be challenged physically (By the stop-motion robot ED-209 and by more prepared thugs who prey on the damage he already had). Could a Superman origin film where he isn't challenged until later in the film not be possible? And Superman would also seem to be limited by his on "directives" wich in this case arn't imposed by the bad guys, but by himself. He "has to" protect the public, wich might lead to a bad guy getting away because he's busy avoiding collateral damage. He might want to punch Luthor into paste, but he knows that would not be right.

An Idealist character in a least than ideal world can be done to great effect. The one character who wants to do the right thing. And if you disagree, perhaps you should see Robocop again. His an invulnerable, lame walking tin can who can't get revenge illegally. But that hasn't stood into the way of him being succesfull, now, has it?