Print Thread
Should WB really be going for a ďDark toneĒ?
Should WB really be going for a ?Dark tone? for a Superman Reboot?

Wasn?t that part of the problem with SR? I would rather go for a big budget, live action feel of the TAS version of superman. Not exactly that, but that ?bright feel? to it.

I think WB may be stuck on that: ?well it worked for Batman, so it must work for Superman?.

To quote a DC Batman villain: ?NO YOU DUMMY?

Dark worked for Batman, because he is BATman. He lives in GOTHAM.

Going for a ?darker superman?, is the same mentality as a ?well he directed one good comicbook movie, so he must be good at all of them?.

I would rather see a bright, anything is possible, not too serious Superman movie, that has an optimistic feel. Not slapstick and dumb, but not nearly the doom and gloom mood of a Batman film.

Am I alone here?

Edited by on 10/10/2008 22:51

 
Chrisisall
Ultrahumanite wrote:

Am I alone here?

Not at all.
Chrisisall
 
ChurchDoesTex
I don't think anyone wants a "dark" Superman movie. I speculate the studio exec that said "dark" used a poor choice of words in which he meant to convey "realism."
[img]http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g306/rhervey41/wtf-Copy.jpg[/img] is not a valid Image.
http://www.seekin...perity.com
 
Hynad
I don't want a dark Superman, but I think one grounded on reality would be a good idea, or at least trying to portray what our world would actually be and how humanity would react if Superman was to get into our lives would be a good thing to connect to most people around the world.

Edited by Hynad on 11/10/2008 17:51

 
johnnyfog
Should WB really be going for a ?Dark tone? for a Superman Reboot?

Wasn?t that part of the problem with SR?


Why does everybody buy into this rhetoric? SR wasn't "dark." It certainly wasn't overly "dark." Now we're going to panic and rush back to the George Reeves era just because SR was a failure? If so, just make a Starsky & Hutch-style parody and get it over with right now. Superman is either relevant or he's old fashioned. Pick one.


~

Edited by johnnyfog on 11/10/2008 18:50

 
copacetic
They're not going to go "dark" the way the Batman films are. They mean dark in the sense of grounded realities, as far as the characters lend themselves to that. Which means, they will ground Superman as far as you can ground a near invincible flying man. Grin
 
sbeamish
johnnyfog wrote:
Why does everybody buy into this rhetoric? SR wasn't "dark."


Because it's not entirely rhetoric. (Bear in mind that this is being written by someone who really enjoyed SR.)

Singer copped out on his promise to change the world around Superman; to show us a world that had been without its hero for 5 years. Instead, he merely gave us a reality that was visually darker than we might expect in a Superman movie. Much of the action takes place at night or in enclosed spaces, dark museums, severely overcast skies etc. And even the final, "all's well" scene between Supes and Lois takes place in relative darkness.

Besides that, there was the "beating" scene on New Krypton.

Now even I, an old time GR fan, can deal with a comic book-like scene in which Superman gets smacked around but eventually toughs it out. But this wasn't a fight. It was brutal and really kind of morbid.

I have no objection to the next movie featuring a really menacing villain (PLS no more Lex for a while), but when Superman shows up let's have some bright colors (including the costume) and rousing music.

Edited by sbeamish on 12/10/2008 16:48

 
James-El
I want realistic villains (TDK) no so much on their looks just their personalities.

I know it's Superman, but i want want to see death. Lets say Bizarro is created and he doesn't know how strong he is he then breaks people's body parts, kills them whatever at the start of the movie anyway.

So yeah Superman is the Light, but his enemies darkness is so dark that (at the start) not even his light can shine through.

Superman: "I'm for everyone"
 
Pravus
I never got the impression that they were going to make Superman dark but the situations his villains create will be, giving him the chance to use the qualities that make him who he is to overcome any obstacle.

The hope that Superman's presence alone represents is what wins half the battle.

There was a line in the first issue of JLA which introduced the white martians which sums it up well in regard to Superman, it went something like......"Relax, the big guy is here".
 
Dark and Superman do not go together, he is supposed to be about truth, justice, and the american way. He stays away from dark, well from being dark. He does not kill and hide in the shadows he is SUPERMAN!!!!!!! the greatest hero of all time, not that i really need to be telling anyone on here any of this. superman should not be dark, period.
 
If what they mean by ?dark? is just a very scary villain, that is one thing. What concerns me is how vague the statement was made. Could have easily meant overcast skies, a ?dark costume?, a trashy looking Metropolis, and 90% of the film taking place after nightfall.

I certainly hope that they simply mean a very terrible villain that does awful things. The general feeling of Metropolis and the world Superman exists in is supposed to be well light, and sunny skies most of the time.

Camp is stuffed with too much humor, and goofy funny villains, that instantly take you out of the movie experience by having to say ?that is just dumb?. Perfect example was Batman and Robin ala 1997. Most of the action there happened at night, and we still had dumptruck loads of camp.

This is why I would like them to be more specific with what they meant by ?dark?. Did they mean ?no campy junk?, or did they in fact just mean a dark overcast ?Gothamtropolis? ? (I take 100% full credit for the word Gothamtropolis and variants like ?Gothtropolis? right now until I have seen it proven that someone else used them first ;p)

I do want the subject matter to be taken seriously, and camp to be avoided, but please do so without turning the lights off.

Edited by on 16/10/2008 10:36

 
maybe it is just me but i would really love to see them have bizzaro as the villian, or at least one of them, even if he only has a sort of cameo appearance or just one fight scene. if they had bizarro in the movie they can easily make him a "dark" character without ruining Supermans integrity and what he stands for. then they would have their "dark" movie.
 
KryptonianKnight
Ultrahumanite wrote:
If what they mean by ?dark? is just a very scary villain, that is one thing. What concerns me is how vague the statement was made. Could have easily meant overcast skies, a ?dark costume?, a trashy looking Metropolis, and 90% of the film taking place after nightfall.

I certainly hope that they simply mean a very terrible villain that does awful things. The general feeling of Metropolis and the world Superman exists in is supposed to be well light, and sunny skies most of the time.

Camp is stuffed with too much humor, and goofy funny villains, that instantly take you out of the movie experience by having to say ?that is just dumb?. Perfect example was Batman and Robin ala 1997. Most of the action there happened at night, and we still had dumptruck loads of camp.

This is why I would like them to be more specific with what they meant by ?dark?. Did they mean ?no campy junk?, or did they in fact just mean a dark overcast ?Gothamtropolis? ? (I take 100% full credit for the word Gothamtropolis and variants like ?Gothtropolis? right now until I have seen it proven that someone else used them first ;p)

I do want the subject matter to be taken seriously, and camp to be avoided, but please do so without turning the lights off.



I agree completly, I am concerned by the subcontext. If making the story a little grounded is what they mean then fine. But making every DCU hero depressing is just stupid. Batman, and rightly so, is allowed to be depressing. He's the brooding Dark hero. Superman is the ultimate boy scout who most always eventually has a happy ending and is full of action and gallant heroism. Batman and superman are polar opposites, and thats the way it should be. I still the the animated series' pull this off the best. Batman's was great all around, and even though Superman's still needed a lot of depth it captured the boy scout image. Nolan's films matched Batman. Now lets hope the superman films capture what we all want.
 
adamatomic41
What really bothers me about this idea of a "dark" Superman movie is that it reminds me of what they were going for in Superman Lives... and that didn't go so well. It seems like with that whole project they kept changing one thing, then another, then another, until it really wasn't the same character.

If they want to go for more realism, I guess I could go for that. Although, when I read Superman comics, I like getting caught up in a fantasy workd that's not bogged down by things I have to deal with every day. But I understand that realism is something people are really into these days. As someone mentioned before, if they were to focus on more violence, at least in terms of people actually dying, I could see how that would maybe enhance the realism. Not to say that I enjoy watching people die, but it would create more issues for Superman to deal with.

I hope they don't make it depressing, though. Superman's not supposed to be about that. I also hope that they don't mean "dark" as in making him mor emotional, like Spider-Man. I mean, it works for Spider-Man, but this is Superman.

Reguardless, I'm glad to hear that the studios are considering a reboot. SR was fine, but I would like to see something break away from what's been done before. I just hope they leave some of the classic things, like the costume, alone. I'd rather see the same character in a darker world than a darker character.
 
James-El
adamatomic41 wrote:
What really bothers me about this idea of a "dark" Superman movie is that it reminds me of what they were going for in Superman Lives... and that didn't go so well. It seems like with that whole project they kept changing one thing, then another, then another, until it really wasn't the same character.

If they want to go for more realism, I guess I could go for that. Although, when I read Superman comics, I like getting caught up in a fantasy workd that's not bogged down by things I have to deal with every day. But I understand that realism is something people are really into these days. As someone mentioned before, if they were to focus on more violence, at least in terms of people actually dying, I could see how that would maybe enhance the realism. Not to say that I enjoy watching people die, but it would create more issues for Superman to deal with.

I hope they don't make it depressing, though. Superman's not supposed to be about that. I also hope that they don't mean "dark" as in making him mor emotional, like Spider-Man. I mean, it works for Spider-Man, but this is Superman.

Reguardless, I'm glad to hear that the studios are considering a reboot. SR was fine, but I would like to see something break away from what's been done before. I just hope they leave some of the classic things, like the costume, alone. I'd rather see the same character in a darker world than a darker character.


Yeah i said it would be a bit more real if people died. I wrote a scenario with Bizarro (previous post) to make my point stronger. I'm sure everyone here has seen TDK, see when the Joker kills people like some cops, the people he tortures on the video messages. There should be some of that in the Superman movies.

I already wrote a 'Bizarro' situation. But i'll make another using Brainiac. Brainiac studies all life forms and their technology, when he comes to Earth, he might want to study our physiology. He then has to abduct/capture a human. When he is studying the human he shouldn't be scared to 'get his hands in there'. I was aiming for that sort of death. I wouldn't mind seeing people torn apart by Bizarro, but the camera has to be on an angle, maybe we just see their shadows, then cue in gross sound effects. Sad

I want that type of violent realism. Grin
Superman: "I'm for everyone"
 
MikeB
I don't know why people are already so scared about the Supes reboot going towards the "dark route" when that's the ONLY thing we've heard so far and production hasn't even started.

Another thing, is it just me or do a lot pf people pretend Superman Lives etc. actually happened in order to justify SR?

Don't get me wrong, I do want to see a new beginning for Superman but not that soon. I don't want to see them rush it and compete with the other superhero franchises. I actually wouldn't mind a five to ten year wait, long as they get the right creative team together.

Edited by MikeB on 02/11/2008 13:52

 
sandman1347
First of all, SR was not dark. Not in any way. If you think movie was dark then Transformers must be like 28 Days Later. They used the ridiculous, goofy version of Clark Kent from the old Christopher Reeves movies rather than the more believable and normal modern version. They used the same campy, common thug version of Lex Luthor that the old Chris Reeves movies used too rather than using the more intelligent, powerful and ominous billionaire version that is a much more formidable foe. The whole plot was so absurd that you never even came close to feeling scared or worried. Lex's plan was to take over the world by building a new continent....you just don't get any sillier than that. How exactly was he going to do this with nothing more than a few goons to work for him?

Anyways, by "dark," I hope they mean that you'll actually worry that something terrible might happen. They need to utilize a Super villain so that you can actually see Superman have to fight. Basically, they need to focus on making the characters more realistic and less campy and irrational. Lex's girlfriend was just ridiculous and so was Jimmy. Lois also made an amazingly reckless decision to actually bring her son onto that boat with her.

They just need to work on it a little. It's not good enough to just try to bring back the old days. They need to make a new movie that works for our time.
 
copacetic
There are no indications of a story, screenplay, or confirmed cast beyond those who are contractually obligated to return...and contracts can be bought out. So let's save our energy till we get an official word, and not just one WSJ article talking about a possible reboot.
 
I think I agree with most everyone on here when I say that Superman is not a "dark" character. One of the things that I thought Singer did well in "Returns" was the tone and his overall take on the character. Unforunately, some of his interpretations of the other characters did not measure. I think what everyone really wants in the next film is to see Superman punch a bad guy not a piece of Kryptonite.
 
Angeloz
ChurchDoesTex wrote:
I don't think anyone wants a "dark" Superman movie. I speculate the studio exec that said "dark" used a poor choice of words in which he meant to convey "realism."


Flying aliens are realistic? BTW I wouldn't be surprised if you're right. I guess that means his suit being stolen while flying is out (just kidding) . Seriously just don't make him wear black or I really will want it stolen. Or I'll just avoid watching it; which is an easy option. Because I have avoided watching a lot of comic based films that didn't appeal except the fourth Batman film in the nineties (on video because it was cheap and a double pack) .

Angeloz
 
Jump to Forum: