Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:A superhero movie that a) Doesn't feature its superhero due to his death in the previous movie and b) people moping about said death being the entirety of the movie? That wouldn't exactly sell tickets.

So set it a year after his death. Introduce steel, the eradicator, superboy, and the cyborg superman. Tell the story of how they try to replace him, leaving out how the cyborg is a bad guy.

That still raises the issue of making a Superman movie without Superman in it. Not to mention it would stretch out what would otherwise be the third act to twice its length, leaving very little for the third movie to cover.

Superman II: Superman Isn't In This Movie.

I disagree, it's not like they have to slavishly fallow the comic. Even if they do there is the introduction of mongol, the destruction of coast city, superman's resurrection, finding out the cyborg is a bad guy, and the epilogue. If that isn't enough for a movie I don't know what is.

The issue isn't that it's not enough for a movie, but like I said, you left very little for a third movie. What do they have? Fight Mongul, fight Cyborg Superman...the end. It'd be like thirty minutes long.

That's the problem, Death of Superman can't work as three movies. Two movies at most, but certainly not three. There's not enough content to work with.

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:A superhero movie that a) Doesn't feature its superhero due to his death in the previous movie and b) people moping about said death being the entirety of the movie? That wouldn't exactly sell tickets.

So set it a year after his death. Introduce steel, the eradicator, superboy, and the cyborg superman. Tell the story of how they try to replace him, leaving out how the cyborg is a bad guy.

That still raises the issue of making a Superman movie without Superman in it. Not to mention it would stretch out what would otherwise be the third act to twice its length, leaving very little for the third movie to cover.

Superman II: Superman Isn't In This Movie.

I disagree, it's not like they have to slavishly fallow the comic. Even if they do there is the introduction of mongol, the destruction of coast city, superman's resurrection, finding out the cyborg is a bad guy, and the epilogue. If that isn't enough for a movie I don't know what is.

The issue isn't that it's not enough for a movie, but like I said, you left very little for a third movie. What do they have? Fight Mongul, fight Cyborg Superman...the end. It'd be like thirty minutes long.

That's the problem, Death of Superman can't work as three movies. Two movies at most, but certainly not three. There's not enough content to work with.

I disagree with you.

njb902 wrote:

Dead Metal wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:I wish they could see beyond lex and zod as villains.

Chances are they'll bring in Lex in one of the sequels, but someone else as well. Possibly Brainiac or--fingers crossed--Darkseid.

I'd rather see doomsday than darkseid or brainiac, but I would be fine with either. Do you think they are saving darkseid for the justice league movie?

You mean that movie that got pushed back even further after they decided to kill its script again? I seriously don't believe it's ever going to be made.

I have to say, I like the idea that Krypton's atmosphere and ecosystem keeping Supes back instead of Kryptonite, makes a bit more sense than a rock weakening him.

I think ya have to leave real world sense at the door with science fiction.

Not really, that's why it's called science fiction, the science is a huge part of the whole thing, be it based on actual science or made up science, it still has to be grounded in reality enough to come across plausible. Otherwise you might as well go see/ read fantasy.


On the whole "Death of Superman" thing, making a trilogy out of it would be utterly stupid.
Us comic folk like and can stomach something like "Year without Superman" because we also care for the other characters in the DC Universe (well, not me but that's beside the point), the general public doesn't. If they go see a Superman movie, guess what - they want Superman and not a bunch of nobodies moping about how much they miss one of the only two of their group anybody actually knows and cares about.
I mean people complained about the Spider-man movies having too much whining in them. Plus at this point it wouldn't make any sense whatsoever to turn that story into a trilogy.
Superman has just been rebooted, people need to get used to him again first, making them would require to have the rest of the DC Heroes established because right now, they're all nobodies in the eyes of the general public. It would be like making an X-Men movie, but instead of the X-Men everybody knows and loves - it's the X-Force. Nobody wants to see that.

Dead Metal wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Dead Metal wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:I wish they could see beyond lex and zod as villains.

Chances are they'll bring in Lex in one of the sequels, but someone else as well. Possibly Brainiac or--fingers crossed--Darkseid.

I'd rather see doomsday than darkseid or brainiac, but I would be fine with either. Do you think they are saving darkseid for the justice league movie?

You mean that movie that got pushed back even further after they decided to kill its script again? I seriously don't believe it's ever going to be made.

I have to say, I like the idea that Krypton's atmosphere and ecosystem keeping Supes back instead of Kryptonite, makes a bit more sense than a rock weakening him.

I think ya have to leave real world sense at the door with science fiction.

Not really, that's why it's called science fiction, the science is a huge part of the whole thing, be it based on actual science or made up science, it still has to be grounded in reality enough to come across plausible. Otherwise you might as well go see/ read fantasy.


On the whole "Death of Superman" thing, making a trilogy out of it would be utterly stupid.
Us comic folk like and can stomach something like "Year without Superman" because we also care for the other characters in the DC Universe (well, not me but that's beside the point), the general public doesn't. If they go see a Superman movie, guess what - they want Superman and not a bunch of nobodies moping about how much they miss one of the only two of their group anybody actually knows and cares about.
I mean people complained about the Spider-man movies having too much whining in them. Plus at this point it wouldn't make any sense whatsoever to turn that story into a trilogy.
Superman has just been rebooted, people need to get used to him again first, making them would require to have the rest of the DC Heroes established because right now, they're all nobodies in the eyes of the general public. It would be like making an X-Men movie, but instead of the X-Men everybody knows and loves - it's the X-Force. Nobody wants to see that.

Well I guess I'm stupid then because I'd go see it.

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:A superhero movie that a) Doesn't feature its superhero due to his death in the previous movie and b) people moping about said death being the entirety of the movie? That wouldn't exactly sell tickets.

So set it a year after his death. Introduce steel, the eradicator, superboy, and the cyborg superman. Tell the story of how they try to replace him, leaving out how the cyborg is a bad guy.

That still raises the issue of making a Superman movie without Superman in it. Not to mention it would stretch out what would otherwise be the third act to twice its length, leaving very little for the third movie to cover.

Superman II: Superman Isn't In This Movie.

I disagree, it's not like they have to slavishly fallow the comic. Even if they do there is the introduction of mongol, the destruction of coast city, superman's resurrection, finding out the cyborg is a bad guy, and the epilogue. If that isn't enough for a movie I don't know what is.

The issue isn't that it's not enough for a movie, but like I said, you left very little for a third movie. What do they have? Fight Mongul, fight Cyborg Superman...the end. It'd be like thirty minutes long.

That's the problem, Death of Superman can't work as three movies. Two movies at most, but certainly not three. There's not enough content to work with.

It could work as 3 movies but they would have to completely invent a third storyline somewhere between his death and resurrection. I agree with you, three movies wouldn't work. Two at the most.

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:I don't get why people want to see Death of Superman done up in live-action. The fight would be cool, sure, but the emotional impact of the arc boils down to "Oh no, Superman is dead, how sa--oh wait, he's alive again." Looking back, there wasn't a whole lot to the event. In fact, the only long-term impact it had was on Green Lantern.

That said, there's the animated version.

It was a big deal when it happened, they even stopped making the comics for a good long while. I just think the death, absence of, and resurrection of superman would be a great trilogy.

It wouldn't work as a trilogy, considering the entire second movie would just people moping around, and what kind of superhero movie would that be? A very lame one, let me tell you.

I think it would.

A superhero movie that a) Doesn't feature its superhero due to his death in the previous movie and b) people moping about said death being the entirety of the movie? That wouldn't exactly sell tickets.

I remember a robot show about this, somewhere in the 1980's. Vaguely.

RhA wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:I don't get why people want to see Death of Superman done up in live-action. The fight would be cool, sure, but the emotional impact of the arc boils down to "Oh no, Superman is dead, how sa--oh wait, he's alive again." Looking back, there wasn't a whole lot to the event. In fact, the only long-term impact it had was on Green Lantern.

That said, there's the animated version.

It was a big deal when it happened, they even stopped making the comics for a good long while. I just think the death, absence of, and resurrection of superman would be a great trilogy.

It wouldn't work as a trilogy, considering the entire second movie would just people moping around, and what kind of superhero movie would that be? A very lame one, let me tell you.

I think it would.

A superhero movie that a) Doesn't feature its superhero due to his death in the previous movie and b) people moping about said death being the entirety of the movie? That wouldn't exactly sell tickets.

I remember a robot show about this, somewhere in the 1980's. Vaguely.

Do you remember what it was called? I think I know what you're talking about but I can't remember the name.

prowl123 wrote:

RhA wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:I don't get why people want to see Death of Superman done up in live-action. The fight would be cool, sure, but the emotional impact of the arc boils down to "Oh no, Superman is dead, how sa--oh wait, he's alive again." Looking back, there wasn't a whole lot to the event. In fact, the only long-term impact it had was on Green Lantern.

That said, there's the animated version.

It was a big deal when it happened, they even stopped making the comics for a good long while. I just think the death, absence of, and resurrection of superman would be a great trilogy.

It wouldn't work as a trilogy, considering the entire second movie would just people moping around, and what kind of superhero movie would that be? A very lame one, let me tell you.

I think it would.

A superhero movie that a) Doesn't feature its superhero due to his death in the previous movie and b) people moping about said death being the entirety of the movie? That wouldn't exactly sell tickets.

I remember a robot show about this, somewhere in the 1980's. Vaguely.

Do you remember what it was called? I think I know what you're talking about but I can't remember the name.

Carebears

Dead Metal wrote:

prowl123 wrote:

RhA wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:I don't get why people want to see Death of Superman done up in live-action. The fight would be cool, sure, but the emotional impact of the arc boils down to "Oh no, Superman is dead, how sa--oh wait, he's alive again." Looking back, there wasn't a whole lot to the event. In fact, the only long-term impact it had was on Green Lantern.

That said, there's the animated version.

It was a big deal when it happened, they even stopped making the comics for a good long while. I just think the death, absence of, and resurrection of superman would be a great trilogy.

It wouldn't work as a trilogy, considering the entire second movie would just people moping around, and what kind of superhero movie would that be? A very lame one, let me tell you.

I think it would.

A superhero movie that a) Doesn't feature its superhero due to his death in the previous movie and b) people moping about said death being the entirety of the movie? That wouldn't exactly sell tickets.

I remember a robot show about this, somewhere in the 1980's. Vaguely.

Do you remember what it was called? I think I know what you're talking about but I can't remember the name.

Carebears

Ok, I thought it was My Little Pony for a second (Rainbow Dash dies in season 6 of the 1986 season) but I guess I was wrong.

At Comic-Con, Zack Snyder has confirmed that the sequel to Man of Steel will feature Superman fighting...the Goddamn Batman.

Shadowman wrote:At Comic-Con, Zack Snyder has confirmed that the sequel to Man of Steel will feature Superman fighting...the Goddamn Batman.

That's going to be hilarious.

Dead Metal wrote:

Shadowman wrote:At Comic-Con, Zack Snyder has confirmed that the sequel to Man of Steel will feature Superman fighting...the Goddamn Batman.

That's going to be hilarious.

Knowing the both of them? It's never as one-sided as it looks.

I started a thread about it here, but I suppose we can discuss it in this one to make it easier.

Shadowman wrote:At Comic-Con, Zack Snyder has confirmed that the sequel to Man of Steel will feature Superman fighting...the Goddamn Batman.

You have got to be kidding me

DC works better as separate entities, rather than a whole, like Marvel does. Putting these two together is stupid. Unless they team up against Lex Luthor and it's written VERY well, this will crash and burn and be Superman III and IV all over again with future sequels.

Autobot032 wrote:DC works better as separate entities, rather than a whole, like Marvel does. Putting these two together is stupid. Unless they team up against Lex Luthor and it's written VERY well, this will crash and burn and be Superman III and IV all over again with future sequels.

So I take it you never watched Justice League, huh? Never read The Dark Knight Returns? Never read any of the great things that feature Batman and Superman teaming up?

Shadowman wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:DC works better as separate entities, rather than a whole, like Marvel does. Putting these two together is stupid. Unless they team up against Lex Luthor and it's written VERY well, this will crash and burn and be Superman III and IV all over again with future sequels.

So I take it you never watched Justice League, huh? Never read The Dark Knight Returns? Never read any of the great things that feature Batman and Superman teaming up?

Also watch the animated superman/batman movie Public Enemies and Apocalypse, they are both great.

Shadowman wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:DC works better as separate entities, rather than a whole, like Marvel does. Putting these two together is stupid. Unless they team up against Lex Luthor and it's written VERY well, this will crash and burn and be Superman III and IV all over again with future sequels.

So I take it you never watched Justice League, huh? Never read The Dark Knight Returns? Never read any of the great things that feature Batman and Superman teaming up?

Nope. Never cared much for any DC cartoons other than Batman The Animated Series. Never been much of a comic book fan, TFs included. Never felt a need to.

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:DC works better as separate entities, rather than a whole, like Marvel does. Putting these two together is stupid. Unless they team up against Lex Luthor and it's written VERY well, this will crash and burn and be Superman III and IV all over again with future sequels.

So I take it you never watched Justice League, huh? Never read The Dark Knight Returns? Never read any of the great things that feature Batman and Superman teaming up?

Also watch the animated superman/batman movie Public Enemies and Apocalypse, they are both great.

I've seen some of the animated films. Green Lantern (the one with Christopher Meloni and Victor Garber) was pretty good. Batman: Under The Red Hood (I think is what it's called) was pretty good as well. I just don't put a lot of time in to watching their films.

Autobot032 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:DC works better as separate entities, rather than a whole, like Marvel does. Putting these two together is stupid. Unless they team up against Lex Luthor and it's written VERY well, this will crash and burn and be Superman III and IV all over again with future sequels.

So I take it you never watched Justice League, huh? Never read The Dark Knight Returns? Never read any of the great things that feature Batman and Superman teaming up?

Nope. Never cared much for any DC cartoons other than Batman The Animated Series. Never been much of a comic book fan, TFs included. Never felt a need to.

So, you think it's stupid to put them together, but at the same time, you've never actually seen them together.

Smooth.

Shadowman wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:DC works better as separate entities, rather than a whole, like Marvel does. Putting these two together is stupid. Unless they team up against Lex Luthor and it's written VERY well, this will crash and burn and be Superman III and IV all over again with future sequels.

So I take it you never watched Justice League, huh? Never read The Dark Knight Returns? Never read any of the great things that feature Batman and Superman teaming up?

Nope. Never cared much for any DC cartoons other than Batman The Animated Series. Never been much of a comic book fan, TFs included. Never felt a need to.

So, you think it's stupid to put them together, but at the same time, you've never actually seen them together.

Smooth.

Superman's a beacon of hope. Batman's a revenge fantasy. Each has their own merits, each are equally enjoyable in their own way. Both strive to be as realistic as possible in their own little piece of the world. Batman doesn't need to exist in Superman's world and an alien in Batman's world is just weird.

Autobot032 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:DC works better as separate entities, rather than a whole, like Marvel does. Putting these two together is stupid. Unless they team up against Lex Luthor and it's written VERY well, this will crash and burn and be Superman III and IV all over again with future sequels.

So I take it you never watched Justice League, huh? Never read The Dark Knight Returns? Never read any of the great things that feature Batman and Superman teaming up?

Nope. Never cared much for any DC cartoons other than Batman The Animated Series. Never been much of a comic book fan, TFs included. Never felt a need to.

So, you think it's stupid to put them together, but at the same time, you've never actually seen them together.

Smooth.

Superman's a beacon of hope. Batman's a revenge fantasy. Each has their own merits, each are equally enjoyable in their own way. Both strive to be as realistic as possible in their own little piece of the world. Batman doesn't need to exist in Superman's world and an alien in Batman's world is just weird.

And yet, it seems to stroke many a fanboner. Personally, I'm not all to psyched about this combination, but I'm impressed enough by Batman and Superman to give it a try when it hits the theatres.

Autobot032 wrote:Superman's a beacon of hope. Batman's a revenge fantasy. Each has their own merits, each are equally enjoyable in their own way.

Exactly, and that contrast is why they work so well together.

Autobot032 wrote:Both strive to be as realistic as possible in their own little piece of the world.

You are clearly not familiar with the Silver Age...

Autobot032 wrote:Batman doesn't need to exist in Superman's world and an alien in Batman's world is just weird.

Right, because Batman's world is so normal as it is Clayface (Specifically Matt Hagan), Ra's al Ghul, Poison Ivy, Solomon Grundy, Killer Croc. Those are all completely normal people who have no crazy superpowers, right?

Right?

Shadowman wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:Superman's a beacon of hope. Batman's a revenge fantasy. Each has their own merits, each are equally enjoyable in their own way.

Exactly, and that contrast is why they work so well together.

Um. Okay. I'll take your word for it.

Shadowman wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:Both strive to be as realistic as possible in their own little piece of the world.

You are clearly not familiar with the Silver Age...

Uh, that's a given. I mean, I did say I don't watch the cartoons or read the comics...

Shadowman wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:Batman doesn't need to exist in Superman's world and an alien in Batman's world is just weird.

Right, because Batman's world is so normal as it is Clayface (Specifically Matt Hagan), Ra's al Ghul, Poison Ivy, Solomon Grundy, Killer Croc. Those are all completely normal people who have no crazy superpowers, right?

Right?

You're standing on my last nerve. I should've worded my original post at the start of this conversation as being my opinion. I stated it as fact, which wasn't my intention. For that, I apologize. With that in mind, all of what I said is an opinion. My responses afterward were fact: I did not read the comics, and I didn't watch the shows/movies, either. Now that it's been explained, I'm done. I'm tired of you taking what people say and going after them for it.

Autobot032 wrote: Now that it's been explained, I'm done. I'm tired of you taking what people say and going after them for it.

By which you mean, surely, that you're tired of being proven wrong continuously?

You're right that what you state are, by and large, your own opinions. Yet there are such things as informed opinions. Yours don't come under that definition and instead meander from one ill-judged statement to another..

Oh and I'm stoked for this movie!

Blast Cannon wrote:

Autobot032 wrote: Now that it's been explained, I'm done. I'm tired of you taking what people say and going after them for it.

By which you mean, surely, that you're tired of being proven wrong continuously?

You're right that what you state are, by and large, your own opinions. Yet there are such things as informed opinions. Yours don't come under that definition and instead meander from one ill-judged statement to another..

Oh and I'm stoked for this movie!

This issue had died, until you brought it up again. You're more than welcome to discuss the actual topic at hand, but this part of it was over and done with. We both said our piece and there's no need for you to come along and jump on the bandwagon and stir up something that doesn't need to be.