Originally posted by gwalla:quote:
Originally posted by WADE:
Also if you don't like the Ultimate comics you have new reg. Marvel comics coming out every month.
And if you don't like the Superman movie you have the reg. DC comics comig out every month. So?
It's about dilution of the character. One comic book gets popular, another may get shut down. Only a few people lose their jobs. The TV series based on Superman is a slightly bigger situation, but it's similar. Having one concept follow another is one thing, but to have competing origins hitting the audience at the same time is something else. Most folks, presented with two completely different choices for their stories, will not willingly choose to follow both stories. Anyone who points out the Ultimates' relative success is ignoring that the general public's aversion to such a concept.
If two Star Trek shows were on concurrently, and had the Romulans good guys in one show and bad in another show, you would have fans pretty much writing in to cuss and or laugh. That the creators of the ST franchise are some sort of joke. After all, why go out of the way to reinvent a set of villians? Why not create new villians? Why water down the characters? With the comic books, you might get a larger audience. With TV/movies, it's confusion leading to dilution. Of course, I'm not in the business. I'm only speculating here.
(Possible Movie Script SPOILERS)
If you are the producers of a TV show based on the early days of Superman (Smallville), and one of the main characters in that TV show (Lex)is shown in the movie to be his cousin, people watching the TV show might get the idea that the same character on the TV show has the same relationship.
If you are the producer and these events come to pass, do you choose to allow the descrepancy to continue, essentially watering down the characters with completely different origin stories, or, if you are the studio in ultimate control of the icons, choose to shut down the smaller TV production?
Rumor has it that the Smallville producers have voiced such concerns. I have no way of checking such a rumor, and repeat it as such.
The whole point of Superman is that he is unique. That Superman is powerful and that he cares. Anything he fights has to be powerful and obviously misuses that power.
I don't mind Lex being super powered, but the vengence/grudge thing ("My daddy hates your daddy so I hate you") rarely plays out well, and if that's the ultimate reason behind the conflict, the characterization is very, very weak. One dimensional, at best.
Villians that are complex and well motivated captivate audiences.
This script doesn't reinvent the Superman mythos as much as it seems to reinvent his nemesis, and it the script is real, it's anything like the reviewer mentioned, it's a weak foundation for any "reimagining" of the character.
So, in my feeble mind, the Lex descibed in the movie review isn't so much Lex Luthor with a different origin, it's some new villian with the name "Lex Luthor" stamped on his forehead. And just to make sure we know it's Lex, lets keep him bald.
In the long run, it's about money.
It always is.