He "deserves" better?

C'mon...even in comics, he's undergone massive changes in powers, character, marital status, vulnerabilities. Luthor went from being an evil genius always clad in prison gray to a multi-millionaire.

Why does "everybody" think Batman wears a rubber suit? If nothing else, a goodly number of people still think of Batman as how Adam West looked. The Hulk died from a helicopter? DO you seriously think the movie-going public is going to reject the Ang Lee film by saying, "What kind of crap is this? We know the Hulk is dead!"

What fractured me, upon reading the original website posting on it, was the complaint that the reinvisioning of Krypton made it just like Naboo. Why? Probably because the writer thought of icy, cold spires as Krypton. Me, I hear that Krypton is idyllic and lush and I think, "Oh, they went back to the original comic book version."

Look, when I was a kid, my image of Superman was bolstered by the George Reeves version. Two decades later, there was Chris Reeve. Fifteen or so years later there was Dean Cain and "Lois and Clark." So now they want to do this thing. Maybe Superman is like a Vampire Slayer: A new one is born into each generation. Movie and TV versions come and go, and in the meantime the comics keep right on trucking along. To me, that's the only important thing.

PAD

I would if they fought each other using Kung Fu moves.

PAD

If people went to see the Mario Bros. movie, they'll go see ANYTHING.

They always change things around for the films, no matter what the source material may be - novel, play, or comic. Hooper had an affair with Brody's wife in Jaws the novel, the entire ending of John Grisham's The Firm was changed, The Joker never killed Batman's parents in the comics, Peter Parker never shot webbing out of armholes, Lex Luthor never stole nuclear weapons with the aid of a blithering idiot and a ditzy sexpot. Part of it's merchandising kickbacks, part of it's trying to make it conform to 'audience friendly' and 'Hollywood Symmetry' standards, and a good part of it is the 'I Can Do It Better' syndrome many directors, screenwriters, etc. experience. All the uproar in the world doesn't stop it, ever.

This script doesn't look to be the least bit real to me. Saturday morning cartoons don't have dialogue that awful anymore.

Wow, that'll teach me to post before I read the whole thread. Apologies for stating the obvious after everyone else already has.

I don't know I think making Lex an evil CIA agent was interesting. However, making him Kryptonian doesn't it take away the purpose Superman having a human as an arch foe. You could easily change the villain to Zod to make it work.

They could still have Krypton explode and make all the evil villains come from Argo city or the Phantom zone.

The Superman dying scene sounds pretty goofy especially since Kryptonite is remnants of Krypton exploding.

I honestly don't know how to feel. Moriarty could be obviously biased the sctript is a first draft. It could be much better than we think. I don't see anything from Brett Ratner that shows me he can handle an epic Superman movie.

I might be suprised I read the original Superman script by Puzo was campy crap. Look how that turned out.

I was a Spider-Man fan when Batman first hit the airwaves. The Batman TV show made me buy a few. I'm sure I wasn't alone in picking up the Batman comic.

So, when someone picks up a Superman comic after this movie comes out, what could the new comic reader find between the pages of the comic book?

Ah well.
Well understood.
And while I'm neither a comic book guy or a movie guy, I'll suspect this proposed movie is not going to be able to become a tentpole movie.

And with the spoiler now quite public, everyone will know it's not a tentpole movie.

This is a dynamic that has its own life now.

Ad if you don't like the Superman movie you have the reg. DC comics comig out every month.

So?



This I thik is the real issue. It matters not whether the script adheres closely to the comic or not, but rather whether it is good or not. And this sounds like a complete pile of doggie-doo.

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.

Ah well.

In the long run, it's about money.
It always is.

Walt Stone

And vastly improved, in my opinion. That's something else people never discuss: Sometimes the movie versions *are* demonstrably better. The ending of the film version of "The Firm" was far more ingenious than the uninspired conclusion of the book.

PAD