Running DC movie thread… After Gunn

[2muchcoffeeman]

Not a die-hard Superman or superhero movie guy, so my opinion may not have an ounce of validity. And I'm sure I missed a million easter eggs that would have made it more enjoyable for me.

But ... I wasn't a huge fan of the Justice League being in this movie. Loved Superman, Lois Lane and the dog. The entire movie seemed a pleasant-enough experience. The 3D was cool - it was there but not obscene or over-the-top.

That wasn’t the Justice League.

 

[BurnsWhenIPee]

Told you I'm not a superhero guy ...

Fantastic Four? Whatever they are, was not a fan ...

 

[Scout]

Again, I haven't seen the movie yet, but one thing I've noticed from trailer clips is that Clark Kent seems to get pretty worked up, pretty fast, when Lois Lane suggests issues of journalistic ethics may be in play.

I mean, Clark Kent is supposed to be a professional journalist, too; he's supposed to have graduated from college and all that, depending on the version of canon, he's supposed to have some substantial experience too; you'd think he wouldn't be provoked into shouting by Lois Lane even mentioning these issues.

People were dying, Lois.

 

[outofplace]

You should go see the movie.

Spoiler

There is a weird "glitch" fast forward effect at this point in the movie that suggests there will be a twist on this at some point, but it is not corrected by the end of this movie, yes. I suspect at some point, the middle portion of that tape will be revealed, and it's actually Zod that Superman's parents are talking about.

I like that idea, that there is more to come about this.

 

[outofplace]

Lex Luthor SHOULD be an intimidatingly intelligent -- chilling -- criminal genius. He should be as "super" intellectually as Kal-El is physically. That (partly) explains his burning personal resentment toward him.

From what reports I've seen of the current movie, it does look like they have gotten Luthor more right than any of the previous screen versions, particularly the cheesy cocktail lounge comedian Lex played by Gene Hackman (who didn't really appear to even dislike Superman very much, other than mild annoyance at having his nitwit real estate scams messed up) or the shrieking giggling Joker wannabe of Eisenberg.

A friend of mine said this is his Lex Luthor, more so than any previous versions. After seeing the movie last night, I agree to a point. I'm still not sure he is better than the Timmverse version, but he is right there on that level. He is excellent.

 

[outofplace]

I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't comment on any specifics, but from spoiler reports Gunn has ****ed up the near-legendary origin story, maybe irreparably.

Apparently in an attempt to solve the historical dramatic tension in Superman stories focusing on the nature-vs-nurture issue: is Superman's heroic persona more the result of his biological/physical inheritance from his Kryptonian parents, along with whatever vestigial micro-memories he might have of his infancy, or through crystal hologram video messages or whatever, or the rock solid middle American common sense and basic human decency as personified and instilled in him by his adoptive parents, Gunn decides instead to make Jor-El and Lara megalomaniacal racial supremacists who beseech their son from beyond the grave to maintain and expand the mantle of Kryptonian genetic supremacy by force-impregnating as many human females as his powers will allow; and the Kents he depicts as quite simply the common clay of the old West ... you know, drawling, drooling slack-jawed morons who sit on stoops.

So somehow despite having biological parents who were galactic genetic supremacists and adoptive parents who seem to be the dumber cousins of Junior Samples, Clark Kent turns out to be an admirable kindly guy. That proves something, I guess.

As I mentioned, I saw the movie last night. I went with my wife and daughter. My wife said what she always says about these movies, adding that she liked Krypto. My daughter enjoyed it. Like me, she particularly liked this version of Lex Luthor. She thought Krypto was great.

At one point, Superman said something and she whispered, "So cheesy." I quietly told her that means they got it right. They did, both aspects of the character, Clark and Superman. This was right there with Reeve's version of the character, which holds a special place in the heart of anyone who saw it as a young child and loved it as I did.

The movie isn't perfect, but it is excellent. Gunn nailed it, which is no surprise. I disagree with your thought that he screwed up the origin story. I loved what he did with it. Gunn has said he approached this as an immigrant's story. I could see that throughout, and the way he told it fit into that idea perfectly.

 

[Deskgrunt50]

I liked the new Superman flick. Thought it got the vibe down of the first two Christopher Reeve movies. With a better Lex (no offense to Gene Hackman).

Good casting all around. And the dog was fun. Which was a gamble because if the dog didn't work, that would've sunk the movie.

While I'm no fashion expert, the costume design for Lois was a bit lacking. The pants she wore most of the time made her look like a teenager.

We're beyond the spoiler period, right? Gotta think there will be more coming in a sequel on the message from Supe's parents. I don't think you drop in Bradley Cooper as Joe-El for a total of about two minutes without a larger plan.

 

[Starman]

Ok, now I have seen the movie; random thoughts;

The good parts are VERY good.
At the top of that list, LEX LUTHOR.

By far -- light years -- better than any screen incarnations of Luthor before with the possible partial exception of Rosenbaum from the Smallville series.

This Luthor ...

... oops before we go any further, let's get the ******* pronunciation of the name right. It is LUTHOR. LOO-THOR. Not Luther as in Martin Luther King. Yeah yeah I know people have been saying it both different ways for 75, but guess what, half of them are wrong.

OK, anyway, this version of Luthor is just about dead solid perfect. He's a corrupt billionaire, yeah, but more importantly, he himself is a frighteningly brilliant genius.

Physically, he's not ugly but thr bald skinhesd look is creepy and chilly. He has some sense of humor but it's dark and sarcastic. Best of all Houle does a good job of conveying the fact that Luthor really does seriously HATE Superman.

That was the biggest problem with Gene Hackman's cocktail lounge comedian Luthor; you never really got the sense he even disliked Superman very much.

I'll edit this more later, but one thing I'll throw in; like just about every Superman iteration since the misbegotten disastrous John Byrne reboot in 1986, they felt they must counter criticism of the character as "boring, too powerful, cannot be hurt," with constant, gratuitous, monotonous sequences of Superman being beaten and beaten and beaten into a physical pulp to the very edge of death or beyond. It hasn't been edgy for 40 years, now it's just violence porn.

Superman spends easily 2/3 of this entire movie either being physically beaten or held in a cell and tortured by Kryptonite.

Bsck to the good stuff:
The interplay between Lois and Clark was good on a personal basis as well as a journalistic one. Happily there was no attempt whatsoever to maintain the idea that Lois Lane would not recognize Clark as Superman.

However for the love of Rao they are apparently going to try to resurrect one of the most idiotic pieces of Superman secret identity lore: that he wears glasses with super psychotic distortion lenses that prevent all onlookers from recognizing his face.

This idea was tried in the comic books for about two issues back in the 80s or 90s and was quickly abandoned because it was absolutely too stupid even for comic books.

 

[outofplace]

Ok, now I have seen the movie; random thoughts;

The good parts are VERY good.
At the top of that list, LEX LUTHOR.

By far -- light years -- better than any screen incarnations of Luthor before with the possible partial exception of Rosenbaum from the Smallville series.

This Luthor ...

... oops before we go any further, let's get the ******* pronunciation of the name right. It is LUTHOR. LOO-THOR. Not Luther as in Martin Luther King. Yeah yeah I know people have been saying it both different ways for 75, but guess what, half of them are wrong.

OK, anyway, this version of Luthor is just about dead solid perfect. He's a corrupt billionaire, yeah, but more importantly, he himself is a frighteningly brilliant genius.

Physically, he's not ugly but thr bald skinhesd look is creepy and chilly. He has some sense of humor but it's dark and sarcastic. Best of all Houle does a good job of conveying the fact that Luthor really does seriously HATE Superman.

That was the biggest problem with Gene Hackman's cocktail lounge comedian Luthor; you never really got the sense he even disliked Superman very much other than the fact he messed up his idiotic real estate scams.

I'll edit this more later, but one thing I'll throw in; like just about every Superman iteration since the misbegotten disastrous John Byrne reboot in 1986, they felt they must counter criticism of the character as "boring, too powerful, cannot be hurt," with constant, gratuitous, monotonous sequences of Superman being beaten and beaten and beaten into a physical pulp to the very edge of death or beyond. It hasn't been edgy for 40 years, now it's just violence porn.

Superman spends easily 2/3 of this entire movie either being physically beaten or held in a cell and tortured by Kryptonite.

Bsck to the good stuff:
The interplay between Lois and Clark was good on a personal basis as well as a journalistic one. Happily there was no attempt whatsoever to maintain the idea that Lois Lane would not recognize Clark as Superman.

However for the love of Rao they are apparently going to try to resurrect one of the most idiotic pieces of Superman secret identity lore: that he wears glasses with super psychotic distortion lenses that prevent all onlookers from recognizing his face.

This idea was tried in the comic books for about two issues back in the 80s or 90s and was quickly abandoned because it was absolutely too stupid even for comic books.

I like the bit with the glasses. Yes, it is goofy. I don't mind a little goofy. Superman needed a little goofy. Gunn isn't going to shy away from stuff like that.

 

[Starman]

Well, don't worry, Gunn didn't shy away from the goofy stuff. His target audience apparently is 9-year-olds.

 

[Starman]

While Houle as Luthor was appropriately intimidating and creepy, I thought they went over the line by having him just casually execute the falafel dealer.

The best versions of Luthor are not icy remorseless killers. One of the main themes of Luthor is supposed to be that underneath all the obsessive murderous rage against Superman, Luthor really is a genius who could have accomplished great things for humanity.

Luthor wants to kill Superman, specifically, and he may put a lot of innocent lives in danger in his quest to do that, but he just regards them as collateral damage -- he doesn't kill people because he wants to, it just kinda works out that way.

 

[outofplace]

While Houle as Luthor was appropriately intimidating and creepy, I thought they went over the line by having him just casually execute the falafel dealer.

The best versions of Luthor are not icy remorseless killers. One of the main themes of Luthor is supposed to be that underneath all the obsessive murderous rage against Superman, Luthor really is a genius who could have accomplished great things for humanity.

Luthor wants to kill Superman, specifically, and he may put a lot of innocent lives in danger in his quest to do that, but he just regards them as collateral damage -- he doesn't kill people because he wants to, it just kinda works out that way.

I thought it was in line with the best versions of the character. He is utterly ruthless, willing to do anything to accomplish his goals.

 

[Starman]

Well, I'd definitely take Luthor as a casual killer over the cheesy cocktail lounge comedian of the Hackman version (Spacey was somewhat better but still surrounded himself with idiots).

The Eisenberg Luthor was just a Joker wannabe.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

Luthor doesn’t want to be the Joker.

 

[outofplace]

"(Superman" sees the good in everyone, and I see the truth."

Something not directed by Gunn. Looks good to me.

 

[Della9250]

 

[MarkWatney]

Now being yanked out of theaters -- one of the greatest box office disasters of all time.

Highlights of the film apparently include Krypto peeing on Superman (a newspaper) and Supergirl puking and pissing on screen.

Coming to digital video within a week or so, for those who want to shell out 20 bucks for an evening of light family entertainment.

 

[garrow]

And their next movie is....Clayface. Never heard of that character.

 

[Batman]

And their next movie is....Clayface. Never heard of that character.

Longtime Batman villain. He uses some goop or clay (depending on the version; there have been six or seven different people using the gimmick in various forms) to become a shapeshifter.

 

[sgreenwell]

Clayface is also directed by James Watkins (Speak No Evil, Black Mirror episodes), with a story by and co-screenwriting credit for Mike Flanagan (a bunch of recent horror movies and shows). The pedigree is a lot more impressive than Supergirl, and it is also supposed to be a $40m budget horror movie, so the bar is a lot lower. I'd be surprised if that didn't meet expectations. At worst, it is probably something like 28 Years Later or The Bone Temple, which critics loved but general audiences slept on.

re: Supergirl - I think that is kind of damning on either WB management or Gunn as an executive. Because she shows up for like 2 minutes in Superman, which Gunn directed, and really pops! Having her then be in such a drab and tedious movie just kills the character. I don't know how a movie about Supergirl, directed by a male director not really known for commercial successes or summer movies with a promising but relatively unknown young star, gets greenlit except for hubris by Gunn or WB needing something really badly for summer.

I think Gunn's Superman 2 (whatever it ends up being called) is probably "rubber meets the road" for his era of DC at WB. Unless it's a huge smash, I kind of expect that both sides just decide to move on. Gunn obviously had issues with Disney, but is he going to want to sign up for more years of the Ellisons? I'm positive Disney would be willing to have him back just as a director, or that Amazon, Netflix or Apple would be willing to give him a bag. They don't have Marvel or DC, but I'm positive they have some other IP that would interest him.