All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
I think that's a fair interpretation. I was a fan of the Donner films when I was younger, even before the Batman films, putting me at around five or six. I can definitely relate to those sentiments.
That said, could it be that Superman is just a different animal as far as superheroes go and maybe the action genre isn't the best place for it? I mean, I can buy all the existential stuff but come the third act, Superman has to fight a bad guy and given that he's indestructible, there's not going to be much of a fight at all unless said bad guy is another Krypton/Kryptonian/whatever, in which case they will also be indestructible. Essentially, it's the humans that are Superman's weak spot but I almost feel like for a bad guy to manipulate Superman using humans or Superman to protect humans against the bad guys *and* preserve some sense of stakes for an audience, you'd almost have to resort to some other form of conflict that doesn't involve superhuman fights. But considering Superman is basically the original comic book hero and not intended to be high literature or whatever, that'd just be weird.
Also again, when Superman grows up and goes through finding his identity and all that, the existential stuff goes out the window. Superman knows exactly what he's supposed to do and accepts it wholeheartedly. Even in Man of Steel, which fumbles its way through the character development, this is the case. Again, it almost seems like they have to come up with a whole new way of telling the Superman story from this point on.
I don't know. Maybe I'm over-thinking this (though I doubt it). Regardless, Superman just might not be for me.
Saw it again tonight because my boy wanted to see it. I fell asleep half-way through and my boy cried near the end 'cause he got scared. He didn't like that Superman killed Zod - that was a shock to him because Superman goes around saving people, not killing people.
To be fair, I don't think all comic book movies are striving to tap into Nolan's gritty realism - look at the Marvel output... and that's the stuff dominating the box office for the genre. Iron Man THREE grossed 1.2 billion, and I don't think anyone would suggest it's dark.
Saw it again tonight because my boy wanted to see it. I fell asleep half-way through and my boy cried near the end 'cause he got scared. He didn't like that Superman killed Zod - that was a shock to him because Superman goes around saving people, not killing people.
Superman killed Zod in II also, right after crushing his hand into dust. Of course, it was a thrilling moment because he outsmarted Zod and Luthor at the same time. That's one of the inherent differences between Reeves' Supes and this newest incarnation. Cavill's character was presented as humorless and fairly witless. The big showdown was nothing but a slugfest. The neck break was straight out of Lethal Weapon and I just didn't buy Superman's yelp of emotional agony afterwards. I mean, you were trying to kill these guys for the past 45 minutes, right?
They tried to "Batmanify" Superman into a brooding bruiser, but it just doesn't fit the character.
I've been wondering why Superman's been relegated to being all muscle all this time? Why can't he have a super-intellect too? I know in the Justice League stories, Batman's typically the brain of the group, but Kryptonians have always come across as being intellectual. It seems logical that the learning materials Jor-El gave his son would impart that. That being said, I think it might be more interesting to see stories where Superman's powers get him to a point he needs to be, but his mind/heart have gotta take him the rest of the way. Maybe introduce a little bit of a Sherlock Holmes element to things?
"I remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams. This wasted land. But most of all, I remember The Road Warrior. The man we called 'Max'."
While MoS had two minor irritations for me (shaky cam action, "he's hot" line) I liked the film overall. I was alright with some of the "contreversial" elements of the film, since I figured the reprucussions might come back to haunt Kal-El in the next film. For all I know, his killing of Zod may be the start of his "code" to not kill again. Not to mention Supey has killed before in comics and film - he let a depowered Zod fall to his death (?) in Superman II, for example. In comics, those he killed were from "alternate dimensions". As for MoS the way I understood it if that he didn't kill Zod, Zod would kill as many people as he could. The fight might have gone on for who knows how long.
While Man Of Steel is getting a bit overrated, I don't think it's a horrible film by any means. There are more strengths than weaknesses.
That said, could it be that Superman is just a different animal as far as superheroes go and maybe the action genre isn't the best place for it? I mean, I can buy all the existential stuff but come the third act, Superman has to fight a bad guy and given that he's indestructible, there's not going to be much of a fight at all unless said bad guy is another Krypton/Kryptonian/whatever, in which case they will also be indestructible. Essentially, it's the humans that are Superman's weak spot but I almost feel like for a bad guy to manipulate Superman using humans or Superman to protect humans against the bad guys *and* preserve some sense of stakes for an audience, you'd almost have to resort to some other form of conflict that doesn't involve superhuman fights. But considering Superman is basically the original comic book hero and not intended to be high literature or whatever, that'd just be weird.
Yeah I do agree with you about this James. Technically, there aren't really stakes for Superman because he can't be killed -- unless they bring in kryptonite, which can only be done so many times. I mean, he can reverse time for gosh sakes.
Still, there's something I find absolutely satisfying about watching the Kryptonians fight in Donner's Superman II (Richard Lester can fuck himself). I think it's the notion of gods playfighting through our world. It excites the imagination on a conceptual level, and makes for plenty of explosions and dazzling effects on a visceral level. But on a story level, you are dead right...they're just kinda punching each other, and could continue to do so for fifty years if they felt like it. Humans in peril or kryptonite have to be added to the mix.
So all I can really say is that there's an interesting example here of blockbuster filmmaking where I was able to totally enjoy the film without really feeling the plot's stakes at all.
**
Brett,
Totally excellent. In addition to agreeing with the majority of what Landis said, I'm impressed by and envious of his ability to just sit down and monologue like that, smoothly, cohesively, and with good structure.
Can't say I agree with Mr Landis' view, but was interesting to hear. What I loved about this film is exactly what he's bashing. Yes, half the city is destroyed and I'm sure thousands would have died as a result, but to me that's what made this so much darker and realistic.
Superman, as powerful as he is, is a single entity. He cannot save everyone. He can't be everywhere at all times to catch falling people. I find it funny how he compares Chronicle, in which he says only 17-20 people die as if it has more moral value. I don't see it. At all.
This man seems to hate all super heroes except the ones he creates. And I did like Chronicle, I just forgot about it shortly after I watched it.
Pages: 
Author
Man of Steel
Logged
Locked Board