Visuals You Would Like To See In The Reboot

Apologist Puncher wrote:You know very little, so your opinion means about as much.

Good thing I'm not looking for validation, then. Or need it, for that matter.

道 wrote:Good thing I'm not looking for validation, then. Or need it, for that matter.

Of course you are, but don't let the truth get in your way.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

道 wrote:Good thing I'm not looking for validation, then. Or need it, for that matter.

Of course you are, but don't let the truth get in your way.

Oh, that's why you think I'm here? Interesting.

Nice. The genuine "All American Hero" shot.

I'm being a little churlish here but I would've liked Superman to salute Air Force One in the SV finale. Then again, what do I know, I'm an Aussie! Plus it would've been another Donner nod....and that'd upset Colors!

Nothing all that special, really. Just a couple of scenes from Hancock I threw together that could be used as inspiration for a Superman film. I know a lot of Apologists and even real Superman fans are enamored of rear projection and/or wire stuff. However, I don't think that's what mass audiences really gravitate toward anymore. That kind of stuff was fine in the 70's when technology wasn't much more sophisticated than that but nowdays these sorts of flying shots are more in line with the public mood.

Another thing is the fight stuff. This is really just a taste of what we should have gotten back in 2006 from a Superman film (and probably would have in the hands of a better filmmaker). This represents yet another issue Singer totally goofed up on. But with Zod, there's a golden opportunity for more aggressive, effects-driven types of fight scenes than we've yet seen in a Superman film. Something more physical than the sissy-mary kicking from Superman II.

I'd hesitate to call Hancock the perfect superhero film but there are a lot of good ideas lurking around in there.

I don't understand why there hasn't been a 'Hancock 2' yet. I mean, look at this:

Hancock (2008)
Domestic: $227,946,274
+ Foreign: $396,440,472
= Worldwide:$624,386,746

If those aren't perfect numbers to launch a franchise, I don't know WHAT is....

Apologist Puncher wrote:I don't understand why there hasn't been a 'Hancock 2' yet. I mean, look at this:

Hancock (2008)
Domestic: $227,946,274
+ Foreign: $396,440,472
= Worldwide:$624,386,746

If those aren't perfect numbers to launch a franchise, I don't know WHAT is....

Actually I read somewhere just the other day about there being a sequel but I don't exactly remember now where I read it. Maybe I can find the link again. It was probably on one of these film-related sites when I was reading the usual superhero news. Anyway, it sounds like the same cast will be back, including Jason Bateman & Charlize Theron. Little was actually revealed about the plot except for it sounded like Hancock & his 'ex' have to team-up this time against an even greater threat than themselves.

I actually enjoyed Hancock. I even saw it in the theater. I tell you the truth, after the debacle that was Singerman, this was like a 'breath of fresh air'. Superman-like action without Superman. The 'without' part ain't really the ideal thing but it certainly beat 'The Man of Wood'! Hancock stopping the train with his bare hands was one of my favorite scenes in the entire film!

Ya know, duh apologists found fault with Hancock (but what else is new?). Even critics were quick to point out how the 1st half of the film was HILARIOUS but then the 2nd half was 'too serious' & therefore was somehow a letdown. You know, the whole explanation about them being 'immortals' or whatever. Sure, that 3rd act might could've been done a little better but just what were duh apologists & critics expecting? Did they expect the entire film to be a comedy & a 'spoof'?! Overall though I enjoyed the film, blast the critics! And they were silenced anyway by the box office.

I'm actually a fan of Will Smith's films anyway, even before Hancock. One that I highly recommend is I AM LEGEND. I know some people don't like this film, one I even know personally, but I went to the theater opening weekend & loved it! Although there were 2 previous films about this story over the years, this one is the best IMHO. Oh, but yeah, the film got criticized for the CGI zombies! I guess you really can't please everyone all of the time! But if you check out the DVD, be sure to watch the alternate version also. Totally different ending. Ironically they're talking about doing a 'prequel' to this film.

non_amos wrote:
Actually I read somewhere just the other day about there being a sequel but I don't exactly remember now where I read it. Maybe I can find the link again. It was probably on one of these film-related sites when I was reading the usual superhero news. Anyway, it sounds like the same cast will be back, including Jason Bateman & Charlize Theron. Little was actually revealed about the plot except for it sounded like Hancock & his 'ex' have to team-up this time against an even greater threat than themselves.

News to me.

I actually enjoyed Hancock. I even saw it in the theater. I tell you the truth, after the debacle that was Singerman, this was like a 'breath of fresh air'. Superman-like action without Superman. The 'without' part ain't really the ideal thing but it certainly beat 'The Man of Wood'! Hancock stopping the train with his bare hands was one of my favorite scenes in the entire film!

Actually, he stopped it using the same technology from 'Smallville' where Clark stops the bus with his shoulder. But yes, it was a great scene, especially as the cars stacked-up.

Ya know, duh apologists found fault with Hancock (but what else is new?). Even critics were quick to point out how the 1st half of the film was HILARIOUS but then the 2nd half was 'too serious' & therefore was somehow a letdown. You know, the whole explanation about them being 'immortals' or whatever. Sure, that 3rd act might could've been done a little better but just what were duh apologists & critics expecting? Did they expect the entire film to be a comedy & a 'spoof'?! Overall though I enjoyed the film, blast the critics! And they were silenced anyway by the box office.

If it had been comedy thru and thru, it would have bombed. And they forget that the film ended with more comedy, so it went full-circle.

I'm actually a fan of Will Smith's films anyway, even before Hancock. One that I highly recommend is I AM LEGEND. I know some people don't like this film, one I even know personally, but I went to the theater opening weekend & loved it! Although there were 2 previous films about this story over the years, this one is the best IMHO. Oh, but yeah, the film got criticized for the CGI zombies! I guess you really can't please everyone all of the time! But if you check out the DVD, be sure to watch the alternate version also. Totally different ending. Ironically they're talking about doing a 'prequel' to this film.

Have you read the original story? If you had, you'd see where the majority of the complaints come from.

While 'I Am Legend' was a very well-made film, it completely IGNORED the whole point of the original. At the end of the film, Smith's character:

Spoiler:

Which was fine if you were just telling a post-apocalyptic story that WASN'T called 'I Am Legend'.

In the original, Robert Neville spent his days killing vampires, and his nights defending his home from the same. The ending of the story, and the point of the title, is:

Spoiler:

Now do you see why some people weren't fans of the film?

Actually I've never read the book. I was just stoked to see the film, so I went in with no expectations as far as the written material was concerned. After that I watched THE LAST MAN ON EARTH online, the one starring Vincent Price. In it he was 'Robert Morgan' & it sounds like it may have followed the book closer than Smith's film but to tell you the truth, it was somewhat a bore! It was a 50's era film too I believe (or 60's at the latest) so that may explain some of that. Then I went & bought the DVD of THE OMEGA MAN starring Charlton Heston. I actually liked this a little better but even it was somewhat 'hokey'. The thing is, I saw Smith's film first so maybe I was partial due to that but to me, it's a superior film to the previous ones. The other ones may be 'more faithful to the source material' but they simply ain't as good. But remember, even in WATCHMEN, the ending was significantly changed but the film ending was actually better for the film itself than a 'psychic squid' would've been.

non_amos wrote:Actually I've never read the book. I was just stoked to see the film, so I went in with no expectations as far as the written material was concerned. After that I watched THE LAST MAN ON EARTH online, the one starring Vincent Price. In it he was 'Robert Morgan' & it sounds like it may have followed the book closer than Smith's film but to tell you the truth, it was somewhat a bore! It was a 50's era film too I believe (or 60's at the latest) so that may explain some of that. Then I went & bought the DVD of THE OMEGA MAN starring Charlton Heston. I actually liked this a little better but even it was somewhat 'hokey'. The thing is, I saw Smith's film first so maybe I was partial due to that but to me, it's a superior film to the previous ones. The other ones may be 'more faithful to the source material' but they simply ain't as good. But remember, even in WATCHMEN, the ending was significantly changed but the film ending was actually better for the film itself than a 'psychic squid' would've been.

Except the 'WATCHMEN' ending made sense, and DIDN'T ignore the point of the story.

'I Am Legend' did, as you can see by my post.

I may not read comic books like some here, but I DO read books. Read 28 in 30 days once....

I too wonder why there hasn't been a sequel too for hancock. I did read awhile back there where talks or the director wanted to do a sequel. But I guess things just didn't pan out for one.

Here's an idea for flying effects in MOS. Maybe not for everything but something along these lines may not be bad for an occasional take off or what have you.

thecolorsblend wrote:Here's an idea for flying effects in MOS. Maybe not for everything but something along these lines may not be bad for an occasional take off or what have you.

Thanks for nothing, colors....

Video removed because HollyWeird don't like you seeing things unless you pay for them.

Hmm. According to my upload thingie, it's still there. Here's the direct link- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw47BaFZi0c

thecolorsblend wrote:Hmm. According to my upload thingie, it's still there. Here's the direct link- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw47BaFZi0c

It's there. But sign out and hit the "PLAY" button to see what I'm talking about.

Yeesh. A 40 second clip from a five year old show that makes no dispute as to ownership and this is how they respond?

Big Media still fear the Internet. Don't ever let anybody else tell you otherwise.

thecolorsblend wrote:Yeesh. A 40 second clip from a five year old show that makes no dispute as to ownership and this is how they respond?

Yes. Yes it is.

Big Media still fear the Internet. Don't ever let anybody else tell you otherwise.

SOPA says "Hello".....

I can't get it at all even signed in. Blocked on copyright grounds? Gimme a break! I guarantee you if I knew exactly what episode that was, I could go right now somewhere online & watch it, even download it for that matter. For free! And you know it's true. I could give links but I won't, not in this post anyway. And besides, what's the deal with Youtube? Ain't you supposed to be able to watch just about anything on there, within reason anyway? I see entire movies on there. Or you'll see the film or TV episode split up into multiple parts. So what gives with this?

I hope flying visual are good for mos.

non_amos wrote:I can't get it at all even signed in. Blocked on copyright grounds? Gimme a break! I guarantee you if I knew exactly what episode that was, I could go right now somewhere online & watch it, even download it for that matter. For free! And you know it's true. I could give links but I won't, not in this post anyway. And besides, what's the deal with Youtube? Ain't you supposed to be able to watch just about anything on there, within reason anyway? I see entire movies on there. Or you'll see the film or TV episode split up into multiple parts. So what gives with this?

The episode of Heroes is titled "Hiros". The sequence I was talking about is the pre-credit sequence where HRG and the Haitian try to kidnap Nathan but he flies away.

And yes, you CAN find it from tons of source. We're talking about, a what, 30 or 40 second clip here. It's something like that. The entire idea behind is that using that type of transition from practical photography over to CG made for a pretty cool flying sequence in Heroes and could be used to great effect for Superman. Certainly it'd be better (depending on how it's used) than yet more wire shots. That's it, that was my whole point, and the idea was to use that little clip to illustrate the point.

How petty can you get, you know?

EDIT- Incidentally, give that the show was cancelled due to poor fucking ratings, it seems like a really dumb idea to me to delete the clip off YouTube.

This seems like the best place for this.

One reason I'm a proponent of a movie adaptation of the Pre-Crisis Superman (specifically Bronze Age, 1970 or '71 up through 1986 before Byrne's reboot) is that it's by far the most fucking epic version of Superman anybody has ever attempted in any medium. Basically, the Bronze Age could be considered a less silly continuation of the Silver Age. It's not a reboot as such. The Silver Age stories are mostly in continuity. It's just that the tone of the stories tended toward more serious (although comics were more fun back then so grade it on a curve).

You've got Superboy and Lex's friendship-rivalry, the Legion of Superheroes and time travel and shit, and generally a really heavy sci-fi tone that hasn't really ever been attempted in any superhero movie. But what really works for me about all that is JLA #153, which implied that baby Kal-El's arrival on Earth basically shifted magnetic forces or some such shit out of whack, which led inexorably to other people getting powers, Earth somehow becoming the center of all kinds of superhuman activity and extra terrestrial visitors, etc.

You could flesh the concept out a bit more but it basically offers a picture perfect gateway into a shared universe. Shit, you could even argue that the effects of his arrival are cumulative. Baby Kal-El's arrival results in minor variances in some gobbledygook planetary equilibrium which increase more and more and more over time. To balance that out, superhumans become more and more common (and more and more powerful), the average shmuck's intellect gradually increases, etc etc etc. It becomes not too big of a stretch to imagine that mankind could eventually evolve into the society depicted in the Legion of Superheroes.

I doubt we'll ever see anything this ambitious in any other place besides those comics but it's some seriously epic shit going on there. If I ever had a chance to make a Superman movie, it'd be along these lines.

I'm glad you provided that info because I wasn't even aware that there was anything like that in JLA#153. For that matter, I wasn't aware of that issue period except for the common sense of knowing it existed but beyond that? Nada. But it's interesting that Kal-El's arrival on Earth caused others to get powers. You know what that sounds like to me? Freakin' SMALLVILLE! Yeah, I know, SV turned them into 'meteor freaks' instead of superheroes & they were almost always the 'bad guy'. But where did Miller & Gough get the idea to begin with? Was it their own original idea? Or did they know their comics well enough that they were aware of this? Or is it all just coincidence? I wish we knew.

I can agree as to how awesome the Bronze Age Superman comics were because that's what I grew up on. When you say 'less silly' you basically mean 'less planet-juggling', right? I mean, I believe this has been discussed on here before somewhere but didn't the 50's version of Superman routinely juggle planets? Didn't he sneeze & destroy an entire solar system? Yeah, that stuff is too far-fetched even for Superman. It'd at least have to be someone on the order of GALACTUS to even make any sense. Nevertheless if memory serves me correctly I believe that stuff was toned down in the 70's. And like I've said before, back then you had a lot of 'self-contained' Superman stories & even comics in general, DC or Marvel. Take Superman for example. All you really needed was SUPERMAN, ACTION COMICS & WORLD'S FINEST. But the more recent development is that you have to buy every title without fail to get the full story as well as associated cross-overs to the latest 'crisis' or else you're lost! Not so in the 70's. I remember many self-contained stories, some that would've even made decent movies, yet I didn't have to get fanatical about it or anything like an ongoing soap opera or something.

non_amos wrote:I'm glad you provided that info because I wasn't even aware that there was anything like that in JLA#153. For that matter, I wasn't aware of that issue period except for the common sense of knowing it existed but beyond that? Nada. But it's interesting that Kal-El's arrival on Earth caused others to get powers.

I like it too because if you take it to the logical conclusion, it pretty much makes Superman directly responsible for leading mankind into an entirely new AGE. "They will stumble, they will fall, but one day they will join you in the sun".

The dark side there is that if superhumans didn't exist before Superman pimps into the scene, there's really no room for something like the Justice Society as we've known it. And in my perfect, idealized version of Superman (my continuity), the JSA must have a hand in bringing Superman onto the scene. It should be noted I came to that opinion before SV did their take on that concept; I just like that someone obviously felt the same way. I love the concept of the transition from the JSA to Superman to the Legion of Superheroes and all those various epochs being intimately woven together around Superman.

non_amos wrote:You know what that sounds like to me? Freakin' SMALLVILLE! Yeah, I know, SV turned them into 'meteor freaks' instead of superheroes & they were almost always the 'bad guy'. But where did Miller & Gough get the idea to begin with? Was it their own original idea? Or did they know their comics well enough that they were aware of this? Or is it all just coincidence? I wish we knew.

It reminded me of that too. I didn't want to say so though because I'm probably viewed as a Smallville apologist par excellence. But yeah, I've wondered if it was intentional too. SV gets little or no credit for how much stuff comes directly from the comics (ie, the big picture of the tenth season is a loose adaptation of the Legends storyline).

non_amos wrote:I can agree as to how awesome the Bronze Age Superman comics were because that's what I grew up on. When you say 'less silly' you basically mean 'less planet-juggling', right?

Well, I guess I mean less Silver Agey stuff like Streaky the Supercat, Lois constantly trying to prove Clark is Superman or sucker the guy into marriage and stuff like that.

non_amos wrote:back then you had a lot of 'self-contained' Superman stories & even comics in general, DC or Marvel. Take Superman for example. All you really needed was SUPERMAN, ACTION COMICS & WORLD'S FINEST. But the more recent development is that you have to buy every title without fail to get the full story as well as associated cross-overs to the latest 'crisis' or else you're lost! Not so in the 70's. I remember many self-contained stories, some that would've even made decent movies, yet I didn't have to get fanatical about it or anything like an ongoing soap opera or something.

I miss one shot stories. Not everything can be done in one, I understand that, but you can do a lot of different types of stories in those single issues.

Here's an example. Superman #246, Dec. 1971. Basically, Superman has to fight a giant blob of goo that threatens to wreak havoc on the city. It's a pretty neat story. Not "dark" exactly but lots of ambience and atmosphere with the rain, the monochrome color palette and all that. It's a fun little story. No, it's not going to win an Eisner but it showed Superman doing his thing in a way that only Superman can.