Why I think the Nolan/Goyer Superman movie(s) will fail

[Darth Abominus]

Look, I love Goyer's work. I loved the first Blade movie, which many forget was the first movie to relaunch the comic movie renaissance.

And I am a HUGE Batman fan, and love Batman Begins and TDK (though I like BB more).

Outside of comic films, I think Nolan's work on Memento and Insomnia was brilliant.

But the comments he's making about the take he and Goyer have for Superman has me doubtful.

He's said they'e got a take that will root Superman into the realistic word in a similar fashion as their Batman flicks, i.e, no other superheroes.

The problem here is that I think Nolan/Goyer will:

*seriously de-power Superman. (Golden Age levels)
*fail to establish truly epic villains (Luthor will be main villain, more corrupt businessman and brilliant scientist instead of super-villain)
*no use of Brainiac, Bizzaro, Darkseid, or other super-villains
*more of a Golden Age "crusader for justice," fighting criminals and the occasional natural disaster.

But I could be misreading this. What do you cats think?

 

[Archibald Nixon]

the first Blade movie, which many forget was the first movie to relaunch the comic movie renaissance.

I think this statement is a tad dubious. Could you back it up with some dates & figures?

 

[Darth Abominus]

^^^My point is that without Blade's success, there wouldn't have been Singer's X-Men, without which we'd be seeing comic book films performing very differently.

 

[Archibald Nixon]

I think this statement is a tad dubious. Could you back it up with some dates & figures?

^^^My point is that without Blade's success, there wouldn't have been Singer's X-Men, without which we'd be seeing comic book films performing very differently.

So...no, you can't.

Singer had already signed on to direct as early as '96, and the studio was committed to it well before Blade was even released. The release date kept getting pushed back for a variety of reasons, but it's safe to say that Blade had pretty much nothing to do with X-Men's prospects, let alone success. That means you're pretty much full of shit.

 

[Darth Abominus]

^^^No, fuckrag, it doesn't.

It doesn't matter WHEN which film was planned. All that matters is which movie was released first and which profited most.

Blade reached theaters sooner, did surprisingly well, and sent a message that comic book films were back in a serious and adult way.

X-Men continued that theme, but Blade can be credited as the first of the second comic book movie era.

 

[jack]

That's quite a display of ignorance you're putting on there "darth". Blade has nothing to do with the success of the comic book movie genre.

If anything, Iron Man would be the franchise that has helped bridge the gap. The Xmen franchise is rock solid and produces income from all demography. I can't imagine anything with Snipes in it having anything but a negative impact on any genre he may appear in.

Why would you go to all this trouble just to trip yourself up so?

I know! because youre a fucking n00b moron! That 'splains it.

 

[Archibald Nixon]

^^^No, fuckrag, it doesn't.

It doesn't matter WHEN which film was planned. All that matters is which movie was released first and which profited most.

Blade reached theaters sooner, did surprisingly well, and sent a message that comic book films were back in a serious and adult way.

X-Men continued that theme, but Blade can be credited as the first of the second comic book movie era.

Tell me with a straight face that X-Men would have done worse at the box office if Blade hadn't been released earlier.

Plus, how much you wanna bet the majority of those who saw Blade didn't even know it was based on a comic book? You know as well as I that most of its net came from a) those who love vampire horror and b) those who like watching Wesley Snipes be a badass.

 

[jack]

better yet, how many of those who loved the film still have no idea it's connected to comics at all?