It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
If more than one source is saying it. It does sound like it is @peter and I'm happy about it. It's proof that they are trying something new (even if Lex is the main villain again). However, this movie's freshness is a feeling is that I didn't have during the MOS production. Other than darkness, MOS didn't do much new stuff. And I actually like MOS more than most. I better still hide from Zack Snyder's cult base. That's why I wrote what I did on Where Does Bond Go After Craig thread. Although, I don't think us Bond fans are as bad as they are.
I've actually written a few Superman/Supergirl screenplay stories of my own. Mostly bringing in new villains from his rogues gallery. I'm hoping that Brainiac will be appearing in the movie. It's time for some change.
Thanks for replying, @MaxCasino !
A couple more questions for you:
I don't know anything about Superman's dog. What is his role? Is this a dog with super powers? I'm completely ignorant of where the dog fits into Superman's mythology, and I've been curious to how they will depict it in a live action film?
Always happy to help a fellow fan @peter in more fandoms than just Superman and Bond! As for Krypto I don't know much about him. Other than that he is a dog with the same powers as Superman/Supergirl. He also regularly guards the Fortress of Solitude. That's all I really know about him. This should help you a bit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krypto
Thanks again, @MaxCasino ... I'm gonna have a look at the link now.
I'm interested to see his they can make this work.
Also love a good Superman chat!
Covering this up just in case.
I managed a brief set visit last spring in Cleveland right as Gunn was beginning the location shoot for Metropolis, and I can say there was certainly...evidence...in the set designs and dressings that would suggest Krypto is in the film.
Some photos from shooting that appeared later seemed to verify as much, based on how one of the actors was (theoretically) interacting with a (likely) CGI creation. And at the exact same location I referred to above...
I reckon it could work, no reason Superman shouldn't have a dog I guess. It's not like it's an inherently more silly idea than Superman himself, and kind of suits his wholesome boy-scout character.
You were kind enough to show me these pics (and they were awesome!!)— did we discuss Krypto?
I’m just reading the wiki page now and see they do say he’s going to make an appearance in the upcoming film ! I have to admit that when I first heard about this, I made an ugly frown. A WTF frown, lol.
But I guess it’s not more outlandish than Superman… I suppose? I agree that Superman having a dog lends to his boy-scout type character. I just have trouble wrapping my head around a dog that can fly, or, if he has all of SM’s powers, shooting heat vision from his eyes.
Thanks again for the wiki link @MaxCasino , and thanks again @AgentM72 for the intel! Those were amazing pics, you crafty, old spy, you!!
Haha, many thanks @peter -- and no, we did not discuss Krypto!
I'll admit, my first reaction to the idea was similar. Just couldn't see how the superpup might work realistically in a film. But now I'm halfway through Peacemaker and seeing how Gunn treats the title character's sidekick Eagly gives me some hope. (I still can't believe Eagly is a real thing, honestly. But he's VICIOUS.)
Always happy to discuss Superman @peter and @AgentM72 he is one of my creative influences. I just hope this film works, as there is a lot riding on it. In particular, Superman's cinematic reputation!
Donner's Superman was naturalistic and It worked
Superman movies are like Star Wars. They rely on special effects and it becomes very difficult to surprise the audience. The decline was inevitable.
Otherwise, SUPERMAN 78 really more inspired by screwball film humor, and Reeve and Kidder really nailed that vibe.
Donner's Superman was kind of in the same sort of reality the Bond films live in; as you say Makeshift, it didn't really take itself 100% seriously, and the Bond films don't either- they're in on the joke (even the Craig films, maybe less so the first two, but it's still there), and the casino in Skyfall, locations of NTTD etc. are in a sort of more glamorous universe than ours.
Yes, you can see how Reeve, in his Clark Kent disguise, channels Cary Grant from those screwball classics like His Girl Friday and Bringing Up Baby.
It always surprises me rewatching the Sam Rami Spiderman movies just how heightened and elaborate everything is, almost like they're a step away from being cartoonish (even Willem Dafoe and Alfred Molina give these wonderfully theatrical performances almost. I wouldn't call either naturalistic by any means but in those films they just work). I guess that comes from Donner's Superman (and of course Burton's Batman) to some extent (Sam Rami's Darkman from the 90s is a bit like that too).
As for Batman I somewhat agree - when we get to Nolan's last two films I feel there's something missing from that world and everything feels a bit flat (the first film was better for me with the city's elaborate architecture and heightened noir visuals. It even had a couple of moments of utter ridiculousness like him using a homing signal to attract a swarm of bats). I do think Batman can afford to be darker and grittier in tone though compared to Superman, and I think as time has gone on there's been a bit more of a shift towards more grounded tones in these sorts of films. Still, superhero films need that splash of fantasy.
As the first comment says, the films have not taken advantage of the mythology. Namely in the villains. As for realistic villains, there are more than alien villains to use. My version of the mythology is having a bit more fantasy than realism. Forget James Bond, I’d rather be in charge of the cinematic Superman. There’s so many ways to take the mythological approach to entertain people and give them good feelings, about Superman and his universe.
This really is something about the character most people don't know.
For myself -- I came up as a fan of Superman onscreen. The Fleischer cartoons, then the Donner films (which became my touchstone). Also Lois & Clark. I read some of the comics, but live-action Superman was always my favourite. I preferred seeing Superman in the real world because it felt like it made him more special, more relatable.
But in my later years, I've gone back and read many of the comics from multiple different runs. And it really is incredible how different they are (in a good way).
Like, you can almost make a case that the Superman books are closer to being pure science fiction than what we think of as standard 'superhero fare'. The villains are cosmic, the colors and art are endlessly vibrant and inventive, the depictions of Metropolis range from familiar to otherworldly, the Krypton mythos has seemingly endless dimensions, etc.
Frankly, if you've never read something like "All Star Superman" and pick it up, your first impression might be -- this feels exactly like a James Gunn film! So in that spirit, I think the new film's in safe (and interesting) hands. We're likely to see a Superman far more ripped-from-the-pages than anything we've seen onscreen before, and I think audiences are absolutely ready.
I think what really kept that trend going was the George Reeves series. From what I understood they were practically forbidden from using any supervillains from the comics because of censorships being at their zenith in the 1950s. Censors didn’t want to depict fantastical villains as that would “glorify wickedness”, so Reeves’ Superman would only go up against crooks, mad scientists, gangsters, and corrupt politicians. In a way that’s kinda harkening back to the initial comics from the 30s as that’s what Superman used to fight during the Great Depression. But contrast that with what we’d see just ten years later with Adam West’s Batman fighting villains who pretty much became pop culture icons because of that show. If George Reeves had that kind of prolific rogues gallery right then in there, his series would probably be seen as equal to 60s Batman, and we would have probably seen later iterations like the movies go for those kind of colorful villains.
https://www.supermanhomepage.com/superman-related-december-2024-solicitations/
You're right. Even the comics tend to forget them. In the mini-series Absolute Superman, it sounds like they aren't even bothering with one of Superman's villains. It sounds like Ra's Al Ghul will be a villain. While I can see why he would work for Superman, (in more ways than one), it proves our points about Superman's main villains.
All Star Superman is one of my choices for a book for my mom to read. Hopefully she will!
That's a shame for the 50's show. I could easily see Lex Luthor, Toyman (in particular), Bizarro and Brainiac fitting the series well.
And some positive news:
https://x.com/JeremyJLop/status/1837180960749600780
Casting should be announced soon! Hopefully, some of her ACTUAL comic book villains will be used, including her famous cousin's!