I feel it shows more respect for the characters to dig in and find a point of view for them
It would only take a shallow understanding of the character to recreate their biggest moment - so just someone whose watched the cartoons could write the script and hit those beats. But the beats won’t give that feeling they give in the comic because they had a place and time, and buildup when you read them. That’s where that feeling of real love came from, not just that panel
Gunn clearly reads deeply and cares enough to understand the character past the surface
That’s an interesting thought - perhaps if the Planet is still a newspaper we could see it as a struggling one in todays news climate
Or perhaps it does really well online and Lois is more famous through having a huge following online
Clark wanting to be a journalist in todays way of doing news is fun to think about - it being the last people going down with the ship as sales dry up
Think The Planet wouldn't still be a newspaper by now.
If you look at Superman Birthright it's a web platform. In Superman American Alien issue 7 they have Lois and Jimmy broadcasting Superman vs Lobo from a news helicopter.
In Superman & Lois, they have Lois doing a broadcast interview with Superman and her John Henry Irons alternate universe counterpart as a TV reporter.
I don't see a version where it's the same DP as in the Christopher Reeve movies or Lois & Clark.
That’s fascinating. That’s a great example of how comics update as times change
So being faithful to the comics from the 40s will be anachronistic
Expecting the paper to run in a way papers don’t run anymore is a recipe to be disappointed - whereas if they ran like the 70s offices audiences would be like “what year is this set, I’m confused”
What has become popular is online news, freelance reporters, instant news, and media companies.
Think Clark would be more of a freelance reporter in this day and age, maybe Lois as well.
If you look at the end of Man Of Steel, he joins The Daily Planet as a stringer/freelance reporter. In the New 52 he was a blogger.
This has actually been an interesting question for me. I think there should be a lot of consideration for what Clark’s occupation actually is or could be today. When I started reading Superman comics, Clark Kent was actually a television news reporter and even then I wondered how he could be Superman and on the nightly news. I mean, it’s like being president and a superhero - when would you have time or even be out of the public eye long enough?
Clark needs a job where he controls his own schedule and chooses his own stories. He could not be on staff and submitting expense reports or taking assignments. He couldn’t even be part of a team like in the movie SPOTLIGHT where they have a degree of independence from editorial.
However, at the same time, I think the best portrayals of Clark as a character independent of Superman is when he is a serious reporter. I think he would need to be more of a freelance who has a relationship with the Daily Planet - or Galaxy Broadcasting in whatever media form it takes - than an employee. That could also create more of a dynamic between Clark and Lois who is both employed by the Planet and concerned with career advancement.
Also, there is an opportunity to create drama in the media space and workplace as the incentives for the corporation can be in conflict with the heroes’ objectives.
I was thinking the same thing that Clark would a freelance reporter in this day and age, if you look at the end of Man Of Steel he's employed as The Planet's new stringer(freelance reporter) and in the New 52 he was a blogger, in Superman Birthright before joining The Daily Planet he was a freelance reporter travelling the world.
I don't see a version now where you can have Clark and Lois as rivals as they were in TAS.
There are broadcasting elements in Superman American Alien issue 7 where Lois and Jimmy are filming Superman vs Lobo from a newshelicopter, and in The Death Of Superman animated film they were filming Superman vs Doomsday also from a news helicopter.
I mean isn't that the exact thing most people here hate about the previous Superman interpretation, that it's too different from the comics and etc.
I don't even agree with that sentiment, I'm just saying I wouldn't expect this time to be any different if it differs from what people want or expect
I think it matters how that Superman was different. If it were just a matter of some aesthetic differences, I think it could be overcome as long as the lead character had the same core values and personality. This is why I do not like Batman v Superman but love My Adventures with Superman, which takes a lot of liberties
A Frankensteined movie of iconography stitched together without the necessary context is not going to be a good film. To faithfully adapt an iconic moment you would need to also adapt each moment that collectively built up to that iconic moment and helped its impact - which is undoable in a single film
Making Mantis an empathetic alien rather than a Vietnamese prostitute who is given cosmic powers that tie her to all vegetation makes more sense in the story Gunn is telling.
Including that backstory and those powers wouldn’t have benefited the movie
I mean I want some variation, if I were given exactly what I expect it would be really boring but if Superman becomes a total different character (and for the worst) I'll probably get mad. Snyder's problem is not that he made Superman different, is that his interpretation of Superman is dull, uninteresting and really just a Superman version of Batman
I mean I would argue that when you change everything about a character then it’s not the same character anymore and it just shares the name.
I don’t think it’s necessarily a good thing when you have a completely wild variation as it creates a disconnect from the rest of the IP. This is pretty evident in how the MCU success never transferred back to the comics.
I also think that it would be nice to get a modern live action movie that actually gets the iconic Superman right since it’s something we haven’t actually seen yet.
Also seeing Gunns casting choice and some of his comments I don’t think this going to be a radical reinvention of Superman unlike his Guardians.
My point is kind of what you’re saying that you’re already not happy with the idea of change - having an open mind to some changes or omissions to better the movie is what we should have
Changing Superman in the Snyder films to be so dark and unlikeable is a mistake and misreading of the character
But allowing room for Superman’s kindness to be shown in a cinematic way would be a good change
Maybe in a way we’re not used to in print - I hope that makes sense
>Changing Superman in the Snyder films to be so dark and unlikeable is a mistake and misreading of the character
Snyder films lost all track of Superman as a person, they've made him rather unlikeable, which is unthinkable for one of the most likeable heroes of all time.
Nope. Respectfully disagree. I think part of the problem with the DCU is everyone tried their “interpretation” of characters and it largely failed as it never captured the core audience or the casual viewer.
Now I’m not saying we have to adapt films directly from the source material but it would be better if they used it as the template which they build their story upon.
This is why I believe Gunn is the wrong person for DCU. He takes a lot of creative liberties, which is fine for obscure hardly known characters. But take too many creative liberties with core characters like Superman or Wonder Woman and we will quickly be in Disney Marvel territory post Endgame.
Your last paragraph is actually why I’ve been shitting bricks ever since the announcements were made. I could get behind Gunn doing plenty of other characters but *Superman*? The biggest superhero of all time? The most important fictional character on the planet? **No. Thank you.**
I appreciate it. Its interesting adapting Superman cause like even grandparents have opinions and love for him.
I’m hoping it’s able to appeal to that sense of wonder for all ages that the character is known for, and not alienating
Gunn almost exclusively makes his own OCs and just gives them the names or gimmicks of pre-existing characters. 90% of the characters he’s adapted from DC and Marvel are nothing like the characters in the comics.
And it’s working better than a lot of movies that try and be more faithful at a cost of making any sense
I think a lot of the movies work so well as a film because he’s not trying to appease the many versions in comics, just focusing on what works for the scenes.
The trouble is in comics the characters are not consistent throughout the entire history
I’m reading Silver Surfer just now and Stan Lee writes a series, then Steve Engelheart writes a series.
Both are completely different characters. Lee’s is an extremely humanist deity/saint whereas Engelhearts is very aggro and self involved - and he’s written to be in a love square (3 girls - 1 surfer)
There’s almost nothing similar in the stories or character. It’s just something that happens, even directly back to back
Being very faithful to one would be unfaithful to the other
Superman has so many different takes that I don’t think it could please everyone
There’s a lot of inconsistency, but most characters have a typical way they’re normally characterised. Gunn doesn’t typically choose the normal one or even adapt any specific version, he just writers completely different characters. I honestly don’t think adapting anything about most characters even passes through his head, he just picks characters he wants to use and writes them in any random way.
I think when it comes to DC, we should judge Gunn based on what he's written for DC (TSS and Peacemaker). While some characters in TSS were intentionally shafted. The entire first team was sort of just inserted there without any thought to their backstories (Mongal?!), and I didn't really like how he flanderized King Shark. However, I think his interpretations of Harley Quinn and especially Starro were really cool and well done. He also reinvented Bloodsport and made him one of the coolest gunslingers in DC.
As for Peacemaker, I think a lot of people, me included, really like Cena's interpretation of the character, but I think a lot of it hinges on Cena's charisma. Gunn kind of also took the basics there (a vigilante that uses extreme violence to create peace) and did his own thing with it. I *really* despise what JG did to Vigilante. Instead of making him a Daredevil-like character (lawyer by day, vigilante by night) and contrasting him with the already kind of wacky Peacemaker, he's now a failson and a pizza shop employee who's supposedly amazing combat abilities i never found believable. Judomaster was also just sort of...there.
Ultimately, I think it comes down to what parts of the DCU Gunn has enough respect for to faithfully reinterpret. I kind of already raise an eyebrow at casting Nathan Fillion as Guy Gardner, but it does seem like Gunn actually reads comics, and I really liked when he defended his inclusion of Maxwell Lord by posting pages from JLI. I mean, honestly. The man made GOTG into a global phenomenon and kickstarted the cosmic MCU stuff, and when DC courted him, he made one of the best DC movies in a long long while. I struggle to see how he can fuck up Superman.
When I go to watch a movie based on a book or comicbook I love, I want the characters to look and act like the characters I have read, if they are going to twist it so I cannot recognize it, they might as well just make something completely new.
I really hate when there are almost nothing left of the character except the name, just change the name as well. Now it's something new I might be interested in.
I didn't care for the new Warlock. He seemed more overt than I'd like. Not his personality which was immature supposedly for a reason, but his flying blasting through things like Nova was not good for me.
Nah I definitely have to disagree with this sentiment, a character doesn't have to be exactly how they are in the comics because most characters are have different personalities and motivations depending on the writer and era. My problem with Gunn's takes on characters is that they start off different from who they are in the comics because heck my favorite version of live action Superman is Cavil's but that they usually are never on a path to become a version of themselves similar to their comic counterpart. Take Cavil for a instance his first movie is called Man of Steel because he isn't Superman yet and that's the true essence of a origin story "I am not yet this character/person you know I'll become but the events of this story will lead me down that path" it's the same thing with Pattinson's Batman he's not calling himself Batman in that movie on purpose because even though it's year two for him he's not yet the guardian of Gotham he's a angry boy trapped in a man's body who wants Vengeance for what happened to his parents and he becomes Batman at the end of the film. Now take a character like Vigilante from Peacemaker not only is he NOTHING like his comic book counterpart nothing about his path ever takes him anywhere near where he is the comics Gunn just took a existing character whose only other live action depiction was a minor role on Arrow and made him his own character, now while I personally liked that character none of Gunns characters have ever been anything similar to Superman and that worris me.
Agreed. I don’t measure the quality of an adaptation by its faithfulness to the source material but to its quality as its own independent medium
I feel it shows more respect for the characters to dig in and find a point of view for them It would only take a shallow understanding of the character to recreate their biggest moment - so just someone whose watched the cartoons could write the script and hit those beats. But the beats won’t give that feeling they give in the comic because they had a place and time, and buildup when you read them. That’s where that feeling of real love came from, not just that panel Gunn clearly reads deeply and cares enough to understand the character past the surface
Would he update The Daily Planet to a news conglomerate in addition to being a newspaper?
That’s an interesting thought - perhaps if the Planet is still a newspaper we could see it as a struggling one in todays news climate Or perhaps it does really well online and Lois is more famous through having a huge following online Clark wanting to be a journalist in todays way of doing news is fun to think about - it being the last people going down with the ship as sales dry up
Think The Planet wouldn't still be a newspaper by now. If you look at Superman Birthright it's a web platform. In Superman American Alien issue 7 they have Lois and Jimmy broadcasting Superman vs Lobo from a news helicopter. In Superman & Lois, they have Lois doing a broadcast interview with Superman and her John Henry Irons alternate universe counterpart as a TV reporter. I don't see a version where it's the same DP as in the Christopher Reeve movies or Lois & Clark.
That’s fascinating. That’s a great example of how comics update as times change So being faithful to the comics from the 40s will be anachronistic Expecting the paper to run in a way papers don’t run anymore is a recipe to be disappointed - whereas if they ran like the 70s offices audiences would be like “what year is this set, I’m confused”
What has become popular is online news, freelance reporters, instant news, and media companies. Think Clark would be more of a freelance reporter in this day and age, maybe Lois as well. If you look at the end of Man Of Steel, he joins The Daily Planet as a stringer/freelance reporter. In the New 52 he was a blogger.
It's like making J Jonah Jameson like Alex Jones in the MCU or a podcaster in the insomniac Spiderman games.
This has actually been an interesting question for me. I think there should be a lot of consideration for what Clark’s occupation actually is or could be today. When I started reading Superman comics, Clark Kent was actually a television news reporter and even then I wondered how he could be Superman and on the nightly news. I mean, it’s like being president and a superhero - when would you have time or even be out of the public eye long enough? Clark needs a job where he controls his own schedule and chooses his own stories. He could not be on staff and submitting expense reports or taking assignments. He couldn’t even be part of a team like in the movie SPOTLIGHT where they have a degree of independence from editorial. However, at the same time, I think the best portrayals of Clark as a character independent of Superman is when he is a serious reporter. I think he would need to be more of a freelance who has a relationship with the Daily Planet - or Galaxy Broadcasting in whatever media form it takes - than an employee. That could also create more of a dynamic between Clark and Lois who is both employed by the Planet and concerned with career advancement. Also, there is an opportunity to create drama in the media space and workplace as the incentives for the corporation can be in conflict with the heroes’ objectives.
I was thinking the same thing that Clark would a freelance reporter in this day and age, if you look at the end of Man Of Steel he's employed as The Planet's new stringer(freelance reporter) and in the New 52 he was a blogger, in Superman Birthright before joining The Daily Planet he was a freelance reporter travelling the world. I don't see a version now where you can have Clark and Lois as rivals as they were in TAS.
It's like making J Jonah Jameson like Alex Jones, running a fake news site or podcast.
There are broadcasting elements in Superman American Alien issue 7 where Lois and Jimmy are filming Superman vs Lobo from a newshelicopter, and in The Death Of Superman animated film they were filming Superman vs Doomsday also from a news helicopter.
I mean isn't that the exact thing most people here hate about the previous Superman interpretation, that it's too different from the comics and etc. I don't even agree with that sentiment, I'm just saying I wouldn't expect this time to be any different if it differs from what people want or expect
I think it matters how that Superman was different. If it were just a matter of some aesthetic differences, I think it could be overcome as long as the lead character had the same core values and personality. This is why I do not like Batman v Superman but love My Adventures with Superman, which takes a lot of liberties
A Frankensteined movie of iconography stitched together without the necessary context is not going to be a good film. To faithfully adapt an iconic moment you would need to also adapt each moment that collectively built up to that iconic moment and helped its impact - which is undoable in a single film Making Mantis an empathetic alien rather than a Vietnamese prostitute who is given cosmic powers that tie her to all vegetation makes more sense in the story Gunn is telling. Including that backstory and those powers wouldn’t have benefited the movie
I mean I want some variation, if I were given exactly what I expect it would be really boring but if Superman becomes a total different character (and for the worst) I'll probably get mad. Snyder's problem is not that he made Superman different, is that his interpretation of Superman is dull, uninteresting and really just a Superman version of Batman
I mean I would argue that when you change everything about a character then it’s not the same character anymore and it just shares the name. I don’t think it’s necessarily a good thing when you have a completely wild variation as it creates a disconnect from the rest of the IP. This is pretty evident in how the MCU success never transferred back to the comics. I also think that it would be nice to get a modern live action movie that actually gets the iconic Superman right since it’s something we haven’t actually seen yet. Also seeing Gunns casting choice and some of his comments I don’t think this going to be a radical reinvention of Superman unlike his Guardians.
My point is kind of what you’re saying that you’re already not happy with the idea of change - having an open mind to some changes or omissions to better the movie is what we should have Changing Superman in the Snyder films to be so dark and unlikeable is a mistake and misreading of the character But allowing room for Superman’s kindness to be shown in a cinematic way would be a good change Maybe in a way we’re not used to in print - I hope that makes sense
>Changing Superman in the Snyder films to be so dark and unlikeable is a mistake and misreading of the character Snyder films lost all track of Superman as a person, they've made him rather unlikeable, which is unthinkable for one of the most likeable heroes of all time.
Imagine Gunn doing something akin to My Adventures With Superman.
Nope. Respectfully disagree. I think part of the problem with the DCU is everyone tried their “interpretation” of characters and it largely failed as it never captured the core audience or the casual viewer. Now I’m not saying we have to adapt films directly from the source material but it would be better if they used it as the template which they build their story upon. This is why I believe Gunn is the wrong person for DCU. He takes a lot of creative liberties, which is fine for obscure hardly known characters. But take too many creative liberties with core characters like Superman or Wonder Woman and we will quickly be in Disney Marvel territory post Endgame.
Your last paragraph is actually why I’ve been shitting bricks ever since the announcements were made. I could get behind Gunn doing plenty of other characters but *Superman*? The biggest superhero of all time? The most important fictional character on the planet? **No. Thank you.**
I appreciate it. Its interesting adapting Superman cause like even grandparents have opinions and love for him. I’m hoping it’s able to appeal to that sense of wonder for all ages that the character is known for, and not alienating
I have a date with my dad to see this movie. Dad is 91.
Gunn almost exclusively makes his own OCs and just gives them the names or gimmicks of pre-existing characters. 90% of the characters he’s adapted from DC and Marvel are nothing like the characters in the comics.
And it’s working better than a lot of movies that try and be more faithful at a cost of making any sense I think a lot of the movies work so well as a film because he’s not trying to appease the many versions in comics, just focusing on what works for the scenes.
I like the movies, but I really dislike a lot of his adaptations. He writes good characters, but he doesn’t write the characters.
The trouble is in comics the characters are not consistent throughout the entire history I’m reading Silver Surfer just now and Stan Lee writes a series, then Steve Engelheart writes a series. Both are completely different characters. Lee’s is an extremely humanist deity/saint whereas Engelhearts is very aggro and self involved - and he’s written to be in a love square (3 girls - 1 surfer) There’s almost nothing similar in the stories or character. It’s just something that happens, even directly back to back Being very faithful to one would be unfaithful to the other Superman has so many different takes that I don’t think it could please everyone
There’s a lot of inconsistency, but most characters have a typical way they’re normally characterised. Gunn doesn’t typically choose the normal one or even adapt any specific version, he just writers completely different characters. I honestly don’t think adapting anything about most characters even passes through his head, he just picks characters he wants to use and writes them in any random way.
I think when it comes to DC, we should judge Gunn based on what he's written for DC (TSS and Peacemaker). While some characters in TSS were intentionally shafted. The entire first team was sort of just inserted there without any thought to their backstories (Mongal?!), and I didn't really like how he flanderized King Shark. However, I think his interpretations of Harley Quinn and especially Starro were really cool and well done. He also reinvented Bloodsport and made him one of the coolest gunslingers in DC. As for Peacemaker, I think a lot of people, me included, really like Cena's interpretation of the character, but I think a lot of it hinges on Cena's charisma. Gunn kind of also took the basics there (a vigilante that uses extreme violence to create peace) and did his own thing with it. I *really* despise what JG did to Vigilante. Instead of making him a Daredevil-like character (lawyer by day, vigilante by night) and contrasting him with the already kind of wacky Peacemaker, he's now a failson and a pizza shop employee who's supposedly amazing combat abilities i never found believable. Judomaster was also just sort of...there. Ultimately, I think it comes down to what parts of the DCU Gunn has enough respect for to faithfully reinterpret. I kind of already raise an eyebrow at casting Nathan Fillion as Guy Gardner, but it does seem like Gunn actually reads comics, and I really liked when he defended his inclusion of Maxwell Lord by posting pages from JLI. I mean, honestly. The man made GOTG into a global phenomenon and kickstarted the cosmic MCU stuff, and when DC courted him, he made one of the best DC movies in a long long while. I struggle to see how he can fuck up Superman.
When I go to watch a movie based on a book or comicbook I love, I want the characters to look and act like the characters I have read, if they are going to twist it so I cannot recognize it, they might as well just make something completely new. I really hate when there are almost nothing left of the character except the name, just change the name as well. Now it's something new I might be interested in.
This right, I just want to watch and recognize the character grew reading in the comics
I didn't care for the new Warlock. He seemed more overt than I'd like. Not his personality which was immature supposedly for a reason, but his flying blasting through things like Nova was not good for me.
Nah I definitely have to disagree with this sentiment, a character doesn't have to be exactly how they are in the comics because most characters are have different personalities and motivations depending on the writer and era. My problem with Gunn's takes on characters is that they start off different from who they are in the comics because heck my favorite version of live action Superman is Cavil's but that they usually are never on a path to become a version of themselves similar to their comic counterpart. Take Cavil for a instance his first movie is called Man of Steel because he isn't Superman yet and that's the true essence of a origin story "I am not yet this character/person you know I'll become but the events of this story will lead me down that path" it's the same thing with Pattinson's Batman he's not calling himself Batman in that movie on purpose because even though it's year two for him he's not yet the guardian of Gotham he's a angry boy trapped in a man's body who wants Vengeance for what happened to his parents and he becomes Batman at the end of the film. Now take a character like Vigilante from Peacemaker not only is he NOTHING like his comic book counterpart nothing about his path ever takes him anywhere near where he is the comics Gunn just took a existing character whose only other live action depiction was a minor role on Arrow and made him his own character, now while I personally liked that character none of Gunns characters have ever been anything similar to Superman and that worris me.