If the executives at DC Comics aren’t worried, they should be, because Marvel, their long-time rival, just had an amazing summer. Marvel released Thor, Captain America, and X-Men: First Class to positive reviews and financial success. Meanwhile, DC released Green Lantern, which flopped critically and financially, finally proving that Ryan Reynolds’ abs aren’t infallible (they are still very impressive). This is a continuation in a trend that’s been going on for over a decade. Aside from a few films including Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and Stardust, DC’s properties have not enjoyed the best movie adaptations. Watchmen is decent but it’s also based on one of the greatest graphic novels of all time, Johan Hex is head scratchingly bad (only 81 minutes long?), and The Spirit was doomed to failure once its director said to Sam Jackson, “You can wear/say whatever you want. You want to dress up like a samurai? Go for it!”
 |
| Sam Jackson upon seeing his reflection |
DC has the highly anticipated The Dark Knight Rises releasing next summer but Marvel has The Avengers film, its Spider-Man reboot, and numerous other sequels in the works (Iron Man, Thor, X-Men). Therefore, it’s no surprise that DC is attempting to even the odds with a reboot of the Superman films, entitled Man of Steel (MoS). Filming began several weeks ago and is set for a June 14th, 2013 release. It’s still very early on; we are months away from the first trailer, but I’m very optimistic about MoS, with one serious reservation. Here's why:
Reason #1: A Better Superman
Superman Returns starred Brandon Routh and while he looked the part, he isn’t the most gifted of actors. Dylan Dog: Dead of Night, his most recent film, has a 6% approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com. Gigli has a 7% approval rating. I don’t think he dragged down Superman Returns but aside from his looks, he didn’t add much either.
Meet, Henry Cavill, the next Kal-El:
I don’t think Cavill is the spitting image of Superman to the same degree as Routh but he still looks the part. Tall, dark hair, and he can work the completely useless cape, but is he a better actor than Routh?
In as few words as possible: I’ve only seen him in two episodes of The Tudors, so I don’t know.
A more long-winded response is: I don’t know, but Empire magazine dubbed him the “Unluckiest Man in Hollywood” because he had been set to star in a 2004 Superman film before director McG pulled out, then Stephanie Meyer called him the “perfect Edward” but by the time production began he was too old, finally producers and directors were torn between Cavill and Daniel Craig for the role of James Bond, the director wanted Cavill but producers wanted Bond to be older. That’s three huge, career-making roles he just barely missed out on. To be that close to winning such varied and important roles means he must have, at the least, decent acting ability.
I don’t think Cavill is the spitting image of Superman to the same degree as Routh but he still looks the part. Tall, dark hair, and he can work the completely useless cape, but is he a better actor than Routh?
In as few words as possible: I’ve only seen him in two episodes of The Tudors, so I don’t know.
A more long-winded response is: I don’t know, but Empire magazine dubbed him the “Unluckiest Man in Hollywood” because he had been set to star in a 2004 Superman film before director McG pulled out, then Stephanie Meyer called him the “perfect Edward” but by the time production began he was too old, finally producers and directors were torn between Cavill and Daniel Craig for the role of James Bond, the director wanted Cavill but producers wanted Bond to be older. That’s three huge, career-making roles he just barely missed out on. To be that close to winning such varied and important roles means he must have, at the least, decent acting ability.
 |
| He also has the ability to make really stupid clothes look kinda cool |
Reason #2: The Villain
We have the hero but what about the villain? Lex Luthor has been overdone, Bizarro is too weird for the first in a series, and the same is true for Darkseid. There are other prominent villains including Doomsday and Braniac but none jump off the page. Ultimately, the creators of the reboot decided to go with General Zod. Here's Terrence Stamp as Zod in 1980's Superman II:
 |
| Titty Twisters are Zod's Kryptonite |
Like the other potential villains I listed, Zod doesn’t give me a nerdgasm but he’s adequate. I don’t think any other villain would have been markedly better, at least in concept. More importantly, General Zod is able to actually fight Superman, creating the potential for some awesome action scenes. Action scenes in Superman Returns were limited to Superman putting out fires and occasionally lifting something really heavy. Two extremely powerful characters create almost endless possibilities. I hope Superman throws a whale at Zod.
Michael Shannon who hasn’t been in anything I’ve seen (Boardwalk Empire, Revolutionary Road) but received a Best Supporting Actor Academy Award nomination will play Zod.
 |
| He looks pretty evil |
Reason #3: The Supporting Cast
Let me read off some of the supporting cast with my peanut-gallery comments.
Amy Adams as Lois Lane: Okay, I’ve always liked her and Enchanted is a guilty pleasure of mine.
Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as Ma and Pa Kent: I like the younger spin on Superman’s adoptive parents; it further separates MoS from the previous films. Waterworld still sucks though.
Laurence Fishburne as Perry White, Editor in Chief of the Daily Planet and Clark Kent’s boss: Now it’s getting good, Fishburne is great and I can definitely see him as the no-nonsense head of a newspaper.
Russell Crowe as Jor-El: AWESOME, topping Marlon Brando, the previous Jor-El, is probably impossible, but a three-time nominated best actor is nothing to take lightly.
Let me read off some of the supporting cast with my peanut-gallery comments.
Amy Adams as Lois Lane: Okay, I’ve always liked her and Enchanted is a guilty pleasure of mine.
Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as Ma and Pa Kent: I like the younger spin on Superman’s adoptive parents; it further separates MoS from the previous films. Waterworld still sucks though.
Laurence Fishburne as Perry White, Editor in Chief of the Daily Planet and Clark Kent’s boss: Now it’s getting good, Fishburne is great and I can definitely see him as the no-nonsense head of a newspaper.
Russell Crowe as Jor-El: AWESOME, topping Marlon Brando, the previous Jor-El, is probably impossible, but a three-time nominated best actor is nothing to take lightly.
In summary, a film with an amazing story, special effects, and cinematography still needs great actors and I really like the way the supporting cast has shaped-up. They compliment Cavill and Shannon, the largely unknown leads, with established talent and the ability to differentiate MoS from previous Superman films.
Reason #4: Reboots are awesome
History hasn’t been kind to 2006’s Superman Returns. It received largely positive reviews from critics but didn’t perform particularly well at the box office and since it’s theatrical run ended, I have heard very few kind words about Bryan Singer’s take on everyone’s favorite Kyrptonian castaway (maybe second favorite). I believe Returns is a better film than most people admit. It has a solid cast and emotional depth rarely seen in superhero films. So what went wrong? I think Singer made two critical errors. Firstly, he decided to make Lex Luthor the villain. I know Luthor is Superman's arch nemesis but he is still an annoying bald guy whose only superpower is coming up with insane schemes to take over the world. In other words, Singer decided to pit an out-of-shape Mr. Clean against a godlike being. At least utilize a more threatening version of Luthor. Zod in MoS should address this issue.
History hasn’t been kind to 2006’s Superman Returns. It received largely positive reviews from critics but didn’t perform particularly well at the box office and since it’s theatrical run ended, I have heard very few kind words about Bryan Singer’s take on everyone’s favorite Kyrptonian castaway (maybe second favorite). I believe Returns is a better film than most people admit. It has a solid cast and emotional depth rarely seen in superhero films. So what went wrong? I think Singer made two critical errors. Firstly, he decided to make Lex Luthor the villain. I know Luthor is Superman's arch nemesis but he is still an annoying bald guy whose only superpower is coming up with insane schemes to take over the world. In other words, Singer decided to pit an out-of-shape Mr. Clean against a godlike being. At least utilize a more threatening version of Luthor. Zod in MoS should address this issue.
 |
| This guy versus someone who once threw a skyscraper into orbit |
Deciding not to reboot the series is Singer's second mistake. Having Superman Returns lie in the same continuity as the previous films did nothing positive and introduced an unclear, overly convoluted backstory. Plus, it deprived us of a hero origin story that we all love so much. The first reboot in the Superman series will allow MoS to forget about five films worth of plot developments and use every character to the fullest extent.
Reason #5: It's Channeling Batman
 |
| The winner gets to stop wearing his underwear on the outside of his pants |
Most DC films suck but the studio's crown jewel, The Dark Knight, is the greatest comic book film ever made (sorry Mr. Freeze). As a result, it makes sense to emulate Superman’s comic book counterpart. Just hearing the title, one of Superman's most famous nicknames, is enough to establish a connection. In addition, Christoper Nolan wrote, directed, and produced The Dark Knight as well as The Prestige and Inception. That is an extremely impressive string of hits and he has been involved in Man of Steel since early development as a writer and producer. Hiring him as a director would have tied the film too closely to the Batman series but his involvement and apparent love for the material is promising.
Now for my biggest concern: Zack Snyder
Man of Steel will be the sixth movie directed by Zack Snyder. The previous five are: Dawn of the Dead, 300, Watchmen, Legend of the Guardians; The Owls of Ga’Hoole (animated), and Sucker Punch. Let’s quickly skim over that list.
Dawn of the Dead- a competent zombie remake but it's still considered a lesser film than the original
300- it received a mountain of hype for its extremely stylized visuals, violence, and quotable moments but it isn’t particularly good
Watchmen- received tons of hype from the nerd community but adds nothing to the source material other than its “visually striking” nature and probably the most expensive CGI penis of all time
Legend of the Guardians- it's the owl world’s answer to The Lord of the Rings trilogy and has “dazzling visuals” but it’s greatest accomplishment is not being nearly as awful as I expected it to be
Sucker Punch- it's insane trailers generated interest on the Internet (samurai + gatling gun = nerdgasm) but it only has a 22% on Rottentomatoes and is described as “technically impressive and loaded with eye-catching images, but without characters or a plot…” www.omegal-level.net described it as “Zack Snyder’s adolescent boner dream.”
Dawn of the Dead- a competent zombie remake but it's still considered a lesser film than the original
300- it received a mountain of hype for its extremely stylized visuals, violence, and quotable moments but it isn’t particularly good
Watchmen- received tons of hype from the nerd community but adds nothing to the source material other than its “visually striking” nature and probably the most expensive CGI penis of all time
Legend of the Guardians- it's the owl world’s answer to The Lord of the Rings trilogy and has “dazzling visuals” but it’s greatest accomplishment is not being nearly as awful as I expected it to be
Sucker Punch- it's insane trailers generated interest on the Internet (samurai + gatling gun = nerdgasm) but it only has a 22% on Rottentomatoes and is described as “technically impressive and loaded with eye-catching images, but without characters or a plot…” www.omegal-level.net described it as “Zack Snyder’s adolescent boner dream.”
To summarize Snyder’s track record: four of his five films are based on already existing material (Sucker Punch is the lone exception) and none improve on that material. Three met with a large amount of hype and failed to meet expectations. More alarmingly, his best film is Dawn of the Dead, the only one that doesn’t utilize his distinct visual style. I think aiming for a more action-oriented Superman Returns would have been the best option. Now we will probably get lots of slow-motion punches and one-liners. Neither of those are necessarily bad things but I don’t think they are conducive to a high level superhero flick. Worse directors than Snyder have made very good films but I would be happier with Darren Aronofsky (The Wrestler, Requiem for a Dream) or Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code), two directors considered for the job.
No comments:
Post a Comment