Don't forget the Kryptonian Horse and the Monkey!
.
""
And as indicated by Cap'n Cook, we're possibly getting the Green Lantern Squirrel Ch'p!
Yes! Comic accurate!
Superman (July 11th, 2025)
- Thread starter Johnny Utah
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Yes! Comic accurate!
Who thought that Comic book characters in comic book movies being just like the comic books that the comic book movies are inspired by was a good idea?
Mondragon
Super Freak
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2014
- Messages
- 3,196
- Reaction score
- 4,425
Last edited:
I hope it leans into the tone and lightheartedness of earlier comics, yes. I doubt it will be a parody.
Last edited:
Johnny1378
Super Freak
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 719
- Reaction score
- 131
Wow, I think Green Lantern from that crappy late 90s Justice League tv pilot might have had a better costume than Guy Gardner in the new Superman movie.
Better hope all those people turn up with the money for it.
ironwez20
Super Freak
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2008
- Messages
- 27,928
- Reaction score
- 5,948
lol cool flash suit tho
Alatar
rogbngp
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2018
- Messages
- 3,228
- Reaction score
- 2,623
The MCU in particular has shown that for the most part the general audience enjoys feeling like superheroes could actually exist in our real world. But without being deconstructed. (Deconstruction is more of an acquired taste, something more niche.) There’s a sweet spot for the fusion of realism (ironically imagined in this case) and fantasy (fantastical elements such as superpowers). And the MCU stuck the landing on that, especially early on.
Similarly, with Donner’s 1978 Superman I think the main reasons it was so popular was that
1) we finally got to see a live action rendition of the character more or less updated by placing him in our present day real world at the time (versus the 1950s for the George Reeves TV show and movie, or 1940s for the Fleischer animated serial)
2) Christopher Reeve was a brilliant casting, he’s hugely likable in the role
3) the chemistry was wonderful between Superman/Clark and Lois
4) Superman’s superpowers were depicted with at least a medium sense of realism
But I’m not so sure that most people loved it then—and still love it today—because it cleaved sentimentally to a comic book accurate portrayal of the essential character. That’s comic book fans that say that. They’re the ones that want and demand that. The GA doesn’t read comic books. They only know what they see on the screen (movie theater, TV, and now phone, tablet, laptop).
Based on some of the things Gunn has said about his interest in superheroes, his attitude is similar to Alan Moore’s that superheroes have been written for the most part to appeal to a juvenile mentality, historically. But that being said, GotG does take the characters rather seriously and Gunn attempts to transcend the inherent silliness of the premise of superheroes to ground them in more basic and human needs and emotions.
This Superman movie could end up being deliciously subversive towards comic books and the superhero genre. It could subtly satirize it. As I think TSS attempted to do. That sense of genre subversion failed with TSS because the characters weren’t very likable and the humor mostly fell flat. It didn’t have any powerful emotional connection scenes. And it flopped at the box office. But I suspect that with this Superman movie Gunn will try to subtly subvert and mock the genre and tug at heartstrings, both.
For better or worse Snyder moved Superman into our more or less real present day world. The Achilles heel of a movie like this… or what I suspect Gunn might be attempting here, anyway… is going to be any attempt to move the character back into a more purely comic book-feeling world. If that doesn’t land it’s going to bomb.
Similarly, with Donner’s 1978 Superman I think the main reasons it was so popular was that
1) we finally got to see a live action rendition of the character more or less updated by placing him in our present day real world at the time (versus the 1950s for the George Reeves TV show and movie, or 1940s for the Fleischer animated serial)
2) Christopher Reeve was a brilliant casting, he’s hugely likable in the role
3) the chemistry was wonderful between Superman/Clark and Lois
4) Superman’s superpowers were depicted with at least a medium sense of realism
But I’m not so sure that most people loved it then—and still love it today—because it cleaved sentimentally to a comic book accurate portrayal of the essential character. That’s comic book fans that say that. They’re the ones that want and demand that. The GA doesn’t read comic books. They only know what they see on the screen (movie theater, TV, and now phone, tablet, laptop).
Based on some of the things Gunn has said about his interest in superheroes, his attitude is similar to Alan Moore’s that superheroes have been written for the most part to appeal to a juvenile mentality, historically. But that being said, GotG does take the characters rather seriously and Gunn attempts to transcend the inherent silliness of the premise of superheroes to ground them in more basic and human needs and emotions.
This Superman movie could end up being deliciously subversive towards comic books and the superhero genre. It could subtly satirize it. As I think TSS attempted to do. That sense of genre subversion failed with TSS because the characters weren’t very likable and the humor mostly fell flat. It didn’t have any powerful emotional connection scenes. And it flopped at the box office. But I suspect that with this Superman movie Gunn will try to subtly subvert and mock the genre and tug at heartstrings, both.
For better or worse Snyder moved Superman into our more or less real present day world. The Achilles heel of a movie like this… or what I suspect Gunn might be attempting here, anyway… is going to be any attempt to move the character back into a more purely comic book-feeling world. If that doesn’t land it’s going to bomb.
Last edited:
As long as I enjoy the movie, I couldn't care less about box office. If the movie tanks and there are no Superman films for a while so be it. I don't need to consume new content all the time. I have plenty of Superman things to enjoy already as well as other DC, Marvel and SW films.
I hope the film does well and there are more sequels, but if not, Que sera, sera.
I can't figure out the tone Gunn is going for yet with the character or DC universe, but it IS clear that he's trying to make his movie look as different as possible from the Snyder films, to signal to audiences that this really is a new take on the character and that they should give DC another try. Which was probably the right move to make.
But it's hard to know what kind of Superman today's more cynical audiences would even be interested in. Reeve's completely earnest take would probably seem too cheesy and naive, and I think Cavill's Superman came across a little too serious and stoic for most people.
But it's hard to know what kind of Superman today's more cynical audiences would even be interested in. Reeve's completely earnest take would probably seem too cheesy and naive, and I think Cavill's Superman came across a little too serious and stoic for most people.
Last edited:
MCU Cap got the perfect balance of old fashioned idealist who doesn't take any ****.
Pilot...as in take a pilot light and set this on fire...speaking of Fire, I'll let her off the hook since she's...fire.
Mondragon
Super Freak
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2014
- Messages
- 3,196
- Reaction score
- 4,425
That ^ was pretty much: What if the Justice League was the cast of Friends.
WB is endlessly determined to make the live action JL a complete failure and laughing stock.
Now:
What if the JL was a generic corprate product and cynical parody of themselves.
Last edited:
loki2371
Super Freak
So we get a frumpy Hawgirl too. To represent "today's woman".This was pretty much: What if the Justice League was the cast of Friends.
WB is endlessly determined to make the live action JL a complete failure and laughing stock.
What if the JL was a generic corprate product and cynical parody of themselves.
Men still need to be chiseled for the most part, but the ladies don't actually need to be in good physical shape.
Maybe it's just the 90's/early 2000's leather suit making her look thick.
She looks in better shape than Fillion.So we get a frumpy Hawgirl too. To represent "today's woman".
Men still need to be chiseled for the most part, but the ladies don't actually need to be in good physical shape.
Maybe it's just the 90's/early 2000's leather suit making her look thick.
Mondragon
Super Freak
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2014
- Messages
- 3,196
- Reaction score
- 4,425
Pretty sure it's the suit- Isabela Yolanda Moner Merced
Last edited:
From the limited behind-the-scenes stuff I've seen of this most of them are in really good shape.
They've just been given some of the least flattering superhero costumes since Condorman.
jye4ever
Broke and happy
Man i’m not liking the new Supergirl costume either…
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 28,384
- Reaction score
- 4,873
Similar threads
