From cinemablend, Speaking with the Los Angeles Times, the director revealed his plan when it comes to approaching the material: "Respect the canon but don’t be a slave to the movies." Basically calling it a true reboot, the director likened the project to Batman Begins, which respected the character's origins, but "pre-supposes that there haven’t been any other movies." Commenting on Singer's decision back in 2006, Snyder was sure to point out that his version of the character won't fall to the same issues, instead calling him "a physical cat."
The director also commented on the working relationship with Christopher Nolan, who is serving as a producer on the film and has been deemed the "Godfather" of the production. Without further details, it's been difficult to determine exactly how much Nolan is involved with the process, but quotes from Snyder seem to suggest that he is very much involved in the pre-production.
7 comments:
That sounds very positive but I hope to bejesus they don't redo the Superman origin story again. Who freaking needs it?
You and your origin story allergy!
I LIKE origin stories. I thought Spider-Man and Superman got great on-screen origins.
I'm glad Snyder's approaching it this way, too. Bryan Singer's movie was just idiotic.
When origin stories are good, it's great, but they tend not to be actual stories. Instead they're bits crammed in at the front that need to be plodded through before the story can actually start.
Exceptions/actual stories include Batman Begins, Dr. Horrible's Singalong Blog, and the origin of Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen (the comic book).
And sometimes they just can't be made fresh. I loved the first animated Superman series in the 90's and they even brought some good spin to the old tale (nobody believed Jor El because Krypton's main computer Brainiac lied about corraberating his data because evacuation efforts would've kept Braniac from saving itself), but waiting for Krypton to explode took forever.
And I've always had problems with Spiderman's origin. Stan Lee basically took Batman's origin and replaced the primal core (Bruce Wayne was a child when it happened) with a silly coincidence (the same thug he doesn't bother to stop happens to break into his house later and kill his uncle). And the idea that someone who got bit by a power-granting spider would then also happen to invent revolutionary web-shooters is ridiculous, too.
These flaws are notably stupid because other versions of the story (the movie, the Ultimate Marvel universe) change them.
I was okay with Spidey and Supe's onscreen origin stories but they really need to move forward now, is my point.
Superman came to Earth with his powers; Batman basically created his powers himself (if you can even call them "powers").
But Spider-Man (like the Fantastic Four) got his powers suddenly, without understanding them, and had to cope. And the result is interesting: it's really not like Superman or Batman at all. Strip away the "parental advice" floating heads and you've got two guys who become superheroes just because it's the right thing to do...because they're such righteous dudes in the uncomplcated, Beowulf-hero mode.
But Spider-Man is intentionally not like that at all. He doesn't want to fight crime. He just wants to get a fucking break for once (since his life is so crummy) and maybe make a couple of bucks. What happens next (with Uncle Ben, Joe Chill etc.) is actually a much better device than Bruce Wayne's parents because it shows the consequences of an adult choice, first in once direction and then another, in a way that involves genuine tragedy (while the Wayne parents are really just pathos).
That's a very well-drawn summary, and your point about Spidey "wanting to get a fucking break for once" (hilarious) hits the core of Marvel's "street" vibe vs. DC's "opera" vibe (I'm pulling these blanket designations out of my ass, btw).
But I don't agree that the two-sided choice structure automatically makes it better. Or at least not in this case. In addition to the bizarre coincidence of a thug running past a dude and then randomly finding that same dude's house in Queens, the lesson is just so "on the nose." It's always bugged me, even when I was a kid.
It's a big coincidence, admittedly, but is it really that big? The same guy running around with a gun, the same night...the same part of town... By comic book standards (or, say, J. J. Abrams' Star Trek standards), it's fairly reasonable, don't you think?
Well, no, obviously I've never thought that. But when you bring in the larger context of narrative coincidence it does seem like I'm being overly picky.
I don't know, something about that aspect of Spidey's origin has always seemed like a cheap shot to me.
Post a Comment