http://balconyfool.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/superman-by-the-numbers/ serious film discussion. seriously. Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:18:31 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 http://balconyfool.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/superman-by-the-numbers/#comment-1836 Johne Cook Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:21:04 +0000 http://balconyfool.wordpress.com/?p=215#comment-1836 Moriarty's on a one-man tear to save Superman. And I'll be dad-gummed if he isn't onto something. http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/node/38353 Moriarty’s on a one-man tear to save Superman. And I’ll be dad-gummed if he isn’t onto something.
http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/node/38353

]]> http://balconyfool.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/superman-by-the-numbers/#comment-1835 river Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:45:57 +0000 http://balconyfool.wordpress.com/?p=215#comment-1835 interview with comic book writer mark millar regarding superman reboot: http://tinyurl.com/6n76e6 interview with comic book writer mark millar regarding superman reboot:
http://tinyurl.com/6n76e6

]]> http://balconyfool.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/superman-by-the-numbers/#comment-1834 petertchattaway Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:40:12 +0000 http://balconyfool.wordpress.com/?p=215#comment-1834 Interesting you should mention Superman's appeal "thirty years ago". The late '60s and early '70s were, of course, the era when "New Hollywood" supposedly tore apart all the myths that had sustained the industry for decades; it was the era of the anti-hero and the downer ending; it was the era of The Godfather and The French Connection and so on and so on and so on. So the original Superman movie was, in a sense, bucking the trend at that time. Yes, by the time it came out in late '78, movies like Star Wars had revived the old "mythic" way of doing things. But the first two Superman movies went into production in '76 or so, if I'm not mistaken, and there was no guarantee at the time that the public would have an appetite for something so corny, so old-fashioned, so boy-scout-ish. Indeed, the first movie plays up the fact that Superman is somewhat antiquated, for example in his interview with Lois Lane, who is portrayed not merely as the smart ambitious reporter that she always was in the comics, but as something of a cynic who no longer sees "truth, justice and the American way" prevailing in her country. So if our culture is again going through a period of cynicism, who knows, there may yet come a time when someone as ridiculously virtuous and upright as Superman will be popular again. Interesting you should mention Superman’s appeal “thirty years ago”. The late ’60s and early ’70s were, of course, the era when “New Hollywood” supposedly tore apart all the myths that had sustained the industry for decades; it was the era of the anti-hero and the downer ending; it was the era of The Godfather and The French Connection and so on and so on and so on. So the original Superman movie was, in a sense, bucking the trend at that time. Yes, by the time it came out in late ‘78, movies like Star Wars had revived the old “mythic” way of doing things. But the first two Superman movies went into production in ‘76 or so, if I’m not mistaken, and there was no guarantee at the time that the public would have an appetite for something so corny, so old-fashioned, so boy-scout-ish. Indeed, the first movie plays up the fact that Superman is somewhat antiquated, for example in his interview with Lois Lane, who is portrayed not merely as the smart ambitious reporter that she always was in the comics, but as something of a cynic who no longer sees “truth, justice and the American way” prevailing in her country. So if our culture is again going through a period of cynicism, who knows, there may yet come a time when someone as ridiculously virtuous and upright as Superman will be popular again.

]]>