Superman: Legacy

Meh.

They did Cavil dirty at a time when fans were going wild for the guy. I'm done with superhero movies, but DC is ten years late to the party if they wanted a fresh new look. Fatigue for the genre is strong. I can't see this doing anything other than tanking.
 
Last edited:
The dude was the bookies favourite for the role, got the physicality for the role but never been a lead. By the time this rolls round no one will give a **** though, superhero movies are on the wane. Rachel Brosnahan was probably the best of the 3 from the choices rumoured - best rack anyway :p

They should have concentrated on S2 on Peacemaker instead of putting it in the back burner for other bits of crap from Gunn's universe reboot.
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
If it can be its own self contained film, there’s potential. Just no more ‘setting up franchise / multi-film’ stuff please.
Click to expand...

Gunn’s been brought on to build his vision of the DCEU hence the reboot. So there’s bound to be something, a cameo/story arch, to connect it to the upcoming films.

Still not sure why they needed to do Cavill dirty. Corenswet is 10 years younger than Cavill but unless they’re planning on making Superman films in 20 years with the same actors, I don’t see it being a problem. On the other hand, more Brosnahan is always a win.
 
One very disappointing things I found from searching the Male actors name (no idea who he was) - He's part of the new "Twisters" film, a sequel-ish/re-booting-ish/re-imagining-ish of the Bill Paxton & Helen Hunt film "Twister" - God Hollywood is creatively bankrupt isn't it FFS!
 
ianh said:
One very disappointing things I found from searching the Male actors name (no idea who he was) - He's part of the new "Twisters" film, a sequel-ish/re-booting-ish/re-imagining-ish of the Bill Paxton & Helen Hunt film "Twister" - God Hollywood is creatively bankrupt isn't it FFS!
Click to expand...
Why though? While mildly entertaining, the original was disposable popcorn fodder, certainly not something i'd be looking to remake and nowhere near a classicly loved movie.

Could easily make a new movie about people chasing tornados without tying it to Twister.
 
There was a twister ride at Universal Studios for many many years which probably kept it fresh in people's minds for longer than it would have.

I just remember it was one of those summer blockbuster movies which used a lot of CGI, which probably looks quite awful now.
 
VincentHanna said:
There was a twister ride at Universal Studios for many many years which probably kept it fresh in people's minds for longer than it would have.

I just remember it was one of those summer blockbuster movies which used a lot of CGI, which probably looks quite awful now.
Click to expand...
My main memory is basically the cow scene. :D

I've collected my cinema stubs from my teens until it went mainly online booking and found one for Twister at the weekend while having a cleanup.
 
another one!

If it was a different take on it, more of a drama/thriller than just another brain dead popcorn superhero flick I'd be interested. I'm not sure I'd even bother to even download it :cry:

Maybe if it was filmed in the 70s it might work, but please.......no woke/crap jokes ffs! we've had enough
 
Last edited:
SixTwoSix said:
Could easily make a new movie about people chasing tornados without tying it to Twister.
Click to expand...

Yeap!

Studios, I would guess, are so scared of even trying to create something new with this current generation of mostly useless screenwriters, that digging up the corpse of a well liked 30yo film to defile it for cash is more of an acceptable risk nowadays. That alone should tell folks that even the studios know that the people they specifically hire to write stories/scripts are seemingly incapable of doing a good job, and yet they still won't fire them and hire someone else.

They say "never say never" but I would be willing to make a 100% guaranteed bet with anyone for a shiny new £1 coin that "Twisters" will be a flop, the story will be garbage and it will be the main reason the film fails hard, and I can 100% guarantee that with only knowing a tiny amount about the cast/crew etc, just from a decade of experience watching creatively bankrupt studios do the same time and time and time and time and time again.

Anyway, enough thread diverting, lets get back to the new Superman film, in which a creatively bankrupt studio with terrible screenwriters tries to re-animate the corpse of a 50yo+ cinema franchise for cash :D
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the misunderstanding there, I had hoped the big smiley was enough to indicate my sarcasm at what I wrote based on the other bits in my post that were a copy of that line.

I quite liked JG as a scriptwriter at the start of his career, he's got just the "right" amount of dark humour for me (Slither/Super etc) but still made ridiculous films which you've no idea how they got financing (Movie 43 - WTF happened there) which were all pre-GotG but since then he's been very, very spotty as a writer for me.

The IMDB entry for this film has Shuster and Siegel as the other writers, both of which died in the mid-1990's (great work IMDB) so I've no idea who else, if anyone, is writing this film.
 
Last edited:
It's going to have to be spectacular across the board to make this in any way interesting even if it looks amazing.
 
ianh said:
I quite liked JG as a scriptwriter at the start of his career, he's got just the "right" amount of dark humour for me (Slither/Super etc) but still made ridiculous films which you've no idea how they got financing (Movie 43 - WTF happened there) which were all pre-GotG but since then he's been very, very spotty as a writer for me.
Click to expand...
I heard him say he only did a small animated section and it was taken away from him in the edit, and he's never seen it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom