Folks, you know me …
While I don’t exactly court a great deal of controversy over at my small corner of the Information Superhighway, I’m still perfectly ready, willing, and able to step in it when the time is right. My position in managing SciFiHistory.Net has always been to kinda/sorta stick to the middle of the road: don’t engage in efforts to garner any measure of clickbait, and treat all of fandom – the good, the bad, and the ugly – with the respect its owed. There’s room enough in the cosmos for everyone to like what they like, and you certainly don’t need me to tell you what’s worthy or not. I review genre stuff because it tickles my fancy; but at the end of the day I always try to leave enough room for each of you to make what you will of a movie, book, or television show. Don’t like it or hate it because I do. Like it or hate it because you do! Chiefly, I do this because when I was younger, I tended to disagree with my friends on quality, and they never thought less of me. Consequently, I want you to have that freedom as well.
Still, I am an awful lot like each of you.
When I see something that doesn’t ring true to form or appears questionable, then I like to call it out. I like to discuss it. I like to extrapolate. I like to theorize. I like to jump in headfirst and point out what feels off or out-of-sorts. I might even posit a concept as to why or how a property or program got to this point wherein it just doesn’t feel on track; and I’m willing to pony up the logic I see in the circumstances. None of this makes me right, and none of it makes me wrong. It’s merely observations I want to share, and I’m thankful that I’ve fostered a readership as forgiving and prescient as that which I have who’ll stick with me even if they see things differently. Variety is the spice of life, after all, and – so much as it matters – life still seems to be the preferred alternative.
So …
Is it just me or is there a huge, huge, huge lack of Superman in the advertising for James Gunn’s forthcoming Superman movie?
OK … hear me out.
I realize that postproduction can involve a great deal of effects work. It wasn’t all that long ago that the writer/director had stated that he was doing some pick-up shots and whatnot, something that a few pointed out was odd to a small degree since Gunn had previously gone on record as stating that throughout his career he’d minimized such requirements as – unlike others – he refuses to go into production without a completed script. Succinctly, if one knows all of what one needs to craft a particular story before a single camera rolls, then it stands to reason that such postproduction efforts become unnecessary. Still, rather than debating whether or not this little change in policy means anything, I’d suggest that because effects work is still fine-tuned at this point, perhaps all of the better shots involving Superman are, simply, not yet available.
Let’s accept that as the reality.
Yes, yes, and yes: I’m well aware – as are many of you – that we’ve already seem a few snippets of Big Blue action in the previously released trailer. (I’m also well aware that folks haven’t been all that impressed with what’s been in those previous adverts, so it would also stand to reason that maybe Gunn felt it proper to ‘up his game’ and retool some of it as a result.) Accepting that there may not have been enough footage to account for another coming attraction isn’t excusing the fact that having the Superbowl with which to really make a concerted push was a calculated or miscalculated error: it’s only establishing a foundation around which to make an argument, and I think that’s a big part of what’s happening here.
But … Guy Gardner?
I mean … really?
Guy f#cking Gardner?
While I don’t exactly court a great deal of controversy over at my small corner of the Information Superhighway, I’m still perfectly ready, willing, and able to step in it when the time is right. My position in managing SciFiHistory.Net has always been to kinda/sorta stick to the middle of the road: don’t engage in efforts to garner any measure of clickbait, and treat all of fandom – the good, the bad, and the ugly – with the respect its owed. There’s room enough in the cosmos for everyone to like what they like, and you certainly don’t need me to tell you what’s worthy or not. I review genre stuff because it tickles my fancy; but at the end of the day I always try to leave enough room for each of you to make what you will of a movie, book, or television show. Don’t like it or hate it because I do. Like it or hate it because you do! Chiefly, I do this because when I was younger, I tended to disagree with my friends on quality, and they never thought less of me. Consequently, I want you to have that freedom as well.
Still, I am an awful lot like each of you.
When I see something that doesn’t ring true to form or appears questionable, then I like to call it out. I like to discuss it. I like to extrapolate. I like to theorize. I like to jump in headfirst and point out what feels off or out-of-sorts. I might even posit a concept as to why or how a property or program got to this point wherein it just doesn’t feel on track; and I’m willing to pony up the logic I see in the circumstances. None of this makes me right, and none of it makes me wrong. It’s merely observations I want to share, and I’m thankful that I’ve fostered a readership as forgiving and prescient as that which I have who’ll stick with me even if they see things differently. Variety is the spice of life, after all, and – so much as it matters – life still seems to be the preferred alternative.
So …
Is it just me or is there a huge, huge, huge lack of Superman in the advertising for James Gunn’s forthcoming Superman movie?
OK … hear me out.
I realize that postproduction can involve a great deal of effects work. It wasn’t all that long ago that the writer/director had stated that he was doing some pick-up shots and whatnot, something that a few pointed out was odd to a small degree since Gunn had previously gone on record as stating that throughout his career he’d minimized such requirements as – unlike others – he refuses to go into production without a completed script. Succinctly, if one knows all of what one needs to craft a particular story before a single camera rolls, then it stands to reason that such postproduction efforts become unnecessary. Still, rather than debating whether or not this little change in policy means anything, I’d suggest that because effects work is still fine-tuned at this point, perhaps all of the better shots involving Superman are, simply, not yet available.
Let’s accept that as the reality.
Yes, yes, and yes: I’m well aware – as are many of you – that we’ve already seem a few snippets of Big Blue action in the previously released trailer. (I’m also well aware that folks haven’t been all that impressed with what’s been in those previous adverts, so it would also stand to reason that maybe Gunn felt it proper to ‘up his game’ and retool some of it as a result.) Accepting that there may not have been enough footage to account for another coming attraction isn’t excusing the fact that having the Superbowl with which to really make a concerted push was a calculated or miscalculated error: it’s only establishing a foundation around which to make an argument, and I think that’s a big part of what’s happening here.
But … Guy Gardner?
I mean … really?
Guy f#cking Gardner?
I’ve said before – and I think a good number of readers would agree – that Marvel and DC are thematically different properties. While I usually stop short of highlighting what makes them different, I’ve always conceded that to me the big takeaway has always been that DC kinda/sorta wraps its big three heroes in mythic tropes. Batman, Wonder Woman, and Superman are larger than life. They don’t get wrapped up in some of the usual banter or histrionics that some of their colorful counterparts over on the pages of Marvel do; and this generally translates to the silver screen. Marvel's stable is filled with do-gooders who are as quick with a retort as they are with their abilities whilst DC’s might stand around and brood a bit more. That’s always been my bottom line.
Guy Gardner, however, is the exact opposite of what the majority of DC’s capes both look and sound like. Yes, he represents something a bit out-of-sorts – a bit rough around the edges – and there’s nothing wrong with that. But ignoring putting out a single shot of Big Blue and – in his place – trying to shuck Guy Gardner onto the masses-at-large in some attempt to bolster interest in a Superman movie? That isn’t so much tone deaf to me as it is clinically insane. None of this even accounts for the fact that Gardner is – most likely – a yuckster known only to DC’s readership. He isn’t a household name. He isn’t a commodity deeply established in the American pop culture, and I suspect few alive and kicking in these fifty states who saw him even knew who he was. The memes alone suggest the viewers weren’t impressed, and I’m thinking this was a huge miscalculation on Gunn’s part ... since he insists it’s he nad he only who’s calling these shots as the head of DC Studios.
Now, this is true unless your Superman isn’t going to behave the way Superman has traditionally behaved on the screen. Is Gunn’s take going to be so radically different that the Man Of Steel will morph into the Man Of Star-Lord? Of course, stranger things have probably happened in the pursuit to craft a vision of the last son of Krypton, but how can the Warner Bros. have any faith in Big Blue if even the writer/director has grown gun shy or is unwilling to put out marketing works that bear the guy’s image? Again, this was the SUPERBOWL, and instead of having nothing you let Guy Gardner slip? Really? How is the name of Jor-El did anyone – especially James Gunn – think this was a good idea unless that means that Guy Gardner is going to be the star of the forthcoming Superman movie?
Look, I’ve said repeatedly online that nothing less than a summer blockbuster is required to elevate DC Studios to the heights necessary to win over fans, both the die-hard and casual ones. This doesn’t even account for mainstream audiences – the folks who really know little of these various mythologies and only show up because they saw a good trailer or heard the film was worth seeing on the silver screen. Every decision on the path to that potential for success should be scrutinized going in because you know damn well it’s going to be scrutinized if the picture doesn’t perform gangbusters. Nothing less will and should be tolerated. Superman is a tentpole figure … Guy Gardner? Not so much.
Gunn was a controversial choice, and – quite frankly – I don’t doubt everyone involved knew that going in. I’ve also said that Warner Bros. has capably demonstrated that they’ve absolutely no idea how to manage these comic book entities, leaving the big characters for the most part free to run and play separately as opposed to doing what Disney and Marvel have done in sponsoring so much crossover. Personally, I’ve always been fine with that. Of course, Justice League – the Snyder version, not the Whedon version so much – shows that when done right it can be exceptional … and, yet, I don’t want that in every theatrical adventure. I don’t want the universe saved in every comic book film because it grows predictable very, very quickly. I prefer some variety, and hopefully Gunn and company will be able to deliver something both innovative and respectful to what these characters mean to fandom and not just – ahem – James Gunn.
But at some point Superman has to appear in the advertisement for a Superman movie.
Not Guy Gardner.
Not Krypto.
Not Lois Lane.
Not one of Gunn’s immediate or extended family members.
Superman.
The lack of Big Blue has grown concerning, and I can only hope that Warner Bros. notices as much.
-- EZ
Guy Gardner, however, is the exact opposite of what the majority of DC’s capes both look and sound like. Yes, he represents something a bit out-of-sorts – a bit rough around the edges – and there’s nothing wrong with that. But ignoring putting out a single shot of Big Blue and – in his place – trying to shuck Guy Gardner onto the masses-at-large in some attempt to bolster interest in a Superman movie? That isn’t so much tone deaf to me as it is clinically insane. None of this even accounts for the fact that Gardner is – most likely – a yuckster known only to DC’s readership. He isn’t a household name. He isn’t a commodity deeply established in the American pop culture, and I suspect few alive and kicking in these fifty states who saw him even knew who he was. The memes alone suggest the viewers weren’t impressed, and I’m thinking this was a huge miscalculation on Gunn’s part ... since he insists it’s he nad he only who’s calling these shots as the head of DC Studios.
Now, this is true unless your Superman isn’t going to behave the way Superman has traditionally behaved on the screen. Is Gunn’s take going to be so radically different that the Man Of Steel will morph into the Man Of Star-Lord? Of course, stranger things have probably happened in the pursuit to craft a vision of the last son of Krypton, but how can the Warner Bros. have any faith in Big Blue if even the writer/director has grown gun shy or is unwilling to put out marketing works that bear the guy’s image? Again, this was the SUPERBOWL, and instead of having nothing you let Guy Gardner slip? Really? How is the name of Jor-El did anyone – especially James Gunn – think this was a good idea unless that means that Guy Gardner is going to be the star of the forthcoming Superman movie?
Look, I’ve said repeatedly online that nothing less than a summer blockbuster is required to elevate DC Studios to the heights necessary to win over fans, both the die-hard and casual ones. This doesn’t even account for mainstream audiences – the folks who really know little of these various mythologies and only show up because they saw a good trailer or heard the film was worth seeing on the silver screen. Every decision on the path to that potential for success should be scrutinized going in because you know damn well it’s going to be scrutinized if the picture doesn’t perform gangbusters. Nothing less will and should be tolerated. Superman is a tentpole figure … Guy Gardner? Not so much.
Gunn was a controversial choice, and – quite frankly – I don’t doubt everyone involved knew that going in. I’ve also said that Warner Bros. has capably demonstrated that they’ve absolutely no idea how to manage these comic book entities, leaving the big characters for the most part free to run and play separately as opposed to doing what Disney and Marvel have done in sponsoring so much crossover. Personally, I’ve always been fine with that. Of course, Justice League – the Snyder version, not the Whedon version so much – shows that when done right it can be exceptional … and, yet, I don’t want that in every theatrical adventure. I don’t want the universe saved in every comic book film because it grows predictable very, very quickly. I prefer some variety, and hopefully Gunn and company will be able to deliver something both innovative and respectful to what these characters mean to fandom and not just – ahem – James Gunn.
But at some point Superman has to appear in the advertisement for a Superman movie.
Not Guy Gardner.
Not Krypto.
Not Lois Lane.
Not one of Gunn’s immediate or extended family members.
Superman.
The lack of Big Blue has grown concerning, and I can only hope that Warner Bros. notices as much.
-- EZ
RSS Feed