Superman Reboot

[The Laughing Fish]

Gotta be honest, I hadn't considered the possibility that Cavill might have made enemies of his own with someone at WB. And yet, it does seem like a good explanation all of a sudden.

The very most that I can think of is how the weird CG mouth he had in Josstice League became the posterboy for all of that movie's flaws. And the reason it happened (as you probably remember) is because Cavill was contractually forbidden from shaving off his Mission Impossible moustache. But it's not like that's his fault or anything. Contracts are contracts, wtf was he supposed to do? But studio execs can be a vindictive bunch.

The whole thing is just odd since Cavill has always come off like the Happy Company Man who will say whatever some flack coaches him to say. I just can't picture what he said or did for things to go sideways like this.

As it was mentioned a few times before, Mission: Impossible director Christopher McQuarrie once said he and Cavill delivered a pitch for a Superman sequel, and Toxic WB rejected it. That says a lot about how low they think of Cavill.

It is strange indeed, when Cavill even vouched for Whedon's take on Superman as "a step in the right direction", IIRC, at one stage. Despite that, the studio appears to hold the same level of disdain towards him as they do towards Snyder. Cavill does flip flop though, he goes from towing the company line to showing his gratitude and pride in doing MOS.

What I'd like to know is what the hell was Cavill's agent hinting about in regards to his future? Some scoopers are insisting Black Adam will fight Superman in the near future - well, who is playing Superman? If it's Cavill then these Flash rumours need to be put to bed quickly, otherwise the reception for that movie is dead on arrival. If the role will be recast, they should just come out and say it.

Some scoopers insist on waiting for the Discovery merger to be completed, but if The Flash is really heading towards the worst case scenario, then that movie is unsalvageable.

[The Laughing Fish]

JJ Abrams is producing a new Star Trek movie, that's expected to start filming by the end of the year.

https://ew.com/movies/j-j-abrams-teases-the-return-of-his-original-cast-in-new-star-trek-film/

Meanwhile, there are still no updates for the black Superman project he was supposed to produce. I'll say it again, I'll be surprised if that ever comes to fruition.

[thecolorsblend]

JJ Abrams is producing a new Star Trek movie, that's expected to start filming by the end of the year.

Maybe this is only hitting me hard at the moment because I watched Wrath Of Khan the other night. But... oy.

I seem to be the only one around who thought Beyond was decent. Not great. But decent. But Into Darkness was just plain unbearable. Trek 2009 was good but it wasn't all that.

I'm sort of curious who's out there demanding more Abrams Trek. I wouldn't presume to know what the Trek fanbase thinks about everything. But I don't know any Trek fans who get much out of the Kelvin timeline.

[Gotham Knight]

JJ Abrams is producing a new Star Trek movie, that's expected to start filming by the end of the year.

Maybe this is only hitting me hard at the moment because I watched Wrath Of Khan the other night. But... oy.

I seem to be the only one around who thought Beyond was decent. Not great. But decent. But Into Darkness was just plain unbearable. Trek 2009 was good but it wasn't all that.

I'm sort of curious who's out there demanding more Abrams Trek. I wouldn't presume to know what the Trek fanbase thinks about everything. But I don't know any Trek fans who get much out of the Kelvin timeline.

Star Trek 2009 was a cute 'hey remember this?!' movie, but like all films ever directed by JJ Abrams, it degrades somewhat over multiple viewings, which is then exacerbated when you take the same director and let him show his hand twice by letting him do a sequel. MI3 remains popular because JJ only did the one, and then better directors took the JJ format and actually had ambitions.

Into Darkness blows because you are aware that JJ Abrams just plays the same card over and over again. You're ready for it, you see through, and wish that he'd gone somewhere with it. Star Trek has ambitions. JJ Abrams makes lovable popcorn, but sometimes you'd like a little more steak.

[The Laughing Fish]

I seem to be the only one around who thought Beyond was decent. Not great. But decent. But Into Darkness was just plain unbearable. Trek 2009 was good but it wasn't all that.

I never saw Beyond, but I agree with you on the other two. I consider Trek 2009 to be an entertaining popcorn movie. It's not Wrath of Kahn, but it's fine for what it is. But after Into Darkness, I stopped paying attention to Abrams' version of Star Trek.

If Abrams' Superman project gets cancelled, all that is left is the other one on HBO Max.

[thecolorsblend]

JJ Abrams is producing a new Star Trek movie, that's expected to start filming by the end of the year.

Maybe this is only hitting me hard at the moment because I watched Wrath Of Khan the other night. But... oy.

I seem to be the only one around who thought Beyond was decent. Not great. But decent. But Into Darkness was just plain unbearable. Trek 2009 was good but it wasn't all that.

I'm sort of curious who's out there demanding more Abrams Trek. I wouldn't presume to know what the Trek fanbase thinks about everything. But I don't know any Trek fans who get much out of the Kelvin timeline.

I want to revisit this.

A big proportion of my disenchantment with Into Darkness comes from the fact that it's a just plain bad Trek film. Take everything else away and it's just not an enjoyable movie. Rubbing salt into the wound is that it marks Nimoy's final screen appearance as Spock. What a horrible way for him to leave the character.

But the bigger issue for me rly is the fact that Into Darkness seemed like it was going to be a reimagining of Where No Man Has Gone Before. I even had the conspiracy theory that Alice Eve would be playing Dr. Dehner (they look passably alike) and Cumberbatch would be playing Gary Mitchell (same).

And before the truth came out, I thought remaking Where No Man Has Gone Before as a feature film was a very clever idea for Kelvin Trek. You know, revisit the basic story of Where No Man Has Gone Before. But with a kicked up budget, modern production values, a bit more action/violence than Sixties television ever would've permitted... and maybe a different slant on the story since Gary Mitchell and Kirk might be strangers to one another in this new timeline. So, how does their different relationship color Kirk's decision-making processes when it comes to Gary? Is Kirk more inclined to heed Spock's advice? Or will he stick with Dr. Dehner's recommendations?

I thought that idea had a TON of potential. Still do, in fact.

But instead of a reimagined Where No Man Has Gone Before, what we got was a botched, half-baked remake of Wrath Of Khan, minus all the stuff that made the original Wrath Of Khan one of the greatest Star Trek stories ever told.

The news about Abrams maybe producing another Trek movie is particularly galling to me since Quentin Tarantino has been half @$$ campaigning for the job for decades now. He obviously has a Kirk & Spock story in mind and I just don't understand why nobody has ever been willing to at least hear him out. His Trek movie might be Pulp Fiction in space. Or it might be something that honors what Trek is all about. Either way, why not at least meet with him and see what he has in mind?

Alas, Abrams...

[Kamdan]

I consider Trek 2009 to be an entertaining popcorn movie.

It was a better Green Lantern movie than the real Green Lantern movie. Could've saved us a lot of grief if Abrams would've just made that instead of ruining Star Trek.

And before the truth came out, I thought remaking Where No Man Has Gone Before as a feature film was a very clever idea for Kelvin Trek.

The Kelvin comic book series did a remake of Where No Man Has Gone Before.

[Silver Nemesis]

JJ Abrams makes lovable popcorn, but sometimes you'd like a little more steak.

And Wrath of Khan is finest sirloin cooked to perfection. I love that movie so much.

And before the truth came out, I thought remaking Where No Man Has Gone Before as a feature film was a very clever idea for Kelvin Trek. You know, revisit the basic story of Where No Man Has Gone Before. But with a kicked up budget, modern production values, a bit more action/violence than Sixties television ever would've permitted... and maybe a different slant on the story since Gary Mitchell and Kirk might be strangers to one another in this new timeline. So, how does their different relationship color Kirk's decision-making processes when it comes to Gary? Is Kirk more inclined to heed Spock's advice? Or will he stick with Dr. Dehner's recommendations?

I thought that idea had a TON of potential. Still do, in fact.

It did have tremendous potential. I remember reading rumours that this was the direction they were going in before the movie came out and feeling intrigued by the idea. The final showdown between Kirk and Mitchell was intense enough in the original TV episode, but they could have taken it even further on a big screen budget. A character possessing godlike powers but lacking the ethics to wield them responsibly is a truly terrifying prospect. Kirk had balls of steel to go after Gary armed only with a phaser rifle in 'Where No Man Has Gone Before', and that sequence alone could have formed the basis of a terrific movie. It could've been like Kaneda versus Tetsuo at the end of Akira (1988), only in live action.

Instead we got fake Khan and magic blood.

[Kamdan]

Into Darkness still deserves the title of worst Star Trek movie when it first came out. Abrams and company really tried to break their arms patting themselves on the back for devising the whole Khan reveal because there were probably only 12 people in the whole world that didn't see it coming while every Star Trek fan obviously saw it coming. I clearly remember when Benedict Cumberbatch said he was con, everyone in the audience was immediately turning to those in the seat next to them, asking those who were familiar with Star Trek who Khan was and they had to explain the whole Space Seed episode while the movie is still going on. There was also the whole whitewashing situation as Cumberbatch is horribly miscast as a Indian Sikh. The original casting choice of Benicio del Toro would have been more acceptable in this role.

It's such a shame because Cumberbatch does a marvelous performance as the character and his characterization would've been appropriate for the Sub-Mariner going up against the Fantastic Four. Such a wasted opportunity on all accounts. It would've been a pleasant surprise for them to of went the Where No Man Has Gone Before route instead of Wrath of Khan crossed with 9/11 conspiracy theories. Your comparison to Akira fuels the imagination greatly as that is a development hell movie that deserves to never leave that realm, but an idea like that is a good influence. It's wonderful to see that whole chase scene between Spock and Khan played out on a technical level, but the circumstances to get to that point are unwarranted, especially after the infamous role reversal of Spock's death from Wrath of Khan. Co-writer Roberto Orci got openly hostile towards those criticizing his works with blatant entitlism that costing him writing and directing the third film and hasn't touched any major work since.

[thecolorsblend]

And before the truth came out, I thought remaking Where No Man Has Gone Before as a feature film was a very clever idea for Kelvin Trek.

The Kelvin comic book series did a remake of Where No Man Has Gone Before.

fml!

I wouldn't be surprised if all they did was retell the same basic story in the likeness of the Kelvin cast too. God forbid they tinker with the world they've created. Ugh, hacks...

Maybe I'm wrong tho.