Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
prometheus59650

Syfy greenlights Krypton Prequel.

43 posts in this topic

And even though no one asked for it?

Here's some more needless, protracted DC universe foreplay....

Thanks, but no thanks.

For me, Krypton is nothing more than a launchpad to get the story of Superman/Kal-El going. Beyond that, it serves no purpose. We know it blows up anyway, so where's the suspense?

This is the exact same problem I have with "Gotham"; too much DC-universe foreplay and not enough fun with the DC superheroes themselves.

If I go to see a Batman or Superman show, I don't want to get a nook-and-cranny tour of the house they grew up in; I want the actual characters (!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that.

That's why I'm enjoying Flash and Arrow so much. We're actually having the central superhero actually be the central superhero in those shows.

Birds of Prey was a Batman show without Batman.

Smallville was a Superman show where Superman couldn't wear his costume, call himself Superman, or fly.

Gotham is a Batman show where Bruce is a good 15 years from being Batman.

Now I actually do care about Krypton and its history. I'm a big enough Superman fan for that, but I don't know if I trust Goyer.

Man of Steel has a lot of flaws in it, which I discussed in that thread yesterday.

I'm not convinced he would do this story justice.

I think they are making a similar mistake that Enterprise did, which is going too far back in time.

If I were doing a Krypton story, it would be about Jor-El and his rise as one of the greatest scientists on Krypton.

I don't get the need to have the House of El disgraced. That makes no sense. I always felt the House of El was a very prominent one and that dated back years.

John Byrne famously changed Krypton when he rebooted it. I guess the Reeve movies did that too. But I never understood why Krypton had to be such a callous, emotionless, cold, place.

The earlier incarnations had it as a vibrant society. Why NOT have it like that? It makes what happened to them far more tragic.

All those innocent lives and only one could be saved.

Plus, I don't trust SyFy Channel. If history follows, the odds are the show will be canceled on a cliffhanger. I will likely watch, though I really don't pick up too many shows on that channel for that reason. I didn't even start BSG until the show ended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, Krypton (especially in the '78 version) is supposed to be 'heaven'; and one shouldn't get too know 'heaven' too well, otherwise it loses its mystique.

Superman follows the basic Christ story; Jor-El ('god') sends his only son Kal-El (Jesus) to save humanity from itself. Krypton is only a launchpad for the really interesting story; the son of 'god' reaching Earth...

And Krypton is not really interesting of itself because if you look too deeply past the white robes and crystals, it just becomes another Star Trek-style alien planet; with a lot of boring political maneuvering and machiavellian backstabbing. Frankly, I don't really give a s#!t....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never really thought of Krypton as heaven. I know there are religious parallels, but given that the creators of Superman were Jewish, I don't think they meant Superman to be Christ. I don't think everything is a parallel, though certainly a lot is there.

If anything, it's a cross between Moses and Jesus.

Heaven wouldn't get destroyed.

Superman's origin to me is an extraordinary journey about not only the most powerful being in the universe, but the luckiest.

No matter which era of Krypton you follow, Kal-El was saved due to the love of his parents, whether that love was natural like it is here, or against the norms and in defiance, as it would be in the Byrne era. Either way, that love, combined with the luck of being the son of one of the smartest people on Krypton, got him on that rocket.

And just as important, the luck of landing in the laps of the Kents, in any incarnation (except maybe MOS), who were the perfect people to raise a child like that, combined with THEIR goodness, and the love that taught Clark the values he would uphold, had to create a being of such inspiration and good that it's no wonder the character was so popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never really thought of Krypton as heaven. I know there are religious parallels, but given that the creators of Superman were Jewish, I don't think they meant Superman to be Christ. I don't think everything is a parallel, though certainly a lot is there.

If anything, it's a cross between Moses and Jesus.

Heaven wouldn't get destroyed.

Superman's origin to me is an extraordinary journey about not only the most powerful being in the universe, but the luckiest.

No matter which era of Krypton you follow, Kal-El was saved due to the love of his parents, whether that love was natural like it is here, or against the norms and in defiance, as it would be in the Byrne era. Either way, that love, combined with the luck of being the son of one of the smartest people on Krypton, got him on that rocket.

And just as important, the luck of landing in the laps of the Kents, in any incarnation (except maybe MOS), who were the perfect people to raise a child like that, combined with THEIR goodness, and the love that taught Clark the values he would uphold, had to create a being of such inspiration and good that it's no wonder the character was so popular.

All good points...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is also why I feel the writing of Jonathan Kent, when the character is used, is so vital.

Jonathan's values, his smarts, his essence, raised Superman. A man like that essentially IS Superman, without the power.

Jonathan Kent is an extraordinary character, which is why I was so ticked when I felt Man of Steel got him so wrong.

It was made even worse by Kevin Costner being such a good choice for the role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and the superhero market saturation continues. How long before the bottom drops out, I wonder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the genre that's the issue--it's the writers.

As long as the writers are good, the genre will prosper.

Not every superhero or DC/Marvel based entity will work.

DC has done a horrible job in the movies, but their TV work has been pretty good. Eventually though, there will be a show or movie that is just poorly written and it will fail.

That won't be a report card on the genre, but on those particular writing decisions.

Creative decisions is the reason I stopped reading comics. The DC writers did some things that ticked me off regarding Superman, and once I wrapped up the stories I was reading, I stopped buying comics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and the superhero market saturation continues. How long before the bottom drops out, I wonder?

The first genuine Marvel bomb at the box office (i.e. the first Marvel movie to make less money than the GDP of Portugal) will probably be the rallying cry of the internet to say "the superhero movie is dead!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KRYPTON is actually about Superman's grandfather.

Oh s$#@, no kidding.

Gus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KRYPTON is actually about Superman's grandfather.

Oh s$#@, no kidding.

Gus

Really?

Who gives a living poop about Superman's granddad??

What's next, a TV series about Martha Kent's sister Ethel who moves to Metropolis with her pet parakeet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What difference does grandpa make?

The planet blows up. NONE of it matters.

(Sorry for the spoiler.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By that logic, any prequel means nothing.

I once read a book called The Last Days of Krypton, which essentially was about Jor-El and the years leading up to the end of Krypton. It was a very good book. I believe the author was Kevin Anderson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By that logic, any prequel means nothing.

Not necessarily; as long as it directly segues into the events of whatever it's presaging. Grandpa-El just sounds really irrelevant.

But in most cases (not all, of course), prequels are generally anticlimactic for me. You might as well know that the butler did it before you pick up the mystery novel.

And all of the necessary nooks and crannies Superman/Batman universes have been explored ad nauseum. A toddler can cite their respective origin stories by rote at this point.

Personally, I don't really care about what happened on Krypton a few generations before it blew up (oops! Spoilers again... :giggle: ). I suspect that most audiences won't as well (save for a few diehards).

That's something that could be covered in a flashback, or a line of dialogue in a movie.

Rather than wasting time pussyfooting around their characters with irrelevant side-stories, DC should just explore those characters directly.

No Martha Kent's fun-loving eccentric sister moves to Metropolis for me, thanks... :laugh:

I once read a book called The Last Days of Krypton, which essentially was about Jor-El and the years leading up to the end of Krypton. It was a very good book. I believe the author was Kevin Anderson.

Kevin Anderson is also a well-noted author of many post-Herbert Dune and Star Wars EU books. I'm not a huge fan of his, but he's pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know it's interesting you mention the idea of exploring characters directly.

I'm not sure which was the first show to not explore characters directly. Maybe it was Birds of Prey--the Batman show without Batman.

But ever since, while we have had some good shows, Smallville being the obvious hit, the only time we actually see characters in their glory is in the movies.

Why? They think they can't do the character justice?

That's ridiculous. Lois and Clark, while not perfect, lasted four seasons because they did well, and Superman didn't need to battle Zod or Darkseid every week to keep it interesting.

Lois and Clark was I believe the last show to cover the actual lead hero.

I always felt that Smallville should have ended with Jonathan Kent's death, and immediately be renamed Metropolis, where Clark was in full Superman mode. The actor, the run of the show, the character--all ready to be Superman, except the writers refused to do it (or weren't allowed to do it). That's another topic.

Anyway, finally, last year, DC started with Arrow, where we see Oliver Queen in his actual heroic persona. I wouldn't call it a prequel. I would call it a beginning, and we are watching his progression from the Vigilante to the Arrow and hopefully, to Green Arrow.

Meanwhile, The Flash takes it even further, and Barry is the Flash right away. Also a beginning story, but there is nothing prequel about it. We have our hero, being a hero.

It's refreshing.

And it's working.

So I get it. Krypton could be a disaster. Ultimately, what it needs is hyper intelligent writers who really care about the subject matter and want to flesh out Krypton, while still dealing with its known mythology.

It's going to need some strong writing to work because it's not an easy concept that there is a ton of demand for.

But it could work.

DC does have a solid track record on TV right now. The movies may not be great, but the TV is a lot of fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ultimately, what it needs is hyper intelligent writers who really care about the subject matter

This is good advice for ANY entertainment; be it a book, comic book, movie or TV show. Though I'm not sure only the 'hyper intelligent' need apply; I'd settle for smart and witty... :laugh:

It's going to need some strong writing to work because it's not an easy concept that there is a ton of demand for.

Very much agree on this.

Lois and Clark, while not perfect, lasted four seasons because they did well, and Superman didn't need to battle Zod or Darkseid every week to keep it interesting.

I've always enjoyed Lois and Clark; it was fun and silly. It was like Moonlighting with superpowers. Almost in the vein of '60s Batman at times, but it was always consistent. It never tried to rival the '78 movie in epic feel or quality. That was its smartest move; the shift from action-heavy histrionics to light romantic comedy.

A full-on Superman movie these days (taken seriously) would be much too expensive to do justice to with a weekly TV show (esp. with modern audience expectations being what they are).

Hence the reason Smallville dealt largely with a Clark who was just coming into his powers (sort of a metaphor for puberty at times), and not a Clark-at-full-strength show every week. He didn't even fully fly till the very end of the show.

Granted digital FX make some things a bit cheaper, but you still see this 'scaling back' even today with "Agents of SHIELD"; it has some heavy FX-laden action pieces, but primarily it's more about the characters (highlighting characters is generally a lot cheaper than chasing missiles and invading aliens every week).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right--it is important for any TV show, and it's amazing that bad writers get work.

THIS is where superhero shows and movies may run into trouble--not that there are too many shows or movies, but that there are not enough good writers to handle it.

Lois and Clark really worked for me. It didn't HAVE to have the movie level action, and I don't think a movie level action is required for a weekly Superman series.

Smallville worked too, and in many cases, the episodes as they were wouldn't have been THAT different had Clark been Superman, especially in the last 4-5 seasons.

Ultimately, Superman is the story of a good man that has extraordinary powers, and chooses to use those powers to help people.

You can do a villain of the week and not have it be Darkseid or Zod.

Ultimately, look at The Flash--the reviews have been positive all over the place. No show is perfect, but this one is really nailing how to do a superhero show, feature the superhero in full power, and not do a movie level story every week. The writing is terrific, and I feel they absolutely can do Superman like that.

I'm sure they could do Batman too.

A movie is just where you do that epic story that can't be done on TV.

I actually would love to see DC trump Marvel and play their biggest card, which is the multiple Earths. Something like that can make any combination or crossover possible, and done really right, could spread between TV and movies. It would be a very difficult challenge, but not an impossible one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For this reason:

But in most cases (not all, of course), prequels are generally anticlimactic for me. You might as well know that the butler did it before you pick up the mystery novel.

This:

By that logic, any prequel means nothing.

...is pretty much my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only interested in this because it is science fiction. I care little for Superman's origins.

First Gotham for Batman.

Now Krypton for Superman.

Soon we'll get a show about a Black Widow spider mother giving birth to the spider that would one day bite Peter Parker. But first, watch her short life as she avoid size 10 tennis shoes, mosquitoes, and her ultimate super villain: the terminix guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soon we'll get a show about a Black Widow spider mother giving birth to the spider that would one day bite Peter Parker. But first, watch her short life as she avoid size 10 tennis shoes, mosquitoes, and her ultimate super villain: the terminix guy.

38BcXWa.gif

You can do a villain of the week and not have it be Darkseid or Zod.

That would get old kind of fast; and part of the problem is that the new Superman movies have raised the action/FX bars so high that most people would go into the show expecting what they saw in theaters. A weekly Superman series would only work if you had some kind of fresh angle; such as "Lois & Clark" 's focusing on the Moonlighting-type office romance between the two leads. That was a fresh angle.

Superman just beating up new guys every week would get dull; especially if it couldn't live up to the action quotient of the modern movies...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it doesn't get old. That's episodic TV. That's comic books. Ultimately, all these stories are villains of the week, even movies.

Movies are just episodes/comic books stories on a grander scale.

It's the superhero genre. They deal with villains that cops couldn't deal with.

I don't know if romance is that fresh of an angle more than it is part of their story. Superman's relationships with his friends and family are a big part of the storyline. How does a guy with so much power stay so grounded?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely--unless you're Superman.

That's another reason I'm such a fan of Jonathan and Martha Kent--they managed to raise a being that could have become a billionaire athlete, or a vicious tyrant. But he didn't.

They raised a being that could have had a sense of justice, but doesn't force his opinions on the people. Clark is a very rare being, and a show exploring a man like this can certainly be fascinating.

But of course it is a Superman show, so we would need Superman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it doesn't get old. That's episodic TV.

Yes, but it's also one of the reasons that episodic TV is pretty much disappearing these days; the bloody reset button. Most TV shows these days are following the 'binge-watching' style; with involved storylines that advance both plot and character with each installment. Almost every new show one watches these days is following this format; Breaking Bad, House of Cards, True Blood, Walking Dead, etc. Even formula shows like CSI and the now-canceled House MD have continuing threads under the 'A' stories that carry over into the next installments. That is the new current model of television; defeating new challenges every week with no carryover to subsequent weeks is as dated as the 4:3 glass screen and monaural sound.

Episodic TV itself has gotten old.

I don't know if romance is that fresh of an angle more than it is part of their story.

It absolutely was.

I've read interviews with one of the show's creators, Deborah Joy Levine, and that was the specific goal of the series; reimagining Superman as a romantic comedy. It also had the twofold advantage of appealing to both male and female demographics. In my own personal experience, this was quite true as it was a rare show that I and some of my former female colleagues at work at the time (who were not comic book fans) used to avidly discuss on Monday mornings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superhero shows are very much in tune with that binge watching style though.

Technically, if you have stand alone episodes, that works too, but short arcs are tailor made for superheroes. Clearly, based on the successful superhero shows currently on the air, writers can handle that.

No reason to think they can't adapt to Superman, should they want to do so.

Lois and Clark was a fun show. I enjoyed it a lot. I do wish there was more Superman and less Clark, but overall, I remember the show very fondly, and still am mad it ended on a cliffhanger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0