Television is not the exclusive target of promoters. Is Superman really worthy of a Newsweek cover?
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Studios might not be able to figure out my leanings, but anyone who visits my blog or reads my Twitter feed or meets me in person will realize right away that I am a huge superhero fan and a fanatic about Superman in particular.
The thing is, the Superman comics have been around a long time, and so have the movies. They've done a lot of Superman movies, as they have with Batman.
It's just nerve-wracking in general to write 'Superman,' right? I'm a life-long superhero fan, and he is the character that kicked off the entire genre.
I knew very early on that there would be quite a bit of attention: Superman is known all over the place.
When you start to become a movie star it's easy to believe that you are Superman. That can fool you. That's why I prefer not to pay much attention to fame.
We've all read, I'm sure, a Superman book where we didn't really feel like we knew the character. Where the writer, often with the best of intentions, has tried put a personal stamp on the character, whether it be to try and make him more current, or cool, or have a broader appeal, etc.
Superman was never previewed because the producers didn't trust Warners with the film.
No one wants to see a person on TV who's super-ultra-cool. That's Superman, that's a thing of the past. Heroes are now flawed, and have terrible tempers, you know? They're real people.
Movie studios aren't making too many dramas anymore; they're in the superhero business. Material for television is much, much stronger for actors now.
I don't think the potential for comics in nonfiction has been exploited nearly as much as it could be.
No opposing quotes found.