And as was pointed out upthread, BB was the first time that Batman's origin had been told in detail in a movie. Superman's already had that, plus all the multiple recent versions in other media. I just don't see any compelling need for a new origin movie. Now if you give a hypothetical non-origin movie or two a chance, whether or not they include or directly continue from Singer, then there's a much stronger case for one. 10 years from now, the Donner film will be half as old as the character, and about two generations old. There's a much stronger case for a new origin movie then, if you're willing to be patient.
If what you said can be put in a movie with a better cast that S:R (except with Brandon Routh, he IS this gen's Superman) then the next Superman movie will be one of the biggest blockbusters of the year.
I guess I don't see how it is any different than BB. We already had seen in two movies that he became driven to become Batman when his parents were killed in front of him. The only thing they added was Ra's which is a totally different telling of the story. It is a new twist. Are you asking me to give you what the new twist would be for a Superman story? I am getting old, so I might not have another 10 years to wait for a new Superman movie, especially if Singer makes another one.
Superman's origin story doesn't even need to be required as a main story plot in Begins...that is why I mentioned we could see snippets of it during flashback sequences at some crucial points during the movie. Perhaps Superman is battling Brainiac or Zod or Darkseid and he is remembering who he is and what he stands for, how he got to where he is now. That I took was the reason for the flashbacks in Batman Begins.
Disagree. For a really good Superman we need a well-built man in his early to mid 30s wth more chiseled facial features than Routh and has a wore "supermanish" hair style. Routh was OK, but he just doesn't have much of the "Superman look."
I don't really think the problem was Routh, it was just that horrible hairstyle and all the makeup he seemed to be wearing in the movie. He actually looked a lot older and, well, manlier in his public appearances.
BB got into a lot more detail about his origins, motivations, how he came by the equipment, etc. The first Burton film just barely flashed back to his parents being killed, and gave no idea even why he chose to dress up as a bat. Two movies later, BF got into that. Not exactly a comprehensive, beat-by-beat account of Batman's origin, as BB was, or as the Donner film was for Supes. And if you think B89 was a sufficient account of Batman's origin, then why wouldn't you support a similar treatment for Superman? Just quickly throw the bare bones of his origin somewhere in a movie that has him already operating as Superman. Same difference. In that case, does it even have to be a "Begins", as in a story that takes place at the beginning of his career? Why not have him be an established Superman with a story that involves flashing back to relevant details of his origin? Or take the Golden Age/Byrne route, and have an established Superman who's just learning of his true origins? Best of both worlds--it's an origin movie, but he's established as Superman and the origin sequences don't take up the first half of the movie.
Why bother with flashbacks? I'd like to see a reboot movie that opens with a pre-credits sequence of Ma and Pa Kent in Smallville, the crash landing, finding the child, etc, a 10 minute sequence or whatever... then you roll credits... movie 'proper' begins with adult Clark arriving in Metropolis. Simple, to the point, gives you the origin, but doesn't spend an hour rehashing the first hour of the Donner movie. The crash landing in smallville is one of those iconic sequences that you can show over and over again in any Superman incarnation and it never gets old as long as you don't drag it out. Then you can do some fun sequences where we (the audience) 'discovers' his powers one by one in Metropolis. Sort of like how in Hellboy the movie started with a WWII (?) era sequence, then 'forwarded' to present day for most of the movie. Actually a lot of movies do stuff like this. Of course, i'd be using the more modern "post-crisis" continuity (Pa Kent is still alive, Luthor is much more of a public persona, who feels its his duty to protect humanity from Kryptonian invaders, his villainness really stems from a hatred of "aliens"). In fact, I'd take a lot of cues from the 90s Animated Series. As far as villains go, there are some good options: -Metallo (cyborg with a Kryptonite heart) -Bizarro (maybe re-imagined as a Luthor Frankenstein experiment gone wrong) -Parasite (his powers are a credible threat to Superman) -Braniac (integrated with his origin, a la animated series) It's important to finally break away from the 30-year-old movie. A somewhat new look for Superman, even stop using the John Williams theme, no more shades of Hackman's Luthor, a new asthetic, no more dour emo-Superman from 'Returns, no more "real estate" based plots. There's an entire generation of people who've never even seen the Donner Superman. People will be fine. Well-made big-budget blockbusters make money. They will go see it.
Superman Begins is simply a moniker and doesn't neccessarily have to do with the movie plot its self. I guess maybe that is why so many of you have been against a reboot...I wasn't really meaning when I posted this that it had to be a total reboot effort. The title was meant to invoke a Nolan-esque feel to the Superman franchise. Perhaps I should have titled this thread How Would a Chris Nolan Superman Film Be Like or something like that using the same methods he used in crafting Batman Begins. Ultimately I think a Nolan film would be different in all aspects of the movie from plot to visual effects to perhaps even who was playing Superman and the other characters. Nolan seems like a realist...who tries to construct a reality around his films that is similar to our world but really isn't. Despite his comments about Superman not being realistic I think that if he was given some material to work with he would find a way to make a really terrific Superman film. There isn't a need to include an origin since as everyone has pointed out everyone is already familar with the Superman mythos and how he got to Earth, etc. I just think it would be fun to flashback...
It's absolutely unnecessary to reinvent the wheel with Superman--especially with the Williams' theme. That music is as important to Superman as Monty Norman's Bond theme is to 007. Whether it's Singer or someone else at the helm, I hope they just pick up with Superman already established in Metropolis and go.
I think at the very least any Superman movie from now on needs to keep the theme, the opening credits visuals and the wink/flyover ending. Everything in between doesn't need to "borrow" from Donner.
QFFT! The Williams theme is iconic. Superman has picked up many lasting elements from various media over 70 years, and that theme is one of them.
Since we're talking about reboot ideas, here's an interesting article from MTV's Splash Page blog wherein Grant Morrison, Mark Waid and Brad Meltzer were asked to give their reboot ideas:
As I have said before Superman DOES need an origin story. It can be similar to Nolans Batman-universe in that it is detailed and more realistic relationships between people. I would start the movie off on Krypton. Introduce all the characters. Supes Mom and Dad. The council. General Zod. You can show kryptonian society on the big screen like never before. If you have a good set of writers they could build on the conflicts we already know exist between Supermans Mom and Dad, the council, and Zod. Fill in the details. But make it compelling and dramatic like BB/TDK. Then 1/2 to 3/4 of the way thru the film krypton goes BOOM. The rest of the movie can show Superman getting to earth. And a few of his future enemies are not far behind. With this basic idea you can establish a truly dark and evil Zod. By really knowing why he hates Superman. You could even show Doomsday or Brainiac on Krypton as experiments. When Supes arrives at earth you could flash up to smallville. This would set up a good 2nd movie of a trillogy. A 2nd movie where zod and luthor somehow kick supes ass bad and have him end up losing at the end of the 2nd movie. the 3rd movie would be about rebirth and redemption...
^I'm sorry, but that's a recipe for failure. The audience doesn't want a Superman movie in which Superman is a baby for the first 1/2 to 2/3 of the movie. That's not at all like BB, which introduced us to Bruce in media res when he was well into his training, and flashed back to the salient points of his origin. What you're proposing would by like if BB had spent the first 1/2 to 2/3 of the movie focusing on Thomas and Martha Wayne while Bruce was a kid.
I said it before and I'll say it again... pre-credit sequence where Martha and Jonathan are driving in Smallville, ship crashes, they find the craft, and bring the baby home. They name him Clark. Roll credits. Start movie with adult Clark arriving in Metropolis. The rest of the stuff, like where he came from, is revealed throughout the plot of the movie. 10 minutes max. Superman's origin is so simple, that you can absolutely have an origin movie and it not take up an hour of screentime.
Or just have the opening credits be in the form of a montage sequence that shows the whole origin - from Krypton to Smallville to Metropolis - in short order. It could incorporate a voice over by Jor-El (a new voice over with a new actor providing the voice) and Daily Planet front page headlines as devices for quick and easy exposition. After the credits you move into the story with all of the elements of the Superman universe in place.
I think the franchise needed and needs a booster shot in the arm, and 'Superman Returns' was more like a shot of heroin. There was real potential there, but without it, we do need a 'Superman Begins.' Donner's 'Superman' was great, but there is too much there (i.e. pre-corporate Luthor) that we should be getting away from that they should start over. Superman is iconic enough that you can really do a quick breeze over his origins, yes, but why not instead do a 'Why Must there Be a Superman?' type story instead, forcing you to look at why he's doing what he's doing and tying his origin in that way. Superman is a science-fiction superhero. Ground him in reality, sure, depower him a little, ok, but he's a science fiction superhero. He should have a science fiction approach. And, I quite like the idea of clever Clark Kent hunting down criminals though his job and depicted realistically. Perhaps he even comes into conflict with Luthor that way, via Intergang... and Metallo. Oooh! I may have to write this. Brainiac could also feature to tie into his origin. If you ask me, not using Brainiac in a SR, a movie in which Clark returns to the leftovers of Krypton to look for his roots, was a HUGELY MISSED OPPORTUNITY. That was something Kevin Smith gave us that shouldn't have been abandoned. And for God's sake, give him someone to actually fight physically as well. Batman had SCORES of people to fight in between the talking and fun character development/expositionary stuff. Cleverly, some of those fights even overlapped the exposition. ARE YOU LISTENING, SINGER?? /rant
It's a shame Superman always get into development quote I'm reminded of the quote "The night is darkest before the dawn"
You mean its nothing like the Batman Universe Nolan has created? How about how the Noland Batman movies are less about Batman and more about his world and everyone else. Thats why its soo interesting. Ofcourse Batman is in the Movies and so would Supes