J.J. Abrams Says Returning To Superman 'Would Be A Blast'

How about, No! That was the worst take on Superman I've ever read. Nothing seemed on model.

Go with Byrne's Man of Steel as a template.

 

It just disappeared thanks to a giant underground donkey wheel.

 

I disagree, it blew Byrne's version out of the water, and has a great action subplot in the invasion of Metropolis by the fake Kryptonians. Plus, being black, I loved Clark's sojourn in West Africa-better then what he does in Smallville.

Besides, Byrne's version was used, in the form of having his parents be still alive; that's enough of what needs to be kept around in a movie. And I also loved his being a vegetarian as well-something to inspire young and old people.

So all told, I think that J.J. should use this version of Superman in a movie.

But that's what's going to happen anyway, Jax: another reboot, even though there was nothing really wrong with Superman Returns.

 

Lots of critics are just as stupid as the braindead fanbases so many properties enjoy.

Lens flare + nauseating camera shake /= good direction. Abrams is probably the mose overhyped motherfucker in the business.

*cue armies of fucktards barrelling to his defense.

 

That's your best argument - that we're stupid.

It won't wash. To put it politely, you've never posted anything that demonstrates you to be smarter than me or than most other folks here. So you're unqualified to make such a judgment.

 

After seeing Abrams fuck-up Star Trek I'd much rather he stay the hell away from Superman.

 

No One needs another re-telling of Superman's origins. Everyone knows that he comes from Krypton, cared for by Martha and Jonathan Kent, and gets a job at the Daily Planet. Heck, even Lois and Clark's relationship is well established iconagraphy (is that a word?) Why don't they make a story that shows that Superman has been around for a while. He's over the trust issues with Earthlings, and is a well recognized protector. An unknown powerful force comes to attack Earth, starting with Metropolis first of course. Villains like Darksied, Matello, and Braniac come to mind. Threats so big, the movie wouldn't have for Supes origin to be told yet again. That's what I loved about Returns.

It got away from all that. True it had Kryptonian elements, but on the whole, it wasn't an origin story. Heck. Darkseid, Matello, and Braniac could be a Superman trilogy! Oh, Lex could be there too. Perhaps in part 3 which could be Darkseid. Those three villains could give Superman a greater threat than pushing a giant continent into space. I see this new trilogy I just made up in three bouts:

1: Braniac, not an easy fight, supes will have a run for his money, though.

2. Matello, a harder fight. Could nearly lose the battle, until one of the human characters saves him.

3. Darkseid. His greatest battle. Supes gives his all against Kalebeck, and Darkseid and repells an alien invasion.

Sorry for the rant. Need sleep!

 

I'd rather have Brad Bird take on Superman than JJ Abrams.

 

The only Superman story that bears retelling, from generation to generation, is the origin story. Far more than any similar character (Batman is probably second) Superman's origin story is his story.

 

^
Agreed, I mentioned in another thread that another way to get Superman into a movie is a Legion Of Superheroes movie...in a Justice League movie there would be too many iconic characters(Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Latern, Martian Manhunters...etc) JL Unlimited Superman just blended in with the other heroes. In a live action L* movie Superman would be the lead. Like the L* animated series.

 

That would work.

A Brad Bird animated superhero movie - beyond his excellent The Incredibles, of course - would certainly be great. For that matter I'm surprised that no ambitious CG superhero project has been launched by anyone. Seems a natural fit, doesn't it?

 

^
Yes it does. I'm not sure what studios are think these days.

 

I'll take a Brad Bird-written, J.J. Abrams directed Superman movie only if it doesn't have Pixar-like animation; I want the animation style of the Resident Evil DVD movie, or of Star Trek: Aurora-and nothing else except those two styles. Let Pixar's silly style be for The Incredibles, not for DC Comic characters.

 

^
A Superman animated film like The Incredibles would be awesome...I think. I don't see anything wrong with...the styles you mentioned. I just want a damn good film that sticks to the basics and doesn't go off into SRland.

 

After Mission: Impossible III and Star Trek, I would love to see what JJ Abrams could do with Superman. After successfully revitalizing one dormaint franchise, certainly tackling Superman would be a breeze for Abrams. I think after the fan backlash to his original Superman script and his Trek reboot, Abrams has probably learned enough and garnered enough experience to be able to navigate the necessary waters in order to successfully bring Superman back to the screen.

 

Superman is one hero whose appeal I've never understood. He's basically invincible. A story about him would be like playing a game on God mode----fun for a laugh, but it gets old fast.

 

So do I, although I loved (and still love) Superman Returns.

 

Lindley - To me, Superman is just the wish fulfilment all superheroics are about. Wouldn't it be great if there was a morally virtuous guy sticking up for the little people who had amazing powers and saved his girl from the evil scientist and his robots? It's just a good old pulp narrative distilled to its simplest form. Generally speaking I don't care for superheroes at all, but I've always liked Superman and Batman for some reason.

Abrams in charge of Superman ain't such a bad idea. I hate to cite Star Trek (because this being a Trek forum, everyone is), but there was a film that managed to be upbeat, optimistic and fun, while still being cool and modern.

That's what people would want out of a Superman movie, no? Have at it, why not, though I'd probably prefer to have Abrams plodding on with Trek films rather than jumping ship a la Singer and the previous Superman movie. Basically so long as it doesn't effect his involve in the Trek sequel I'm fine with it.

No, but iconography is. It isn't really appropriate here, 'well established as iconic' would work better.

 

Superman is great because he's the perfect superhero; he's selflessly noble and always "right", he's the inspirational leader of the DCU, he can fly he's super strong and super fast, he's the alpha hero. His stories are interesting because the character struggles to do the right thing in an imperfect world and always finds a solution (not just in a fist fight but morally speaking).

 

I loved it at first...it is a good movie...not a good Superman movie...if that makes sense...maybe not.