Superman: The Reboot --- Its official

[Trent Roman]

I posted this in the other thread, but I think it's more appropriate here. While the studio's statement does sound like a pretty blantant case of monkey see monkey do, I'm actually glad for it. Superman Returns, amongst its many other faults, was corny, cheesy, and all-around impossible to take seriously. A dark Superman could work; my favourite version of the character is the JLU version, seasoned and perhaps a bit world-weary for it, concerned with the dynamic between his power, his notion of justice, and the free will of others. But then, my favourite 'Superman' concept is JMS' version of Hyperion in the Supremeverse, which squarely situates an entity of such power into the realpolitiks of the modern world.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

[JacksonArcher]

T'Baio wrote:

---

Has your love of The Dark Knight tempered your love for this franchise?

Not at all. I really, really enjoyed Superman Returns. It's one of my favorite comic-book films of all time. I can't tell you how bummed I was to hear that Jeff Robinov wants to start over. Alas, I can't change the world. I'm not going to throw a hissy fit just because we're not getting a sequel.

I view it like the situation with Ang Lee's Hulk. I enjoyed that movie very much, and while I was skeptical and cautious over a reboot, I enjoyed The Incredible Hulk very much as well. I have no problems with different interpretations of the same character, as long as they're good.

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

My vote for director is Matthew Vaughan

[Starbreaker]

Tom Welling fans prepare!

[JacksonArcher]

Stone_Cold_Sisko wrote:

---

My vote for director is Matthew Vaughan

Yes, because he's had a great track record at bringing comic-book characters to screen.

Vaughn is actually busy prepping Mark Millar's Kick-Ass at the moment, so I think that's going to occupy his time for a while. I also think he's the wrong choice. His sensibility doesn't seem like it would gel with Superman, in my opinion.

I think Gore Verbinksi would actually be an interesting choice. Not for his Pirates of the Caribbean films as much as for The Weather Man, which remains one of my favorite films of the past few years.

[the Dagman]

I guess I am one of the few that think that Bryan Singer is an over-hyped hack. Every single piece of work I have seen from him has this feel that there is something just not right. I really don't think the way he "gets" these projects are the way most people "get" them. I don't believe it has anything to do with his sexual orientation, but it sure seems like these properties have gone through a treatment by the guys from Queer Eye For The Straight Guy after he has finished with them.

Superman doesn't need much to reboot it however. You can retell his origin easily within the credit sequence. You don't need an hour to do it. The story of his training between his teen years in Smallville and becoming Superman has also been told enough times to just gloss over it, given that the Smallville series has done that period to death. Have Alex Ross or someone do some painted storyboards to recap his origin for the credits, and the just start the movie off as "A day in the life..." and move on. If they must have Lex Luthor in it, make him the untouchable business tycoon and a secondary character, not the main villain. I think Brainiac would be the best choice for the main villain. And it would be pretty easy to bring him in simply by crashing onto the planet and then he starts to repair himself.

[Samurai8472]

Starbreaker wrote:

---

Tom Welling fans prepare!

"hmm cheaper by the dozen 3 Direct to DVD or new Superman movie"

[TheArsenal]

The Borgified Corpse wrote:

---

Alas, I have a sinking feeling that we're going to see Superman get stuck in another 2 decades of development hell unless they start talking to Singer again.

Perhaps. But I have faith as they look at The Dark Knight's returns then its inevitable monster DVD sales, that pure greed will move this new Superman movie briskly along.

[Cicero]

Hirogen Alpha wrote:

---

Well, if they're going to go darker, which doesn't fit with (my admittedly limited) knowledge of Superman, I hope they at least use the lightness of Superman as a counterpoint to the dark world around. Otherwise, why even use the character?

My favorite Superman is the 1930s and early 1940s version who lived in a world easily as brutal and dangerous as Batman's. Many (most?) stories took place in literal darkness, with the figurative variety of the same never far off. Early Superman stories regularly featured bitter, heartless murder, and Superman (then called the Champion of the Oppressed as often as the Man of Steel) spent most of his time trying to defeat killers, swindlers, and otherwise vicious persons. In Lex Luthor's first appearances (he was only Luthor at the time, not Lex), he indifferently killed roughly as many persons as the Joker gleefully did in his early showings.

Superman's world was fairly dark until the Golden Age of comics ended. But unlike Batman, who was returned to his roots in the 80s, Superman has never escaped the brightness set upon him in the Silver Age.

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

JacksonArcher wrote:

---

Yes, because he's had a great track record at bringing comic-book characters to screen.

Vaughn is actually busy prepping Mark Millar's Kick-Ass at the moment, so I think that's going to occupy his time for a while.

Actually he's planning his escape route from Kick-Ass.

Just kidding.

I also think he's the wrong choice. His sensibility doesn't seem like it would gel with Superman, in my opinion.

Between Layer cake and Stardust, Vaughan has demonstrated the ability to deliver films with widely varying styles and tones. I thought Stardust was great, so I think Vaughan has the capacity to deliver a Superman film with the right mix of drama, humor and action.

I think Gore Verbinksi would actually be an interesting choice. Not for his Pirates of the Caribbean films as much as for The Weather Man, which remains one of my favorite films of the past few years.

Verbinski would be a good choice, too, as long as he didn't make a Superman film as bloated and overlong as the Pirates sequels.

[RobertScorpio]

Cicero wrote:

---

My favorite Superman is the 1930s and early 1940s version who lived in a world easily as brutal and dangerous as Batman's. Many (most?) stories took place in literal darkness, with the figurative variety of the same never far off. Early Superman stories regularly featured bitter, heartless murder, and Superman (then called the Champion of the Oppressed as often as the Man of Steel) spent most of his time trying to defeat killers, swindlers, and otherwise vicious persons. In Lex Luthor's first appearances (he was only Luthor at the time, not Lex), he indifferently killed roughly as many persons as the Joker gleefully did in his early showings.

Superman's world was fairly dark until the Golden Age of comics ended. But unlike Batman, who was returned to his roots in the 80s, Superman has never escaped the brightness set upon him in the Silver Age.

Bravo!!!! The first person on this board who actually remembers the Golden Age Superman and the world (WW2) from which he sprang from..dark it was indeed..

Rob
scorpio

[Jack Bauer]

Gah...please...no origin story! Have Superman as an already established hero. And no Lex Luthor as villain...get someone new.

[Captaindemotion]

The reference to the success of the Nolan movies and the suggestion that Superman (and other forthcoming DC movies) should be darker shows up one of the main flaws in WB's handling of their superhero movies. Namely, that they think one size fits all for superhero adaptations and that when movie proves successful, any others should follow that template.

For example: Tim Burton makes successful Batman movies. So they decide to get him to do a Superman movie. But it's got to be like Batman - he will have a black leather suit, no special powers and a cool car. And like Batman, he won't be played by a traditional square jawed hero, he'll be played by an offbeat-looking quirky actor with a receding hairline (Nicholas Cage, following Michael Keaton).

Burton was a pretty obvious choice to helm a Batman movie, given his penchant for darkness and freakery, but for Superman? No way! But WB could only see that he'd proven a success before, so they were ready to shoehorn him into another franchise. Fortunately, it all fell apart.

When Joel Shumacher's Batman Forever was a bigger hit than Batman Returns, WB decided that the key to success with Batman movies was lightening them up. So Batman and Robin had to be bigger, brighter, gaudier and more jokey than its predecessor. What a surprise, it was hated by fans and critics alike and killed that series of Batmovies.

Can't get your Superman franchise relaunched? Hey, let's steal Bryan Singer from Fox! After all, he's made successful X-Men movies. Never mind that Singer was hired for X-Men because he'd proven with The Usual Suspects that he had a capability for ensemble movies. Never mind that he was attracted to that project because of its outsider & bigotry metaphors. Stick him in any superhero movie and it'll be a success, right? So went WB's thinking. Well, much as I like SR, that thinking doesn't seem to have been correct.

It'd be like if Marvel had opted to have Sam Raimi direct all their movies after the success of Spider-man or have David Goyer write all them, after Blade was a hit. The people making Marvel movies seem to have exercised some care in the choosing of their directors, even if they don't always work out. Raimi and Singer, nuff said. Ang Lee's movies have often dealt with repression - homosexuality in Brokeback Mountain, repressed emotions in Crouching Tiger or Sense and Sensiblity - so you can see the logic in having him make a movie about a man repressing the monster inside. Tim Story's movies had featured squabbling characters, which led him to get the FF gig (Reed and co being like one big arguing family). Neither choice was particularly successful, but fair dos for trying. There are, of course, the outright dumb choices - Brett Ratner for X3, being one. However, for the most part, Marvel hasn't done too badly with their creative teams, Favreau being the most obvious recent example. The likes of Gavin Hood, who is to make the Wolverine movie, are hardly studio hacks or safe hands, a la Ratner & Shumacher.

WB just seems so derivative and reactive in its approach. Other than the choice of Nolan, there seems to be little creativity in the movie makers it approaches to make its movies - McG and Brett Ratner were among the giants it approached to make Superman before Singer. Why don't they take a chance on a new movie maker, an up and comer? Some whizzkid? Or they could go the opposite route and get Spielberg, Michael Mann or Ridley Scott? But for godsakes, get someone who will make their own movie - not just a version of The Dark Knight, only with Superman in it instead of Batman.

[Supervisor 194]

That's too bad--I was looking forward to seeing where they would go next in the Returns universe. However, SR still stands as a beautiful ending for the Donner movies--a project I would never have even dreamed someone would make so many years later.

The wording of the announcement was a little vague--it's still possible that Singer and Routh will 'reintroduce' Superman--but I suspect a full 'reboot' is what will happen. The only thing that really concerns me is the idea of taking 'darkness' as far as they can for characters other than Batman.

[Guy Gardener]

I just had a horrible thought.

What if the Smallville producers Gough and Miller were not fired for being incompetent idiots, but they were promoted to the movie franchise and they were given a year in secret to get their shit together to make a Tom Welling Superman movie?

Shit as that movie might be even compare to the shit last one, it could cause millions of people to go out to coscos and buy 8 seasons of Smallville to appropriately feel that they have the complete story.