Superman: The Reboot --- Its official

[billcosby]

I know this thread's a couple months old, but Superman Returns was just on here tonight in Japan, and I wondered to myself... hey, when's the next one coming out? It must be soon, because I remember hearing about it when Batman - Dark Knight was coming along. And here that is already released.

And I find this thread and the wikipedia entry stating that they are rebooting the reboot.

How does one reboot a reboot? WTF is happening? Other posters have said Superman would not work as well darker, like Batman. I agree with that - solid. Others have stated this would be an origin story... is this confirmed??
What a kick in the nuts. I was really wondering what would become of

Superman's son

, perhaps the most interesting thing to come out of that film.

I also am surprised to hear it was a "box office failure". Isn't that term relative to have much money they throw at it?

[sidious618]

SR wasn't really a reboot, though.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

blockaderunner wrote:

---

And at the end of the day, fun is what Superman's always been about. The scene that stands out to me and is the textbook Superman scene was this: In a comic I read, Superman was doing his rounds until he sees an SUV skid off an expressway ramp. He swoops in and catches it with ease, much to the delight of the driver and her son. The son looks out the window and sees who caught them and says "Are you Superman? That is so cool!". Superman replies, "Yes, I am Superman. And, yes, it is cool,". That's the Superman I want to see. A Superman that does his job with a twinkle in his eye. A Superman that loves to be Superman, dispite its hardships and risks. Not doing it with a heavy heart and weary soul.

Agreed 100%.

My response to the "as dark as the character allows" comment, is this:

The character of Superman allows NO darkness.

That is simply not what Superman is supposed to be. He *must* be a nice guy. Somebody who actually smiles and enjoys his work. Somebody everyone can look up to and respect. Somebody who is ALL good and NO bad. The ultimate Boy Scout, as it were. Darkening all that - in any way - would completely ruin Superman as a character.

To paraphrase "What's So Funny About...": People who want a dark Superman really want Manchester Black. And look what happened to him.

[theenglish]

billcosby wrote:

---

I also am surprised to hear it was a "box office failure". Isn't that term relative to have much money they throw at it?

That's it. The movie did not make enough of a profit when compared to how much was spent on it and the studio's expectations for the film.

I too am wary about the "darker" comment; Superman does not need dark like Batman does. I agree with the poster way back who said that the studio should worry about getting Supes right first. The reason why the X-Men, Nolan's Batman, Iron Man, and Spider-Man worked on film is because those movies got the characters "right". A few modifications to the powers/origins did not interfere with that.

Donner's Superman got the character "right" for that point in time. Whereas I enjoyed Returns immensely as a film, the characters were just "off".

[dragunzng]

And we're of for another go on the merry go round!

[Guy Gardener]

Has anyone seen that Superman TV musical from the early 70s? I've seen clips, but something like that could really put all this into perspective.

[A Clockwork Lim]

I'd be happy with Brainiac as the villain and the "origin story" part of the film emphasizing his creation and involvement in the destruction of Krypton, much like how the animated series protrayed him. I think that would be a really interesting way of doing a film.

Those elements are pretty dark without making Superman himself dark. Supes would also have to use his brains more than his brawn when battling him, the villain is pretty familiar to people interested in the comics, and it gives a view of Krypton and Kryptonians without seeming as forced or re-played as seeing Jor-El sending Kal-El off into the cosmos.

[Trekker4747]

theenglish wrote:

---

That's it. The movie did not make enough of a profit when compared to how much was spent on it and the studio's expectations for the film.

I too am wary about the "darker" comment; Superman does not need dark like Batman does. I agree with the poster way back who said that the studio should worry about getting Supes right first. The reason why the X-Men, Nolan's Batman, Iron Man, and Spider-Man worked on film is because those movies got the characters "right". A few modifications to the powers/origins did not interfere with that.

Donner's Superman got the character "right" for that point in time. Whereas I enjoyed Returns immensely as a film, the characters were just "off".

If IRC S:R's production costs were mostly weighed down with the various contracts and attempts over the years. Tim Burton, Nicholas Cage, Kevin Smith, S-shield throwing stars, giant robot spiders, black super suits, etc. etc. All actors, writers, and more that had to have contract obligations paid even though they were not used. Millions and millions of dollars lame ideas and attempts all dragging behind S:R's own merits. By its little self without all of this stuff dragging it down, S:R probably did pretty well.

[Yassim]

I think most of the criticism of SR's box office came when it was clear that The Dark Knight was going to be one of the top-grossing films of all time. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's when the reboot was announced. After a year of dithering, looking at Batman's grosses convinced TPTB that they had settled for less with Superman.

It's hard to blame them. Iron Man would have been a strong contended for top grossing movie of the summer, in any other year. This year, the superheroes dominated, so I think they're looking to duplicate that kind of success with Supes.

[ancient]

Yeah, I think the studio was hoping SR would make more than X-3. X-3 trounced SR badly at the BO.

[Captain Craig]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

If IRC S:R's production costs were mostly weighed down with the various contracts and attempts over the years. Tim Burton, Nicholas Cage, Kevin Smith, S-shield throwing stars, giant robot spiders, black super suits, etc. etc. All actors, writers, and more that had to have contract obligations paid even though they were not used. Millions and millions of dollars lame ideas and attempts all dragging behind S:R's own merits. By its little self without all of this stuff dragging it down, S:R probably did pretty well.

Returns cost $200-205m after the 19 years of productions costs, which were $60-70m, are removed. It therefore broke roughly even at the US box office, hence the dissapointment. Now after WW figures, DVD and merchandising its safe to say they made some money. However, expectations were so high, and rightfully so, that is viewed by the studio as a creative and financial dissapointment.

Hence Donner-verse is bye-bye: Reboot

Although I'm not for "dark Superman".

[Admiral_Young]

While I enjoyed Superman Returns and was looking forward to Superman: Man of Steel (or whatever they eventually ended up calling the sequel) I will probably go see a reboot, its probably still a few years away anyways so I won't get hyped up. Would also like to see Brandon Routh return to his role...he was great in Zack and Miri.

[ClayinCA]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

Would also like to see Brandon Routh return to his role...he was great in Zack and Miri.

He was indeed (one of the few things I actively really liked about that movie), but I can't imagine the powers that be keeping Routh if they were going to re-start the rest of the cinematic Superman universe - it would just be weird. Then again, what do I know? Stranger things have happened in Hollywood...

[JacksonArcher]

ancient wrote:

---

Yeah, I think the studio was hoping SR would make more than X-3. X-3 trounced SR badly at the BO.

Not neccesarily. Superman Returns earned $200 million domestically at the box office. X-Men: The Last Stand earned a little over $215 million. Not that big of a difference. Also, X3's budget inflated when Brett Ratner came onboard, from $175 million to a reported $200-225 million, averaging just around the same budget expenses for Returns. So X3 was a financial success, but just barely, and it hardly "trounced" Returns. If anything, the films were even at the box office. Critically, though, that's another story...

[Trent Roman]

^ That's for sure. As disappointing as X3 was compared to the previous two instalments, I'd still rather watch it a dozen times in a row than subject myself to a repeat viewing of Returns.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman