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

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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.

[Dusty Ayres]

Dennis wrote:

---

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?

Jetfire wrote:

---

^
Yes it does. I'm not sure what studios are thinking 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.

[JacksonArcher]

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.

[Lindley]

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.

[Dusty Ayres]

Jetfire wrote:

---

I just want a damn good film that sticks to the basics and doesn't go off into SRland.

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

[Kegg]

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.

Cmndr J Crichton wrote:

---

Heck, even Lois and Clark's relationship is well established iconagraphy (is that a word?)

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

[Mr Light]

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).

Dusty Ayres wrote:

---

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

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

[suarezguy]

It seems to me that a lot of the praise for Abrams' Star Trek was based on nostalgia, which is what Singer was trying to do in Superman Returns.

I think you'd have to include a somewhat different origin/interpretation; I don't think people like just being dropped into an old-fashioned or already-established character/world. A lot of recent blockbusters have spent a good deal of the time in the first film just introducing the characters.

The Origin of Superman is the simple part and doesn't need to be changed...what does is alot after he become Superman. Having a Superman movie where he doesn't fight!? That was the biggest problem with SR. Take out the Lex Luthor real estate scheme and maybe have Lex uncover Doomsday...there is your SR.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Superman fighting is rarely very interesting. Some hits him and knocks him through an object; he hits back and knocks them into space. They throw the Eiffel Tower at him...ho hum. Just because fanboys get excited about Doomsday doesn't mean he'd make a decent character in a movie.

[Aragorn]

"Kal-El!!! I challenge you to... Madden 10!!!"

[The Borgified Corpse]

While I agree a Superman movie should be about more than hitting things, I agree it's high time we started delving a little deeper into his rogues gallery. There's more than just Lex Luthor, you know.

The other problem the previous movies had is that they only really had 2 ideas for how to challenge Superman. They either used Kryptonite (Superman: The Movie, Superman III, Superman Returns) or they created a villain that had exactly the same powers as Superman (General Zod & co. in Superman II, the evil twin created from Kryptonite contaminated with tar in Superman III, Nuclear Man in Superman IV).

Regardless of what else happens in the new film, I hope that they bring back Brandon Routh. He was good and deserves a 2nd chance. I'd hate it if he became the Superman equivalent of George Lazenby.

Ceridwen wrote:

---

He wrote a draft of a screenplay about seven years ago, but it never got further than that. This was after Tim Burton's Superman Lives attempt, but I think before rumors of Superman/Batman began circulating.

Actually, the J.J. Abrams movie came after Batman vs. Superman. The way I heard it, Wolfgang Petersen was all set to direct Batman vs. Superman based on a script by Andrew Kevin Walker. Then, just when they were about to start production on it, Warner Bros. instead announced that Petersen's next movie would be Troy. Supposedly, the behind the scenes reason for this switch was because some Warner Bros. executives read the Abrams script & loved it. Thus, they felt that the Abrams script would be the best way to reintroduce Superman to the big screen. (Particularly since one of the criticisms of the Batman vs. Superman script was that it was basically a Batman movie that just happened to have Superman in it.)

However, one of the reviewers at AICN got ahold of the Abrams script and made a big stink about all of its big departures from the Superman mythos. (Krypton doesn't explode but is merely conquered by an evil warlord named Ty-Zor. Lex Luthor is an FBI agent. Lex Luthor is a Kryptonian.) Warner Bros. put the brakes on the Abrams' version, although I think at least some of it was used as the basis for the Superman film that McG & Brett Ratner were working on before Bryan Singer came along with his completely new concept to revive the Donner-verse.