Superman (casting, rumors, pix till release)

[DarKush]

I think the origin could easily be done in the opening credits. One thing about Superman is that he's almost universally known. Almost everyone on Earth knows his origin. That could quickly be wrapped up at the beginning, hopefully to John Williams score.

And then just get on with it, perhaps his first appearance in Metropolis. I thought Birthright covered this pretty well. As did JMS's Earth One. I wouldn't mind a combination of the two for the new film. Wasn't too big on Johns's Secret Origin though. His Brainiac miniseries did kick ass though.

Rather than a straight up origin flick that covers his arrival and life in Smallville, I wouldn't mind a modified or truncated origin that begins with his arrival in Metropolis, so that it can establish this film's takes on Clark, Lois, Perry, Jimmy, Lex, etc.

[Admiral_Young]

I too think the origin could be touched on during the opening credits. Kind of similar to "Superman Returns". "All-Star Superman" I think did the best quicky origin in one or two panels. Could do it as a voice over from Clark.

[Captaindemotion]

I've just always been of the view that they should take it for granted that between Smallville, Superman: The Movie, Lois and Clark and Superman Returns, everyone knows the basic gist of Superman's origins. Just start off with an established Superman in Metropolis and go from there. The Goldeneye, rather than Casino Royale, approach.

[DarthPipes]

I have no issue with an origin story if its a character that never been in the movies before. But anything more than once is a complete waste.

I know that Superman's villains aren't that impressive past Lex but the films need to move on from Lex.

[flemm]

I have little doubt that the movie will tell the origin story, though doubtless in a very different way from the first Superman film, probably with more emphasis on Krypton before the fall.

Assuming that the audience already knows and cares about the character is a fatal mistake that I'm confident will not be made again with Superman. That is one mistake among many that was made with Superman Returns and also with The Incredible Hulk, I might add, though that was a better movie in other respects.

This film will probably take a Batman Begins/Casino Royale/Trek '09 approach and re-introduce the character in a way that says: you think you know this character's origin and what he is all about, but really you don't, here is the story as it has never been told before, etc., etc. Standard issue for reviving a franchise in Hollywood these days, but that is because it works. Assuming that audiences know and understand the property already is tantamount to giving people a reason not to bother paying money to see the film.

As for Luthor, he might appear briefly towards the end of the first film, but I would look for him to be the main antagonist in the second film, like the Joker in TDK. Zod/Brainiac in the first film as part of the Kryptonian emphasis, Luthor in the second film which has Superman firmly established on earth, and then, Doomsday in the third film, which would feature the death of Superman and could really be an epic way to end the trilogy.

There are basically three stories to tell about any superhero: origin/taking up the mantle, struggle against the main antagonist, death/giving up the mantle.

[Christopher]

flemm wrote:

---

I have little doubt that the movie will tell the origin story, though doubtless in a very different way from the first Superman film, probably with more emphasis on Krypton before the fall.

That could be good. I wouldn't mind seeing a whole film about Jor-El and Krypton. Do it as a disaster movie. True, it has kind of a downer ending, but you could end it on a ray of hope as baby Kal-El's capsule is found by the Kents, along with an archive of Kryptonian knowledge preserving the memory of their civilization (and maybe borrow the S:TM/Smallville concept of Jor-El's consciousness surviving as a disembodied mentor program, so there's a sense that the hero survived after all). Then the sequel would be a Superman movie.

Assuming that the audience already knows and cares about the character is a fatal mistake that I'm confident will not be made again with Superman. That is one mistake among many that was made with Superman Returns and also with The Incredible Hulk, I might add, though that was a better movie in other respects.

On the other hand, there are a lot of movies about entirely original characters that aren't origin stories. James Bond didn't get an origin story until Daniel Craig took over the role. Star Trek: TOS didn't get an origin story (outside of novels and comics) until 2009. The Incredibles never gave us an origin for Mr. Incredible or Elasti-girl, though the film could be considered an origin story for the Incredibles as a family/team. Showing a character's beginnings isn't the only way to introduce the character to an audience. Often, showing them in action, already established and doing what defines them, is a good introduction.

One good approach is to introduce an already-established character or organization through the viewpoint of an audience surrogate who learns about it along the way. X-Men did that, not just in the movie (with Wolverine and Rogue) but in most of its animated adaptations (with Kitty Pryde in the '80s pilot, Jubilee in the '90s series premiere, and Nightcrawler in the X-Men: Evolution series premiere). Men in Black did that. Doctor Who did that twice -- each of its incarnations, the one that began in '63 and the one that began in '04, started from the perspective of a human character or characters who stumbled upon the Doctor and the TARDIS and learned about them as they went.

I wonder if that approach could work for Superman. Imagine a movie told from the perspective of Lois Lane. Suddenly this mysterious superpowered hero shows up in Metropolis, she tries to investigate, but this new hick reporter Clark Kent keeps getting the scoop on her. What does he know that she doesn't? That way you get to introduce and explain the character to a new audience, but in a way that isn't just an origin rehash.

This film will probably take a Batman Begins/Casino Royale/Trek '09 approach and re-introduce the character in a way that says: you think you know this character's origin and what he is all about, but really you don't, here is the story as it has never been told before, etc., etc. Standard issue for reviving a franchise in Hollywood these days, but that is because it works.

That's a fair point. Studios are very conservative about their megabudget tentpoles, and would rather go with tried-and-true formulas than experimental alternative approaches.

[Greg Cox]

Christopher wrote:

---

One good approach is to introduce an already-established character or organization through the viewpoint of an audience surrogate who learns about it along the way. X-Men did that, not just in the movie (with Wolverine and Rogue) but in most of its animated adaptations (with Kitty Pryde in the '80s pilot, Jubilee in the '90s series premiere, and Nightcrawler in the X-Men: Evolution series premiere). Men in Black did that. Doctor Who did that twice -- each of its incarnations, the one that began in '63 and the one that began in '04, started from the perspective of a human character or characters who stumbled upon the Doctor and the TARDIS and learned about them as they went.

.

Ditto for HELLBOY and even, in a way, Tim Burton's BATMAN, which had Vicki Vale figuring out Batman's origin after the fact.

And WAREHOUSE 13, come to think of it.

[Captain Craig]

Any origin sequence should be done ala The Incredible Hulk(Ed Norton) or something like the montage scene of time passing in The Watchmen.

No one needs a 30-40 min origin scene of Krypton exploding, growing up in Smallville then off to Metropolis.

I'm sure come the second Spidey reboot or next Batman reboot we'll all be saying the same thing about their origin sequences. Those are the next two most widely known and are really getting the screen time the past 20yrs. They have really grown past just the animated route of popularity.

[Captaindemotion]

I think it's a little ironic that people are saying 'Oh, this movie will be influenced by Batman Begins, not Superman The Movie', given that Nolan and Goyer were very clear at the time of BB that they wanted to make a Batman movie in the vein of Richard Donner's Superman movie...

[DarthPipes]

Who wants to see a movie about Krypton being destroyed? The amount of time spent on it in the first Superman film was more than enough. Not even close to enough people are going to want to go see a Superman movie where a bunch of intellectual aliens are waiting around for Krypton to be destroyed.

Smallville was far from perfect but they spent enough time on Clark growing up there.

Just give us a movie where Superman actually has to fight someone, not Superman Returns Redux. And make it someone other than Lex. The fact they have to keep redoing the origin story is proof of how no one can make a good Superman movie.

Batman Begins and Casino Royale were different since there hadn't been an origin story for either character. Batman has an incredible rogues gallery but he is really the most interesting and complicated character in the Batman stories. Only the Joker is as interesting as Batman.

[Admiral_Young]

I don't remember them saying that at all, got a link? . People are speculating it will be structured like "Batman Begins" because that was the template that Goyer and Nolan used to tell Bruce's origin. I think the whole point of this is to get separation from the DonnerVerse. Not to copy it.

[flemm]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

I think it's a little ironic that people are saying 'Oh, this movie will be influenced by Batman Begins, not Superman The Movie', given that Nolan and Goyer were very clear at the time of BB that they wanted to make a Batman movie in the vein of Richard Donner's Superman movie...

Well, I expect it will be in the vein of the Donner film in the sense that it will be an origin story that attempts to capture the sense of wonder that the character should, in theory, inspire. But, like Batman Begins, it will tell an updated version of the origin story, the untold story that we have never really seen before, blablabla. That's how Batman Begins was marketed, though the movie was basically the traditional origin story with a few updates, alterations and a bit more of a gritty tone.

I'm not much of a fan of BB, and I'm not as crazy about TDK as many people are, but it's hard for me to believe that the Superman reboot won't try to follow the same basic pattern: revamped origin story, followed by a film featuring the most iconic adversary.

Christopher, some very interesting ideas there, and I'm sure many of them could produce excellent stories. I particularly like the idea of a film focusing on Lois Lane's perspective, however I would bank on a more traditional origin story from this particular film.

By the way, when I say that there will perhaps be a bit more of a Kryptonian emphasis, I'm not suggesting that the film will be mostly about what happens on Krypton (potentially interesting, speaking in absolute terms, but not likely for this type of movie), but rather that I wouldn't be surprised to see the Kryptonian aspect developed a bit more than in the Donner film, for a variety of reasons, one being that the villains in the first film will probably be from there.

Zod makes sense because, yeah, that's somebody for Supes to fight. One possibility would be a sort of fusion of the origin story with a "Zod comes to earth and tries to take over" story.

[DarthPipes]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

I don't remember them saying that at all, got a link? . People are speculating it will be structured like "Batman Begins" because that was the template that Goyer and Nolan used to tell Bruce's origin. I think the whole point of this is to get separation from the DonnerVerse. Not to copy it.

I didn't say they were going to do any of the Krypton stuff. I just find the idea of speing more time on them to be a waste.

Batman Begins is a good template but I don't think we need another Superman origin story or a dark mood. Superman is supposed to represenet hope, not the jaded cynicism that is all over the entertainment industry nowadays.

[Admiral_Young]

If anyone read the "New Krypton" story arc Geoff Johns kicked off his run on Action Comics with Richard Donner where they basically used the Krypton from Donner's films. Right down to the Council. Krypton was fleshed out and given a culture, incorporating elements from right back to the Silver Age. They even gave a reason for why Non was a mindless brute (The Council had performed a lobotomy to shut him up) he was also Jor-El's mentor and first brought to attention Krypton's pending doom to him.

As I've said before if we revisit Krypton at all in the movie I believe we will get elements of what from the comics. "Superman Secret Origin" focused on Clark Kent's youth for instance rather than retell the Krypton stuff. It was reported a couple months ago the script contained Clark traveling to Africa which of course is from "Superman Birthright". So yeah there are many different ways they could feature Krypton and that part of the origin. We're just gonna have to wait and see what the plot actually is and I doubt we'll get any solid factual information for a few months.

@Darth Pipes my last response was directed towards captaindemotion not you. You just happened to post a second before I did.

[DarthPipes]

Ah. My bad then.