David Goyer to write new "Superman" movie

Well, I love composers too (particularly James Horner)...but some themes define a property, or character, etc...

It's like someone else stepping in to do an Indiana Jones film, and creating an entirely new theme for the character....or someone coming in to to a Star Wars remake/reboot and creating an entirely new theme. (The same can be said with the James Bond theme, or Mission: Impossible theme).

It can be done--i.e. changing the theme--and the theme might be 'cool'....but it might not feel right....

With that said, I prefer the original Williams theme to carry on....

 

Somebody did write a new Indiana Jones theme (or themes?) for Young Indiana Jones, but they were never as iconic as Williams' original. Then again, I suppose that's key to Christopher's argument: Indiana Jones originated hand in hand with that iconic theme, while Superman didn't have the theme until more than forty years after the character was created (and several different film and television incarnations).

Still, I'd prefer to have Williams' theme included. As I said, it's iconic, and no matter when it was written it has become synonymous with the character. There's plenty of room in a film score for a new composer to innovate outside of the iconic Superman Theme.

 

The next film should really represent a break from the past, and this can be expressed in part by the use of an entirely new score.

I would also like the Fortress of Solitude to be redesigned. I don't mind the crystal walls, but I'd like the interior to be dramatically different, with large rooms, highly advanced equipment, artifacts and assorted souvenirs--as Superman is shown to have in the comic books. The "stuff" that Superman keeps in his fortress tells us about his interests and exploits as a superhero.

 

Yeah, but the idea that you can't use something unless it was there at the beginning is daft. If that's the case, we're gonna get a Superman movie in which he can't fly.

 

Smallville has used a varied version of the Williams Superman theme...it was first used in the episode "Rosetta" guest starring Christopher Reeve and I thought it was stunning. I also think it reappeared during season five "Solitude" when Clark combines the stones to create the Fortress of Solitude. Very subtle but also still impactfull.

I have long believed that Zooey Deschanel would make a terrific Lois Lane and Jon Hamm would be great as Lex Luthor.

 

I agree. People are talking about Williams' theme "defining" Superman, but to me, no one theme defines Superman in all his forms. Rather, each theme defines each particular adaptation. The Timberg theme defines the Fleischer Superman, the Klatzkin theme defines the George Reeves Superman, the Gruska theme defines the Lois & Clark Superman, the Walker theme defines the DCAU Superman, etc. To me, the Williams theme only defines the Christopher Reeve Superman.

And I want to see a cinematic Superman that's a clean break from those past movies, that establishes a new way of telling the story. The only reason some people say that the Donner/Reeve movies are definitive is that they haven't had any big-screen alternatives in over half a century. Ideas of what's definitive can change. For a long time, people thought of Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as the definitive Holmes and Watson even though their versions of the characters were profoundly inaccurate. Then the Jeremy Brett series came along and blew Rathbone out of the water because it was so very much better, and it became the definitive Holmes to a generation.

By the same token, I think there's got to be a way of telling a Superman story on the big screen that's better than the Reeve films. Maybe Bryan Singer could've found it if he hadn't hamstrung himself with excessive homage, if he'd put his effort into an original vision of Superman rather than just churning out a hugely expensive fanfic based on the Reeve movies. I want to see something new get tried, something that's a clean break from the old. There's no chance of getting a new definitive version if all we get are imitations of what's come before. Nostalgia and affection for an existing version of the story are valid feelings, but they aren't sufficient reasons to avoid trying new things, musically or otherwise.

Which I found at once refreshing and disappointing. Mark Snow's whiny atmospherics were so tedious and dull that it was refreshing to hear something with actual melody in a Smallville episode; yet it was disappointing that all Snow could do was imitate someone else's work rather than make his own contribution to the roster of Superman leitmotifs. I'm much happier with Louis Febre, the current Smallville composer, who does much more melodic work overall and has finally given Smallville its own distinct leitmotif for Clark as a hero, a nice 8-note phrase that's more subdued than other Superman themes but still evokes their flavor of heroic fanfare. Tom Welling's Clark is not the same character as Christopher Reeve's Superman, he doesn't occupy the same world, so it wouldn't be right for him to use the same musical signature. It's more fitting that he has his own.

I don't see that at all. Deschanel's roles are basically cute innocents. I couldn't buy her for a microsecond as a character as tough and driven as Lois Lane. The only way she could look remotely credible as Lois is in comparison to Kate Bosworth.

 

While I have no problem with the new movie being a break from the Singer one or the Donner/ Lester ones, I do think that the similarities between Singer's and Donner's takes are overstated.

Granted, you had Brando, the theme music, the Fortress of Solitude and a Superman who was channeling Reeve. Mind you, I actually think that Routh looks and sounds as much like a tall version of Tom Cruise as he does Chris Reeve. You also had a Luthor reminiscent of Hackman's, with a similar penchant for land grabs.

As against that, Singer went for muted colours and lighting, even down to the costume. I watched the Donner/ Lester movies and SR over Xmas and the difference in that regards was quite striking. Also, Donner's Metropolis was a recognisable New York of the 1970s, Singer's was a stylised art deco city. Bosworth's Lois Lane was nothing at all like Kidder's, ditto Frank Langella's and Jackie White's Perry Mason. The two Jimmy Olsens were similar but no more than say the Alfred on the 1960s Batman show and Michael Gough.

Even with the similar Lex Luthor, there was no Miss Tessmaker or Otis. And it's hard to imagine Hackman's version sticking a shiv in Superman with the same relish that Spacey did.

While I don't really read many comics any more I'm aware that the post-crisis Clark is much less bumbling and comical than the Reeve/ Routh version and that the retention of this take on the character annoyed many viewers. But I can understand why in a big screen movie they need to make them so evidently different. In a comic, you just have to draw them slightly differently, you just have to establish that people don't confuse them or see any similarity and you're off. In a movie, if Clark is a big strapping, handsome, confident jock of a guy, then it becomes well-nigh impossible to see how people don't see through the disguise.

For my money, Dean Cain's Clark and Superman were indistinguishable - Helen Keller could have told they were one and the same. With Reeve and Routh, you could accept that people maybe got suspicious but never really lingered on the notion that Clark was Supes. That big geek? Never! Maybe it was Cain's weakness as an actor but if you don't do something with Clark to make him radically different from Superman, then on a 40 foot screen, audiences are just going to sit wondering how no-one twigs to the 'secret identity.'

But I agree, a new take on Superman is needed. I often use the James Bond analogy with Superman movies but am going to do so again. Daniel Craig is a great James Bond but is nothing at all like Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan; Casino Royale is nothing like Goldfinger or Goldeneye. Perhaps its time to be as daring with the Superman franchise.

 

But that's just it. The problem was that it was trying to be two things at once, a continuation of a '70s franchise and a modern 2000s film. And so it didn't do a good job of being either. It was a film that was unsure of its own identity. That's why a clean break would've been better. If you're going to do it differently, then really do it differently. Don't weigh it down with a pile of homages and recycled music and art design and characterizations.

But there was a character who was the equivalent of Miss Teschmacher. True, Luthor and his allies were made a little less cartoony and more competent, but the film's approach to Luthor was still rooted in what came before. Again, an attempt to mix old and new that just came off as stuck in the middle.

But it doesn't follow that the only alternative is for Clark to be an absurdly overplayed klutz. Reeve was successful in differentiating Clark and Superman just by changing the way he stood, the way he looked at people. It was a marvelously subtle bit of character acting that just got swamped by all the over-the-top clumsiness. You could edit out the klutzy stuff and just hire an actor good enough to make the two men different from each other, even if they both come off as competent and effective in two different ways.

One thing that's always interested me about Tim Daly's performance in S:TAS is that it seems to me that his Clark voice is actually a bit deeper than his Superman voice, in contrast to what you'd expect. And maybe that's because Superman has to be friendlier, more accessible, brighter. Imagine a version where Clark is played as a very serious, driven, tough journalist while Superman is much more affable and warm. There are certainly alternatives to painting Clark as a bumbling caricature.

It's not as if anybody buys the secret identity thing anyway. It's like flight -- nobody believes it would work in reality, but they buy it as a conceit of the story. I don't think the size of the screen has anything to do with it.

 

I'm gonna ask this question in both this thread and the other thread, but do you guys think The Watchmen is an apt example of what a possible Nolen Bros/Goyer JLA movie would be like? but in that universe and maybe not overly stylized and violent in addition to being really adult themed. Because of the obvious toyline and other swag they have to sell with them.

 

I think "Watchmen" could very well be a template of how a Nolan Justice League of America movie could be like. I wonder who the villain/s could be for a JLA movie? I think the abandoned George Miller JLA film the team was supposed to up against Starro and a OMAC but I could be totally wrong about that. I remember reading in a script review that they would face an OMAC.

 

^^ Nah! I couldn't buy her as Lois.

Erica Durance ROCKS as Lois Lane. Hell, Erica Durance ROCKS period.

 

He's also my top pick.

 

I really look like him and I would do the job for nothing....seriously...

 

As long as Christopher Nolan is involved and Barndon Routh or just about anyone from the last SuperFailure is NOT involved including hollywood pip squeak Singer Im happy that it will all be handled properly...

 

I dunno about Nolan's involvement, to be honest. Superman needs to be as far removed from Batman as you can get. I can't imagine giant robots and crazy super shit in Nolan's Superman.

 

I think Nolan and Singer's styles are very similar.

 

Damn

 

I'd certainly like to see a return to the social-crusading reporter Clark Kent from the 1940s daily newspaper strips (and, to a certain extant, in the comic books of that era). In the strips, Clark is a very aggressive journalist who doesn't let hoodlums or his editor--George Taylor-cum-Perry White--get in much of his way. It's only around Lois that Clark becomes a milquetoast, which at times puzzles Taylor.

Moreover, I want Clark to be shown as a capable journalist and not the office buffoon of the Reeve movies. However, even if Clark is made into a "tough, hard-noised reporter", he shouldn't completely lose that earnestness that Reeve infused in the role. Perhaps Clark can be an able journalist, an advocate for the citizens of Metropolis and an adversary to those who would exploit those same citizens, who is somewhat aloof and withdrawn around Lois instead of a "bumbling klutz". But still earnest and sincere, and, perhaps, his aloofness being misinterpreted, at times, as awkward shyness. Certainly, he should remain an even-keeled person, dare I say, mild-mannered but like George Reeves's Kent won't be pushed around when it comes to getting answers.

Clark should also be used to get as far in the story where only Superman can take care of things. Kinda like the old Reeves show and Lois and Clark. After all, Clark as a journalist can get into places and to people that he never can as Superman, which is something sorely missing in the film adaptations.

Yet at the same time I want Clark and Lois to be believable journalists not "Hollywood" cliche reporters who don't take notes and say things like "my readers want to know." Have them really do some investigative journalism, digging for documents and sources, then asking directed questions of government and business officials (Lex anybody?). Have them use a soft touch in combination with an iron glove instead of coming out like rabid bulldogs (as so many Hollywood movies portray reporters). Oh and for the love of God, don't put them in silly disguises to infiltrate some sleezy mob operation or nightclub or whatever.

Same with the newsroom. Let it look and feel like a major city bullpen, not some overly stylized Hollywood production of one. As much as I love the 1940s Art Deco look, let's bring things up-to-date. Let's show a paper losing readership, publishing management turning screws, and an editorial department struggling to cover the city with an ever shrinking staff.

If Superman is to be cast in the same mold--black hair, blue eyes, light skin--then I'd open casting to different ethnicities for the supporting cast. I think the Daily Planet could use a more mutli-ethnic newsroom. Imagine a black actress in the role of Lois Lane. Or maybe an Asian actress. Or a Hispanic Perry White. Hell, I thought casting Dean Cain as Supes/Kent--acting talents aside--was a ballsy move on the part of Deborah Joy LeVine and I applaud her for it.

 

I agree! I think she looks GREAT!