• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

David Goyer to write new "Superman" movie

And keep in mind that in feature films, scriptwriters aren't treated as idea generators, but as hired contractors whose job is to carry out the ideas of the director and/or executives.
Not always. I read an article about Chinatown screenwriter Robert Towne. He and Roman Polanski (the film's director) worked together on the script for weeks, trading ideas, taking sheets of paper containing scenes and thumbtacking them to the wall, working out the structure and constantly changing dialogue. It sounded like a truly collaborative and creative process. So no, in this case the writer wasn't just carrying out the director's wishes.
 
Well, more fuel for the fire: Apparently Thomas Tull is downplaying things, and not only is David Goyer confirmed to write The Man of Steel, but he will be joined by The Dark Knight scribe Jonathan Nolan, who will be co-writing! Christopher Nolan is only expected to be an executive producer at this time. This is pretty incredible!
Wowza! :cool:
 
All this talk about the Superman copyright is kinda silly... I mean seriously what are the Siegels and Schusters going to do? Sell the license to Marvel? Image? IDW? ARCHIE!?! They make no money unless there's something done with the character. I mean Stan Lee never said "Hey I want to keep the rights to Spider-Man after all. Maybe I might want to have DC do Spidey if I don't like what you're doing. Making a deal with the devil... poppy cock!"

That's not the issue. As I understand it, the Siegel and Shuster estates won't be getting exclusive rights to Superman -- DC simply has to share them (although that's simplifying). That means that if WB makes a Superman movie after the new rights take effect, they and DC will have to split the profits with the S&S heirs, and will make less money for themselves as a result. If they make the movie before the rights change, then they get to keep more of the profits.
 
What will make or break this movie, at least for me, is how they handle the Clark/Superman dynamic.

"Clark is who I am, Superman is just what I do" is often cited as shorthand for the Byrne approach to Superman. While I think this could be an interesting jumping-off point for the writers and the actor who will play Superman in the movie, I hope they don't take that mantra too literally. Looking at George Reeves' and Dean Cain's performances as exemplars of this way of thinking, I hope they avoid the pitfall of doing little to nothing in way of differentiating the personalities of Clark and Superman. That's not to say that it must devolve to the worst slapstick of the 50s and 60s comics, but playing Superman as nothing more than a costume and Kent as nothing more than a pair of glasses takes it too far the other way. I hope to see Superman and Clark as fully fleshed out yet distinct personalities, and I think much of the film's success will primarily hinge on how Clark/Superman is portrayed and flowing from that, how his relationships with others is handled.
 
Now, as much as I liked Reeves, hire an adult chiseled-jaw actor who looks like an acts like Superman instead of looking like a pretty boy playing dress-up.

What do you mean? George Reeves was "an adult chiseled-jaw actor who looks like an acts like Superman," and he was far from a pretty boy playing dress-up; in fact, I wouldn't describe George Reeves as "pretty" at all. :confused:
 
I think he was talking Christopher Reeve... but I would still have to disagree. When Byrne did his reboot, he basically all but modelled his Superman on Christopher Reeve's Superman. Although with a far bulkier physique.

I do hope they go more of a Lois and Clark route with the next Superman whereas Clark is less inept, 'nerdy' and bumbling. I know the Silver Age sorta did that partially because there was always some dizzy dame like Lois or Lana nipping at both of their heels and kept trying to put two and two together. So Clark HAD to be a bit of a bumbler because after all "Superman would never spill hot coffee on Lois's lap!"

Now, in many ways Routh did look a LOT like Reeve, BUT I agree though about Routh being a "pretty boy playing dress up". I think part of it had to do with them basically telling him to just "stand there and look godly" which in turn made Superman almost like some kind of Adonis or something. Women and gay men probably liked it, but... still other than a few moments, I didn't feel like I was watching Superman. Routh's Superman didn't have the same cool relaxed strength that say a more Bryne era Superman would have had. Lois and Clark, for as much as people bitch, did get a number of the concepts and execution right. Clark used his powers for mundane things too. Heating up a pot of water, using his fingers to drive nails into the wall, use his flight abilities to compensate for not having a bed, flew from one end of the country/globe to get something in a blink of an eye. He had fun with his abilities when he wasn't saving the world, he was still responsible with them, but he didn't turn into a complete bumbling nerd that dresses in plaid when he didn't have his blues and reds on.

I think they need to hire someone who's got a fairly strong physique, someone who looks sort of like a football player - in the Byrne continuity he was the "Star quarterback" so yeah a guy who was a quarterback and an athlete should have some measure of meat on his bones. Superman is NOT a frakking towel boy! Secondly, I think if they pick up the story later on, I have nothing against a Superman that IS NOT in his 20s. As cute as the Superman Returns Lois was, she was far far far far far too young. I mean my gosh, she was like 25 in that movie! So what she fucked Supes when she was out of high school? I mean sure that may work for Smallville, but let's get honest here. And if she was "playing 30" she really really didn't look it.

You don't need a "kid" in the role just because he's a "hot property" or because you're going after the squealing teen girl demographic. Look at RDJr, he's what? In his 40s now. But he was enough to get many a lassie moist in the skirt area. I've heard teenager girls all the way up to their moms and older get hot over him. And I would hardly call him a "teen hearthrob" but that's the magic of finding the right actor, at the right age, with the right amount of charisma and masculinity - which frankly sometimes you just don't get in a 20 something actor. I want SuperMAN not SuperBOY. If we were doing a Superboy movie, then Routh would have been great. But not as SuperMAN.
 
Maybe Trekker4747 was referring to Routh?

George Reeves certainly did "look and act like Superman"---what is problematic when looking at his performance from a modern perspective (not fair, I know), is that he did nothing to differentiate Clark Kent from Superman through his acting: his Kent was nothing more than Superman wearing glasses. This was fine when I was four-years-old and thrilled to his adventures every afternoon, long before Christopher Reeve even thought about donning the cape. It even still works for me when I watch the old series through the lens of my childhood, though I really wouldn't want to see a serious, modern adaptation take that approach.

Oh, and Nick: having Clark grow up as the jock quarterback who dated the head cheerleader and had a perfect life REALLY misses the charm and elegance of the dynamic set up by Siegel and Shuster from day one. I hope the progress DC has made in moving away from Byrne's take on the Clark/Superman dynamic (or lack thereof) will not be wrongheadedly rolled back by the new movie.
 
What will make or break this movie, at least for me, is how they handle the Clark/Superman dynamic.

"Clark is who I am, Superman is just what I do" is often cited as shorthand for the Byrne approach to Superman. While I think this could be an interesting jumping-off point for the writers and the actor who will play Superman in the movie, I hope they don't take that mantra too literally. Looking at George Reeves' and Dean Cain's performances as exemplars of this way of thinking, I hope they avoid the pitfall of doing little to nothing in way of differentiating the personalities of Clark and Superman. That's not to say that it must devolve to the worst slapstick of the 50s and 60s comics, but playing Superman as nothing more than a costume and Kent as nothing more than a pair of glasses takes it too far the other way. I hope to see Superman and Clark as fully fleshed out yet distinct personalities, and I think much of the film's success will primarily hinge on how Clark/Superman is portrayed and flowing from that, how his relationships with others is handled.

I think Routh actually found a nice balance with that. His Clark was still fairly nerdy, but he wasn't the outright, cartoonish dork that Reeve's Clark was in the original movies.

His was a much more believable character, I thought.
 
Yeah, Dave, I thought Routh struck a good balance--too bad he won't get a chance to build on what he did.
We don't know for certain that Routh won't be back. That decision should be delayed until the director (whoever it is) can discuss the matter with the studio.
 
Last edited:
Secondly, I think if they pick up the story later on, I have nothing against a Superman that IS NOT in his 20s. As cute as the Superman Returns Lois was, she was far far far far far too young. I mean my gosh, she was like 25 in that movie! So what she fucked Supes when she was out of high school? I mean sure that may work for Smallville, but let's get honest here. And if she was "playing 30" she really really didn't look it.

Not to delve back into this too much... but I still don't see a problem there. Those to me were idealized versions of the characters we were looking at, in an idealized comic book world.

It's not All The President's Men we were watching there, that took place in some gritty real world environment.

Oh, and Nick: having Clark grow up as the jock quarterback who dated the head cheerleader and had a perfect life REALLY misses the charm and elegance of the dynamic set up by Siegel and Shuster from day one. I hope the progress DC has made in moving away from Byrne's take on the Clark/Superman dynamic (or lack thereof) will not be wrongheadedly rolled back by the new movie.

Agreed. There's a reason Superman has always been regarded as the "ultimate geek fantasy." You've got the nerdy, mild-mannered loser in glasses who's secretly the strongest, most powerful man on Earth.

I think it would be a shame to lose that. As charming as Lois and Clark was, it always seemed a bit off to me that Clark would go from being this really cool guy in the office... to being another cool guy in a Superman suit. lol
 
Now, in many ways Routh did look a LOT like Reeve...

I don't see any resemblance. He reminds me more of Leonard Nimoy or Zachary Quinto. He might've made a decent Spock (except for the unpleasantly nasal voice), but I've never been able to buy him as Superman.



I think they need to hire someone who's got a fairly strong physique, someone who looks sort of like a football player...

Is that really logical, though? I mean, how often does Superman actually need to exert more than a tiny fraction of his muscles' potential? How would he stay so muscular with so little effort? Sure, I understand the visual symbolism involved, the desire for the embodiment of strength to look like we expect a strong person to look, but it seems to me that, logically, Superman should be fairly slim.


Not to delve back into this too much... but I still don't see a problem there. Those to me were idealized versions of the characters we were looking at, in an idealized comic book world.

But how does someone as young and soft-spoken as Kate Bosworth represent the ideal Lois Lane? The exaggerated ideal of Lois Lane would be superhumanly tough, intimidating, loudmouthed, intense, and passionate. She'd be beautiful, sure, but in a way that suggests strength, intensity, and worldliness, not the fragile china-doll perfection of Bosworth. Kate Bosworth's about as far from the ideal Lois as you can get.
 
All these types of threads reinforce to me is how truly different everyone sees this character. There is this myth that there are all these different interpretations of Batman but Superman can and should be done one particular way.
 
^That's exactly why I thought it was a mistake for Bryan Singer to try to copy what Richard Donner did, and why I'm glad Goyer/Nolan/whoever are going to bring a different interpretation of Superman to the screen. Superman is part of our modern mythology, and myths should be retold and reinterpreted. Besides, television has brought us a variety of interestingly different takes on the Man of Steel; it's high time the movies started mixing it up a little rather than copying something three decades old.
 
But how does someone as young and soft-spoken as Kate Bosworth represent the ideal Lois Lane? The exaggerated ideal of Lois Lane would be superhumanly tough, intimidating, loudmouthed, intense, and passionate. She'd be beautiful, sure, but in a way that suggests strength, intensity, and worldliness, not the fragile china-doll perfection of Bosworth. Kate Bosworth's about as far from the ideal Lois as you can get.

You're describing more the modern comic book Lois. I think Singer was going more for the original 1940s Lois, who was a bit softer and more feminine than she is now.

I've said it before, but to me Bosworth's Lois is almost the spitting image of the Fleischer Lois. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a big influence in her casting.

In any case, despite her fragile looks Bosworth still struck me as a pretty tough, no-nonsense reporter.
 
All these types of threads reinforce to me is how truly different everyone sees this character. There is this myth that there are all these different interpretations of Batman but Superman can and should be done one particular way.

Agreed. I like the traditional comic book Superman as much as everyone else, but I think other interpretations (such as Singer's) are completely legitimate too. There's more than one way to look at this character.
 
We don't know for certain that Routh won't be back. That decision should be delayed until the director (whoever it is) can discuss the matter with the studio.
I think it's a 99% likelihood that he won't be back.
I wouldn't call Routh's dismissal a mathematical near-certainty. What would we base this on? But I can see that the buzz is not favoring him at the moment. I hope that the studio can still see him as a glass half-full. It isn't that easy to find actors who can play Superman.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top