Jon Hamm for Kingdom Come! or Lex in The Man of Steel.
David Goyer to write new "Superman" movie
- Thread starter JacksonArcher
- Start date
They say they're dropping the origin bit and we're jumping right into the Superman world. I think a seasoned Superman would be great.
But ofcourse he's supposed to age slowly.
Jon Hamm could be Luthor but not Superman.
Especially since he already played Luthor in that comedy bit . . . .
Unless they're gonna do [yet another] origin tale, a 40something for Superman would rock.
I thought he integrated them fairly well, but personally I think Ottman's original themes were the strongest music in the movie. They really communicated a sense of loss and longing, and were really beautifully done.
As much as I love Williams' main theme, I'm not sure it really fit the tone and style of the movie. It was fun to hear again, of course, but it just felt a little too happy and upbeat somehow. It was meant for a very different kind of Superman movie than SR.
But those were all one-time things. Indeed, did the Barry Nelson Casino Royale even have a "Bond theme?" Doubtful; it probably just had general act-in and act-out cues and maybe some suspense music and source music here and there. So the Dr. No theme was the original James Bond theme and has been in use ever since with only very rare exceptions. Out of 25 live-action film and TV productions featuring the Bond character, 88% have used the familiar theme. That's a far greater percentage of the whole than the Williams Superman theme, which has only been used in five films, versus hundreds of television episodes, movie serial chapters, and the like. The Williams Superman theme isn't anywhere near as pervasive as the Bond theme.
Those are just variations on the same theme, not separate compositions. Even with a different arrangement, Norman still gets credit and royalties for its use. John Williams doesn't get royalties for a use of the Superman themes by Ron Jones, Jay Gruska, or Shirley Walker, let alone Timberg or Klatzkin. So it's not the same thing at all.
Only by default, because there's been no live-action cinematic Superman film since the 1950s that wasn't part of a single continuity. Danny Elfman's Batman theme is probably the best known one, but that didn't stop the later movies or B:TAS from creating their own themes (and Shirley Walker's Batman theme is tons better than Elfman's). Just because something's well-known doesn't mean it should be obligatory, that nobody should be allowed to create something new.
At least they could do what various Star Trek composers have done -- incorporate nods to the famous theme in the titles and the occasional iconic moment, but otherwise use an original score. Indeed, that's what Ron Jones did in the '88 animated Superman series. His main title theme for the show started out quoting Williams' theme but then segued smoothly into a similar but original Jones theme, and the actual episode scores used Jones' theme exclusively (presumably so they wouldn't have to pay Williams as much in royalties).
I suggested Billy for Lex last time round. He'd probably be even better now that he has a few years on him.
And just because you can create something new doesn't mean you always have to.
What you suggest in the final paragraph would be ideal. I'm not in favour of simply re-using the scores to Superman 1 & 2 (IIRC, Williams didn't do 3 or 4) and obviously you'll need original music for any new movie. But like I say, the Williams theme from Superman: The Movie is iconic and now indelibly associated with the character. I think it would be a shame not to use it again, just for the sake of something new.
The likes of the animated show, Lois and Clark, Superboy and Smallville (which has used the Williams theme on occasion) have been seen by a fraction of those who have seen the Reeve movies.You may as well say that because the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had original music that they shouldn't have had the Raiders theme for KOTCS - how many people saw YIJC compared to the original movies?
Nor am I saying that you shouldn't be allowed to write new music - but why write a new theme for the sake of it? No doubt they could have written a great new theme for the Star Wars prequels, but would it have been the same sitting in the cinema, watching 'A Long Time Ago ...', then hearing some brand new composition? I doubt it ... Some things just go so well together; if it ain't broke, why fix it?
I like the Elfman score for Batman (one of the few movie scores I own and the only way where the Burton movie tops the Nolan ones, for my money) but I don't think it ever had the same recognition factor that Williams Superman theme did. I thought Shirley Jones theme borrowed heavily from it anyway.
That analogy doesn't work because KOTCS was part of the same continuity as the previous Indy productions. This new Superman movie will be in a separate continuity, so I think it should differentiate itself, establish itself clearly as a distinct entity. I wouldn't have wanted Batman Begins to use the Danny Elfman or Shirley Walker themes (though I didn't care for the music it did have).
By that logic, Williams should've just reused Timberg's or Klatzkin's theme. Why the hell NOT write a new theme? There's a whole long tradition of terrific Superman themes by many composers. Williams' theme only exists because there was no mandate to use a single Superman theme for everything.
Although of course Williams' theme was a loving homage to the work of Timberg and Klatzkin. It only sounds the way it does because he was emulating their work. That's how Superman themes work -- there's not just one melody, but a whole series of fresh approaches to the same basic sound. It's a whole musical subgenre, and I see no reason to stifle its further expansion. Williams' influence lives on in the themes that have followed him, just as Timberg's and Klatzkin's influence lived on in his. So it isn't necessary to copy him directly in order to pay tribute to his work.
Again, that's an invalid analogy, because Star Wars is all one continuity (allegedly). This is a complete reboot, a separate interpretation of Superman.
I loved the film's Luthor theme-- just as Williams's Superman theme can be summoned into my head when I read a Superman comic, Ottman's Luthor theme pops up whenever Luthor does.
I think Superman needs to appear a bit older and more distinguished. Christopher Reeve had that look at relatively young age. Brandon Routh, on the other hand, will always look like a young poseur in the Superman role (even when he's in his late thirties and forties).
Superman is an inspiration to other superheroes. He has to have a "that guy looks like he could be a General" vibe.
Superman is an inspiration to other superheroes. He has to have a "that guy looks like he could be a General" vibe.
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
Everything about the Donner film worship is getting old.
It might shock geeks, but most of the general public doesn't think of Superman the Movie as the end-all-be-all Godfather-esque high watermark of cinema. It's a movie that older audiences remember fondly. That's it. It was over 30 years ago. It was a good movie for its time but half of it is just goofy and dated.
Most of the younger generation... you know, one of the core audiences for superhero movies... hasn't even SEEN the movie. Someone above said that the amount of people seeing Smallville, TAS, JLA, Lois&Clark, etc wasn't even a fraction of the people who saw the Reeve movies.... but I guarantee you if you could do a magical survey of people 25 and under, more people will have seen the "other" more modern Superman properties (combined) than have seen the Donner movie. Movies like Spider-Man or Dark Knight are the defining superhero movies of their lives. Making 'Returns' a throwback to the Donner films was a terrible decision. THAT should have been the ground-up new tone reboot a la Begins or Spider-Man.
Especially now that we *seem* to have an A-class creative team assigned to the movies (The two Nolans and Goyer) in both writing and directing capacities... frankly, we can trust them to not produce something moronic. It may be great it may not be, but those guys won't produce something horrifically campy or just stupid. We can let go of last remaining links to the Donner films.
I'm all for a new direction, but personally I don't know how SR could have been any MORE different in tone and style than the Donner films.
STM was bright and cheerful and comic booky, while SR was somber and melancholy and poetic.
Despite a few homages and familiar story points, I thought Singer reimagined more than enough stuff to make it feel new and different.
Agreed. Plus, a lot of people who I saw it with had no idea it was a sequel to the Donner continuity since they had not even seen the original Superman in the first place.