Is it time to leave the Donner-verse behind?

[Captaindemotion]

The John Williams theme is at this stage as closely identified with Supes as Monty Norman's James Bond theme is with 007. Casino Royale may have been a reboot, rather than a sequel to the Connery - Brosnan movies but there was no question of it not being used (albeit only in the end). I think if a Superman movie didn't use it, it would be sorely missed. Sure, you could make a movie without it, but I'm not sure that the opening of the movie would deliver quite the same buzz as before.

The subject of the thread is somewhat academic, at any rate, IMHO. It's very clear that WB have left the Donner-verse behind, insofar as they have any plans for any more Superman movies. There are no plans for a sequel to SR and any new movie is expected to be a new take on the mythos - doing a Batman Begins, I suppose. It's possible that Routh may return (personally, I think he should) but that's looking less likely.

I've said it before, I'll say it again - a new Superman movie doesn't need to be a complete reboot or origin story. It could as well use the Goldeneye format as the Casino Royale one. All you need to know is that Superman is the super-powered guardian of Metropolis, that his alter-ego is Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for the Daily Planet and that he had an on-off relationship with Lois Lane. Audiences know all this anyway, and even if they don't, they can figure it out as they go along. How much of Bond's background had to be spelled out in Goldeneye? Did we need to hear all about his murdered wife Tracy, his being an orphan, the time he fought Goldfinger etc?

Superman's origins are well known and I think rather than spending another hour of a movie re-telling them, we just go straight to the present day and get stuck into the action.

 

[QuasarVM]

The John Williams theme is at this stage as closely identified with Supes as Monty Norman's James Bond theme is with 007. Casino Royale may have been a reboot, rather than a sequel to the Connery - Brosnan movies but there was no question of it not being used (albeit only in the end). I think if a Superman movie didn't use it, it would be sorely missed. Sure, you could make a movie without it, but I'm not sure that the opening of the movie would deliver quite the same buzz as before.

The subject of the thread is somewhat academic, at any rate, IMHO. It's very clear that WB have left the Donner-verse behind, insofar as they have any plans for any more Superman movies. There are no plans for a sequel to SR and any new movie is expected to be a new take on the mythos - doing a Batman Begins, I suppose. It's possible that Routh may return (personally, I think he should) but that's looking less likely.

I've said it before, I'll say it again - a new Superman movie doesn't need to be a complete reboot or origin story. It could as well use the Goldeneye format as the Casino Royale one. All you need to know is that Superman is the super-powered guardian of Metropolis, that his alter-ego is Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for the Daily Planet and that he had an on-off relationship with Lois Lane. Audiences know all this anyway, and even if they don't, they can figure it out as they go along. How much of Bond's background had to be spelled out in Goldeneye? Did we need to hear all about his murdered wife Tracy, his being an orphan, the time he fought Goldfinger etc?

Superman's origins are well known and I think rather than spending another hour of a movie re-telling them, we just go straight to the present day and get stuck into the action.

Excellent post on all counts!

I also agree that the crystal Fortress and technology should stay -- for the reasons given above that John Barry's design is now part of Superman overall -- comics, TV and movies.

 

[davejames]

I like Singer, but I just don't think he was "right" for Superman. Superman isn't supposed to be dour, morose and emotional. He's supposed to be lively, bright, and energetic.

And that's not to say to take out any "seriousness" or emotion from it, but Superman all emotional over the loss of Lois, stalking her, and flying around all emo about losing her? That's not Superman.

While Routh's Supes certainly wasn't the cheeriest guy ever, I didn't see him as all THAT dour or morose. There were moments where he was clearly a bit sad or hurt, but for the most part he seemed to have this kind of calmness and serenity about him. Which I thought was kind of cool.

I'm not saying this is my ideal version of the character (that would probably be the charming and tough George Reeve's Supes), but I still thought this was an interesting and worthwhile interpretation.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

The John Williams theme is just a very good pastiche of the original Superman theme by Sammy Timberg (for the Fleischer cartoons) and the television theme by Leon Klatzkin. And it's just one of many Superman fanfares in the same tradition, including themes by Ron Jones (the 1988 Ruby-Spears cartoon), Kevin Kiner (the '88 Superboy series), Jay Gruska (Lois & Clark, one of my favorite Superman themes), Shirley Walker (Superman: TAS), and now Louis Febre (Smallville). Personally, I would've preferred it if Bryan Singer had let John Ottman compose his own version of a Superman theme -- continuing in the same style as all his predecessors but making his own fresh contribution to the tradition. To me, the iconic Superman musical sound is not any single piece of music, but the whole subgenre of themes, each one paying tribute to the previous ones going all the way back to Timberg.

Besides, Ottman didn't even use Williams's theme in an interesting way. Rather than exploring it, developing it, making variations on it and fitting it to the action, it was like he just hit the playback button on a Williams soundtrack CD every time Superman showed up. Even a good piece of music gets tedious when it's used that repetitively. There's such a thing as making an homage too slavish. Ken Thorne and Alexander Courage did a much better job developing Williams's theme in the movie sequels they scored.

I do like Ken Thorne's theme in Part 2: The Niagara Fall scenes with Lois trying to prove that Clark is Superman (both the scene when she jumps in the river, and the scene in the hotel room when Clark has his hand in the fire)...

I also like his theme for the opening of Part 3.

I'm one of the few people who thought the Donner movies were boring, cliched and terribly acted so, yeah, I'm ready for something new.

Part 4 only works because of Christopher Reeve. The effects, the slim 'story' are atrocious, and it was sad to see how everything had changed for the worse since the initial Reeve film.

Part 3 was silly, but Richard Pryor (and Chris Reeve) still made the film work for me.

I do like the Donner 'edit' for Part 2...as it seems like it is more serious than the film that was released in theatres under Richard Lester's direction...

The original movie...? (I remember the crowd clapping as the Superman emblem shot up onscreen with the John Williams score). Watching Superman: The Movie today (with the other Reeve films), the writing could have been a bit stronger and tighter...(I watched part 1 with an acquaintance years back, and I couldn't believe how slow the film was!) Too, I now have to question why Superman would turn back the Earth..just...to...save...a Lois Lane...who wasn't...all that hot. Technically, she wasn't hot, period; and you didn't really get a sense that there was a strong romance.

Of course, if Superman is able to turn back the Earth, he's pretty much all-powerful. The events from part 2 onward could have been solved with a fly-around the Earth.

There is a book called Superman vs. Hollywood that pretty details the troubled history of the Man of Steel. (Reading that book, the Superman franchise always had a hard time behind-the-scenes; according to the book, and I agree, 'we' are still waiting for the definitive Superman film).

Trivia:
There were different people considered for the role of Superman for the film that was released in the late 70's:

*Charles Bronson (56 years old at the time)
*James Caan (37)
*Ryan O'Neal (36)
*Sam Elliott
*Perry King (29)
*Jeff Bridges (28)
*Jan-Michael Vincent (33)
*David Soul (34)
*Robert Wagner(47)
*Lyle Waggoner (42 at the time; was in line to portray Batman as well, but lost to Adam West; portrayed Steve in the series Wonder Woman)
*Clint Eastwood (47)
*Kris Kristofferon (41 at the time)
*Jon Voight (39)
*Steve McQueen (47)
*Bruce Jenner (28)

Muhammed Ali's name came up by the elder Salkind producer, but that wouldn't have worked; 1. Ali's demeanor and 'acting' wouldn't have worked with the character, 2. We didn't have color-blind casting going on at the time. (Of course, now we have half-Asian Kristen Kruek portraying Lana Lang; we've had an ethnic-looking Superman in Dean Cain; and, the Superman cartoons seem to have the characters looking like different ethnicities).

On the other hand, Will Smith was actually considered for Superman Returns (either that or Hancock; he went with Hancock, obviously). That would have worked because the last real Superman was Christopher Reeve at the time; and Will Smith was (and still is) a name. Of course, the film would have to have a strong script...

Sidenote:
Superman is a character I wouldn't mind portraying, but I'm a little short and all other Superman actors are close to 6 feet; although, Daniel Craig is about my height at 5'-8"...and all the other James Bond actors are around 6' and above.

Furthermore, I would have liked to have had an Asian actress portray Lois Lane.

However, who knows what is going to happen with the Superman property by the time I get into a position to do something? Too, there are two other superheroes I was looking at: Meteor Man (portrayed in a a film by Robert Townsend; a film that had a good heart, but could have been better) and ICON; I would have more freedom with the Meteor Man character since I would create 'another' Meteor Man that is not the Townsend character.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

*Double post*

 

[suarezguy]

The problem with leaving the Donnerverse behind is that you'd probably have to do a new origin, and people don't want one that's too different but neither do they want the same-old. Doing a film that's neither an origin nor a continuation of something, just with an established Superman (following events we haven't seen on film) would feel like a sequel to an unfilmed film and audiences would probably feel perplexed and excluded.

 

[Christopher]

The problem with leaving the Donnerverse behind is that you'd probably have to do a new origin, and people don't want one that's too different but neither do they want the same-old. Doing a film that's neither an origin nor a continuation of something, just with an established Superman (following events we haven't seen on film) would feel like a sequel to an unfilmed film and audiences would probably feel perplexed and excluded.

I don't agree. Most people know Superman's origin story -- I mean, come on, he's Superman. And you don't need to build the whole story around his origin. All-Star Superman recapped the whole origin story in one page, four panels, and eight words. Superman/Batman: Public Enemies (the comic) recapped both Superman's and Batman's origins in the space of the first few pages. And look at Leterrier's The Incredible Hulk. It told the whole rebooted origin story in the space of the opening titles.