So is the pressure on Superman?

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

Its funny that theme is actually almost nowhere in the movie. The city loves him the MOMENT he comes back. Lois is mad at him for a little bit, then he shows her, hey look there are crimes all over the place and people always in trouble (things which everyone knows), and that's it. Then you find out the real reason she's mad, Superman sex-ed her and then just left without saying good-bye (anyone not named Superman would be classified as scum for a fuck-and-run like that)

 

[Beyerstein]

I say there's no way Singer ends up doing superman again.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Well, one quibble is that the Joker in the comics didn't paint his face or dye his hair. They were permanently coloured that way as a result of a chemical accident. So that wasn't faithful to the comics. However, TDK featured the BEST version of the above characters seen onscreen yet (IMH).

True enough, but this was never a real defining trait of the character... and I'm only aware of one time it was stated that this was a "chemical burn" (in "The Killing Joke") and I'm a fan. I thought the idea that it was permanent was great... but if it is a burn, it wouldn't be as vivid as you see in the comics anyway (probably more of a grey-scar-tissue-look to the skin, and as for the hair... any "dye job" would grow out anyway, huh?). But your point is taken.

Actually, I'd cite Kate Bosworth's somewhat dull and too young Lois as well as overly-slow pacing. And a rather uninteresting plot by Lex. Though I still like the movie a lot. And I take some of your points about the emphasis on the 1979 movie - the depiction of Luthor in particular.

Agreed on all points.

Did Christopher Reeve look like Alex Ross' Superman? Hmmm, not overly. But many people still think of him as the definitive Superman and he's still arguably the most popular depiction of him.

True, lots of people do... as many as think of George Reeves, probably.

The thing is, Chris Reeves didn't "look" the part so much either, to most people. One of the really interesting things is that apparently the studio folks didn't like him because he was too skinny, etc.

But Reeves totally inhabited the character. He got super-fit, and when he was playing Superman, he was extremely INTENSE and even threatening while never seeming "mean or nasty." He GOT IT.

Similarly, Christian Bale wasn't the idealized physical actor to play Bruce Wayne... but he's "inhabited" the character and he plays it better than just about anyone else has. I still think Clarke Bartram looks the part more than anyone I've ever seen, though.

As for who should be playing Superman... click this link (sorry, it's on IMDB and I can't "hotlink")
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1499172864/nm0641380

The guy in those World's Finest fan trailers does, but Routh could out-act him anyday.

My sole experience looking at Routh act was in Superman Returns, and in THAT, his acting talents ... well, they weren't exactly impressive. I won't say it was just him (bad script and bad directing may be more significant than bad acting, I s'pose) but the character he played was AWFUL... and at least SOME of that is on his shoulders, as far as I'm concerned.

Michael O'Hearn may not be a fantastic actor either, but in his short appearance in the aforementioned trailer... the guy played a Clark character who was distinctly different from his Superman character... while not being the "goofy doofus" type. Honestly, that indicates a reasonably GOOD actor, in my admittedly "non-professional-actor" experience.

Oh, and the girl they had playing Lois in that trailer was orders of magnitude better than "Teeny-bopper-Lois"...

And to me, he captured the essence of Superman, even if he looked a little too young. But that problem will be solved, given the time that's elapsed since SR.

Possible... got a recent picture?

I think if the sequel to SR contains more action, gives Superman more to do, more sparring and interaction with Lois and a worthy opponent, it'll generate as much goodwill as any reboot. Let's face it, a lot of people won't care if it's a sequel or a reboot. Just as long as the bloody thing entertains.

That's central... absolutely. But what makes for an "entertaining" film is always subject to differences of opinion.

I'm sure Schumacher thought that he was making an "entertaining" film with "Batman and Robin" and I'm SURE he thought it was just uber-kewl to put Alycia Silverstone into a plastic body-cast (coincidentally, the only one WITHOUT the "bat-rubber-nipples!").

So, the trick isn't "make it entertaining" so much as "what makes for a good film and what doesn't?"

 

[JoeZhang]

I never understand the obsession with the Ross model - a doughty ugly looking man.

 

[dragunzng]

I never understand the obsession with the Ross model - a doughty ugly looking man.

I think it's a very nice alternate look for Superman, and works really well in stories like Kingdom Come. And of course the poses are really iconic and well rendered.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I never understand the obsession with the Ross model - a doughty ugly looking man.

Doughy? (there's no "T" in the word... unless you mean something else besides what it seems you mean)

The figure as drawn looks HUMAN. Realize, also, that Superman, as seen in "Kingdom Come" is no longer a 28-year-old... he's aged normally, complete with a big gray beard the first time he's seen, playing "Kansas farmer" inside the Fortress of Solitude.

He looks MASCULINE (something that Routh failed at utterly... seriously, most of the responses I heard after the movie were things like "wow, so that's what a gay Superman looks like" and so forth... not saying those comments are "nice" or appropriate or whatever, just talking about what the audience reactions I heard while leaving the theater were). Superman should be intimidating, awe-inspiring, etc... more like the classical image of Zeus than of anything else... except that while he would be absolutely capable of conquering us and ruling us, he CHOOSES not to, because he values our individuality and our free will.

Alex Ross's figure is not "doughy" at all... he looks like a true superman. Not like a prissy narcissistic fey "male model" who spends 24/7 tweaking his body, getting surgery to hone every hint of imperfection away and to make himself look "pretty.

That's the only rational objection to the "World's Finest" guy... he's almost too "pretty" for the part.

Superman fandom is split right down the center... there are those to whom Superman is the Chris Reeves character (with everything else being ancillary) and those who know most everything about the comic character (with the Reeves character and all the rest of the TV/movie versions being ancillary). To those who love the comic book version, the Ross paintings are near-perfect (albeit as a 50-ish Superman)... while those who think only of Reeves see a reflection of him in Routh's face.

The thing is, while Reeve's version didn't LOOK like the comic version (which Ross painted)... he ACTED like it. And that made him great in the role. Reeves was friendly and nice when appropriate, yet POWERFUL and intimidating when that was more appropriate. He came across as a man who knew right and wrong and wasn't "shades of gray" about ANYTHING.

Routh simply never came across that way. His entire character (whether that was his choice or Singer's or someone elses) was all "shades of gray"... all morally ambiguous and just GENERALLY ambiguous. He was neither forcefull nor powerful (effect sequences notwithstanding... that wasn't ROUTH's performance!)

Could he have done better? It's debatable... but I don't see it. To coin a phrase used (overused?) in politics these days... he may have the height and the general looks, but he lacks the GRAVITAS which the character needs.

That's where Reeves was immeasurably better. And that's what the Ross paintings capture so well.

 

[Bad Bishop]

I never understand the obsession with the Ross model - a doughty ugly looking man.

Doughy? (there's no "T" in the word... unless you mean something else besides what it seems you mean)...

Superman fandom is split right down the center... there are those to whom Superman is the Chris Reeves character (with everything else being ancillary) and those who know most everything about the comic character (with the Reeves character and all the rest of the TV/movie versions being ancillary)...

That's where Reeves was immeasurably better. And that's what the Ross paintings capture so well.

For the last time, it is Christopher Reeve, not Reeves.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

For the last time, it is Christopher Reeve, not Reeves.

Oh, I'm sure that won't be the last time... :P

 

[JoeZhang]

I never understand the obsession with the Ross model - a doughty ugly looking man.

To those who love the comic book version, the Ross paintings are near-perfect (albeit as a 50-ish Superman)... while those who think only of Reeves see a reflection of him in Routh's face.

Except he hasn't just drawn the 50 year old version - it's been the young version in stories like Justice and he still looks wrong to this comicbook fan. It's fairly incorrect to say that all comic book fans love his version - a fairly percentage of us dislike it greatly.

 

[Samurai8472]

How To Reboot The Superman Movie Franchise
http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/08/1...erman-movie-franchise-comic-writers-chime-in/

On the one hand, you’ve got “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight.” On the other, “Superman Returns.” So if you’re Warner Bros., what do you do to revitalize your other superhero? We asked a few comic book writers who know the Man of Steel best.

“‘Superman Returns’ didn’t work for a lot of reasons,” Grant Morrison said.

“I so wanted that movie to work,” said Mark Waid, “but every choice they made in that movie was wrong. If you’re making the movie in a vacuum, and there will be no other Superman movies ever again, go ahead and give him a son. But otherwise, that’s a staggeringly awful idea. What are you going to do next? Either the kid has to be a part of his life, or get superpowers, which no one wants to see. I want to go to them and say, ‘What were you thinking?’”

“The idea was to make an American Christ figure, but what they centered on was his weakness,” Morrison said. “They made him more a lamb of God, rather than give us a real powerful Superman. They had too many scenes where he’s being kicked to the floor, and that’s not Superman. Superman would get up and fight.”

So these comics book writers are getting up and fighting too. Both Morrison and Geoff Johns have pitched the film studio on how to reboot Superman — properly reboot him, as if “Superman Returns” didn’t even happen.

“I told them, it’s not that bad,” Morrison said. “Just treat ‘Superman Returns’ as the Ang Lee ‘Hulk.’”

“‘The Hulk’ has proven the audience will forgive you and let you redo the franchise,” Waid said. “You can reboot from scratch.”

Morrison’s idea was a more “tight and concise” take on his “All-Star Superman,” so you’d see Superman address his mortality. And Waid suggests they take a look at his hard reboot, “Superman: Birthright.” But Brad Meltzer also has an idea that could work as the basis for the character, based on research for his upcoming “Book of Lies.”

“Superman is a character more recognizable than Abraham Lincoln or Mickey Mouse,” Meltzer said. “But no one knows crap about Mickey Mouse. He’s a symbol. Understanding a soul is much harder. So don’t treat him like a walking American flag.”

To understand Superman, Meltzer says, you have to know why Superman was created in the first place — because a young Jerry Siegel’s father was shot and killed in 1932 (a fact first uncovered by Gerard Jones in “Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters and the Birth of the Comic Book”).

“Superman was created not because America is the greatest country on earth, not because Moses came to save us from Krypton, but because a little boy lost his father,” Meltzer said. “In his first appearances, he couldn’t fly. He didn’t have X-ray vision. He was only bulletproof. So Superman’s not a character built out of strength, but out of loss.”

“When you hear that, it puts on a whole new spin on Superman and his origins,” Waid said. “The understanding was that Batman was born out of traged and Superman out of hope and aspiration, and it turns out that it’s about not wanting to lose your loved ones. That’s critical, and it means that we can connect with him. He’s not an untouchable character. Bad things still happen to him. His father passes away, and his powers can’t save him.”

And even if Superman still seems like too much of a Boy Scout, we’re supposed to be identifying with Clark Kent anyway. “Everybody knows what it’s like to see the pretty girl and think, ‘If only she could see me for who I really was,’” Waid said. “Past the glasses and acne or whatever. But he has to hide, and half his co-workers don’t even know his name. That’s a critical part, too.”

“It is so much deeper than, ‘He’s an alien with superpowers,’” Meltzer said. “I never wanted to write a Superman movie before, but I do now. I understand what Superman is now.”

Should they reboot Superman? What kind of Superman would you want to see?

I'd like Routh to get a second chance at Superman. Anyone catch him on NBC's " Fear itself"? The community chopped off his legs and Peter Billingsleys

 

[Dusty Ayres]

Warner's wants another Superman film, they're just not sure how. But I don't think they'd be looking to The Dark Knight for inspiration. Superman Returns was as brooding as I ever thought I'd see Superman, and it didn't work. I think they'd look more to Iron Man, as it definitely had more of the lighter tone they should be going for in a Superman movie.

I think you're misinterpreting the statements some folks are making re: "The Dark Knight" or "Batman Begins" regarding how Superman would be done.

What these films demonstrated isn't that "dark and brooding" is the way to go. What they demonstrated is that staying as true as possible to the source-material, instead of trying to "reinvent" or "put my own spin on it" or whatever, is the way to go.

"Superman Returns" at once tried to honor, not Superman (the comic character) but Superman (the Reeves character) and yet to "update" it in ways that they'd NEVER do with the comic character. They "honored" stuff that's not central to the guy, and ripped out core elements of him and those around him.

As "cool" as the action sequences in S-R may have looked, the "Superman is a stalker ex-boyfriend" bit was utterly horrifying to me and ruined everything. The fact that the actor, or at least the way the part was written and the character was outfitted and dressed, was almost like a Goth/Emo version of Superman didn't help.

Go do a search for "World's Finest trailer." It's a fan-made thing, but it's got the best Batman and Superman casting I've ever seen (and I love Bale in the Nolan films, by the way... I just think that the guy in this is better!) The guy who did Clarke Kent in this little trailer IS Superman as I've always seen him in my mind's eye. And his Clark and Superman are just dissimilar enough that I can imagine people not figuring it out.

What needs to be done in the next Superman film is to treat it as a SERIOUS (no "camp") treatment. Treat this as the real world... but just put this fantastic character into it. The Salkind Superman did that to an extent... but it also had a heavy dose of campiness, with "Superman Returns" kept but layered on even more heavily.

Note: "No Camp" does NOT mean "dark and depressing." Humor doesn't have to involve self-mockery. Superman should be a bright, positive hopeful character... exactly the opposite of what Batman should be.

Sorry, but a fan trailer does not a movie make.

Superman Returns was somewhat successful at the box office, and was also critically acclaimed, a hell of a lot better factors than fan boy longing to see Superman kick Darkseid's butt all over creation or whatever tha fan boys who make fan films want. It was a story about coming home, forgiveness, and what makes a hero, and that is what ultimately people go to see, not a fan wank about Superman teaming up with Batman to take out Lex Luthor and Two-Face. That's what made the movie work, not what you want.

And being protective of Lois after five years is not 'stalking', no matter how you slice it. Perhaps your cynicism and love of Iron Man blasting stuff has lead you to become bored with Superman; if so, watch the other movies.

While we're on the subject of Iron Man, if you think that everybody loved it, I've got something to show you.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Sorry, but a fan trailer does not a movie make.

Thanks for making, so effectively, a counter-argument to a point that NOBODY MADE.

High-five for a masterful "straw-man" effort there!

The point was not that "this is an awesome movie." The point was that the folks in this look more like the characters should, to me and to many others, than the last REAL movie's cast did.

In other words, the point wasn't the bogus one you pretend to be arguing against. It was a slam on the "real" movie for having MISSED THE TARGET. If an "internet fan film" can do things better than the "real" moviemakers... is that a claim that the "internet fan films are inherently better... or that the "real" moviemakers did something inherently WRONG?

Superman Returns was somewhat successful at the box office, and was also critically acclaimed, a hell of a lot better factors than fan boy longing to see Superman kick Darkseid's butt all over creation or whatever tha fan boys who make fan films want.

What an incredibly moronic thing to say.

"Somewhat successful" translates to "was less successful than expected but wasn't a money-LOSER."

"Critically-acclaimed?" By WHOM? A few newspaper writers didn't loath it completely? I can't recall a whole lot of "gushing praise" for the film... or a whole lot of media recognition... or much of ANYTHING (except for Frank Rich having apparently gotten into seeing Routh in tights maybe?).

Seriously... let's see some hard evidence of the massive upswelling of "critical acclaim" you mention. I think you're inflating things to attempt to boost your own argument...

But then you descend into sheer idiocy. "Fan boy longing" about "Superman kicking Darkseid's butt?" Well, so far you're the only one who brought up anything of the sort.

You personally liked "Superman Returns." No problem... but at least try to argue HONESTLY here. Stop making up arguments which no one has made and trying to "beat" your own arguments.

Nobody talked about Darkseid... that was you. Nobody talked about "kicking butt all over creation" except you.

You associate "fanboy" with the some people it seems, but only as a perjorative term... if you can call people "bad names" you can "discredit them" without actually having to argue factually, huh? Nope, doesn't work. Professional filmmakers aren't some form of superhuman being, after all... art (of whatever form) isn't only allowed from the "recognized" nor is talent restricted to those in a special class where nobody from outside is allowed to intrude.

The reality is that many of the better filmmakers... the most successful ones, who've gotten the most "Critical acclaim" (just for a couple of examples... Christopher Nolan and Peter Jackson) are unabashed "fanboys."
But it's because of their LOVE OF THE MATERIAL that they were able to make works based upon those materials which the overwhelming majority of audiences loved as well.

So... "fanboy" isn't necessarily the perjorative term you want to use it as... is it?

It was a story about coming home, forgiveness, and what makes a hero, and that is what ultimately people go to see, not a fan wank about Superman teaming up with Batman to take out Lex Luthor and Two-Face. That's what made the movie work, not what you want.

So, you're still convinced that "Superman Returns" WORKED? Why, then, haven't we seen the "inevitable sequel?" Why, then, was it not a massive financial success? Why, then, is EVERYONE talking about trying to FIX what it DID WRONG?

You can throw around dumbass terminology like "fan wank" til you turn blue... it doesn't change the fact that "Superman Returns" was NOT a success. And you can pretend that I said that the "World's Finest" trailer was the film that should've been made instead... except, with the possible exception of "within your fevered imagination" I never said or implied any such thing. Nor did ANYONE IN THIS THREAD. You're only arguing against your own imagination.

I said that the casting in this trailer was well-done, and that I believe it was better than that which was seen in "Superman Returns," no matter how much you may, personally, have loved seeing a 20-ish "Lois Lane" with a ten-ish son... (hmmm.. does that make Superman a child-molester too???).

There was a TON of "fan-wank" in that movie. It was simply "fanwank" from people who wanted to replicate the 1970's movie.

And being protective of Lois after five years is not 'stalking', no matter how you slice it.

Hmmm... so, I sure hope that any ex-girlfriends of yours don't mind YOU sneaking around in the dark, peeking into their homes... I'm sure you, personally, are "just being protective" too, huh?

Sorry, "stalker" behavior isn't defined by "good intentions." It's defined by CROSSING BOUNDARIES. Most "stalkers" are convinced that the ex-girlfriend would be better off with them, after all... they are, ultimately, "just being protective." Until, in a fit of rage, they "accidentally" club the girl to death...

It happens all the time. And it's almost ALWAYS a case of the stalker thinking that "it's what's best for her."

Routh's Superman crossed a line... and that WAS STALKER BEHAVIOR. Don't believe me... go talk to your local police department.

Perhaps your cynicism and love of Iron Man blasting stuff has lead you to become bored with Superman; if so, watch the other movies.

While we're on the subject of Iron Man, if you think that everybody loved it, I've got something to show you.

Who are you talking to re: this? Iron Man? Clearly you're not talking to ME... or you're (once again) making up things which nobody actually said but you think you can use to win an argument.

For the record, I haven't even SEEN "Iron Man" yet. I'm sure I will, on pay-per-view or on DVD. So if you think you're somehow arguing against my "great love of Iron Man" you're... umm... "confused?"

 

[Trent Roman]

“I told them, it’s not that bad,” Morrison said. “Just treat ‘Superman Returns’ as the Ang Lee ‘Hulk.’”

“‘The Hulk’ has proven the audience will forgive you and let you redo the franchise,” Waid said. “You can reboot from scratch.”

Has it really? My impression was that the new Hulk had a rather mediocre performance, barely outstripping its predecessor. I think it's much harder to get the stain of a bad film to wash out of a property than Morrison seems to think.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

"Critically-acclaimed?" By WHOM? A few newspaper writers didn't loath it completely? I can't recall a whole lot of "gushing praise" for the film... or a whole lot of media recognition... or much of ANYTHING.

It wasn't critically acclaimed across the board, but there were a number of extremely positive reviews from major outlets, including Variety and Empire.

 

[Galactus]

I don't think Incredible Hulk will do as well as its predecessor especially when you factor in inflation and increased ticket prices. There was nothing wrong with the Hulk that another movie could not fix. He had the Absorbing Man for a father but now Supes has a son. It is funny, I have heard many people say they do not want Batman to get a Robin, who is apart of Batman lore, but they want Superman to have a son, which is not a part of Batman lore.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

It is funny, I have heard many people say they do not want Batman to get a Robin, who is apart of Batman lore, but they want Superman to have a son, which is not a part of Batman lore.

Superman having a son was one of the least popular elements of Superman Returns, at least so far as opinion expressed online. You may have heard some people say that they liked it, but it certainly wouldn't constitute a majority opinion. Far from it.

 

[Galactus]

I was only referring to this board. I have said this before. I have not had a single person I know personally tell me that they like SR and I know a very diverse group of people. Not a single one. Which actually is quite amazing to say the least, because you always know someone that likes almost every movie.

 

[Bad Bishop]

Superman Returns was somewhat successful at the box office, and was also critically acclaimed, a hell of a lot better factors than fan boy longing to see Superman kick Darkseid's butt all over creation or whatever tha fan boys who make fan films want.

What an incredibly moronic thing to say.

"Somewhat successful" translates to "was less successful than expected but wasn't a money-LOSER."

"Critically-acclaimed?" By WHOM? A few newspaper writers didn't loath it completely? I can't recall a whole lot of "gushing praise" for the film... or a whole lot of media recognition... or much of ANYTHING (except for Frank Rich having apparently gotten into seeing Routh in tights maybe?).

You can find the major reviews at Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes if you really want to. It's actually true that SR received a lot of highly positive notices, including Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. At the time, it was really exciting to see the first Superman film in 19 years receive good reviews from the major trade publications and various newspapers. They weren't all positive, of course. Roger Ebert thought the movie was too sullen, among other faults. Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times was not too impressed either.

Negative reviews from mainstream critics did not dwell too much on Superman's alleged stalking, his poor judgment when it comes to fathering a child with Lois, Lex Luthor's obsession for land (not again) or Kate Bosworth's age. These are the major lingering issues to which fans keep returning. That doesn't mean they're illegitimate complaints; it just means that fans bring a different and perhaps broader agenda when they see a Superman film.

 

[Captain Craig]

It is funny, I have heard many people say they do not want Batman to get a Robin, who is apart of Batman lore, but they want Superman to have a son, which is not a part of Batman lore.

Superman having a son was one of the least popular elements of Superman Returns, at least so far as opinion expressed online. You may have heard some people say that they liked it, but it certainly wouldn't constitute a majority opinion. Far from it.

Exactly. And this statement from Mark Waid(who I think is a top 10 writer currently in the industry) only strengthens that opinion for me.

“I so wanted that movie to work,” said Mark Waid, “but every choice they made in that movie was wrong. If you’re making the movie in a vacuum, and there will be no other Superman movies ever again, go ahead and give him a son. But otherwise, that’s a staggeringly awful idea. What are you going to do next? Either the kid has to be a part of his life, or get superpowers, which no one wants to see. I want to go to them and say, ‘What were you thinking?’”

For all the discussion about the kid being a bold and daring move that would open new channels of storytelling Waid nails it. It does the opposite IMO. Unless you want to decentralize Clark as the force of your narrative you don't place a kid in there. It's at least as compelling a reason to not have Robin in a Batman movie although at least Robin is canon.

I think its quite clear that the further we get away from SR and less likely it seems Warners is going to get to Man of Steel the more people speak out against Returns and more towards a reboot. Its quite telling I think.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I was only referring to this board. I have said this before. I have not had a single person I know personally tell me that they like SR and I know a very diverse group of people. Not a single one. Which actually is quite amazing to say the least, because you always know someone that likes almost every movie.

That's an excellent point... granted, every last one of us is speaking anecdotally when we talk about "everyone we know" but it's ODD when we don't see at least a little bit of divergence of opinion, unless we happen to live in a survivalist ranch or a monastery or someplace like that...

Now, compared to the ALTERNATIVES which had been put out for "new Superman movies" this flick was orders of magnitude better... I think we all know that. But that takes us back to the same point I was trying to make earlier... specifically, that the further you deviate from the source material (especially true when you're talking about POPULAR source material!), the worse off you end up being.

"Superman Returns" was the LEAST BAD option... and it was a passable movie as a result (as opposed to "unbearable" like most of the other alternatives which were proposed... ie, a superman who couldn't fly, wore armor, and of course Krypton was never destroyed... among other travesties). From that standpoint... it wasn't an AWFUL movie. It was simply a disappointment... not a travesty like we might've gotten.

But that doesn't mean that it's as good as it could have been... as it SHOULD have been. IMHO, of course!