Superman: The Reboot --- Its official

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

And TDK and Watchmen don't count, since I specifically said "prior to TDK". That they stumbled onto a good revamp of the Batman franchise isn't in question. SR was clearly a failure, or this thread topic wouldn't exist. The rest are a smattering of eclectic non-superhero films.

I broadened my answer to cover all of WB's comic book films in the last decade, including the upcoming Watchmen, rather than stick to your narrow question (since WB had only made three superhero films in the decade prior to TDK). Sticking to those three superhero films, one was terrible (Catwoman), one was excellent (Batman Begins) and one was an ambitious film that ended up being a bit of a mixed bag (Superman Returns). They developed all of these films (including TDK and Watchmen) and should be given plaudits for the great ones just as much as criticism for the bad ones. Moreover, the script report of the direction they're taking Green Lantern sounds extremely promising.

 

[Hicks]

If they're going to do this, I hope they go ahead and make Superman look quite different from Routh (who I liked, but was always slightly bothered by just how young he looked considering the alleged continuity in play). I'm thinking a Superman who has a much bigger/thicker body (just not so much that it's distracting), and make him in his 30's, preferably late 30's/pushing 40.

I was trying to think to myself, "What would I find interesting in a new Superman movie?"

I know the origin story would not. I've seen it before, and it just never does much for me. Doesn't mean they should avoid it, but perhaps get it over with quickly and succinctly. Kind of like how the Incredible Hulk did; that could work if done right.

Superman is practically a god, so to me what I would find interesting is a plot where Superman is truly, honestly pushed to or beyond his limits. Hopefully in a combination of ways. Watching him get into a huge physical fight with someone who can go toe-to-toe with him (I'm not endorsing the storyline he's associated with, but Doomsday?) can be fun, but to me that's more icing than it is cake.

So where's the cake? How do you emotionally or cerebrally challenge Superman in a believable way? I don't see how in any way that truly feels "high stakes".

Well, here's the real question: With heroes like Batman, Spider-Man, the X-Men, etc., we all know some of the most famous story lines that could be adapted into a great plot for a movie. What are those plots for Superman? I'm pretty ignorant of them myself. I can only think of "Death of Superman" (No thanks) and of course his origin. Hopefully some strong DC fans can help me out there.

What were the most quality gut-wrenching Superman stories?
What were the best Superman struggles/fights?
What story lines do hardcore Superman fans point to and say, "You have to read this if you want to know anything about why Superman is great."

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I have faith in the guys making Watchmen, which would be too far along for WB to fuck up with their directive

Warners hired those guys to make Watchmen and approved their approach. Credit where it's due. And really this much sturm und drang over the "dark" comments seems like a gross overreaction. It wasn't an in-depth interview, just a few short comments, and these films will go through a whole long process where execs, producers, directors and writers will contribute to the discussion of the exact tone each project should have.

It was one comment, sure, but it has to be taken in context. And that context is a long history of demonstrating that Warner Bros does not understand their comic book properties. I admire your optimism, but any group of people who would discuss creating a Superman story and couple it with "dark as the character can get" does not understand Gaiman's law, which is being discussed in another thread. What was the number one thing fans and other audience members complained about with SR? That the character of Superman was too brooding, emo and creepy. Regardless of Superman's history, what people like about the character now is what they liked about Iron Man. They want to walk out of the theater having had some good, old-fashioned laughs, some rousing adventure and having seen an icon of good that makes them yearn to be 7 years old again with a towel tied around their shoulders. It's pretty simple and straight-forward and could easily have been expressed. But instead they said what they understood about TDK's success was "dark", which shows they don't even understand the Batman franchise, much less the Superman one.

 

[Aragorn]

So...

Superman: Christian Bale
Lois Lane: Katie Holmes
Lex Luthor: Aaron Eckhart
Perry White: Gary Oldman
Jor-El: Liam Neeson
Brainiac: Cillian Murphy

 

[The Old Mixer]

I broadened my answer to cover all of WB's comic book films in the last decade, including the upcoming Watchmen, rather than stick to your narrow question (since WB had only made three superhero films in the decade prior to TDK). Sticking to those three superhero films, one was terrible (Catwoman), one was excellent (Batman Begins) and one was an ambitious film that ended up being a bit of a mixed bag (Superman Returns).

And there's my point--three super-hero films in the last decade, two of them failures. (I liked SR myself more than not, but we wouldn't be in this thread if it was considered a success.) So one successful super-hero film in the last decade--and you'll recall that BB didn't do big, Spidey numbers, though it did demonstrate some legs. Now, how many successful super-hero films has Marvel made in the last decade? Hell, I count four to six that spawned at least one sequel...all in the last decade...during which WB spent most of its time sitting on its thumb trying to come up with an "approach", and the best they could could come up with was, "Let's build up to a team film...no, wait, a more successful movie came out, let's go dark!"

 

[The Old Mixer]

How do you emotionally or cerebrally challenge Superman in a believable way? I don't see how in any way that truly feels "high stakes".

That's easy...put his friends in danger. He's the Man of Steel, they're not.

I want the definitive Superman movie, not the definitive Superman and Lex Luthor movie.

Well, he's the archnemesis...the definitive Superman villain. In more modern takes on the mythos, he tends to be the only Superman foe who's a constant presence in Superman's life.

I greatly dislike the concept of Lex Luthor past or present. How many Superman movies have there been in modern times and how many has Lex Luthor been in?

Like I said before time to move on. When I say I want a reboot, i mean I want a reboot. Total and complete. Superman has a lot more and dangerous enemies than Lex Luthor.

And some of us greatly dislike the idea of yet another beat-by-beat origin movie, and feel that Superman has a lot more stories than his origin. A total, complete reboot means forgetting what's been done before and starting all over again. That includes being able to present a new Luthor.

 

[jonnyskywatcher]

Superman is practically a god, so to me what I would find interesting is a plot where Superman is truly, honestly pushed to or beyond his limits. Hopefully in a combination of ways. Watching him get into a huge physical fight with someone who can go toe-to-toe with him (I'm not endorsing the storyline he's associated with, but Doomsday?) can be fun, but to me that's more icing than it is cake.

But doesn't giving him a villain as powerful as him undermine the point that he's supposed to Super? The only thing I see about Superman is that he's really powerful without much of personality or anything else. So, the main thing holding up the story for me at least is that he's the biggest kid on the playground, until an assorted amount of super-villains show up and he's suddenly not that Super.

And the only thing for me that makes Superman so powerful is the ill-defined nature of his powers. He's super strong, how strong? I don't know, just really, really strong. The same with his speed, invulnerability, and others.

Why should I care about superhero whose hero-villain plot is the most obvious and inorganic of all?

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

And there's my point--three super-hero films in the last decade, two of them failures.

And, expanding beyond the way you framed the question and looking at all of their supehero films of the last decade, you also have a fourth, TDK, that's turned out to be the second highest grossing film at the domestic box office of all time (in unadjusted terms). And Watchmen looks very promising. Plus their approach for Green Lantern sounds exactly right. And a reboot of Superman is likely at least three years away from release, with a whole development process to go through. How about at least waiting for the announcement of a director before jumping to worst-case conclusions on the basis of a a couple of short quotes in one article?

 

[DarthPipes]

I'm in favor of a reboot but I'm not in favor of Superman becoming Batman. They're too different characters. Batman is a darker character while Superman is one that inspires hope. You can still reboot but keep the basic premise of Superman. Because if Superman becomes Batman, then you've completely lost the character.

 

[davejames]

If they're going to do this, I hope they go ahead and make Superman look quite different from Routh (who I liked, but was always slightly bothered by just how young he looked considering the alleged continuity in play). I'm thinking a Superman who has a much bigger/thicker body (just not so much that it's distracting), and make him in his 30's, preferably late 30's/pushing 40.

My thoughts exactly. I don't want some super buff bodybuilder kind of guy, but I'd love someone who was just really big and imposing like George Reeves was.

I think one thing is certain though. The studio is going to go for a more established actor this time around. There's no way they're going to take a chance on another unproven young actor like Routh. Especially when it's clear the "Superman" name alone isn't enough to draw people in anymore.

 

[Ben Sisko3]

Dear Warners,

Clancy Brown as Lex Luthor please.

Love,
Everyone.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

I'd prefer for them to take a break from Luthor. Not a 25-year moratorium, but maybe one or two films without him.

 

[V]

WB to reboot Superman franchise after awful "Superman Returns"

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=48159

WB has acknowledged that "Superman Returns" was a box office and critical failure, to the point that, while SR was intended to "reboot" the Superman franchise........they'll now have to reboot the Superman franchise a second time and ignore Superman Returns!

Sort of like how Ang Lee's Hulk had to be ignored for the Edward Norton rebooted Hulk.

****As many fans have lamented: Bryan Singer, the genius behind X-Men 1 and X-Men 2, LEFT work on X-Men 3 to take up his dream project of Superman Returns.........which turned out to be a flop. No one WANTED another Superman movie! There was no "demand" for one! There WAS demand for a GOOD new X-Men movie! And while I wouldn't call X-Men 3 awful or a flop, it was very, very disappointing and cluttered.

It seems to me that there's just a small cadre of die-hard ultra loyal Superman fans who keep popping up going "but you forget, Superman is the best superhero ever! So you HAVE to keep making Superman films!"

UGH

Batman is much more popular, and for that matter I'd actually WATCH other DC character stories (even the Green Lantern has his own interesting internal mythology and characterization)

So we keep getting Superman films foisted on us that no one asked for, while the X-Men franchise suffered horribly.

Good riddance. Good frakking riddance. This is the final, gallows-humor: DC and WB themselves are forced to admit that "Superman Returns" was a bad retread aimed at people who saw Superman II in theaters in the 70's and didn't offer anything new or original for fans, and was a box office and critical flop.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Re: WB to reboot Superman franchise after awful "Superman Returns"

Already posted.

 

[Galactus]

The only reason that Luthor is Superman's arch nemesis is because writers like him so much and I don't know why. Luthor is not worthy of being Superman's arch nemesis. Superman has so many more quality and worthy oppontents than Lex. I have my theories why so people like Lex so much but I digress. Zod, Brainic, Doomsday, and Darkseid all make much better Superman foes.

Superman is just going to be hard to do in today's world, because we are so divided on many of the basic everyday issues about right and wrong. I see on this board all the time people saying that a purely good character and purely evil character is boring. There are now a lot of people that truly don't believe in good vs evil.

In order to make a good Superman movie, you have to find someone that truly understands what Superman is about and make a movie about Superman. He is a symbol of hope. He is the guy that inspires other super heroes. He is the guy that Batman says has everything. He is the guy that the entire galaxy thinks is a hero. He is truly like no other, which is why you don't try to relate to him. He is not Superman because of his powers, he is Superman because of his heart and spirit. Anyone that knows anything about Superman should know that.

 

[T'Baio]

Re: WB to reboot Superman franchise after awful "Superman Returns"

1st, you wouldn't call X3 awful, but you would Superman Returns?

2ndly, it's not that no one wants a Superman movie, it's that everyone wants a great Superman movie.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Lex Luthor is a great villain. One of the greatest ever. He's a worthy arch-enemy for Superman, especially because he's the antithesis of Superman in so many ways. But Luthor is suffering from overuse in film and television. It's time to take a break from him for a while and make use of other Superman villains.

 

[Aragorn]

My hastily put together Superman cast:

SUPERMAN: Jim Caviezel
LOIS LANE: Lena Headey
LEX LUTHOR: Terry O'Quinn
PERRY WHITE: Martin Sheen

 

[Hicks]

How do you emotionally or cerebrally challenge Superman in a believable way? I don't see how in any way that truly feels "high stakes".

That's easy...put his friends in danger. He's the Man of Steel, they're not.

Well, yeah, but how do you do that in a way where it's hard for Superman to save them? The guy is almost a god. There's always kryptonite, I guess, but that gets tiresome.

 

[sidious618]

Re: Superman: The Reboot --- Its offcial

Only thing I really care about is that they keep the theme and opening titles sequence. I think that's as iconic to Superman as the Bond theme and opening titles is to that franchise.

Frankly, I think Superman could do with a *degree* of "reboot." But I don't kmow about "dark."

I agree with this. I felt Returns was a major step in the wrong direction but you can't go too dark with Superman (although you can go darker). A reboot could really get enthusiasm going.

The music, though, has to stay.