Superman: The Reboot --- Its official

[Hicks]

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?

In theory you present him with someone who should be his equal, or perhaps even (apparently) better, and he proves he truly is super by beating him in the end anyway.

The only thing I see about Superman is that he's really powerful without much of personality or anything else.

Agreed. This is why Superman stories have yet to truly capture me. I think that may be why I appreciated Singer's choice to play up the father/son relationships because it gives him a real heart and soul. Having issues with my own father(s), I swallowed it hook, line, and sinker, and it made me care more deeply for him.

Now, obviously that didn't work well enough for everybody, so that's clearly not what they'll go for again in the reboot.

I'm struggling to see what else they can do to make Superman more than just "goodie-two-shoes with tons of power".

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.

The answer is, apparently, "as much as need needs to be." I doubt we ever see it quantified.

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

That's the real trick.

 

[Galactus]

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.

Sorry I disagree with that totally. Like I said Luthor appeals to people for a certain reason. It is the common theme that always plagues science fiction and fantasy.

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.

Do you actually know a lot about Superman and his history?

 

[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.

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.

Agreed. I wonder who would fit the bill? It needs someone with at least somewhat of a naturally thick body, who can then add on some muscle in training, and on top of that use makeup/costuming to finish off the look.

IMO it can't be someone who is already "too known" for either a specific role or a general character type. It needs to be someone more versatile.

I feel a little sorry for Routh in all of this. One day he's this generation's Superman, a couple years later and he'll be just a small spot on the Superman timeline.

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.

Do you actually know a lot about Superman and his history?

From above: (with added highlight)

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.

 

[SalvorHardin]

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.

Agreed. I wonder who would fit the bill? It needs someone with at least somewhat of a naturally thick body, who can then add on some muscle in training, and on top of that use makeup/costuming to finish off the look.

IMO it can't be someone who is already "too known" for either a specific role or a general character type. It needs to be someone more versatile.

I feel a little sorry for Routh in all of this. One day he's this generation's Superman, a couple years later and he'll be just a small spot on the Superman timeline.

Gerard Butler with the body he had for 300.

This.Is.Kryptooon.

 

[Bad Bishop]

Re: Superman: The Reboot --- It's official

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.

Sorry I disagree with that totally. Like I said Luthor appeals to people for a certain reason. It is the common theme that always plagues science fiction and fantasy.

Luthor has been in:

• Superman--The Movie
• Superman II
• Superman IV
• Superman Returns

That's four of the five Superman films. You better believe that Luthor has been overused. It's time for a classic alien villain like Brainiac. If Luthor is seen again let it be in a minor role, like Scarecrow in The Dark Knight.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Re: Superman: The Reboot --- It's official

That's four of the five Superman films. You better believe that Luthor has been overused.

And seven seasons of Smallville that have been heavily Luthor-centric. Luthor is great, but it's time for a rest. Brainiac, Parasite, Metallo, Darkseid, and the Ultra-Humanite are the villains I most want to see in future Superman films.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Re: Superman: The Reboot --- It's official

That's four of the five Superman films. You better believe that Luthor has been overused.

And seven seasons of Smallville that have been heavily Luthor-centric. Luthor is great, but it's time for a rest. Brainiac, Parasite, Metallo, Darkseid, and the Ultra-Humanite are the villains I most want to see in future Superman films.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[captcalhoun]

just make a fucking Smallville movie already...

and then spin Green Arrow, Black Canary, Aquaman and Impulse out into their own movies, then get the Smallville people to do Green Lantern and Wonder Woman and bob's yer uncle, JLA movie.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

just make a fucking Smallville movie already...

and then spin Green Arrow, Black Canary, Aquaman and Impulse out into their own movies, then get the Smallville people to do Green Lantern and Wonder Woman and bob's yer uncle, JLA movie.

Sorry, terrible idea. Thankfully it's not going to happen.

 

[The Old Mixer]

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?

So you're hopeful of the future...but those of us with concerns over this quote are looking at the track record. TDK is the now, in the middle of all of that. They're at a pivotal turning point, where they could make or break their super-hero franchise...and we're not happy with the direction they've decided to take.

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.

Luthor has been around since 1940...he's been in most incarnations of the character outside of the comics...he's not just somebody who's trendy to use. Darkseid isn't even strictly a Superman foe, I guess the animated series caused people to think of him as one. You seem to think that for a villain to be worthy of Superman, he has to have physical power to match. The reason Luthor stuck is that he's Superman's antithesis, the same as the Joker is with Batman.

He is not Superman because of his powers, he is Superman because of his heart and spirit.

Absolutely right...so why can't you see the same thing about Luthor? It's not about his powers. It's about his brain and his resources, and how he chooses to apply them.

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.

Handled correctly, Superman has his limits. You push them. For example, you take something like the situation in the Donner film and make it a choice--you can save California, or save Lois--and don't give him the out of time travel (which was in his repertoire in the comics of the time, but his powers have since been brought down considerably, though I'm not sure if later writers have gone so far as to restore that one). He can't be everywhere at once, he has to choose how to apply his powers. You can also put him in situation like in the graphic novel Superman: Peace on Earth. Have him try to apply his powers to a real-world problem, and realize that it can't be solved by power alone--at least not if he doesn't want to set himself up as Super-Dictator. (I know we're treading close to Superman IV territory with that one, but such a story can be handled better than what we saw there.)

Luthor has been in:

• Superman--The Movie
• Superman II
• Superman IV
• Superman Returns

That's four of the five Superman films. You better believe that Luthor has been overused.

But our friend Galactus, who's arguing for a 25-year moratorium, is the first to point out that the Donner film is ancient history, irrelevant to today's audience. So why worry about what that series did over two decades ago? I can agree with the idea of taking a break from Luthor for one film. Were they to go and try to do the new, definitive Superman origin movie, they could take a page from Byrne's book and leave Luthor an unseen background presence for the first film. (In The Man of Steel, Byrne had Luthor away on business in South America for the first year and a half of Superman's public career, though god knows why a multibillionaire in the jet age couldn't find the time to fly home once in a while.) But to say that he shouldn't be used for a generation....That's tying the hands of future filmmakers far too much. If the next film is successful, and spawns a new franchise of movies, they're going to have to do an entire series of films without once touching Luthor? Please.

 

[FalTorPan]

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

While I'm more than fine with Warner taking the Superman films in a new direction, I loved Superman Returns.

 

[Ben Sisko3]

PERRY WHITE: Martin Sheen

I really, really like that. I'm stealing it.

SUPERMAN: Peter Krause (Six Feet Under, Dirty Sexy Money)
LOIS LANE: Cate Blanchett (I'm Not There, The Aviator)
LEX LUTHOR: Clancy Brown (Carnivale, The Shawshank Redemption)
PERRY WHITE: Martin Sheen (The West Wing, The Dead Zone)
JOR-EL: Lance Henriksen (MillenniuM, Aliens)
LARA: Joan Allen (The Contender, Nixon)
JONATHAN KENT: Patrick McGoohan (The Prisoner, Braveheart)
MARTHA KENT: Rita Moreno (Oz, West Side Story)
JIMMY OLSEN: Jared Padalecki (Supernatural, Gilmore Girls)
JOHN HENRY IRONS: Mathew St. Patrick (Six Feet Under, Reunion)
EMIL HAMILTON: Hugo Weaving (The Matrix, V for Vendetta)
ZOD: James Marsters (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Smallville)
JOHN CORBEN: Terry O'Quinn (Lost, MillenniuM)
BRAINIAC: Callum Keith Rennie (Battlestar Galactica, The X-Files: I Want To Believe)
PARASITE: Garrett Dillahunt (Deadwood, The 4400)
MERCY: Lena Headey (300, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles)
MANCHESTER BLACK: Jamie Bamber (Battlestar Galactica, L&O:UK)
MORGAN EDGE: Michael Emerson (Lost, The Practice)

 

[crouteru]

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

I was disappointed with Returns at first, but enjoyed it more on subsequent viewings. It's easy to tell that Bryan Singer had a passion for the first two movies and respected the character and mythology.

What worries me is this new trend of simply rebooting a franchise if Joe Public didn't really embrace to the studio's expectations. There's no need to reboot Superman, they're just milking the appeal of his origin story again instead of trying to think of new plotlines.

 

[TemporalFlux]

This reboot gives me a measure of hope, but it is a tepid measure. For one, WB has now finally acknowledged that the Singer Superman was a failure; that admission shows they have woken up to reality in some degree. Secondly, the goal of emulating the Begins movies means that they have acknowledged a successful formula; the key to success or failure will be how much of the formula they actually understand.

A Superman movie could have a "darker" tone - a catalyst for such a direction could be Brainiac. Taking a cue from the animated series and the recent direction of the comics, Brainiac could be presented as an alien whose goal is to collect information and then destroy the original so that Brainiac has the only copy in the universe; this path would ultimately lead to Brainiac being in control of the entire universe as all that will remain is its ghost in his hard drive. Brainiac would be driven to possess the unique knowledge Clark holds as the last Kryptonian and pressed into collecting as quickly as possible through any means necessary before something else kills or damages Clark and the knowledge held by him and his equipment.

The above is the foundation of the Batman Begins formula. A formidable, recognizable comic villain who has never gotten proper exposure (Ra's al Ghul / Brainiac); a secondary villain adding thrust to the main villain's plot (to fill Scarecrow's shoes, you could have Parasite trying to absorb Superman's power, memories, etc.); and the last part of a Begins formula is a vehicle for touching upon Superman's origin without seeming like you're retelling Superman's origin (i.e. We see memories during absorptions / attacks that relate to the current battle scenarios Superman is locked in).

And again like Begins, the arch enemy (Luthor) should be hinted at in the first film but ultimately saved for the second film.

It would be a darker Superman movie, but it would very much be a Superman movie. Of course, this again is conditioned on just how much WB and any hired writers actually understand the Begins formula. At the very least, Begins provides the WB something more than what they've had for the past 15 years in Superman film planning; Begins is very much a blueprint to the right eye.

 

[Ben Sisko3]

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

Impartial news headlines: You're doing it wrong.

 

[Guy Gardener]

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

I'd rather contract genital herpes than watch X-Men III again.

 

[TemporalFlux]

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

Impartial news headlines: You're doing it wrong.

Not by MSNBC standards.

 

[Professor Zoom]

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

I'd rather contract genital herpes than watch X-Men III again.

QFT.

I've tried to find that part of my brain that remembers X3...and destroy it.

But then, I'm afraid, I might see it again...

*shudder*

 

[Starbreaker]

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

The other thread is literally still at the top of the first page... you didn't even have to do a search.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Merging threads.