Superman: The Reboot --- Its official

[Guy Gardener]

And that's before you make him weak as a kitten with kryptonite, Red Sun Radiation, magic or shifting him into the Phantom Zone.

I really liked the Bizzaro they used to fight Booby girl in I'm Power Girl Damn-it!

 

[Guy Gardener]

It's a mistake to try to make Superman 'relatable' anyway--Clark Kent is the one the audience can 'relate' to and Superman is the one the audience should aspire to. It's a really simple but effective formula that has worked for decades--one that has a mythic enough quality to be timeless.

If he can't relate, then why does he love the Kents and want to shag Lois?

 

[Norrin Radd]

They need Smallville off the air for a good 3 seasons before they even think of doing a Superman movie.

 

[Supervisor 194]

One of the problems that Superman Returns had, was that Superman has never really gone anywhere.

Just going from memory here, after the last movie in 1987:

1988-1992 Superboy tv series
1993-1997 Lois and Clark series
1996-2000 Superman: The Animated Series (not to mention Justice League and JLU animated)
2001-present Smallville series

Sure, there was certainly various levels of success to each of these endeavors but all of them penetrated the popular consciousness at least enough to create an impression of Superman always being around in some form or another. Add in that each of these versions presented very different takes on the Man of Steel and effectively splintered the fanbase into different camps, and you have a very hard time making a new Superman movie the event it needs to be (your thoughts on Returns aside). I'd bet that if there had been no Superman product since 1987, Returns would have had at least somewhat better box office.

Oh, and Guy Gardener, I'm talking about how the audience relates to the character, not how the character relates to other characters--obviously Superman can 'relate' to others in that sense of the word.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Hey, it was a concern of Lara's in the first movie that her boy would be lonely.

I believe Chloe said of Kara "Wow, look at all those primary colours... You must be from Krypton."

I found it insane that the Legion cartoon effectively had two Superboy cartoons running concurrently.

And lets not forget those Cellphone adds with Puddy as Superman hanging with Jery Sienfeld or how Superman showed up a couple times in pre-K the Krypto cartoon.

 

[Supervisor 194]

Chloe usually gets the best lines

 

[Bad Bishop]

One of the problems that Superman Returns had, was that Superman has never really gone anywhere.

Just going from memory here, after the last movie in 1987:

1988-1992 Superboy tv series
1993-1997 Lois and Clark series
1996-2000 Superman: The Animated Series (not to mention Justice League and JLU animated)
2001-present Smallville series

Sure, there was certainly various levels of success to each of these endeavors but all of them penetrated the popular consciousness at least enough to create an impression of Superman always being around in some form or another. Add in that each of these versions presented very different takes on the Man of Steel and effectively splintered the fanbase into different camps, and you have a very hard time making a new Superman movie the event it needs to be (your thoughts on Returns aside). I'd bet that if there had been no Superman product since 1987, Returns would have had at least somewhat better box office.

True. Smallville is a leech that's been sucking up some of the demand for Superman since 2001. The TV show did not help the fortunes of SR in any way. I still can't understand why Bryan Singer consulted with Al Gough and Miles Millar when SR was produced.

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

Re: Superman: The Reboot --- Its offcial

Gah...please...no origin story! Have Superman as an already established hero. And no Lex Luthor as villain...get someone new.

Seconded on the origin story. Everyone knows it. But I would like to see Luthor in it, maybe not as the main villain, but you know he'll try to get a piece of the action if someone like Braniac is trying to kill superman. Kind of like in Superman 2.

 

[Venardhi]

Re: Superman: The Reboot --- Its offcial

As long as they're doing a reboot: give us a grown up, man's man, Alex Ross style, Superman, give us. . .





. . . Jon Hamm.

And he ain't too shabby in the acting department either.

 

[The Old Mixer]

In some of the more modern incarnations, Superman's powers do have tangible limits, however great they are. His friends, at least, can be put in danger. And that's without leaning on his weaknesses. Anyone who thinks he's omnipotent and can't be challenged just hasn't seen much Superman.

(I blame this entirely on people thinking Luthor is his arch nemesis)

He is, and has been for nearly 70 years, regardless of whether or not you personally like him.

And who here really can relate to Bruce Wayne, Peter Parker, or Logan. I mean come on really? Don't see how any of them are any more identifiable than Clark Kent.

Peter Parker is very relatable before he gets his powers. He doesn't start off as an alien or a billionaire. And even after he gets his powers, he's still quite capable of screwing things up in both of his identities. That's key to the success of the character.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I must admit, I'm baffled by the theory that you can right what was wrong with SR by casting a name actor as Superman. I've always been a believer that Superman needs to be played by an actor with no baggage. That's why Christopher Reeve was a better choice than any of the name actors in contention in the 1970s - even leaving aside his obvious suitability for the role, you didn't think 'Oh, there's Robert Redford/Warren Beatty/ James Caan in a Superman outfit.' He just was Superman.

Similarly, had Nicholas Cage been Superman, again, leaving aside the fact that he was all wrong for the part, it would simply have been Nic Cage in a Superman costume. And I think Bryan Singer was right to choose an unknown, instead of Jude Law, Josh Hartnett, Ashton Kutcher or Paul Walker or any of the other names rumoured last time round.

Another factor is that few name actors will want to essay The Man of Steel, given the type-casting that plagued the careers of Reeve, George Reeves, Dean Cain or latterly Brandon Routh. Caan, Redford etc all were reluctant in the 1970s and nearly all the big names approached the last time had similarly cold feet.

Added to which you have the question of what name actors would suit the role? I can't think of too many. Brendan Fraser might be ok. Jake Gylenhall is a possibility (he was David Goyer's choice fo Batman, with Nolan preferring Bale - and in Prince of Persia, he's got the body).Jim Cavaziel or Billy Crudup could give it a shot. And slightly down the recognition stakes, Jon Hamm or David Boreanaz might do well in the role. But would any of them really sit many more bums on seats than Routh? And I'm not sure that any of them would really persuade you that 'Wow, that's Superman!' the way Reeve or (for me) Routh did.

Finally, even lesser known superheroes than Superman have prospered without a big name in the role. As well as the unknown Reeve, you have Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, a virtual unknown when X-Men was released. Toby Maguire wasn't exactly Tom Cruise when cast as Spider-man. Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer and Christian Bale were moderately well known but not box office stars, yet all the Batman movies they were in were huge hits. Ironically, George Clooney was probably the best known actor to be cast as Batman (even back in 1997), yet the one movie he did was the least successful. Wesley Snipes only ever seems to make it into cinemas if the name Blade appears in the title of his movies. Superhero movies will be big hits if done well, regardless of who stars in them - big name actors aren't necessary.

 

[Galactus]

I said this in another thread, so I will repeat it here. Batman has had just as much exposure as Superman. Everyone keeps assuming that everyone has watched all that stuff that is out there. There are people in this very thread that have very little to no knowledge of how Superman currently is, based on the repeated, "He can't be challenged" comments.

The only problem with the last Superman movie, was that they got the wrong person to make it. If they would have gotten the right person to do it, then it would have relaunched the movie franchise the correct way with a new take on the character.

Peter Parker is very relatable before he gets his powers. He doesn't start off as an alien or a billionaire. And even after he gets his powers, he's still quite capable of screwing things up in both of his identities. That's key to the success of the character.

I am sorry but I can't relate to Peter Parker. Maybe you can but I can't. He is an orphan that grew up dirt poor, that lives with his aunt, after his uncle got killed, because he is a screw up. He is a genius who can't manage to get a decent job, but can defeat billionaire criminal masterminds. Peter Parker, especially the current one we have seen on screen and in comics, is very much a dumb screw up and all around, jerk. Nope can't relate to that at all.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

And who here really can relate to Bruce Wayne, Peter Parker, or Logan. I mean come on really? Don't see how any of them are any more identifiable than Clark Kent.

Peter Parker is very relatable before he gets his powers. He doesn't start off as an alien or a billionaire. And even after he gets his powers, he's still quite capable of screwing things up in both of his identities. That's key to the success of the character.[/quote]

Any type of character - billionaire, genius or superhuman - can be relatable. It all has to do with what they are going through. I had no problem relating to Superman in S:TM and SII - he was a man in love with a woman he couldn't have without giving up his duty. Anyone who's ever wanted something they couldn't have without giving up something equally important to them should be able to relate to that. Same goes for any character - give them a human dilemma and any audience worth its salt should be able to relate.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

The whole 'relateable' argument is just an excuse for bad writing.

He'll be plenty relatable if a really good screenwriter does a really good job with him.

 

[Ben Sisko3]

Nope. That cast has 'FLOP!!' written all over it.

Really? Even on Martin Sheen and Cate Blanchett? In any event, it's a dream cast, not based in any form of reality. And how astute and analytical of you to dismiss it so simply.

Here's my choice, that would knock with the audience, and really make the new Superman a glamorous movie.

There's nothing glamorous about Vin Diesel playing the smartest being in the universe, and it wouldn't "knock" with anyone, whatever that means. Diesiel playing intelligent is like Patrick Stewart not being histrionic.

 

[darkshadow0001]

I think the problem with Superman Returns is that it was too similar to Superman I. A lot of the same one-liners, and such. Having the John Williams theme song was a great touch-- I didn't have a problem with that, and the actors they chose I thought did a good job. But-- I think the biggest problem with the film were the flying sequences. If we can make good flying sequences back in the 70's and 80's, why did it look so cheesy now? Even Batman in the Dark Knight had much better "flying" sequences then Superman did in Returns. I hope they correct this in the reboot, but I still would of tried to work with what they had, but I don't run Warner Brothers so I have no say

 

[JacksonArcher]

And who here really can relate to Bruce Wayne, Peter Parker, or Logan. I mean come on really? Don't see how any of them are any more identifiable than Clark Kent.

Peter Parker is very relatable before he gets his powers. He doesn't start off as an alien or a billionaire. And even after he gets his powers, he's still quite capable of screwing things up in both of his identities. That's key to the success of the character.

Any type of character - billionaire, genius or superhuman - can be relatable. It all has to do with what they are going through. I had no problem relating to Superman in S:TM and SII - he was a man in love with a woman he couldn't have without giving up his duty. Anyone who's ever wanted something they couldn't have without giving up something equally important to them should be able to relate to that. Same goes for any character - give them a human dilemma and any audience worth its salt should be able to relate.

I found myself to relate very easily with the Bruce Wayne of the Nolan movies. He was someone who suffered a great tragedy and wanted to rectify that by choosing to do something that will probably never give him peace, but it is that drive to find atonement that pushes him beyond any normal person. Anyone who has suffered a loss of family or friend can understand why someone would want to commit themselves to something because they've been disillusioned by loss.

 

[Philo]

Re: Superman: The Reboot --- Its offcial

Well, if they're going to go darker, which doesn't fit with (my admittedly limited) knowledge of Superman, I hope they at least use the lightness of Superman as a counterpoint to the dark world around. Otherwise, why even use the character?

My favorite Superman is the 1930s and early 1940s version who lived in a world easily as brutal and dangerous as Batman's. Many (most?) stories took place in literal darkness, with the figurative variety of the same never far off. Early Superman stories regularly featured bitter, heartless murder, and Superman (then called the Champion of the Oppressed as often as the Man of Steel) spent most of his time trying to defeat killers, swindlers, and otherwise vicious persons. In Lex Luthor's first appearances (he was only Luthor at the time, not Lex), he indifferently killed roughly as many persons as the Joker gleefully did in his early showings.

Superman's world was fairly dark until the Golden Age of comics ended. But unlike Batman, who was returned to his roots in the 80s, Superman has never escaped the brightness set upon him in the Silver Age.

Yes, exactly. Superman's world can be dark but his character shouldn't be. That's where you can get a lot of thematic drama with Superman anyway. It's probably one of the only ways to get people to take Superman seriously too.

Anyone who has suffered a loss of family or friend can understand why someone would want to commit themselves to something because they've been disillusioned by loss.

This is kind of beside the point (because I have no desire to argue yours), but I have experienced those things and, frankly, I took the opposite of disillusionment away from it. But that's just me. It's one of my mild criticisms of the Batman mythos. Sometimes I have to hold myself back from saying "jeez, get over yourself!"

It's actually one of the things I like about Nolan's interpretation. His Batman is much more rational and philosophically motivated than he is a tortured baby, like, say, Miller's narcissistic juvenile fantasy Batman.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Looks like Lapis deleted one name too many, accidentally misquoting me. It should look more like this:

And who here really can relate to Bruce Wayne, Peter Parker, or Logan. I mean come on really? Don't see how any of them are any more identifiable than Clark Kent.

Peter Parker is very relatable before he gets his powers. He doesn't start off as an alien or a billionaire. And even after he gets his powers, he's still quite capable of screwing things up in both of his identities. That's key to the success of the character.

Any type of character - billionaire, genius or superhuman - can be relatable. It all has to do with what they are going through. I had no problem relating to Superman in S:TM and SII - he was a man in love with a woman he couldn't have without giving up his duty. Anyone who's ever wanted something they couldn't have without giving up something equally important to them should be able to relate to that. Same goes for any character - give them a human dilemma and any audience worth its salt should be able to relate.

BTW, I agree with Philo regarding the improvement of Bruce Wayne's motivations in BB.

 

[Aragorn]

Nope. That cast has 'FLOP!!' written all over it.

Really? Even on Martin Sheen and Cate Blanchett? In any event, it's a dream cast, not based in any form of reality. And how astute and analytical of you to dismiss it so simply.

Here's my choice, that would knock with the audience, and really make the new Superman a glamorous movie.

There's nothing glamorous about Vin Diesel playing the smartest being in the universe, and it wouldn't "knock" with anyone, whatever that means. Diesiel playing intelligent is like Patrick Stewart not being histrionic.

You know, responding to that is like trying to teach a rabbit to fetch a ball -- a lot of effort on your end but absolutely nothing going on upstairs on the other end.