What should the next Superman movie be?

[The Borgified Corpse]

With all of this recent hubub about various proposals for a new Superman movie, from Legendary Pictures producing a direct follow-up to Superman Returns to the Wachowski brothers planning their own epic trilogy, I thought it was a good time to poll the folks here and see what the general sentiment is. Vote for as many options as would be acceptable to you. Enjoy!

 

[JacksonArcher]

I'd love to see a direct sequel to Superman Returns but only directed by Bryan Singer. Since Singer has said he's not going to direct it, I think some type of continuation with Brandon Routh would be preferred. I think a total reboot would be a bad idea. It took twenty years to get Superman back on the big screen and I think Returns if anything successfully introduced a new Superman. I think a loose sequel starring Routh is most likely.

 

[SalvorHardin]

I don't mind if it's a direct sequel or not, but I believe Routh should be given another shot. And it should not be a total reboot.

In any new movie, Superman should start as an already established hero. No introductions, no origins.
If there's any superhero everyone knows about, it's Superman.
And just keep Luthor out of the next movie or at least keep him to a minimum.

 

[Icemizer]

The next Superman movie needs to be huge in scope. Think Superman meets Independence Day. Ending with a huge showdown with say Mongul the leader of the invasion. This way we can tie into the Superman went into space thing from returns.

 

[QuasarVM]

No total reboot.

Here's my recipe for a blockbuster Supes film:

1.) Absolutely keep Brandon Routh. It's NOT his fault that Superman Returns was so dour.

2.) Keep all the cast except Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane -- maybe replace her with Parker Posey.

3.) Get rid of the kid; pretend he never existed

4.) Introduce Darkseid, Brainiac, Metallo or Doomsday as the villain

5.) Kevin Spacey was great as Luthor, but I think Luthor should either not be in the next one or -- or have a much reduced role (which Spacey would probably not go for)

6.) Keep the John Williams theme (I can't imagine Superman without it since 1978 -- it's become part of the character as much as the Alexander Courage TOS theme is Trek and John Williams Star Wars Theme is, well, Star Wars)

7.) Keep the same production designer

8.) Either keep Bryan Singer or get Richard Donner back to direct

9.) Keep it FUN! Not campy -- there's a difference!

10.) Add much more action! Superman -- The Movie had ten times the action of Superman Returns. Use that as the template!

11.) Do NOT go too dark! Superman Returns was actually kind of dark to me. Learn from the Trek TNG movies (Insurrection and Nemesis)! Two dark movies in a row spell doom for a film franchise! And this is not Batman -- nor should it be anything even remotely resembling it. Superman is a hopeful and larger than life character.

All of the above = guaranteed box office blockbuster!

 

[QuasarVM]

The next Superman movie needs to be huge in scope. Think Superman meets Independence Day. Ending with a huge showdown with say Mongul the leader of the invasion. This way we can tie into the Superman went into space thing from returns.

I like that idea, except I'd use Darkseid or Brainiac in place of Mongul.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Welling is a barely adequate piece of wood on that weblet TV series. Let him get on with making SCIFI Channel movies-of-the-week.

 

[Bad Bishop]

Brandon Routh should return, and the film should be a semi-reboot that ignores certain events in Superman Returns (and we all know what they are).

Speaking of Smallville, the show has (unfortunately) been satisfying some of the demand for Superman. It would really help the film franchise if the TV show ended this year.

 

[davejames]

I'm sure I'll get behind whatever they eventually decide to do.... but at the moment the only thing I'm interested in seeing is a sequel to SR. I was really invested in those characters, and wanted to see how that storyline and relationship with the son worked out.

And I wanted to see Singer amp up the action and let Routh kick some major ass.

 

[Mr Light]

I didn't care for SR at all, for Singer or for Routh, so I say total reboot. But NOT another origin story for crissakes!!! Just start in the middle of the action!

 

[Norrin Radd]

"Not a direct sequel but Brandon Routh should get another shot"

I don't see how this even makes sense. I mean, it kind of has to be a direct sequel in this case. If you have the same actor brought back...playing the title role...you can't just ignore what happened in the previous movie and you can't contradict it. That would just confuse audiences all to hell and they would have a right to be. For instance, you can't get rid of the kid; he was practically the main plot point of Returns.

 

[davejames]

"Not a direct sequel but Brandon Routh should get another shot"

I don't see how this even makes sense. I mean, it kind of has to be a direct sequel in this case. If you have the same actor brought back...playing the title role...you can't just ignore what happened in the previous movie and you can't contradict it. That would just confuse audiences all to hell and they would have a right to be. For instance, you can't get rid of the kid; he was practically the main plot point of Returns.

Yeah I don't know how anyone thinks that could actually happen. Routh, for better or worse, is now linked in the minds of most moviegoers to SR.

Hell, even though I could make the adjustment, I'd probably want a new actor too, if they did a reboot. It just makes things a lot simpler.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

You can tell who here are comic fans, because so many people are suggesting stupid comic style stuff, like just ignoring certain plot twists from the other movie, having half-reboots, with some of the same actors, but not the others. Geez, how pointlessly convoluted is that? I mean really people, keep Routh but ignore the kid? WHAT?? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It's the sort of nonsense that comic readers dig but everyone else just stares at with a glazed look in their eyes, then walks away. What's the f'ing point of being so obtuse about the whole thing?

Anyways it should be a direct sequel, or a total reboot, with nothing in between. My personal preference reboot, and I'm very much over the Donner-started series. I liked them in their time, but I'm over it. And I believe most of the younger generation doesn't see those movies as the end-all-be-all of Superman that can never be replicated. In fact, I'm not surprised if the majority of people 20 and under have NEVER EVEN SEEN it.

However, if they want Routh it should be a sequel, plain and simple. That's fine with me too.

 

[QuasarVM]

"Not a direct sequel but Brandon Routh should get another shot"

I don't see how this even makes sense. I mean, it kind of has to be a direct sequel in this case. If you have the same actor brought back...playing the title role...you can't just ignore what happened in the previous movie and you can't contradict it. That would just confuse audiences all to hell and they would have a right to be. For instance, you can't get rid of the kid; he was practically the main plot point of Returns.

To quote Mr. Bale again: What don't you F-ing understand? LOL!! That never gets old...:-)

It's Hollywood. Anything can happen.

The kid, frankly, sucked...it's a dead-end plot device. The only option for his character is death. Or death of Superman and the kid replaces him (which would be...stupid). Superman shouldn't have a sidekick...which is another lame way to utilize the character.

Get rid of the kid.

Kate Bosworth was boring and had NO (zip. zero. NADA!) chemistry with Routh...NOR did she possess any of the spunk and fun of Margot Kidder.

Additionally, she bore very little resemblence to the Lois Lane that was PREDOMINANTLY (not the weird little aberations -- like the Lois that married Clark Kent) was depicted in the Superman comics. And yes! I do believe the films should bear more than just a passing tie to the comics.

Otherwise, one might as well invent his own damned superhero and call him something else!

Why is this so difficult or understand or offensive to those who happen to have a different view of how the next film should unfold?

 

[davejames]

The kid, frankly, sucked...it's a dead-end plot device. The only option for his character is death. Or death of Superman and the kid replaces him (which would be...stupid). Superman shouldn't have a sidekick...which is another lame way to utilize the character.

I seriously doubt the kid was ever intended to be Superman's "sidekick." He was there simply to give Superman a little more dimension, and to give him a different kind of challenge besides just wooing Lois and saving the day yet again (I love Supes, but let's face it, there's not a lot of complexity to the character).

Additionally, she bore very little resemblence to the Lois Lane that was PREDOMINANTLY (not the weird little aberations -- like the Lois that married Clark Kent) was depicted in the Superman comics. And yes! I do believe the films should bear more than just a passing tie to the comics.

I wouldn't call the first couple decades of the comics or the Fleischer cartoons "aberations"-- and Bosworth resembles that Lois quite a bit.

 

[Norrin Radd]

"Not a direct sequel but Brandon Routh should get another shot"

I don't see how this even makes sense. I mean, it kind of has to be a direct sequel in this case. If you have the same actor brought back...playing the title role...you can't just ignore what happened in the previous movie and you can't contradict it. That would just confuse audiences all to hell and they would have a right to be. For instance, you can't get rid of the kid; he was practically the main plot point of Returns.

To quote Mr. Bale again: What don't you F-ing understand? LOL!! That never gets old...:-)

It's Hollywood. Anything can happen.

The kid, frankly, sucked...it's a dead-end plot device. The only option for his character is death. Or death of Superman and the kid replaces him (which would be...stupid). Superman shouldn't have a sidekick...which is another lame way to utilize the character.

Get rid of the kid.

Kate Bosworth was boring and had NO (zip. zero. NADA!) chemistry with Routh...NOR did she possess any of the spunk and fun of Margot Kidder.

Additionally, she bore very little resemblence to the Lois Lane that was PREDOMINANTLY (not the weird little aberations -- like the Lois that married Clark Kent) was depicted in the Superman comics. And yes! I do believe the films should bear more than just a passing tie to the comics.

Otherwise, one might as well invent his own damned superhero and call him something else!

Why is this so difficult or understand or offensive to those who happen to have a different view of how the next film should unfold?

It's not offensive, but is difficult to understand. For good reason.

I could see your point (somewhat) if Brandon Routh was a hollywood superstar, but he isn't. And let's face it...it's not like general audiences have fallen "in love" with Routh's portrayal of the character. I thought he was adequate and I don't think he was a drag on the movie. But he was definitely no Christopher Reeve.

So why go the needlessly complicated and risky route of basically rebooting just about everything except the actor when you can easily reboot everything including the actor...an actor who has not established himself as essential to the role?

 

[LutherSloan]

Reboot.

 

[Thrall]

I don't care as long as they ditch the Dr. Evil Lex and bring in Donald Trump Lex.

 

[QuasarVM]

I could see your point (somewhat) if Brandon Routh was a hollywood superstar, but he isn't. And let's face it...it's not like general audiences have fallen "in love" with Routh's portrayal of the character. I thought he was adequate and I don't think he was a drag on the movie. But he was definitely no Christopher Reeve.

Who is? Look, I just don't think Routh got a fair shot with that storyline/script. So, yeah...I think he deserves another chance. Did you read my post (perhaps in another thread) with my receipe for the sequel?

It spells out my vision for the next film were I to serve as producer.

So why go the needlessly complicated and risky route of basically rebooting just about everything except the actor when you can easily reboot everything including the actor...an actor who has not established himself as essential to the role?

I've never suggested rebooting the whole film except the lead actor. When/if you read my "recipe" post you'll see that I am definitely not for rebooting much at all. One film wouldn't "establish" anyone in a role. To me, even Christian Bale wasn't "established" after Batman Begins. I think that, given the material, Routh did as well as any actor you could name.

I'm certainly not for the Nick Cage type of casting. Reeve wasn't a superstar when he was cast either. In fact, he was an unknown -- aside from his role on the soap "Love of Life".

 

[Praetor]

"Not a direct sequel but Brandon Routh should get another shot"

I don't see how this even makes sense. I mean, it kind of has to be a direct sequel in this case. If you have the same actor brought back...playing the title role...you can't just ignore what happened in the previous movie and you can't contradict it. That would just confuse audiences all to hell and they would have a right to be. For instance, you can't get rid of the kid; he was practically the main plot point of Returns.

Exactly.

I voted total reboot.

1) Keep Parker Posey to play Lois, which should have been a given in the first place. Cast a more 'adult' actor to play Superman. Josh Brolin, for example.

2) Brainiac, Metallo or Doomsday as the villain, but not a villain-palooza.

3) If there's any Lex, use rich guy Lex.