The new Superman movie using the previous movies continuity. Good idea or bad?

[Knight]

According to The Chicago Sun Times





The creators are setting out to give a new generation its Superman with "Superman Returns," which will begin production in four weeks.

"It's moving full steam ahead," Harris said. "I'm happy to say that, because Hollywood has been trying to crack this Superman thing for years."

As for script secrets, Harris divulged the following: "He'll begin in his late 20s. He lost his powers in 'Superman 2' and now he has the powers back. But something has happened because he's been away for a long time."

As for script secrets, Harris divulged, "We're taking off from the first two Superman films with Christopher Reeve. We use his history and then move on with big twists and great special effects.

"We're not going to do the origin story again. Our view is if you're over 25 years old, then you've seen the Reeve films and that's Superman to you. If you're under 25, then you watch TV's 'Smallville,' and that's Superman to you." I dont know about using the previous movies history because parts of it were bad. Not that I didnt love the films ,they were good for their time but the whole reversing time while flying around the Earth thing was stupid. Plus I like the modern Luthor more than "the greatest criminal mind of all time" version which I assume is what we will have in the new movies. Oh well.

[Stu]

This lacks any type of logic. Superman II already had a sequel.

I'm not especially looking forward to this take on Superman, but leave the original movies as they are. It's bad enough what WB is doing to Catwoman and Batman, but leave the old Superman alone.

Seriously, just restart it.

[The Penguin]

This lacks any type of logic.Yeah, pretty much.

[Tobias]

Well, the bad part is they're messing with around with both the first two films AND Smallville. Call me crazy, but I doubt they can fit this movie into continuities without killing off Pa Kent at the end of this season of Smallville, seeing as to how he died before Clark graduated high school in SM1.

But on the bright side, at least they're trying to undo the :zim: Horrible! Superman III and IV.

[James]

I don't think it's so bad after talking it over with Amazing Spidey. I think he chose his words poorly.

I think he means like how Buffy followed on from the movie, but didn't really so far as continuity. It retained the premise and some vague connections, but is never considered total continuity.

I can't see them linking to those movies too much, I can see it just confusing movie goers.

I agree though that we don't need another origin story.. ><

[The Penguin]

I agree though that we don't need another origin story.. ><I think we do. If we are going to have a new Superman franchise we need to do it the right way. If for no other reason than every incarnation of Superman since the other movie series has featured Jonathan and Martha who are key part of who Clark Kent is and his development into a hero. On the other hand, since this is not "Smallville: The Movie" Lex Luthor should be re-introduced so he is either not "Gene Hackman" or Clark's best friend from childhood.

I don't see anyone complaining that "Batman Begins" should be a proper sequel to Batman Returns because the other two of those movies should be ignored.

[SilverKnight]

Perhaps what Harris meant was that there was no point in doing another origin story because whatever you've watched with Superman thus far is most likely what you consider in continuity. Spending a third of the movie going over his origins that the viewer feels they already know (and going over it differently, no less) would probably grate on their nerves to a degree, so there's no point in even doing it. Superman is Superman; whatever happened in his past made him who he is in the present and unless it's somehow crucial to the plot, adding his past is essentially irrelevant to the story at hand, y'know?

However, that's the only real ascertation I can make from his statements. If my theory isn't it, then I have absolutely no idea what he's doing/thinking. I hope they're going to do this right. I really do.

[Beat]

This is weird. Does this mean someone's gonna give Superman the special edition treatment?

Or is Smallville going to be rewritten to accomidate this new film?

[James]

I don't see anyone complaining that "Batman Begins" should be a proper sequel to Batman Returns because the other two of those movies should be ignored.
I'm not getting your point there. Batman Begins sets a beginning - a beginning the old franchise didn't have.

A better comparison would be if they had done Batman again and done the Joker origin. It's been done once on screen, it doesn't need a second airing. People won't flock to another Joker origin.

The reason they could do an origin movie for Batman Begins is because the Batman franchise doesn't have one, so it's not going over old ground per se.

As for Superman, his point is that the origins have been done twice to both target audience tellings of the same tale. Those generations probably overlap 40% of the time, so that's both your target audience groups who have seen two origins. The thought of a third will not go down well.

I'm sure there will be some origin work - like in "Batman". Just some quick flashbacks in the film - rare for a film not to have any flashbacks/origins when dealing with an established concept.

[Master Moron]

You know, I kind of wish they would use some other villain instead of Lex Luthor. I mean, he's in just about every Superman movie and TV series. Actually, I don't remember him being in the old black and white TV series, but I could be wrong. Anyway, they have so many Superman villains that they could use, Darkseid, Doomsday, Bizarro, Solomon Grundy, Brainiac, Metallo, Parasite. I'm so sick of Lex Luthor. I mean, he's kind of an interesting character, but it's like the writers of these things don't know enough about the other villains or they're too cheap to design the costumes and special effects or something. It just seems so lame to fall back on Lex Luthor again. Of course, I actually haven't heard anything about this movie, so hopefully it will have another villain instead of Lex Luthor, but well, we'll see.

[Knight]

I think we do. If we are going to have a new Superman franchise we need to do it the right way. If for no other reason than every incarnation of Superman since the other movie series has featured Jonathan and Martha who are key part of who Clark Kent is and his development into a hero. On the other hand, since this is not "Smallville: The Movie" Lex Luthor should be re-introduced so he is either not "Gene Hackman" or Clark's best friend from childhood.


I totally forgot about the parents aspect . They have been key to him in both the comics, animation and Tv ever since he was revamped in the mid 80's. I always thought it was good that they decided to keep them around instead of them dying. They have always served to keep Superman going on the right path and its nice to have family. But if things are going like they appear they wont be in the new films which is a shame.

[William C. Maune]

The way I read into it, they figure everyone has seen at least one Superman origin and for that reason there is no need to tell an origin story at this point in time. This is especially since there are plenty of other stories to be told. Rather than telling an origin here it will be more like a pick whatever origin you like situation because this movie won't really depend on the origin (i.e. like the previous Batman movies). While it sounds like they are loosely tying this into the first two Superman movies (while ignoring 3 and 4), I doubt they will really refer to those first two movies. It will probably be more like a frame of reference for those that remember the movies while otherwise the new movie itself will be full steam ahead.

[MJC]

I'm torn. Although I don't really think it should've been in continuity with the first two Superman movies, but I am REALLY glad they aren't going to waste time telling an origin story everybody already knows.

[Donald Duck 12]

Take a look at Star Wars. 16 year gap and it got good prequals but prequels different than the original. It could work, but unlike SW, you can start over with a new premises. I hope they keep at least one things from the old movies: John Williams.

[MAXIMUS]

I don't know about the rest of you but Batman Begins is looking more and more like a gem to me. Cant' wait for that one ;)

[Hatter]

I dunno... so far, quotes from the new team have me thinking that they're far too fond of the Reeve Superman films. They were decent, but I'm troubled my the fact that they want to keep the designs in the same vein, as well as keep the continuity.
I don't want to see another arctic Krypton, scummy, dark NYC-as-Metropolis, or Luthor's underground hotel-lair.

And it makes me worry that if the Kevin Spacey for Lex rumour is true, he'll just be imitating Gene Hackman's bumbling, ridiculous performance.

[matta2fatta]

its scary right? peoples dont want to see supes messed up

[Knight]

So who do you think they should get for Otis this time around?

[Deadly Messiah]

I still think they should've just waited until they could use the Smallville cast, and end Smallville with the movie were he becomes Superman.

Also, who is playing Superman? I thought Jesus was the official person, but now I'm hearing differently.

[Beat]

I still think they should've just waited until they could use the Smallville cast, and end Smallville with the movie were he becomes Superman.
Nobody from Smallville (especially Tom Welling) wanted to be involved with a Superman movie.

[Knight]

I still think they should've just waited until they could use the Smallville cast, and end Smallville with the movie were he becomes Superman.

Also, who is playing Superman? I thought Jesus was the official person, but now I'm hearing differently.
Superman is going to be played by a unknown actor by the name of Brandon Routh.

As far as using Smallville... that in my opinion would have been a bad idea. The whole Smallville concept is out there with their "kryptonite villain of the week" stories and all that. Its ok for a tv show but I wouldnt want to see any of that translated to the big screen.

[creeper]

Rather than use one and two, wouldn't it be okay to use the comic book telling ala Spider-man 2 to tell the origin story.

[Knight]

Rather than use one and two, wouldn't it be okay to use the comic book telling ala Spider-man 2 to tell the origin story.
Singer obviously doesn't feel it needs to be retold again and I can live with that to a degree. Although honestly I was sort of looking forward to a new take on Krypton in the movies other than the ice planet of the original Superman movies. But it seems the ice planet is what we are stuck with since they are using Superman's one and two as there springboard.

[kaine23]

..well least they're not including Superman 3 and 4...

[Hatter]

And now with Singer saying he wants John Williams to do the music...
I think they're just opening themselves up to harsh comparisons to the first movie. Now, every single bad review is going to just compare them point-by-point, along with headlines accusing Singer and Routh of trying to copy Reeve's performance.
Singer seems to love Reeve's Clark-as-an-annoying-nerd, which is a good performance, but not really true to the Clark Kent character. He's mind-mannered, not so irritating that you want to sock him in the jaw. If we can believe a man can fly and shoot heat beams from his eyes, we can believe that Clark Kent can fool people by simply putting on a pair of glasses and combing his hair. Acting like he has Tourette's Syndrome was Reeve's thing. Routh shouldn't emulate it.

[Damien]

Why can't they just make a movie called Superman, where the movie begins very early in his career (much like Burton's Batman)? Sure, I can see where showing the origin would get old, but come on. Ignoring the last two films and picking up from a movie that's 20 years old? Just restart the franchise already. Even worse is the plot for the movie. He lost his powers, but something happens, and he comes back? Dumb. He regained his powers (with some weird new ones) by the end of Part 2.
And Williams for the music? What...what are they...I've lost faith. Hollywood, Singer, WB, DC, all of them, are simply incapable of portraying the Man of Steel the way he deserves, and the way people deserve to see him.

[Patrick Bateman]

And now with Singer saying he wants John Williams to do the music...
I think they're just opening themselves up to harsh comparisons to the first movie. Now, every single bad review is going to just compare them point-by-point, along with headlines accusing Singer and Routh of trying to copy Reeve's performance.
Singer seems to love Reeve's Clark-as-an-annoying-nerd, which is a good performance, but not really true to the Clark Kent character. He's mind-mannered, not so irritating that you want to sock him in the jaw. If we can believe a man can fly and shoot heat beams from his eyes, we can believe that Clark Kent can fool people by simply putting on a pair of glasses and combing his hair. Acting like he has Tourette's Syndrome was Reeve's thing. Routh shouldn't emulate it.That was the best Clark Kent ever, IMO. And for the record, it was very true to the comics at the time. I'd love to see that style of Clark again.

[Knight]

That was the best Clark Kent ever, IMO. And for the record, it was very true to the comics at the time. I'd love to see that style of Clark again.
Well I for one dont want to see Clark reduced to a bumbling nerd. I prefer the modern take on the character. The Timm version of Clark stands out to me as perfect. Mild mannered reporter and not a guy who stutters and causes a lot of physical comedy.

[TimTwoFace]

As much as I respect and appreciate Superman 1 and 2, I don't want this to be a continuation. Just restart the damned thing, make everything fresh. Am I the only one that, in retrospect, didn't like Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor? He just didn't have the same "corporate tycoon" feel that the Lexes of today (from STAS, or SMALLVILLE, even) have. His fit the 70's but not today.

Hell, I'd like to see the movie heavily influenced by the animated series, but expanded further. That works for me. :)

-Tim

[The Penguin]

And now with Singer saying he wants John Williams to do the music...
I think they're just opening themselves up to harsh comparisons to the first movie. Now, every single bad review is going to just compare them point-by-point, along with headlines accusing Singer and Routh of trying to copy Reeve's performance.
Singer seems to love Reeve's Clark-as-an-annoying-nerd, which is a good performance, but not really true to the Clark Kent character. He's mind-mannered, not so irritating that you want to sock him in the jaw. If we can believe a man can fly and shoot heat beams from his eyes, we can believe that Clark Kent can fool people by simply putting on a pair of glasses and combing his hair. Acting like he has Tourette's Syndrome was Reeve's thing. Routh shouldn't emulate it. :shrug: Who would have thought that once we had real direction and a clear vision that things would start to sound worse than when it was just never going to get made?

[BatKid]

I don't know, I'm still going to have to stay reserved on this plot news. I know it came from the director's mouth, but strangers things have happened. What it sounds like is Singer's definitely not wanting to step on any of the Superman fans shoes (whether it be the Reeve films, Fleischer toons, STAS, Smallville, etc). It looks like he'll be using elements from these shows, but mostly the Reeve films.

Do I like it? Well I'll have to see more. Remember this is just plot news, and hardly anything is final. What I do think though is he's going in the right direction by taking bits and pieces from all the Superman shows we've seen and putting 'em together somewhat.

[Knight]

:shrug: Who would have thought that once we had real direction and a clear vision that things would start to sound worse than when it was just never going to get made?
Well atleast Nicholas Cage isnt Superman.:p

[wrenchien]

This lacks any type of logic. Superman II already had a sequel.


richard pryor will not be amused..... he was a big part of what made supes 3 the best. a guy who didn't have much else to do , proves his worth as a idiot savant hacker. a rare thing to be both african american and a hacker back in the 80's .... whos discovered skills in hacking stuff got all those 6/10ths of paychecks forwarded and merged to him at once so he wound up with a phat ride.... developed the basis of a truly perverted computer on mere napkins, and created a compound akin to kryptonite that could contaminate superman to such meanness...

and to be honest, supes going sick, helping the bad guys, getting drunk, and mean thanks to bad kryptonite..was class, man. real class. and who's heart didn't skip a beat when his body exhumed clark kent after a kid's plight ignited in supe's dna a clone with more clark kentlike sensibilities (which may have been a mental thing in that junkyard more than an actual fight, for all we have known) and they tango'd somehow in spite of clark kent probably not being the stronger opponent? how kent killed off superman when someone did be crushing the glasses? ohh, that's leaving a mark.

and the computer fight at the end.. real cool stuff. graphics, indeed, that were years ahead of his time. richard pryor's character moving on from computers at the end , with a performance far outshining the personal problems he had that decade to overcome, even before he had muscular degeneration for so many years... class stuff.

to think superman 3 would be swept under the rug for the new superman .. is hard to stomach. even with the peach soda i have waiting to be taken home, drank, and digested once i stop posting this paragraph and go on home. hopefully they will consider while making this to make it a midway between 2 and 3, someday remake 3 with eddie murphy or will smith as the bumbling yet surprisingly clever russ gorman ( i think that's the name of pryor's character) as the sequel.. and maybe avoid 4 all together , to consider as , ehm lost in the crisis of infinite earths.

speaking of crisis, the library i'm at is closing in 45 minutes. better hit 'save changes', ehm.

and p.s. ... getting wrapped up in wires and being encased in this kinda ugly robot shell.... sounds almost like fun, even if that lady who got it near the end of the movie probably didnt' like it until the emotions were.. ehm, 'offlined'.

supreme victory,

wrenchien

[Knight]

Wrenchien thats a excellent idea. After Superman 2.5(aka Superman Returns) We cant let Singer totally retcon the greatness that is Superman 3.


I have a sudden urge to see Superman III now. Speaking of which I wonder why none networks have done a Superman special since Reeve's death. I was kind of expecting one.

[wrenchien]

Wrenchien thats a excellent idea. After Superman 2.5(aka Superman Returns) We cant let Singer totally retcon the greatness that is Superman 3.


I have a sudden urge to see Superman III now. Speaking of which I wonder why none networks have done a Superman special since Reeve's death. I was kind of expecting one.

i think a & e sorta did a biography on chris reeve that was updated to include the news of reeves death recently.. dunno when that will reair.

[Patrick Bateman]

Well I for one dont want to see Clark reduced to a bumbling nerd. I prefer the modern take on the character. The Timm version of Clark stands out to me as perfect. Mild mannered reporter and not a guy who stutters and causes a lot of physical comedy.Here we go again. The classic case of animated fanboy using one of the Timm series' as the measuring stick for good comic adaptations. :rolleyes:

[Knight]

Here we go again. The classic case of animated fanboy using one of the Timm series' as the measuring stick for good comic adaptations. :rolleyes:Actually I used the Timm version as a example of how Clark is shown today. He hasnt acted like he did in the Superman movies since John Bryne revamped the character. So take your pick. Current comics, current animated form, even Lois and Clark The New Adventures of Superman. He hasnt been portrayed as bumbling nerd in a long time and I personally like it that way.

[SilverKnight]

Here we go again. The classic case of animated fanboy using one of the Timm series' as the measuring stick for good comic adaptations. :rolleyes:Actually, I think it's the classic case of someone using a good example offhand to prove their point (which you either completely missed or just ignored for the sake of convenience). I liked it the nerdy sidekick-ish way he acted in the movies, sure, but I also like the more confident Clark Kent of today, and given that it is today and not, say, 1977, it would probably fit better with the times. Makes sense to me.

And you really love using that roll eyes smiley, don't you? I swear I see that thing in about 85% of your posts.

[Patrick Bateman]

Boo fricking hoo. I just love how everyone thinks I'm a total jerk as soon as I start saying what's on my mind.

[Shaggy&Daphne]

Is there nothing sacred anymore? Nothing that Hollywood could just possibly leave be and keep their dirty hands off of? Is there nothing they won't stoop to? It's bad enough that they are making a new Superman movie, but what's worse is that it is going to be an actual sequal to the first two films. May I ask just exactly what time period this movie is going to be set in anyway, since Clark Kent is still going to be in his 20's and that it is supposed to take place right after the events of Superman II, which was released in 1980? It can not possibly take place in present day, which means it would have to be set in the early 1980s, right?
Despite everything, this project is in every way an absolute disgrace, simply because back in days when Superman: The Movie was made and other great films of the 1970s and 1980s like The Godfather and Batman, film-making was and art. It meant something. Now film-making is all just a bunch of CGI effects and intense violence to make teenagers say "Woah, that was cool!" It's a shame!

[BatKid]

Is there nothing sacred anymore? Nothing that Hollywood could just possibly leave be and keep their dirty hands off of? Is there nothing they won't stoop to? It's bad enough that they are making a new Superman movie, but what's worse is that it is going to be an actual sequal to the first two films. May I ask just exactly what time period this movie is going to be set in anyway, since Clark Kent is still going to be in his 20's and that it is supposed to take place right after the events of Superman II, which was released in 1980? It can not possibly take place in present day, which means it would have to be set in the early 1980s, right?
Despite everything, this project is in every way an absolute disgrace, simply because back in days when Superman: The Movie was made and other great films of the 1970s and 1980s like The Godfather and Batman, film-making was and art. It meant something. Now film-making is all just a bunch of CGI effects and intense violence to make teenagers say "Woah, that was cool!" It's a shame!Sounds like you need to read this new report from Superman-V (http://www.superman-v.com/news/04_10_23.php)


So how will Singer's Superman connect to Superman 2? We understand from a usually reliable source that the story will start off with Superman in exile 6 years after the events in Superman 2 when General Zod, Ursa and Non wreaked havoc on the citizens of Metropolis. There was alot of hate towards the Man of Steel and he felt responsible, so he exiled himself. The film will begin with Superman in the fortress of solitude whilst in his exiled state. After an attack on Metropolis Superman returns and whilst he feels badly about what happened before, he feels it's his duty to save the day once more. We're told to imagine this as a kind of Kingdom Come-like 'Second coming'. our source goes on to tell us "This is a tale that will amaze and captivate you from the get go. The film will have an amazing story at it's core. It will have a connection to the previous franchise in the sense that similar story elements are being used. But in many ways, this represents a complete restart."There ya go. Some of you are taking this continuity aspect too literally. What Singer is doing, is simply letting all types of Superman fans (i.e. Smallville, STAS, Donner films, etc.) have their own vision of the character's origin. The origin has been done so many times over the past 20 years, heck...there's a whole show going on right now that basically is an origin of Supes. Therefore, Singer doesn't feel it's necessary to make another one, as everyone already knows it. Let the people interpret how Superman became Superman.

BTW, you can also click on the above link to see much more news on the film, including suit concepts and casting rumors.

[TimTwoFace]

Call me a purist, but I'd still rather see the origin of Superman in this movie. It doesn't have to be as long and boring and drawn out as it was in the original 1978 movie, but something closer to how the animated series handled it would be nice. (Hell, that would make Brainiac a force to be reckoned with from the early going, too. There's more to Superman's respectable foes list than just Lex Luthor.)

So...in a way, it sounds like Singer wants to treat this movie much like how Timm & Co. wanted to treat the fourth season of STAS that never came through. That could be interesting, but honestly, I'd rather start with an origin and then go down that path.

-Tim

[The Penguin]

Call me a purist, but I'd still rather see the origin of Superman in this movie. It doesn't have to be as long and boring and drawn out as it was in the original 1978 movie, but something closer to how the animated series handled it would be nice. (Hell, that would make Brainiac a force to be reckoned with from the early going, too. There's more to Superman's respectable foes list than just Lex Luthor.)

So...in a way, it sounds like Singer wants to treat this movie much like how Timm & Co. wanted to treat the fourth season of STAS that never came through. That could be interesting, but honestly, I'd rather start with an origin and then go down that path.This is exactly what I'm thinking Tim. It doesn't have to be a long, drawn out thing. Even a short flashback to some of his early life would be good enough for me. This "You know Superman, so we're just going for it and starting here," doesn't sit well with me.

[TimTwoFace]

Well, all we really need to know is that Superman originated on a planet that exploded, and he was saved only because his parents jettisoned him to earth. The only further explanation that would be needed is if you wanted to include the Brainiac connection which STAS did...and that'd be cool.

Speaking of long and drawn out like Superman (1978), need I point out SMALLVILLE? I stuck with the show THIS long, but damn, it's dragging on for too long. :p I hope that Superman either has all of his powers from the get-go (and it's naturally assumed or explained), or that they'll develop as the series goes on.

And please, no reversing the earth's rotation to reverse time! Please!

-Tim

[BatKid]

Umm..did no one read the page long article about the movie up above? :sweat:

[SilverKnight]

Call me a purist, but I'd still rather see the origin of Superman in this movie. It doesn't have to be as long and boring and drawn out as it was in the original 1978 movie, but something closer to how the animated series handled it would be nice. (Hell, that would make Brainiac a force to be reckoned with from the early going, too. There's more to Superman's respectable foes list than just Lex Luthor.)

So...in a way, it sounds like Singer wants to treat this movie much like how Timm & Co. wanted to treat the fourth season of STAS that never came through. That could be interesting, but honestly, I'd rather start with an origin and then go down that path.

-TimI can understand that. Personally, I don't think it's entirely necessary because everyone and their kid sister has some kind of general knowledge about Superman's background, and even a flashback wouldn't serve much of a purpose if it's there just to have a requisite 'this is his past' scene.

[The Penguin]

Umm..did no one read the page long article about the movie up above? :sweat:I read it, and it maybe halfway fixes the concerns I have about the movie. Unless we're getting different things out of it, the article still says that somehow the decision was made to jump off the events of Superman II and provide no origin. This is a new actor, with a new director and film-making styles and technology that is advanced 24 years and it needs a new origin to go along with it. That can be done without using half the movie to do it.

[Crow]

Boo fricking hoo. I just love how everyone thinks I'm a total jerk as soon as I start saying what's on my mind.
Now would you like some salad with your other foot?

I like this idea, more people will be able to get into it.

[Knight]

Superman in exile for 6 years?! So how are they going to explain Clark Kent's absence over the same period? I dont like the way this movie sounds so far. What happened to the" I'll never let you down again" speach at the end on Superman II he gave to the president? Guess he changed his mind on that real quick.

Just restart the franchise...completly.

[BatKid]

Like it said, it's taking PARTS of Superman II as reference. So, that could mean that in THIS new continuity, the end speech never really happened, as well as some other events. As for explaining Clark leaving along with his Superman persona, I'm thinking Superman is the only one who left if you get my drift.

[James]

I too would prefer a more bumbly Clark. I've never liked the uptodate versions, comics, TV or cartoon. I liked the idea that the glasses theme worked because he acted so differently he could afford such a blatant disguise.

People read more from body language than the do from features. I thought the idea of Superman playing the prat to interface into society was a cool idea. I've never liked the fact as society has demanded "cooler" heroes who wise crack 24/7 that the more inventive ideas go out the window.

Now all heroes have to be cool, be it Parker, Kent or Prince Adam. God forbid people act or look like nerds.

If they are borrowing from Superman II in any way, I would like to see them take that angle on Clark. I think it offers a more interesting character development for both sides of the character and would make the film a little more colourful.

If it was done right it could be played on the right side of being comic and poignant. Putting on a lie everyday would be draining for the "human" superhero. I think that adds a layer and takes away the dull pappy mainstream need for a cool Kent...

[BatKid]

Nothing really to add about the topic, but I just had to add this manip I found...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v332/Uaala/supes-ROUTH.jpg


Tell me that's not Superman. :eek:

[Knight]

If he can pack on the muscle he can defintly fit.

[creeper]

Not that i'm trying to give them any ideas, but starting from the end of the death of superman would be original.

[James]

Nothing really to add about the topic, but I just had to add this manip I found...

Tell me that's not Superman. :eek:
If they do the costume like that I'd be happy - some blue contacts and visually he'd be looking okay to me..

[Killtacular]

I do not see a need for an origin but if they did one, just show it during the opening credits. Anyone just happening upon a random Superman: TAS episode sees the origin in the credits, it's extremely easy to figure out. And this is a random Superman adventure, not the beginning or end of his career.

I'm getting sick of superhero movies with origins. IT'S FREAKING SUPERMAN FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. THE MOST POPULAR SUPERHERO IN AMERICA. Even Chester Dorkenpot, accountant and bookkeeper for GenericCorp, knows the story of the man from Krypton.

Just once, just ONCE, I'd like to see a superhero movie that takes place in the middle of a hero's career, in this millenium.

I can't believe people want their movies to be formulaic and repetitive.

[Stu]

Just once, just ONCE, I'd like to see a superhero movie that takes place in the middle of a hero's career, in this millenium.
Like Spider-Man 2?

The main problem is that it's using a continuity from over 20 year ago. A fresh start would be better, with or without the origin.

[RAINMAN]

I also don`t want them to include the 80` s movies. That mean zod will never show up cause hes dead. And S3 was not bad as either. The 4th one did suck but nucler man ruled.:D

[Crow]

Matt's got a point, although from an economic point of view you want people to be introduced and understanding of the character who's flying/jumping/hitting/dancing with superhuman like prowess everybody in the movie. The Fantastic Four movie which I only heard about on here last week looks to be going along nicely - perhaps their origin will be changed so it'll fit better. Of course, that means it needs to be shown. The studio would want the audience to leave the movie knowing the basic details of the hero plus how they fared during the overall plot of the movie; and then go and find out more.

They wouldn't put people through, for example, me going to see an Origin-less Fantastic Four movie and then having to go bone up on FF history to further understand the four heroes I've just seen.

It also depends on what those of us who know the characters know is a character's "origin" and what the definition of the word "origin" means to each individual film. I don't consider X-Men an origin film for Rogue or any of the other mutants myself, for instance.

[The Clown Prince]

The picture above that Batkid posted looks pretty good for a mock up. The body pose you see is from the recent publicity picture of Iaon Gruffud who is playing Mr. Fantastic. As for the costume mock up, Singer said that they were going in the same direction design wise that Sony did for Spider-Man's costume. I wouldn't be surprised to see the costume color and material almost the same. Take out the "scales" from Spidey's costume and there you go. I honestly really don't want to see the blues, reds, and yellows as bright as Christopher Reeve's costume was. The Spider-Man costume is like perfect in terms of color tone. As for the "underwear" I think it'll be a latex type material. Designed in such a way that for a live action picture, it won't too hokey. Heck, it'll probably be intergrated into the main costume so the whole thing is one piece.

As for the story, everyone has weighed in her except me. I think I understand what Singer is trying to accomplish, and someone above here mentioned it too. While it looks like Superman 3 and 4 don't exist anymore, they are playing off elements from Superman 1 and 2 which has been confirmed as we all know. In a way this new movie is a sequel, but at the same time it's a new begining/continuity/startover. Meaning you can definately watch this new movie without ever having seen the first two because this isn't exactly a full blown sequel to the first two. Again, they will be referencing those two movies only it looks like. In explaining things, Singer and his crew will mention Zodd and company I'm sure, but again, you don't have to have seen 1 and 2. TV, comics, and other movies do this sort of thing all the time. It's like when certain movies begin at the point where it's say in the middle of a story and you have no idea what happend. Then over the course of the movie, they tell you. Except with Superman, that won't happen. It's just gonna start off in the middle. Get what I'm trying to say? :D ;)

I think this will work out great. Newbie just needs to spend the next few months putting on some muscle before filming begins, and Singer needs to cast a great supporting cast. I hope he just doesn't go the "WB" route and cast a kid looking Lois Lane, Jimmy Olson etc. Sean "Iceman" Ashmore is the current rumor going on for Jimmy. Which makes sense because he worked with Singer twice already.

And one more thing I wanted to mention. I think that Singer went with the 25 year old actor rather than an older one because this franchise has the potential to go on for a while. If you cast an older actor, his age over time would show. Even though, I like the idea of a more mature looking Superman. Which is why I wish Jim Caviezel would have gotten it. I wish too he didn't turn down the role of Cyclops because him and Jean would have looked better together age wise than James Marsden. I know he's in his late twenties, but he looks really young.

Anyways, my two or three cents there.

The Clown Prince

[BatKid]

The picture above that Batkid posted looks pretty good for a mock up. The body pose you see is from the recent publicity picture of Iaon Gruffud who is playing Mr. Fantastic. As for the costume mock up, Singer said that they were going in the same direction design wise that Sony did for Spider-Man's costume. I wouldn't be surprised to see the costume color and material almost the same. Take out the "scales" from Spidey's costume and there you go. I honestly really don't want to see the blues, reds, and yellows as bright as Christopher Reeve's costume was. The Spider-Man costume is like perfect in terms of color tone. As for the "underwear" I think it'll be a latex type material. Designed in such a way that for a live action picture, it won't too hokey. Heck, it'll probably be intergrated into the main costume so the whole thing is one piece.

As for the story, everyone has weighed in her except me. I think I understand what Singer is trying to accomplish, and someone above here mentioned it too. While it looks like Superman 3 and 4 don't exist anymore, they are playing off elements from Superman 1 and 2 which has been confirmed as we all know. In a way this new movie is a sequel, but at the same time it's a new begining/continuity/startover. Meaning you can definately watch this new movie without ever having seen the first two because this isn't exactly a full blown sequel to the first two. Again, they will be referencing those two movies only it looks like. In explaining things, Singer and his crew will mention Zodd and company I'm sure, but again, you don't have to have seen 1 and 2. TV, comics, and other movies do this sort of thing all the time. It's like when certain movies begin at the point where it's say in the middle of a story and you have no idea what happend. Then over the course of the movie, they tell you. Except with Superman, that won't happen. It's just gonna start off in the middle. Get what I'm trying to say? :D ;)

I think this will work out great. Newbie just needs to spend the next few months putting on some muscle before filming begins, and Singer needs to cast a great supporting cast. I hope he just doesn't go the "WB" route and cast a kid looking Lois Lane, Jimmy Olson etc. Sean "Iceman" Ashmore is the current rumor going on for Jimmy. Which makes sense because he worked with Singer twice already.

And one more thing I wanted to mention. I think that Singer went with the 25 year old actor rather than an older one because this franchise has the potential to go on for a while. If you cast an older actor, his age over time would show. Even though, I like the idea of a more mature looking Superman. Which is why I wish Jim Caviezel would have gotten it. I wish too he didn't turn down the role of Cyclops because him and Jean would have looked better together age wise than James Marsden. I know he's in his late twenties, but he looks really young.

Anyways, my two or three cents there.

The Clown Prince
THANK YOU for understanding what I've been trying to say and hopefully everyone will understand what Singer's intentions are for the movie. :)

Also, a little tidbit, it's been confirmed that Routh has signed for 3 motion pictures, with AT LEAST 2 Superman films, and the third possibly being the long-awaited Batman/Superman film.

This reinforces what 'The Clown Prince' said earlier about wanting to cast a young actor for the role. Both Bale and Routh will be middle-aged by the time a Batman/Superman film is in the works, as opposed to be nearing mid-40's if older actors were cast for the respective roles. Looks like WB has plans for these 2 franchises in the long run.

[James]

^..THANK YOU for understanding what I've been trying to say and hopefully everyone will understand what Singer's intentions are for the movie. :)

Also, a little tidbit, it's been confirmed that Routh has signed for 3 motion pictures, with AT LEAST 2 Superman films, and the third possibly being the long-awaited Batman/Superman film.
The same thing I inferred on page one. :) Well, at least we are in agreement for once! :D

[BatKid]

Thank the lord! :D

Now all you need to do is agree with Jolie for Catwoman and we'll be good buds in no time. ;) :p

[Knight]

Thank the lord! :D

Now all you need to do is agree with Jolie for Catwoman and we'll be good buds in no time. ;) :p
Well she has been my top pick for the role for awhile now.

[ZorBrak]

Terrible idea.I will never stop hating WB I think.

[The Clown Prince]

THANK YOU for understanding what I've been trying to say and hopefully everyone will understand what Singer's intentions are for the movie. :)

Also, a little tidbit, it's been confirmed that Routh has signed for 3 motion pictures, with AT LEAST 2 Superman films, and the third possibly being the long-awaited Batman/Superman film.

This reinforces what 'The Clown Prince' said earlier about wanting to cast a young actor for the role. Both Bale and Routh will be middle-aged by the time a Batman/Superman film is in the works, as opposed to be nearing mid-40's if older actors were cast for the respective roles. Looks like WB has plans for these 2 franchises in the long run.
Hey, no problem. :) It wasn't hard to understand what Singer is up to.

The one thing that bugged me about the original Superman movie was that they had Pa Kent die. That was something that I never agreed with and still don't today. But I guess it was a story element to help Clark 'grow' I guess. Who knows, maybe with references to the first two films, maybe since this is a start over in a way, maybe they'll ignore that Pa Kent died and have his character be in it. For the Lex Luthor character, Singer I believe has not mentioned if he was going to be in it. Hopefully Singer will cast a great actor for him.

As for Zodd, Singer said that he would in some form or another play a part in it, and that Terrence Stamp would be too. Whether or not Stamp will play Zodd or another character entirely, we'll have to see.

Going back to Sean Ashmore as a possible Jimmy Olson, the actor just turned 25, same as Routh.

And yes, by the time a Superman/Batman movie ever happens, it'll probably be at least 6 to 8 years from now. And by then both actors should look a little more mature age wise than they do now. Does Bale have a three picture deal too? If so and WB wants to go this route, either it's by sheer coincidence, or they thought ahead for the long term. A Superman/Batman film with those two would be "absolutley friggin sweet!" - Peter Griffin quote there. ;)

The Clown Prince

[Crow]

The week Christopher Reeve died one of the tv channels here screened Superman as a "Special Tribute to Christopher Reeve" that Friday, I watched/taped it and as they went to breaks it would have the logo plus the "Special Tribute to Christopher Reeve" phrase above it. It was the first time in as long as I could remember me seeing the whole movie all the way through (I probably always got my parents to hire it for me as a young child though).

Jonathan's death was surprising, I'm not really liking they did that and will be fine if he is alive in the new movie.

For Luthor, I'm assuming he's going to reformatted as a businessman and not a scientist in the sewers right?

For Jimmy why can't they get a teenage actor for the role?

[BatKid]

Does Bale have a three picture deal too? If so and WB wants to go this route, either it's by sheer coincidence, or they thought ahead for the long term. A Superman/Batman film with those two would be "absolutley friggin sweet!" - Peter Griffin quote there. ;)

The Clown PrinceYes, Bale has the same exact deal. I'm not surprised WB planned this, as they were originally going to have a Batman/Superman film first, then have each character get their own movies.

[James]

Thank the lord! :D

Now all you need to do is agree with Jolie for Catwoman and we'll be good buds in no time. ;) :p
And there once again, we must part company.. ;)

[Knight]

From that site that cant be named





Bryan Singer, director of the upcoming Superman movie from Warner Bros., was a guest on Los Angeles radio station KROQ on Thursday and said it was "essential" that he casted an unknown for the role.

I was always inspired by George Reeves and Christopher Reeve and the history of Superman," he said. "I always believed an unknown was essential for this role.

"It's harder to find when you¹re looking for someone in their mid-20s. Most people in the mid-20s, who are well known have already emerged as stars, and here we are looking for someone who is an unknown, it's a challenge -- a lot of tapes and a lot of casting directors around the world and a lot of meetings."

Singer talked about several aspects of the film. Following are highlights.

* On the pressure of making a Superman movie: "I've wanted to make a Superman film for a number of years. And by putting this within the history of the other films and not really treading on what Smallville's doing, it's been a lot of years since people have gotten to see this guy fly and do what he does. And, ultimately, it's a great myth and a great story. That's why it's been around for 70 years. I think people will be excited about seeing it and I am incredible excited about making it."

* Why didn't he cast Smallville's Tom Welling as Superman: "There was some thought, and he's really terrific. But my thought is that if I'm going to make a Superman movie, it's a big movie, it's a big-budget film and it is its own kind of story that's separate from Smallville. So I didn't want to make a Smallville feature; I wanted to make a Superman movie. And I felt that even though he's terrific, I think that he's existing and carrying the torch up to a certain period in the character's life. This guy is past that period, so I felt of it as a separate entity.



* On Brandon Routh, whom he did cast: "If you met him, it would be you first inclination to say, 'Oh my goodness, if they ever make a Superman movie, he could physically do it.' And he really is quite talented."* On the the film's story: "It's not an origin story. It actually puts the earlier films into -- the best way I can describe it -- a vague history. You will see a moment of flashback; you will see a bit of him as a young man. But this really takes off several years after he's arrived and he's done many heroic deeds and he's a known figure. It's kind of like the first Batman film, I guess is the best analogy. Because he already existed as Batman in Gotham City. Here, Supreman has existed in Metropolis and had a relationship of a kind with Lois Lane and is now gone. And this is a story of a return."