"Superman" Sequel Pre-Release Discussion, Part 3 (Spoilers)

[James Harvey]

Look right here for all your questions, concerns, and scoops on the upcoming Superman sequel! This thread will be updated as new information becomes available, and please remember to stay on-topic, please.



http://www.worldsfinestonline.com/WF/sections/releases/DVD/supermanreturns/t-returns08.jpg (http://www.worldsfinestonline.com/main.php)
For the latest news and scoops on the next Superman sequel/movie, check out the newest posts in this thread!

Related Discussion:
-Superman Returns Talkback (Spoilers) (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=178585)

Note #1: Discussion continued from Official "Superman" Sequel News & Discussion Thread, Part 2 (Possible Spoilers) (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=213020).
Note #2: Please keep this thread, and the discussion found within, ON-TOPIC. Warnings will be issued, if necessary. This thread is to discuss future Superman movies, so please STAY ON TOPIC!

[Cortez2301]

Would the movie be released in 2012 if they do reboot it?

[Hobbes829]

The original superman movie didn't get the origin right because krypton was cold and lifeless. Brando phoned in that performance. It could've been touching, but instead we got a guy rattling off meaningless speeches. When krypton went up in flames, who gave a crap? In the animated series, krypton was a warm and comforting place. Kal-el's parents loved him and eachother. When they put their son in the rocket and sent him to earth you cared that they died as they were good hearted people.

Lex was treated as a joke.

The lois lane-superman romance was nice, except for the "can you read my mind" stuff. Hokey!

The reboot needs to go back to good sound storytelling. Strip superman of much of his power. He can still be powerful, but not god like. The more the hero struggles, the more heroic he is. I never got the sense in superman: the movie that superman struggled against anything, and the turning back time thing only compounded that problem.

While Darkseid isn't as well known as lex, he could definitely carry a movie on his own.

[rggkjg1]

Would the movie be released in 2012 if they do reboot it?
i hear the world is supposed to end that year. maybe that would be some motivation to get the next superman movie going. get it out before no one can see it. ;)

The original superman movie didn't get the origin right because krypton was cold and lifeless. Brando phoned in that performance. It could've been touching, but instead we got a guy rattling off meaningless speeches. When krypton went up in flames, who gave a crap? In the animated series, krypton was a warm and comforting place. Kal-el's parents loved him and eachother. When they put their son in the rocket and sent him to earth you cared that they died as they were good hearted people.
yeah, i would look to see a krypton more like in the comics/animate series. the donner krypton is "boring". you really didn't see much of a civilization that's supposed to be more advanced than ours.

The reboot needs to go back to good sound storytelling. Strip superman of much of his power. He can still be powerful, but not god like. The more the hero struggles, the more heroic he is. I never got the sense in superman: the movie that superman struggled against anything, and the turning back time thing only compounded that problem.
the last thing i want in a superman film is superman to have "problems". he's superman, he's not supposed to have "problems". if you want him to have "problems", he now has a son, and the only way to give superman "problems" in a film is to do a sequel.

[Blackstar]

I wouldn't mind seeing a Superman reboot, nor would I mind seeing a more stylized version of Krypton, but please, please, please don't make the next film another re-telling of Supes' origin. Everyone already knows who Superman is, where he comes from and what he can do. Just start the next film with that assumption.

[Movie06]

I agree. People already know the story of Superman, why do it again?

[Hobbes829]

I agree. People already know the story of Superman, why do it again?
They only ever did it once.

[Jacob T. Paschal]

They only ever did it once.

It's been seventy years. Everybody knows the important details.

[Cortez2301]

i hear the world is supposed to end that year. maybe that would be some motivation to get the next superman movie going. get it out before no one can see it. ;) Thats not fair man. Its way too early for the world to end.We haven't even seen a proper justice league movie out yet.

[Hobbes829]

It's been seventy years. Everybody knows the important details.
So! What better way to say, "this has nothing to do with the previous films" then to do a good origin story, one that has interesting characters and that has pathos.

[Jacob T. Paschal]

So! What better way to say, "this has nothing to do with the previous films" then to do a good origin story, one that has interesting characters and that has pathos.

By not using the same cast and explicitly showing it is not the same continuity. So often do these films become trapped in origin stories that the latter days of their lives are never touched up.

[Hobbes829]

By not using the same cast and explicitly showing it is not the same continuity. So often do these films become trapped in origin stories that the latter days of their lives are never touched up.
The origin story connects the audience with the hero emmotionally. Plus, if you do an origin story and later connect it with a villain, like the animated series did with Brainiac it helps a lot.

what do you mean the latter days of their lives?

[Jacob T. Paschal]

Latter days: for example, Kal-L's latter days were spent as Daily Star EiC and happily married to Lois. Now, I'm not saying we need straight up 50 year olds, but late thirties/early forties (plus married to Lois) would be a lot more interesting to see. How does Clark's life look? His personal life is probably blissfully frustrating and colored by his journalistic competition and team work with the wife (and truthfully I'd prefer to see the ability for Kryptonians and humans to mate kept) while his life as a hero has its own challenges. As seen in Superman IV, Superman was made a fighter for some cause. What if this rebooted Superman held the belief that he should inspire the world to solve it's own problems (i.e. regfraining from interfering). Surely a man with such power would instinctively recognize that he shouldn't use his powers as a magic Easy Button.

And for goodness' sake, do something useful with Lois. She and Clark are a team, she provides the out of the box thinking that leads to finding the truth (and getting them in hot water) and Clark provides the more down to Earth, reserved (not push over Reeves) thinking. Then there's that little ability of his to get them out of the hot water they get into. It's a partnership, even if it is a little...Indy and Marion. I think it works and would at least give Joe Public two equally charismatic and fun to watch on screen characters.

As opposed to SR's gloom-fest.

Heck, I'd like to see the political and military aspect of having such a powerful being in the spotlight. How would other nations--particularly ones not fond of America--act when they know such a powerful being might interfere.

[Bloody Marquis]

To me, an origin story is just kind of pointless since people already know about Supes' past. The best way would be to do it in the style of All-Star Superman, where his entire origin was told within one page, four panels, and eight words. Thus, the origin is given without wasting too much time in the movie.

[Hobbes829]

To me, an origin story is just kind of pointless since people already know about Supes' past. The best way would be to do it in the style of All-Star Superman, where his entire origin was told within one page, four panels, and eight words. Thus, the origin is given without wasting too much time in the movie.
it's a different medium and the rules of storytelling are different. Everyone knows batman's origin story, but do you say the same thing about Batman Begins? What makes Superman so different?

[mr.happy]

Latter days: for example, Kal-L's latter days were spent as Daily Star EiC and happily married to Lois.If you say married one more time, so help me Zod... <shakes fist menacingly>. :p

Although I don't think it would work particularly well, I actually kind of agree that it would at least be sort of interesting to see a more mature Superman. I think Reeve played the part with maturity well beyond his years, but both Routh and (brrrr) Cain came across almost as teenagers. If you're going to have an immature Superman, then give us a 19-20 year old Superman just starting out. One who's perhaps a little less disciplined, a little less experienced, but who might be a breath of fresh air, even if they'll be veering slightly into Spidey territory.


Heck, I'd like to see the political and military aspect of having such a powerful being in the spotlight. How would other nations--particularly ones not fond of America--act when they know such a powerful being might interfere.Much too heavy. Superman needs to get back to being an action hero. That's really the core of the character. All the heavy stuff is better left for the comics.

[Hobbes829]

the thing i like about darkseid being a villain is that it shows superman what he could become if he allows himself to.

Lex is great because while superman can punch it out with the . I'd also like to see lex as a politician instead of the corrupt business man. I'm tired of seeing business men villifed and think that superman vs. the evil politician is an interesting dynamic.

Deeper issues than just an action hero are fine, but if you bog it down too much into that stuff then you become pedantic and it's no longer entertaining. I don't go to movies to think. I like a movie to be engaging on many levels including intellectually, but that's not what makes a great film.

[Young Justice]

- If they do a reboot, make it an origin story. But only if this origin will have a creative direction different from the Donner's and Singer's movies.

- I don't agree with the "He's been around for 70 years, we all know who he is". Batman was already around 70 years when Batman Begins was out and we know how it felt nice to see Batman's origin done right. Let's do the same with Superman.

People know Superman basics, but not exactly what makes him tick. Superman is also a character that have became somewhat dated. To update his character for nowadays you have to have an origin reboot story.

- Despite the comics now being more like the Donner's movie, do the Man of Steel story. I don't care if DC discarded that as the official origin. It's the best origin Superman could have. It was the main inspiration for Superman The Animated Series and we all know how it turned out to be incredible.

- If you are doing an origin reboot with a different creative direction, don't get rid of Lex. He is much more important for Superman than, for instance, Joker is for Batman. If done right, Lex should have his role in every Superman movie.

As I stated suggesting Man of Steel comic series, the best thing DC have ever done in recent years was to turn Lex into a corporate tycoon. I would go further, make Lex US president in a sequel. Let's see Superman struggling between his patriotic feels and his ideals of justice.

- If you are going to make Lex the land scheme buffoon, please, never show him again.

- Make Superman less powerful. Not Justice League Animated series first season weakling, but make more things hurt him and slow him down.

- Do the Lois and Clark TV series relationship between, uh, Lois and Clark. The TV show was inspired by John Byrne's run. Make Clark struggling between his love of Lois and his idealism of not using the Superman persona to conquer Lois' love.

- Use Metallo or the Superman clone version of Bizarro as the muscle power for Luthor. Metallo is closely tight up with the origin of the only Kryptonite piece of the planet. And the Superman clone Bizarro is closely tight up with Lex discovering Superman is an alien.

- I love the idea of Superman only discovering he is from Krypton in the end of the Man of Steel comic series. I would do that in the movie as well. It would be a very interesting climax, Superman getting help of the Jor-El's hologram to work around his Kryptonite weakness.

-----------

I hope Warchowski Bros are fan of the Post-Crisis version of Superman and do their take on Superman.

[Silverstar]

- If they do a reboot, make it an origin story. But only if this origin will have a creative direction different from the Donner's and Singer's movies.

I'm really hoping for a reboot (the producers just painted themselves into a corner with Superman Returns, and I honestly don't see any viable way for them to get out of it; the franchise would be a mess if they tried to continue it from there), but I'd rather not see Supes' origins reiterated again, unless we can get something really spectacular and a vision of Krypton that was nothing like the cold lifeless rock that the Donner films gave us.


- I don't agree with the "He's been around for 70 years, we all know who he is". Batman was already around 70 years when Batman Begins was out and we know how it felt nice to see Batman's origin done right. Let's do the same with Superman.

But we've never seen Batman's origins retold in a major motion picture prior to Batman Begins. We've already seen a 3-hour Big Blue origin story with Superman: The Movie. Unless we can get something truly new and different this time around, I'd rather they skip all of that and just get down to business.


- If you are doing an origin reboot with a different creative direction, don't get rid of Lex. He is much more important for Superman than, for instance, Joker is for Batman. If done right, Lex should have his role in every Superman movie.

I disagree. Lex is a great villain for Supes, sure, but I don't think every Superman film should be 'Superman VS Luthor', any more than every Batman movie should be 'Batman VS Joker' or every Fantastic Four movie should be 'the FF VS Dr. Doom'. There are a whole plethora of baddies for Clark to go up against, it shouldn't be Luthor all the time. Heroes who fight the same villain all the time get long in the tooth really fast for me.


- If you are going to make Lex the land scheme buffoon, please, never show him again.

This I agree with. Give the man some dignity for crying out loud. I'd personally like to see billionaire corporate mogul Lex used in a movie. That was his coolest iteration to me.

[Young Justice]

I'm really hoping for a reboot (the producers just painted themselves into a corner with Superman Returns, and I honestly don't see any viable way for them to get out of it; the franchise would be a mess if they tried to continue it from there), but I'd rather not see Supes' origins reiterated again, unless we can get something really spectacular and a vision of Krypton that was nothing like the cold lifeless rock that the Donner films gave us.

That's exactly what I thought. If you have a fresh take on Superman, starting telling this take from his origin. It will make the story more cohesive and interesting.


But we've never seen Batman's origins retold in a major motion picture prior to Batman Begins. We've already seen a 3-hour Big Blue origin story with Superman: The Movie. Unless we can get something truly new and different this time around, I'd rather they skip all of that and just get down to business.

Superman: The movie is a 30 years old movie. Superman changed a lot since that time. Again, if your the take on Superman is so fresh that diverts a lot from the Donner movie, do another origin.

I don't agree that an origin and getting down to business are mutually exclusive concepts. You can have an origin story that still will have plenty of action and an interesting plot.


I disagree. Lex is a great villain for Supes, sure, but I don't think every Superman film should be 'Superman VS Luthor', any more than every Batman movie should be 'Batman VS Joker' or every Fantastic Four movie should be 'the FF VS Dr. Doom'. There are a whole plethora of baddies for Clark to go up against, it shouldn't be Luthor all the time. Heroes who fight the same villain all the time get long in the tooth really fast for me.

Lex is more important for Supes than the other arch enemies are for the other heroes.

If you do a reboot origin story, Lex has to be the main villain with hired muscles like Metallo or Bizarro. In the sequel, Brainiac could be the main villain, but Lex should appear behind the curtains. In the third make Darkseid invading Earth and Lex helping Superman to defeat the Apokolips invaders.

[Old Guy]

The original superman movie didn't get the origin right because krypton was cold and lifeless. Brando phoned in that performance. It could've been touching, but instead we got a guy rattling off meaningless speeches. When krypton went up in flames, who gave a crap? In the animated series, krypton was a warm and comforting place. Kal-el's parents loved him and eachother. When they put their son in the rocket and sent him to earth you cared that they died as they were good hearted people.

I guess. I mean...I never made a big deal about it because it was only like 10 minutes worth of screentime.


Lex was treated as a joke.

Have you ever read a pre-crisis Supes comic? Lex WAS a joke. So, the Lex in the movie was very faithful to the comics of the time.



Superman: The movie is a 30 years old movie. Superman changed a lot since that time.

Yes and no. Pre-crisis and post-crisis Superman have A LOT of different things BUT the origin is practically the same. Krypton is gonna blow up. Jor-El tries to save everyone. He is ignored. He sents his son to Earth. There he is raised by the Kents. The End.

Seriously, let's move on. It's been done. Especially since Smallville has been handling Supes origin for the past 8 years. No one wants to pay $10 to see this all over again. Move on.

EDIT:

You know what...let's compromise. How about the movie begins with Clark arriving at Metropolis for the first time, like it was done in the Lois and Clark TV series. That way you can have your origin tale but exclude the Krypton and Smallville stuff that we're all familiar with.

[Young Justice]

You know what...let's compromise. How about the movie begins with Clark arriving at Metropolis for the first time, like it was done in the Lois and Clark TV series. That way you can have your origin tale but exclude the Krypton and Smallville stuff that we're all familiar with.

That's very similar to the Man of Steel comic series: Krypton and Smallville are a first few pages from the 1st of 4 issues. The main story happens in Metropolis in the early days of Clark wearing the Superman costume.

If you do the Men of Steel concept there are some things you have to tell people about Krypton and Smallville:

- The origin of the Kryptonite. In post-crisis, this was a mineral originated from Krypton and it was created by the inflating core of the planet before the big explosion.

- The concept that Jor-El in a naive (or arrogant) manner send Kal-El to Earth knowing he would become very powerful being and would end up teaching (or dominating, as you will) us and creating a new Krypton.

- Clark knowing he was powerful in his teen years but not knowing exaclty how it was. He was using his powers to succed over his teammates on high school football. It was only after Johnathan Kent tell him that he was from outer space that he realizes he was doing something wrong and decides to leave Smallville to make a difference in the world.

- After Clark is forced to reveal himself to the world saving Lois from a falling Space Shuttle, he returns to Smallville with no clue what to do next. That's the moment his parents help him creating the Superman uniform and persona.

That's why he wears an "S" in the chest. "Superman" was a title the media has created for him. That's why he dresses in Blue and Red. His and his parents patriotic feelings are translated into the uniform.

That's it. That's all Krypon and Smallville information you have to show in a reboot if it would follow the Man of Steel comic series concept. The rest of it is all in Metropolis: Lois trying to interview Supes. Clark delivering the interview first to get his job at the Dialy Planet. Supes encountering Lex for the first time, and so on.

[Hobbes829]

It's important for the audience to know who superman is and why he is what he is. You can't just take for granted why superman is a hero. Why doesnt he just parlay his powers into a lucrative career?

Even though luthor was a joke in the comics, that doesn't mean that the writers have to follow the comics. Give the people a great product. Who cares if it's not what they did in some other medium? You should realize that comics are a flexible medium. Kryptonite was first introduced in a radio play i believe. Then it became canon when the comic book writers realized that giving superman a physical weakness of that type is a good storytelling device.

You can't compare a television show to a movie. A show has a lot more time to tell a story than a movie.

[Old Guy]

It's important for the audience to know who superman is and why he is what he is.

Except they already know that. They have the comics, the Steve Reeve shows, the movies, the cartoons, and Smallville which has been doing it for the past 8 years. In fact, that's why Bryan Singer didn't do an origin in Returns. What's the point? The origin wasn't last seen 30 years ago. It's seen every Thursday at 8pm.


Even though luthor was a joke in the comics, that doesn't mean that the writers have to follow the comics.

Your lack of knowledge continues to make your arguments weak. Gene Hackman's Luthor was campy in the spirit of the comics but the details were not the same. In the comics it was explained that Luthor hated Superman cause he made him bald. I kid you not. This was even referenced in the Smallville pilot. Secondly, he was a scientist and most of his plans involved sci fi stuff like creating artifical life forms. So, Hackman's Luthor is actually toned down from the comics. His Luthor is basically a money-hungry guy who's surrounded by idiots. If you think about it a lot of the silly aspects of his performance come from dealing with Otis and Ms. Teschmacher. When he's dealing with Superman (in the first movie anyway) he's actually kinda serious. When he exposes Superman with kryptonite and throws him into the pool it was played straight. In the sequel I would agree that he was pretty over the top with the whole "Australia" thing and what-not but that was probably done as a way to play-off Stamp's Zod who played his part straight.

EDIT:

I think when people critize Hackman they're usually thinking of part 2. In the first one he wasn't THAT over-the-top and he had his moments of seriousness. For example, remember when Ms. Tesmacher reveals that her mother lives in one of the locations where the rocket is headed and all Luthor does is look at his watch and walk away? That's fantastic stuff. This is why I think that Gene Hackman and John Shea are the best Lex Luthors. Hackman is the best pre-crisis Luthor and Shea is the best post-crisis Luthor. Both of their performances represent the whole history of the character.

[DisneyBoy]

No love for Clancy Brown?

I agree though...Shea was great.

[Old Guy]

No love for Clancy Brown?

I know this is a cartoon forum but you can't really compare a vocal performance to a physical one. One thing is to use your voice another is to use your body, face, and vocals. It's two ballparks. However, I am not saying Brown is inferior or anything. He did an amazing job and is a great voice actor.

[Hobbes829]

Most people don't read comics. Yeah, they may know that he's from krypton, but what makes him tick. i'm not talking about the surface stuff. Did you not read the post?

It wasn't referenced in the smallville pilot. Clark didn't make him bald, nor did lex ever blame him for that. The meteor shower balded him. Rosenbaum is the best luthor in live action that i can remember.

[Old Guy]

Most people don't read comics. Yeah, they may know that he's from krypton, but what makes him tick. i'm not talking about the surface stuff.

Like I said...Smallville takes care of that every Thursday at 8pm.


It wasn't referenced in the smallville pilot. Clark didn't make him bald, nor did lex ever blame him for that. The meteor shower balded him. Rosenbaum is the best luthor in live action that i can remember.

I never said it was EXACTLY like in the comics. I meant reference in the sense that a red-headed kid lost his hair because of something Clark caused unintentionally. Oh, and as far as Rosenbaum is concerned...he's too much of a wuss and cry-baby for my tastes. John Shea...now THAT'S Lex Luthor!

[Hobbes829]

Like I said...Smallville takes care of that every Thursday at 8pm.



I never said it was EXACTLY like in the comics. I meant reference in the sense that a red-headed kid lost his hair because of something Clark caused unintentionally. Oh, and as far as Rosenbaum is concerned...he's too much of a wuss and cry-baby for my tastes. John Shea...now THAT'S Lex Luthor!
How did clark cause it at all? John Shea was okay, but the plots were hokey.

Not everyone watches smallville either. You don't have to be pedantic with the plot. They don't have to tell the origin in a linear fashion.

[Old Guy]

How did clark cause it at all?

Cause the metorite came falling to disguise the ship. So, it was basically Jor-El who did it. But regardless it's a reference. They didn't need to have Lex has a red-headed kid who goes bald. They did it as a reference. End of story.



John Shea was okay, but the plots were hokey.


I disagree. Season 1 of Lois & Clark had solid writing. Yes, the action scenes were weak and some of the performances were nonsense but the writing was good. And Lex's plots weren't hokey. May I have to remind you of the finale when he blew up the Daily Planet, locked Superman is a cage made of kryptonite and almost married Lois? In two episodes his Luthor did more damage than 7 years of Rosenbaum on Smallville.


Not everyone watches smallville either. You don't have to be pedantic with the plot. They don't have to tell the origin in a linear fashion.

Regardless, man, it's pointless. No one wants to sit through the origin again. People want to move on. They want to see Superman throw a punch. They want to see villains that aren't Lex Luthor.

[Master Moron]

Regardless, man, it's pointless. No one wants to sit through the origin again. People want to move on. They want to see Superman throw a punch. They want to see villains that aren't Lex Luthor.

You're assuming that they saw the origin in the first place. Smallville gets what, 4 million viewers? That's nothing compared to a big budget motion picture.

[Old Guy]

You're assuming that they saw the origin in the first place. Smallville gets what, 4 million viewers? That's nothing compared to a big budget motion picture.

True, but still...do you honestly think audiences are in the mood to sit through an origin story?

Returns was the first Superman movie in 19 years and what audiences got was 2 hours of the man's relationship troubles and then he carries a rock at the end.

People want to see him throw a punch. They want to see him face a villain who isn't Lex Luthor. They want to get right into the action not wait 30-40 minutes for something to happen. Like I said before...everybody knows the origin. Krypton blows up. He is raised by the Kents. There's no need to go through that again. The best compromise is to begin the movie with Clark Kent's arrival to Metropolis. It'll please those who desire an origin and will satisfy those who want to go straight to the action.

[Mikintosh]

True, but still...do you honestly think audiences are in the mood to sit through an origin story?

Returns was the first Superman movie in 19 years and what audiences got was 2 hours of the man's relationship troubles and then he carries a rock at the end.

People want to see him throw a punch. They want to see him face a villain who isn't Lex Luthor. They want to get right into the action not wait 30-40 minutes for something to happen. Like I said before...everybody knows the origin. Krypton blows up. He is raised by the Kents. There's no need to go through that again. The best compromise is to begin the movie with Clark Kent's arrival to Metropolis. It'll please those who desire an origin and will satisfy those who want to go straight to the action.

Y'know, I was fine with Superman not fighting a giant robot or whatever. It kind of threw the story structure out of wack (I didn't think the "carrying of the rock" was the big climax), but it was damn suspenseful and it was nice to finally see a comic book movie that didn't follow the cookie-cutter "hero defeats the villain in a final fight" plot; having Lex there forced some restraint, and I think overall "Returns" works better if you think of it more as an action-drama then a comic book action movie. For me, anyway.

If they do a reboot (which I still think is stupid), they absolutely have to do an origin (since starting in the middle is what threw people off about the last movie), and they have to show Smallville because if you don't deal with Clark's farmtown upbringing, he's too similar to Batman with brighter colors and a social life. I think having Ma & Pa Kent be important parts of Clark's life is always preferable to the contrary; the early seasons of Smallville, Lois & Clark, and the comics up until recently bore that out.

And I'll say it again, Darkseid doesn't work in a first installment; this has to be a villain that an early Superman can face, and Darkseid is simply too much of a threat. Problems is that the next best villain is Doomsday (can't use for same reason) or Lex (won't use), and...y'know, his rogues gallery sucks.

[Hobbes829]

Cause the metorite came falling to disguise the ship. So, it was basically Jor-El who did it. But regardless it's a reference. They didn't need to have Lex has a red-headed kid who goes bald. They did it as a reference. End of story.

I disagree. Season 1 of Lois & Clark had solid writing. Yes, the action scenes were weak and some of the performances were nonsense but the writing was good. And Lex's plots weren't hokey. May I have to remind you of the finale when he blew up the Daily Planet, locked Superman is a cage made of kryptonite and almost married Lois? In two episodes his Luthor did more damage than 7 years of Rosenbaum on Smallville.

Regardless, man, it's pointless. No one wants to sit through the origin again. People want to move on. They want to see Superman throw a punch. They want to see villains that aren't Lex Luthor.
Where did you come to that conclusion? The planet blew up and a bunch of the fragments of the planet came in the direction of the Earth. There was nothing in the show that would suggest that Jor-el sent kryptonite to Earth to hide the spaceship. I've never read anything that would indicate that it was a reference to anything else. If you have then please refer me to it.

Apples and oranges. The lois and clark luthor was fully formed. MR was on his way. The writing was good in the first season and half of the second. I'll agree on some of the plots, but there was also the episode where lex was going to get people to believe that superman was causing a heatwave. What a terrible plot.

There was 1 origin story on film, and they didn't do it justice. I'm all for moving on, but everyone they've ever gotten to do those films are incompetent when it comes to the material. Including Donner. I love Lethal Weapon, but wow did he miss the mark with superman. I want to see a slug fest also, that's why you have a physical badguy, like oddjob was to goldfinger.

[Wounded_Dragon]

Intergang is a possibility. A mob with super-gadgets that bring law enforcement to their knees sounds like a job for Superman. This also leaves room for Lex to be involved, as he can be tied to Intergang any number of ways.

[Hobbes829]

I'm just going to put this out there again. I'm tired of seeing business men villified. If lex is going to be the villain, i'd like to see him as a corrupt politician. If you want to see a evil business man, watch law and order.

[The Overlord]

I'm just going to put this out there again. I'm tired of seeing business men villified. If lex is going to be the villain, i'd like to see him as a corrupt politician. If you want to see a evil business man, watch law and order.

Irrelevant, Lex was an evil business man first, he didn't become a corrupt politician till later, it wouldn't make sense that he starts off as a politician, the business real is where he created his power base to go into politics later. I don't think the source material should be changed just because you don't like it.

[Hobbes829]

Irrelevant, Lex was an evil business man first, he didn't become a corrupt politician till later, it wouldn't make sense that he starts off as a politician, the business real is where he created his power base to go into politics later. I don't think the source material should be changed just because you don't like it.
The source material changes all the time. It wasn't that long ago when he was just the evil mad scientist. Things change. I never said that i dont like it, it's just that i'm tired of the evil business man. It's possible to get into politics without ever having to be in business.

[DarkAngel]

People want to see him throw a punch. They want to see him face a villain who isn't Lex Luthor.
And they don't need a reboot to give audiences that. They could avoid another telling of his origins and just do a sequel to SR that has Superman facing off against a super-villain. If that's all we're looking for.

I don't have a problem with seeing another origins story if done well. I think people will sit through something if its entertaining. I loved the first half of BB, for instance, and didn't once find myself thinking "man, when's he gonna put the costume on." If they can kick the movie off with an interesting take on Krypton and what led to Kal-El being sent away, with incorporation of some action (like in BB), something to give it some spark, I don't think it would be a problem.

I like the idea of a reboot just to establish corporate Luthor. But whether they go through the origins or not again...doesn't matter to me as long as the give us something entertaining. I just don't want to be bored.

[The Overlord]

The source material changes all the time. It wasn't that long ago when he was just the evil mad scientist. Things change. I never said that i dont like it, it's just that i'm tired of the evil business man. It's possible to get into politics without ever having to be in business.

Yeah and we had "mad scientist" Lex in the last movie, how well did that work?

I don't care if you are sick of evil business men, I don't believe in changing things just for change's sake. I don't want Red Skull to be a Muslim terrorist just because its more modern, he should remain Nazi.

Lot of villains were evil business men in the comics (Stane, Gobby, etc) so they shouldn't be changed just because you don't like it. I have the same problem when they made doom into an evil business man in the FF movies, it was a pointless change.

As a politician Lex would be more accountable to others, so it be harder for him to create Metallo to fight Supes, it limits the character.

[Hobbes829]

This isn't change for change's sake. It's interesting. How many times can we see the same formula of an evil businessman? The idea of superman against a politician is an interesting scenario.

Politicians aren't nearly as accountable as businessmen are to their customers. If you don't give your customers what they want, profits plumit. Stane and Gobby aren't nearly as high profile as Lex. I'm not saying that there should be no evil businessmen, but there's a lot more cases of tv shows, movies, etc. using them as their villain. I have an ethical problem with that.

It might be harder, but that just means that the writers need to get more creative.

Dr. Doom is far more interesting as a king. Why? Because he has diplomatic immunity. He can't be arrested on foreign soil. It's a far more interesting issue than an evil business man.

My point was not that i wanted the mad scientist. It's that things change and adhering to the comics in the case of DC is in many cases meaningless.

It doesn't have to be an origin story, it just has to be interesting. There should be more action, but not at the expense of plot and characters.

[The Overlord]

This isn't change for change's sake. It's interesting. How many times can we see the same formula of an evil businessman? The idea of superman against a politician is an interesting scenario.

Yeah for the second movie, he shouldn't start out that way. He was a business man first then a politician, he be a politician in later films, not the first one. Have a build up top him entering politics, instead of it just happening.



Politicians aren't nearly as accountable as businessmen are to their customers. If you don't give your customers what they want, profits plumit. Stane and Gobby aren't nearly as high profile as Lex. I'm not saying that there should be no evil businessmen, but there's a lot more cases of tv shows, movies, etc. using them as their villain. I have an ethical problem with that.

I don't care about your ethical problems, they are irrelevant to me. , there have bad business men in the real world who have screwed their consumer base (Lehman Bros, Enron) etc so it isn't unreasonable. That's how Post Crisis Lex started out and I don't believe in changing it just because you don't like it and how would a politician have the personal resources to create metallo?



It might be harder, but that just means that the writers need to get more creative.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.




Dr. Doom is far more interesting as a king. Why? Because he has diplomatic immunity. He can't be arrested on foreign soil. It's a far more interesting issue than an evil business man.

That true because he was a king in the comics, noticed how I opposed him being an evil business man as well, its about staying true to the source material.



My point was not that i wanted the mad scientist. It's that things change and adhering to the comics in the case of DC is in many cases meaningless.

Notice how Lex has stayed an evil business man in most media adaptions for the past 19 years, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

[Hobbes829]

Yeah for the second movie, he shouldn't start out that way. He was a business man first then a politician, he be a politician in later films, not the first one. Have a build up top him entering politics, instead of it just happening.

I don't care about your ethical problems, they are irrelevant to me. There have bad business men in the real world who have screwed their consumer base (Lehman Bros, Enron) etc so it isn't unreasonable. That's how Post Crisis Lex started out and I don't believe in changing it just because you don't like it and how would a politician have the personal resources to create metallo?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

That true because he was a king in the comics, noticed how I opposed him being an evil business man as well, its about staying true to the source material.

Notice how Lex has stayed an evil business man in most media adaptions for the past 19 years, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Dr. Doom - it wasn't about staying true to the source material, it's the fact that it was a far more interesting dynamic regardless of it being from the comics.

The government contracts out to get weapons all the time.

While business men have hurt customers, they also face consequences like costly lawsuits, bankruptcy, heavy fines, damage to their reputations, and jail time. Politicians get reelected when they lie.

Superman fights for Truth, Justice and the American way. What better way to test those values than to have him go up against a politician?

[Young Justice]

I'm just going to put this out there again. I'm tired of seeing business men villified. If lex is going to be the villain, i'd like to see him as a corrupt politician. If you want to see a evil business man, watch law and order.

I don't see difference between an evil business man and an evil politician. Politics and money have always been together since the dawn of men. Lex could be both things since he was already US President in comics.

There was a J.J. Abrams script where Lex was a corrupt CIA agent.

[Hobbes829]

I don't see difference between an evil business man and an evil politician. Politics and money have always been together since the dawn of men. Lex could be both things since he was already US President in comics.

There was a J.J. Abrams script where Lex was a corrupt CIA agent.
The difference between the 2 is that a evil business man can only opperate on the ignorance of their customers. Politicians have the guns. Also, due to the complex nature of politics, the voters are rationally ignorant. In any case, i think we're a little off track. It's just a suggestion. I'm not inherently against lex, the evil business man. It's just that it's been done to death. It's not too far of a stretch to see him as a politician.

[The Overlord]

Dr. Doom - it wasn't about staying true to the source material, it's the fact that it was a far more interesting dynamic regardless of it being from the comics.

The government contracts out to get weapons all the time.

While business men have hurt customers, they also face consequences like costly lawsuits, bankruptcy, heavy fines, damage to their reputations, and jail time. Politicians get reelected when they lie.

Superman fights for Truth, Justice and the American way. What better way to test those values than to have him go up against a politician?

BS lots of politicans take the fall when they screw up, look at the governor of Illnois or Mark Folely or Larry Craig.

There have been evil politcos in comic book movies in the past, like Stryker and senator Kelly.

The difference is Lex owns all the stock for Lex corp is there is no oversight at his company.

Lex can't get something like Metallo approved right away, he would need to convince others in the government to approve of it and considering how popular Supes is that's no guarantee. Mutants are unpopular is it makes sense that senator Kelly can campaign against them, superman is really popular, a politician is committing suicide by campaigning against him.

Oh the J.J. Abrams script where Lex was a corrupt CIA agent sucked, so I have a natural negative response when someone wants to turn Lex into a civil servant.

[Hobbes829]

BS lots of politicans take the fall when they screw up, look at the governor of Illnois or Mark Folely or Larry Craig.

There have been evil politcos in comic book movies in the past, like Stryker and senator Kelly.

The difference is Lex owns all the stock for Lex corp is there is no oversight at his company.

Lex can't get something like Metallo approved right away, he would need to convince others in the government to approve of it and considering how popular Supes is that's no guarantee. Mutants are unpopular is it makes sense that senator Kelly can campaign against them, superman is really popular, a politician is committing suicide by campaigning against him.

Oh the J.J. Abrams script where Lex was a corrupt CIA agent sucked, so I have a natural negative response when someone wants to turn Lex into a civil servant.
I love the senator kelly stuff, but again, he's not as high profile as lex is.

I'm not going to argue politics here, but just understand that businessmen are far more accountable (both to the law and their customers) than politicians (election recalls and impeachments are notoriously difficult and slow)

Yeah, approvals are quite slow with the government, but since defense contracting is a legitimate function of the government, i could buy that lex would have the pull to expedite the process in getting Metallo created. Lex is smart enough that he wouldn't overtly campaign against Superman. He would make it look like they were on the same side.

Also, if you think that lex couldn't campaign against lex and stay in office, what makes you think that he could fight superman and stay in business?

Mod Note: Let's make sure we stay on business, shall we? I'd hate to have to issue warnings, but I will if necessary.

[Old Guy]

I think overall "Returns" works better if you think of it more as an action-drama then a comic book action movie. For me, anyway.

I'm not a SR hater. I enjoyed the movie, but thought that Singer dropped the ball with the whole New Krypton thing. It doesn't make any sense if you think about it. And the kid thing didn't help things either.


If they do a reboot (which I still think is stupid), they absolutely have to do an origin (since starting in the middle is what threw people off about the last movie),

No one was thrown off in SR. They were bored. Two different things.


And I'll say it again, Darkseid doesn't work in a first installment

Anyone suggesting Darkseid should leave this thread. Starting with Darkseid is simply dumb. There's a bunch of villains you can use before getting to Darkseid.


I loved the first half of BB, for instance, and didn't once find myself thinking "man, when's he gonna put the costume on."

Difference is that with BB it was the first time his origin was show in a live-action movie. With Superman it has already been done. And like I said earlier, the Krypton and Smallville stuff is the same in both the pre-crisis and post-crisis comics so it's not like you have to show it again. The best compromise to start with Kent's arrival in Metropolis and have him take trips to Smallville every now and then.

[Young Justice]

the Krypton and Smallville stuff is the same in both the pre-crisis and post-crisis comics...

I'm sorry, but they aren't the same. Please read the Man of Steel comic series and notice how Krypton and Smallville are different from Superman the Movie for instance. I'm using the movie as a faithful adaptation of the pre-crisis Superman origin.

Let's how see Man of Steel showed Krypton:

- Jor-El was shown as a very bright man, fighting for changes in an arrogant society who wouldn't believe their own world would explode. He is shown as a very pro-active, fighting man. Very different form Marlon Brand's Jor-El.

- Jor-El sent Kal-El to earth not just to save him, but to make his son to continue the Kryptonian culuture in another world as well. He bet on the superpowers Kal-El would have to ensure that he would succeed in replicating Krypton in another world. There was no "You have to help him" thing from the movie. There was no Messiah undertones here.

- The Kryptonite is tightly related to the explosion of Krypton. In the movie we don't know exaclty why Kryptonite affects Superman.

- The "S" from Man of Steel was an idea from the Kents. In the movie the "S" was a Kryptonian symbol.

About Smallville:

- In the movie, Johnathan dies very early. In post-crisis, Johnathan is alive when Clark decides to become Superman.

- In the comics, Clark doesn't know he is form another planet until he is 18, and his father shows a spacecraft where he arrived when he was a baby. Clark only discover he is Kryptonian in the final issue of the series.

- In post-crisis, Clark is always portrayed, in his soul, as human, and even an American citizen. He knows he is from Krypton, but this fact doesn't change too much who he is inside.

- The Kents have a very strong influence on Clark's life in the post-crisis continuity. In the movie, this bond between Clark and Martha much more weak.

[Hobbes829]

While the origin has been done before, it's been done ONCE and it was a weak origin.

[Young Justice]

While the origin has been done before, it's been done ONCE and it was a weak origin.

My thoughts almost exactly. I wouldn't say "weak", but merely "old". There a lot of more interesting concepts introduced for Superman in the recent years that the first origin couldn't take care of.

[mr.happy]

My thoughts almost exactly. I wouldn't say "weak", but merely "old". There a lot of more interesting concepts introduced for Superman in the recent years that the first origin couldn't take care of.Yeah, we really need to see a big-screen version of the iPod listening vegetarian Superman from Birthright. :)

If they insist on doing another origin, do it as flashbacks during the title sequence. Morrison got it spot on in the excellent All Star Superman.

1 page, 4 panels:

Doomed planet
Desperate scientists
Last hope
Kindly couple

The particulars of who came up with the "S", when Jonathan died, etc, etc, don't matter to anyone other than obsessive fanboys, as long as they get the Superman part right.

[Old Guy]

- Jor-El was shown as a very bright man, fighting for changes in an arrogant society who wouldn't believe their own world would explode. He is shown as a very pro-active, fighting man. Very different form Marlon Brand's Jor-El.

um...how exactly is that any different?



- Jor-El sent Kal-El to earth not just to save him, but to make his son to continue the Kryptonian culuture in another world as well. He bet on the superpowers Kal-El would have to ensure that he would succeed in replicating Krypton in another world. There was no "You have to help him" thing from the movie. There was no Messiah undertones here.


You don't really need to show any of this unless you tie it into the plot with a villain like, say, General Zod showing up and saying that it is what Jor-El intended and then him going to seek answers. For a first movie all you need to know is that he was raised by the Kents and learned about his history from his father's recordings. And even for that you don't need to show it cause everyone already knows it.


- The Kryptonite is tightly related to the explosion of Krypton. In the movie we don't know exaclty why Kryptonite affects Superman.

Yes we do. Lex Luthor explains it.


- The "S" from Man of Steel was an idea from the Kents. In the movie the "S" was a Kryptonian symbol.

We don't need an origin story to show that. I refer you back to the Lois & Clark pilot. It begins with Clark Kent's arrival at Metropolis but he isn't Superman yet. When he decides to become Superman he travels back to Smallville and has his mom make a costume.


- In the movie, Johnathan dies very early. In post-crisis, Johnathan is alive when Clark decides to become Superman.

Again, you don't need an origin tale to show that. If he's alive we'll know it cause he'll show up whenever Clark calls home or whatever.


- In the comics, Clark doesn't know he is form another planet until he is 18, and his father shows a spacecraft where he arrived when he was a baby. Clark only discover he is Kryptonian in the final issue of the series.

It's a small detail no one cares about.


- In post-crisis, Clark is always portrayed, in his soul, as human, and even an American citizen. He knows he is from Krypton, but this fact doesn't change too much who he is inside.

How is that different from the movie?


- The Kents have a very strong influence on Clark's life in the post-crisis continuity. In the movie, this bond between Clark and Martha much more weak.

You can't compare a movie with a comic book. In a comic book you can have Clark visit his parents like 100 times in a year. In a movie you only have 2 hours. And it's not like the movies ignored Martha. When Clark is hired at the Daily Planet he tells Perry White to send half his pay check every week to his mom.

[Young Justice]

Last post I've written some reasons why John Byrne's Man of Steel comic series Krypton and Smallville were different from the classic (pre-crisis) take on Superman.

Someone posted some questions about how exactly was this and that going to be different. My answer is: read the book. I'm not that good writers so I could fully pass how interesting was John Byrne's take on Superman back in the 80's.

My comment on that comic series: Before that I never liked Superman. After reading it I've became a regular reader for a lot of years.

In my opinion this work is in the level that change source material of a mythos in such a good way that is inconceivable to ever go back where the character was before those changes.

It was Byrne who created the evil business Lex Luthor. Clark and Lois fighting for the stories in the Dialy Planet. Metallo. A reasonable motive why Superman wear tights. Why he wears an "S" in the chest. It was his idea the whole "Clark Kent is who I am. Superman is what I do" concept, among other things.

That mini series had such a strong influence on me and how I saw Superman that is obvious when discussing a possible reboot for Superman franchise, I started to suggest that take as being the ideal choice.

[rggkjg1]

update on the wachowski superman from hitfix.com:
http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/2009-2-15-the-morning-read-2-16-09

I mentioned the Wachowski Bros./Superman trilogy rumor on Ain't It Cool. And just reading that and making a note of it in the Morning Read prodded me to contact a source that would absolutely be in the loop on making Superman. Verdict? Nope. No Wachowskis. Not at all.
THANK GOD!

[Hobbes829]

the wachowskis made the matrix. It was a good movie, but the sequels were terrible and i'm not going to bother with speed racer. They got lucky, that's it!

[Wonderwall]

Yea I'm not sure why people were getting super excited for. One movie that was good and 10 years old is not the resume that gives me confidence when it comes to this franchise. The sequels sucked something awful, V was meh, could have been great under someone else, and Speed Racer was a very acquired taste...like grapefruit.

[AlgeaX]

The origin has been done to death, everyone already knows it. There's no reason to rehash it unless they're going to use the Kryptonian origin for Brainiac.

[Wonderwall]

At this point a full on origin probably isn't the best way to go. Have it spliced in the opening credits or some kind of exposition to fill in anybody who doesn't know. However the movie should take place within his early years as Superman. That's usually the most exciting time. For the physical threat I wouldn't mind seeing the Parasite. I think there is a good story there and his powers are more interesting than Metallo's.

[Old Guy]

update on the wachowski superman from hitfix.com:
http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/2009-2-15-the-morning-read-2-16-09


Isn't that the same site that claimed that Sony pulled the plug on Green Hornet and the next day Seth Rogen wrote them an angry letter saying it wasn't true? If so...can we get a more reliable source?

[rggkjg1]

Isn't that the same site that claimed that Sony pulled the plug on Green Hornet and the next day Seth Rogen wrote them an angry letter saying it wasn't true? If so...can we get a more reliable source?
if thats the case maybe the wachowski's or bryan singer can write them a letter and tell us what is and isnt going on.

[Old Guy]

if thats the case maybe the wachowski's or bryan singer can write them a letter and tell us what is and isnt going on.

The Wachowski's have never even spoken about the project. It all came from James McTeigue (V for Vendetta). I wouldn't be surprised if he was the one who was REALLY offered the job but dropped the Wachowski name to add more discussion.

[rggkjg1]

more confirmation on the wachowski brothers not doing the film:
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/02/18/rumor-killer-the-wachowski-brothers-not-offered-superman-reboot/

Remember that report (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/02/11/the-wachowski-brothers-to-direct-superman-reboot/) that showed up on AICN (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40084) last week claiming that The Wachowski Brothers had been offered a reboot of Superman? Sorry to get you guys all excited but I have just gotten confirmation from two independent sources that the report was completely false. I don’t know if an interview with James McTeigue actually aired on RTL1 or not (I’m guessing not) but The Wachowski Brothers have definitely never had any talks with DC or Warner Bros to helm a Superman film. This is confirmed.

[I.D.Will19??]

You'd think people would jump at the chance to make a Superman film franchise :sad:. This is taking too long.

[rggkjg1]

You'd think people would jump at the chance to make a Superman film franchise :sad:. This is taking too long.
i would be more than happy to make a superman film ;). i'd do it for free, because it would be so good they'd WANT me to do a sequel and pay me anything to do it. :D

[Spider-Man]

An update on the upcoming Superman movie:


/Film snuck into Legendary Pictures' password protected company site, which lists Superman Unleashed as one of the company's upcoming films in development. Legendary Pictures was one of the companies responsible for bringing director Bryan Singer and Warner Bros. Pictures' Superman Returns to theaters in 2006.

The site says the listing includes the following synopsis:

"Ramping up the action of its esteemed predecessor, the sequel to 'Superman Returns' promises to raise the stakes and take the audience to heights of action that no other superhero movie can achieve."

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/02/20/exclusive-superman-returns-sequel-to-be-titled-superman-unleashed/

Comments?

[Silverstar]

"Ramping up the action of its esteemed predecessor, the sequel to 'Superman Returns' promises to raise the stakes and take the audience to heights of action that no other superhero movie can achieve."Promises, promises.

But if the sequel actually lives up to these promises, well, that's a different matter. As long as it washes away the bad taste that was Superman Returns from our collective mouths, I'll be a happy camper.

Not crazy about that title, though: 'Unleashed' is such a cliched sub-heading now. At least they didn't go with 'Extreme'.

[rggkjg1]

/Film snuck into Legendary Pictures' password protected company site, which lists Superman Unleashed as one of the company's upcoming films in development. Legendary Pictures was one of the companies responsible for bringing director Bryan Singer and Warner Bros. Pictures' Superman Returns to theaters in 2006.

The site says the listing includes the following synopsis:

"Ramping up the action of its esteemed predecessor, the sequel to 'Superman Returns' promises to raise the stakes and take the audience to heights of action that no other superhero movie can achieve."
now this is what i'm looking for. so, did someone "hack" into the website to get this info? if it was "hacked", i figure we might as well throw away this story since it was obtained illegally. superman unleashed sounds like a good working title, it fits the description of a SEQUEL with more action. on the other hand, it is also a fitting title for a reboot. even the title is "confusing". is it superman unleashed? superman: unleashed? superman s shield with "unleashed" under it/over it?

i'd still go with the man of steel or superman: the man of steel as a title.

[Michael24]

I agree, I prefer Superman: The Man of Steel as a title.

And if it is indeed a sequel to Superman Returns (with Routh returning), then all the better. :)

[rggkjg1]

Update: After publication of this story, the information has since been removed from the Legendary Pictures website.
i knew something like this would happen. the way that that info got obtained sounded a little too "fishy".

legendary pictures should have replaced the page with one of the joker's "HAHAHA" viral marketing pages.

[GCFyouthcamper]

"Ramping up the action of its esteemed predecessor, the sequel to 'Superman Returns' promises to raise the stakes and take the audience to heights of action that no other superhero movie can achieve."


To me, that's very vague.

[rggkjg1]

the plot thickens (from supermanhomepage.com):
http://supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=6066

The Superman Homepage has discovered that Production Weekly, a publication that provides the entertainment industry with a comprehensive breakdown of projects in pre-production, preparation, and active development for film and television, has "Superman Unleashed" listed in issue #649 (dated February 26, 2009).

Upon request, the page in question was sent to the Superman Homepage direct from the Production Weekly offices as a PDF file and lists the status of "Superman Unleashed" as being in "Development".
Thomas Tull and William Fay are listed as Producers, with Bryan Singer as Director.

Although I've tried, I've been unable to find out where Production Weekly sources its information from.
[Note: The date shown in the PDF file (5/15/08) is the previous Production Weekly publication date in which the Superman film was listed.]
i like the picture with the article. it's a great depiction of "superman unleashed". maybe they can do something like the on the movie poster.

[Spideyzilla]

the plot thickens (from supermanhomepage.com):
http://supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=6066

i like the picture with the article. it's a great depiction of "superman unleashed". maybe they can do something like the on the movie poster.

This could be real.

[rggkjg1]

This could be real.
i think it's safe to assume i want this to be real more than anyone else on this forum.

hopefully they took down the page on the legendary site because they wanted it to be in the magazine first or something. either way, i figure at some point this year we will find out if we're getting a sequel or reboot.

[Michael24]

i think it's safe to assume i want this to be real more than anyone else on this forum.

hopefully they took down the page on the legendary site because they wanted it to be in the magazine first or something. either way, i figure at some point this year we will find out if we're getting a sequel or reboot.

Hopefully, sequel. :)

[Silverstar]

I'm rooting for 'reboot', but that's just me.

[Novapocalypse]

I'm rooting for 'reboot', but that's just me.

Well, I didn't see Superman Returns, but if they want a Superman movie to be successful they have to have a reboot so that younger audiences can catch on. I don't think that many 10 year olds have seen the 1978 Superman.

[Jacob T. Paschal]

And also, y'know...produce a story that isn't grossly unfair to the character.

[The Overlord]

And also, y'know...produce a story that isn't grossly unfair to the character.

Easier said then done. I'm reading a book from the library called Superman vs. Hollywood (featuring an intro from Mark Millar) which described how inflated egos and petty politics more or less ruined Superman III and IV. Striking the balance between the serious and silly elements of Superman is hard, the first two movies did it and they were good for their time, though superman needs film update. III and IV were far too silly and not epic enough, Superman Returns was too silly in parts and then took itself too seriously in others. No one has struck the balance on film since 1980.

[Silverstar]

Well, I didn't see Superman Returns, but if they want a Superman movie to be successful they have to have a reboot so that younger audiences can catch on. I don't think that many 10 year olds have seen the 1978 Superman.

I don't see that as being a problem; the Nolan Batman films managed to do well despite their coming out some considerable time after 1997's Batman & Robin.

The problem was that Superman Returns stuck in some other schlep to be a rival for Lois' affections (like any mere mortal could compete with flippin' Superman) and made Supes a deadbeat dad in the process. I don't see how they can effectively write their way out of such a corner, short of hitting the reset button and whiting that whole movie out, as it were.

[DisneyBoy]

Even Lois and Clark doesn't please Superman fans, and I found that in certain episodes the balance between comedy, romance and action was perfect.

At this point, I'm seeing this Superman Unleashed stuff as PR. They want to kill the negative buzz still lingering from Superman Returns and hanging over this new project. How do you do that when you have no script, no actors and no real idea how it's all going to come together? Register titles, write promotional paragraphs on how great it'll all be...

...while the project still rots in development.

[The Overlord]

Even Lois and Clark doesn't please Superman fans, and I found that in certain episodes the balance between comedy, romance and action was perfect.



And other episodes were boring as heck and frankly that whole series became way less interesting once Lex was out of the picture and they used too many lame made up villains.

[Mikintosh]

The problem was that Superman Returns stuck in some other schlep to be a rival for Lois' affections (like any mere mortal could compete with flippin' Superman) and made Supes a deadbeat dad in the process. I don't see how they can effectively write their way out of such a corner, short of hitting the reset button and whiting that whole movie out, as it were.

Complications can make for good stories. The "standard" Superman story (Clark works at Daily Planet and is in love with Lois, who only has eyes for Superman) may be pleasing, but really can't carry a movie. At least Singer came up with something new in that sense, rather than playing out the same old romance that had no drama in it whatsoever.

[Hobbes829]

Complications can make for good stories. The "standard" Superman story (Clark works at Daily Planet and is in love with Lois, who only has eyes for Superman) may be pleasing, but really can't carry a movie. At least Singer came up with something new in that sense, rather than playing out the same old romance that had no drama in it whatsoever.
Of course the lois and superman romance has drama. I really want to see the romance of lois and CLARK on screen sometime.

[The Overlord]

Complications can make for good stories. The "standard" Superman story (Clark works at Daily Planet and is in love with Lois, who only has eyes for Superman) may be pleasing, but really can't carry a movie. At least Singer came up with something new in that sense, rather than playing out the same old romance that had no drama in it whatsoever.

So Superman being deadbeat dad is the solution? How is that good? Besides the romance is just a sub plot, the main plot is what really matters and the main plot from Superman Returns was stupid, did Lex's plot make any sense?

[Master Moron]

I don't see that as being a problem; the Nolan Batman films managed to do well despite their coming out some considerable time after 1997's Batman & Robin.


Ummm...Nolan's films weren't sequels to Batman and Robin...

[The Overlord]

Ummm...Nolan's films weren't sequels to Batman and Robin...

Yeah, that's why Silverstar (http://forums.toonzone.net/member.php?u=27434) was suggests a reboot of the Superman franchise, so the next Superman movie won't be a sequel.

[DisneyBoy]

Overlord, you're completely right about Lois and Clark's worst aspects. Plus, it got really cheesy. Remember the whole alternate realities episode about how L+C were virgins who waited until their honeymoon to have sex with each other? Blehhh. Or maybe they were just virgins to each other...but I seem to remember it playing out as "Clark saved himself for the right woman".

As for a reboot...it's too soon. DC should just let Singer make another one to wrap the mess up, or just shelve Supes for a decade, focus on Green Lantern, Wonder Woman or something else.

[Mikintosh]

So Superman being deadbeat dad is the solution? How is that good? Besides the romance is just a sub plot, the main plot is what really matters and the main plot from Superman Returns was stupid, did Lex's plot make any sense?

No, but neither did Luthor's plot from the first movie, and it's supposed to be the same character; besides, he's supposed to be crazy, so what does it matter if an insane man's plan doesn't make perfect sense? He just needed to present a threat, and he did.

And Superman is not a deadbeat dad; he didn't know the kid was born while he was gone, and the mother became involved with another man by the time. But having Clark have a kid is a nice twist on the character that doesn't totally ruin him (except for the people who call him a "deadbeat dad").

[Silverstar]

I just don't see what else they can do with Super, Jr. If they keep him a sickly kid who occasionally displays short bursts of Superman-level power, then he'd just become Spritle annoying in due time, but on the other hand, if they magically aged him a la Anakin Skywalker into a teen or young man, then he'd just be a Superman knockoff taking the audience's attention away from Clark. The kid and Perry White's nephew are just big fat writing problems. They were a problem in the first movie.

As for the Lois/Clark drama, as was mentioned, that's just a sub-plot; the main focus is and should be the superhero action. Why do we even need the romantic drama? I prefer my fictional romances low-key and drama-free; why not just establish early on that Clark and Lois love each other, end of romantic drama, then get on with what people actually want to see: Superman whaling on the bad guys?

[Jacob T. Paschal]

Jason's not the problem, it's Richard. That's why I called SR unfair, it's putting Clark in a terrible situation. At least with a son Clark can have real, and by extension, far more indearing issues.

Esspicially if the son's first inclination isn't the typical child response. I mean, let's look at other DC heroes: Ollie, Ted, Roy, Red Tornado, and even Bruce, as I understand are all married (barring Bruce) family men. How would the supposed greatest superhero work in that situation? Espicially considering he knows he eventually have to train the boy to kick some grass.

[The Overlord]

No, but neither did Luthor's plot from the first movie, and it's supposed to be the same character; besides, he's supposed to be crazy, so what does it matter if an insane man's plan doesn't make perfect sense? He just needed to present a threat, and he did.

But he was stupid, Lex shouldn't be insane, Joker is insane, Lex is supposed to cool and on control, not an idiot. I liked the Donner movies, but Donner Lex was always a weak character, he should have been updated or they should have not used him in the first place.

And the threat he posed was lame, there were no fist fights in that movie, 200 million dollar budget and no fight scenes, that's inexcusable. The whole film was a total bore.



And Superman is not a deadbeat dad; he didn't know the kid was born while he was gone, and the mother became involved with another man by the time. But having Clark have a kid is a nice twist on the character that doesn't totally ruin him (except for the people who call him a "deadbeat dad").


So instead of just getting Clark and Lois together, we have this kid who I don't give a crap about, Lois is getting married to richard, where does that oeave the characters? I don't care about Richard or the kid, they take away time from the characters I do care about Lois and Superman. Its a mess.

We have a lame version of Lex, no progress on the Lois and Clark romance front and a kid no one cares about, yeah, great movie. :shrug:

[Blackstar]

My problem with Superman Returns is that there was too much emphasis on Supes'/Clark's domestic problems and not enough bad guy butt-kicking. I'm hoping that in the next Superman movie (be it a reboot or a sequel--although I'd personally prefer the former over the latter) Supes' love life will take a back seat to the action and that Supes will actually get to lay the super smackdown on someone next time.

[The Overlord]

Jason's not the problem, it's Richard. That's why I called SR unfair, it's putting Clark in a terrible situation. At least with a son Clark can have real, and by extension, far more indearing issues.

Esspicially if the son's first inclination isn't the typical child response. I mean, let's look at other DC heroes: Ollie, Ted, Roy, Red Tornado, and even Bruce, as I understand are all married (barring Bruce) family men. How would the supposed greatest superhero work in that situation? Espicially considering he knows he eventually have to train the boy to kick some grass.

But I don't want to see this kid kick butt, I want to see Superman kick butt. The kid just stels the spotlight from the person people paided to see.


Overlord, you're completely right about Lois and Clark's worst aspects. Plus, it got really cheesy. Remember the whole alternate realities episode about how L+C were virgins who waited until their honeymoon to have sex with each other? Blehhh. Or maybe they were just virgins to each other...but I seem to remember it playing out as "Clark saved himself for the right woman".

As for a reboot...it's too soon. DC should just let Singer make another one to wrap the mess up, or just shelve Supes for a decade, focus on Green Lantern, Wonder Woman or something else.

Singer made this mess in the first place, why should he be given the cahnce to clean it up at all, he may make it worse, maybe the sequel will just be a rehash of Superman II like SR was a rehash of Superman I.

Frankly we have waited long enough for a new Superman movie and then movie was a disappointment, why should we have to wait another 20 years because Singer screwed up. We don't know how long the superhero movie ear will last, best to strike well the iron is still hot, because you may miss your chance if you wait too long.

[mr.happy]

Jason's not the problem, it's Richard.They're both symptomatic of the problem Singer had: he didn't know the first thing about Superman or how to handle the character. The only reason to add Jason, Richard and this absurdly unromantic non-love-triangle, never mind smothering the movie in heavy-handed Jesus analogies, was that he didn't understand, or didn't have faith in the fundamentals of what makes Superman great. Singer dug Superman into a creative hole from which there was virtually no escape.

[Blackstar]

Yeah, I really hope this movie isn't just two hours of Supes whaling on a guy. I like action as next guy, but I would like my Superman movies to have a decent story.

Hey, I want a decent story just as much as the next guy, but that story should have a good amount of bad guy butt whoopin'. After all, that's what the people want to see and are willing to pay to see. I don't want to see Supes and Lois drinking tea and talking about their relationship and discussing child support for 90 minutes. It's hard enough for The Super One to try and regain an audience on the big screen as it is. Hollywood won't accomodate another super turkey. It could be a long time before we get another Superman movie if that were to happen.

[Mikintosh]

But he was stupid, Lex shouldn't be insane, Joker is insane, Lex is supposed to cool and on control, not an idiot. I liked the Donner movies, but Donner Lex was always a weak character, he should have been updated or they should have not used him in the first place.

And the threat he posed was lame, there were no fist fights in that movie, 200 million dollar budget and no fight scenes, that's inexcusable. The whole film was a total bore.

Well Donner Lex was fleshed out a bit in Returns thanks to Spacey's performance, but I can see how people who were used to the comic book version might have a hard time with it.

As I've said before, I viewed Superman more as a dramatic action movie rather then a comic-book fighting movie, so I didn't miss the fistfights (though I wouldn't mind seeing them in the next installment). It is bewildering how they managed to spend 200 million dollars on it though; I can't think of a single setpiece or action sequence that would have racheted up the budget like that.

[Spideyzilla]

I don't see that as being a problem; the Nolan Batman films managed to do well despite their coming out some considerable time after 1997's Batman & Robin.

The problem was that Superman Returns stuck in some other schlep to be a rival for Lois' affections (like any mere mortal could compete with flippin' Superman) and made Supes a deadbeat dad in the process. I don't see how they can effectively write their way out of such a corner, short of hitting the reset button and whiting that whole movie out, as it were.

Here: Richard finds out the Jason is not his, and leaves Lois. A villain kills Jason, and Superman swears revenge. The problems are gone, we get a darker "angry god" Superman, everyone's happy.

[rggkjg1]

here's an idea i recently came up with:

jason is actually not superman's son. the villian in the next superman film already existed in the time period of superman returns. the villain pushed the piano that killed brutus. sadly, i can't think of any superman villians that could have done this (pushed the piano and had their presence unknown). i dont know, maybe general zod used his super speed and strengh, or brainiac was invisible. something.

the relationship of superman and lois is public knowledge, so that's ground work for why the villian knew to be there on the boat and set this hoax up. i guess someone can decide whether or not the villian knows more about superman, like that he's clark kent.

the villian's main plan isn't to just trick superman into thinking he has a son, that's pretty dissapointing if that's the only evil plan. so obviously there has to be a bigger plan and tricking superman is a part of it. maybe messing with superman's head will make the bigger plan easier to carry out.

[Jacob T. Paschal]

Here: Richard finds out the Jason is not his, and leaves Lois. A villain kills Jason, and Superman swears revenge. The problems are gone, we get a darker "angry god" Superman, everyone's happy.

Yeah, no. That's even worse.


But I don't want to see this kid kick butt, I want to see Superman kick butt. The kid just stels the spotlight from the person people paided to see.

It'd take a pretty clear lack of vision to allow for that to happen. If the film covers Clark's son as being young-young then I think it'd at least be worth exploring how someone grows up, with not only power but an old man who plays the role he does in the public eye.

A film (if later down in a series of films) could explore the meaning of Superman's legacy and how his son will take on the legacy 'of the greatest superhero'.


Plainly said, no SR sequel will be very pretty. A idea I have is to explore the multiverse concept in a future series' film which draws on the older Superman (from the different live action films) recruiting the current generation/series' Superman for some cross-continuity threat.

[Silverstar]

Here: Richard finds out the Jason is not his, and leaves Lois. A villain kills Jason, and Superman swears revenge. The problems are gone, we get a darker "angry god" Superman, everyone's happy.

That sounds like that 'Batman dark' Superman that was being discussed for a while. Superman shouldn't have to be come dark and vengeful.

Hitting the reset button is much cleaner and simpler: POOF. Richard and Jason never happened. No muss, no fuss.

[Jacob T. Paschal]

That sounds like that 'Batman dark' Superman that was being discussed for a while. Superman shouldn't have to be come dark and vengeful.

Hitting the reset button is much cleaner and simpler: POOF. Richard and Jason never happened. No muss, no fuss.

While I agree, we begin to run in circles with the same old 'What to do this time' and 'No reboot' crowds.

[TMC1982]

Brandon Routh attended the Hollywood premiere of "Watchmen" the other night and participated in a number of red carpet (actually it was yellow) interviews on his way in to see the film.

In regards to what's happening with the next Superman movie, Sshoeboxhorpe.co.uk quotes him as saying, "Warner Brothers are still trying to figure out what they want to do," he said. "I'm sure they are thinking and talking about it every day. When they know I think we'll all know. I'm still interested [in the role]. Absolutely."

While About.com didn't ask him about Superman, they do get the run down on the handful of movies Brandon has coming out this year and next year, including the Dylan Dog movie "Dead of Night" in which he'll be teaming up again with Sam "Jimmy Olsen" Huntington.

--taken from SupermanHomepage.com

[Hobbes829]

Superman isn't a god, nor anything resembling a god

[The Penguin]

Superman isn't a god, nor anything resembling a godLex Luthor would disagree with you. :p

Seriously I think that those type of comments are mostly a reference to what he can do. No mortal on Earth can equal what Superman can do, making him in some respects a god even though he doesn't see himself that way.

[Jacob T. Paschal]

I think Superman--in the next film--needs to have a louder personality. He needs to make his position and feels absolutely clear, if only to make Lex begin to look insane for his paranoia and "He's like a god!"-isms. Supes just does what he think the right thing to do is, in his position. Nothing wrong with that, espicially if he can ignore the faction making him out to be more than he really is.

[Hobbes829]

Lex Luthor would disagree with you. :p

Seriously I think that those type of comments are mostly a reference to what he can do. No mortal on Earth can equal what Superman can do, making him in some respects a god even though he doesn't see himself that way.
A character has to have limits or he's not interesting. That's what made the animated series so good. They limited his power, but still made him super.

[rggkjg1]

kevin smith says jj abrams should do a superman reboot:

MTV's Splashpage caught up with Kevin Smith, who is a big fan of J.J. Abrams, who he says should be given the task of making the next Superman movie...

"['Star Trek'] isn't just assembled by committee and you don't see the heart," continued Smith. "There's heart there and humanity. So give him 'Superman,' because that's what people seemed to miss in the last one - they just felt like Superman wasn't Superman. He wasn't human enough."

"There are two sides to the Superman equation," added Smith. "Kryptonian birth but raised on Earth."
http://supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=6447

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(that "no" is simply based on the new star trek film. not because i want a sequel or i want bryan singer to come back. i'm sure i'm the only one who is against an abrams reboot too.)

[NewcomerDC]

What's wrong with Abrams wanting to put a little more "umph" in the Superman legacy?

[Wonderwall]

Based off what Singer did with his Superman reboot and what Abrams did with his Star trek reboot...Hands down I'd have Abrams do it at least the directing. I've seen his idea of Superman from a few years ago and I didn't like it.

[NewcomerDC]

I've seen his idea of Superman from a few years ago and I didn't like it.
What were the ideas that Abrams had for The Man of Steel?

[mr.happy]

kevin smith says jj abrams should do a superman reboot:Abrams may seem like a good choice based on his success with rebooting Trek, but Singer seemed like a good choice based on his success with the X-Men too, and look how that turned out. You can't just throw names out there like that, you need to know what their ideas are, and Abrams' ideas just didn't sound good. On paper, Donner and Lester probably looked like extremely unlikely candidates, but they ended up making not just the two greatest Superman movies of all time, but two classics of the genre, with more than a little help from Chris Reeve, of course.

I don't care about track record, I just want someone with the right ideas, and a guy who looks like a Superman.

Oh, and any director suggested by Kevin Smith has to be wrong.

[NewcomerDC]

Adams may seem like a good choice....
^Since when Amy Adams started making movies? LOL

[Animation Freak]

What were the ideas that Abrams had for The Man of Steel?

According to some reports, his original plans included a Krypton still intact and in a civil war. Like a lot of the stuff talked about before Superman Returns, it also featured Superman getting kiled and reusrrected. Whether or not if he gets the job if he'd still try that may be in doubt.

Also considering the various reports about what went on behind the scenes prior to that, some of that have been more of producers wanting some stuff that went against the core Superman mythos.

[Knight]

Abrams would be a nice choice. He has showed that he knows how to put action and excitement in a film. Singer has never impressed me not even his XMen films. Singer gave us a Superman virtually without any personality. Im sure anyone they get should be able to improve upon that. I just hope they dont go for any extreme changes in the mythology of Superman.

[Hobbes829]

Adams may seem like a good choice based on his success with rebooting Trek, but Singer seemed like a good choice based on his success with the X-Men too, and look how that turned out. You can't just throw names out there like that, you need to know what their ideas are, and Adams' ideas just didn't sound good. On paper, Donner and Lester probably looked like extremely unlikely candidates, but they ended up making not just the two greatest Superman movies of all time, but two classics of the genre, with more than a little help from Chris Reeve, of course.

I don't care about track record, I just want someone with the right ideas, and a guy who looks like a Superman.

Oh, and any director suggested by Kevin Smith has to be wrong.
what's wrong with smith

[mr.happy]

^Since when Amy Adams started making movies? LOLHmm, not sure what I was thinking about there. :)


what's wrong with smithHave you seen any of his movies? Read any of his comics? Listened to him speak? The guy is completely useless.

[Hobbes829]

Hmm, not sure what I was thinking about there. :)

Have you seen any of his movies? Read any of his comics? Listened to him speak? The guy is completely useless.
yes, the movies are quite funny. I've only read Chasing Dogma, and as a public speaker the guy is amazing. he can tell a 20 min. story and keep the audience laughing all the way through. he's great

[mr.happy]

yes, the movies are quite funny. I've only read Chasing Dogma, and as a public speaker the guy is amazing. he can tell a 20 min. story and keep the audience laughing all the way through.That may say more about his audience than it does about his storytelling.


he's greatEvidently we have different standards for greatness.

[Hobbes829]

That may say more about his audience than it does about his storytelling.

Evidently we have different standards for greatness.
My question to you is why do you listen to his q&a's, watch his movies, and read his comics if you don't like him?

He can tell a story on the stage and not lose the audience. He knows how to tell a story with a beginning, middle and an end.

What would you consider great?

[mr.happy]

My question to you is why do you listen to his q&a's, watch his movies, and read his comics if you don't like him?As I've told you before, I think it's important to know a little bit about the things I comment on.


He can tell a story on the stage and not lose the audience. He knows how to tell a story with a beginning, middle and an end.

What would you consider great?Let's not get into that here. Suffice it to say, I'm thrilled that Smith never got the chance to make his Superman movie, and I haven't seen or heard anything to suggest that Abrams would be the right choice either.

[Hobbes829]

would you consider superman 1 a good movie?

It's terrible. The end has him flying around the world and turning back time. Nevermind the fact that he doesn't have that power, it's a crappy way to end a movie. In effect, superman doesn't have to try hard to do anything seeing as how he has the ability to selectively turn back time. By selectively i mean, he turns back time and yet the nukes are nowhere to be seen. Plus, why was he angry at the apparent death of lois lane, when mere seconds later he turns back the clock? Did he know he had that ability. The "can you read my mind" sequence is also terrible. Other than Reeve, and kidder in their respective roles, it's a pretty bad film. Superman may not have been treated as a joke but surely you have to say that lex was.

[mr.happy]

would you consider superman 1 a good movie?Yes, absolutely. It's a genre-defining classic, and the list of superhero directors who have cited it as an inspiration speaks for itself. It's probably the greatest superhero movie of all time.

Minor flaws aside, it gave the world a believable, relatable and likable Superman, and that's something both comic books, movies and TV shows have found it very difficult to do since. Abrams is a talented director, and so was Singer, but it just doesn't seem either of them understands what Superman is. Neither do the "angry god" or "dark Superman" supporters.

[Hobbes829]

Yes, absolutely. It's a genre-defining classic, and the list of superhero directors who have cited it as an inspiration speaks for itself. It's probably the greatest superhero movie of all time.

Minor flaws aside, it gave the world a believable, relatable and likable Superman, and that's something both comic books, movies and TV shows have found it very difficult to do since. Abrams is a talented director, and so was Singer, but it just doesn't seem either of them understands what Superman is. Neither do the "angry god" or "dark Superman" supporters.
a lot of people cite catcher in the rye as a great book, that doesn't mean it's true.

That ending isn't a minor flaw. It's the climax of the film and a glaring flaw. Actually superman: the animated series is still the best incarnation of the character. Smallville isn't superman but it's a decent incarnation of clark.

I also hated a lot of other stuff about the film. The sterile design for krypton. Brando's lifeless performance as jor-el. The biblical alegories bug me as well.

That being said, i will give it this, Christopher Reeve truely made me believe a man can fly. Superman can come off as campy but he took it serious and i believed him whole heartedly as someone who believes in "truth, justice, and the american way".

[mr.happy]

a lot of people cite catcher in the rye as a great book, that doesn't mean it's true.

That ending isn't a minor flaw. It's the climax of the film and a glaring flaw.Some people call it a flaw, that doesn't mean it's true, to use your own logic. As with any movie, there are things that could have been better, but when you take a step back and evaluate it as a whole, minor flaws like that become mostly irrelevant.


Actually superman: the animated series is still the best incarnation of the character. Smallville isn't superman but it's a decent incarnation of clark.To me, Smallville is an abomination. Not only does it get the characterizations wrong, its writing it outright insulting to the viewers' intelligence. Granted, I haven't watched it regularly since the 2nd season, but I did check out the recent highly praised Geoff Johns episode, and I've rarely seen anything so stupid outside an episode of Heroes. In its defense, I would say Welling does occasionally have a Reeve-like sincerity to him, though. The animated series was terrific, of course, but it certainly had as many, and arguably more flaws than Superman The Movie, but what they both had in common was that the core qualities were mostly spot on, and that's what we need from the next Superman movie, whether it's a reboot or a sequel.


That being said, i will give it this, Christopher Reeve truely made me believe a man can fly. Superman can come off as campy but he took it serious and i believed him whole heartedly as someone who believes in "truth, justice, and the american way".Yes, it's a difficult line to pull off in a believable way, Singer couldn't even get himself to use the whole thing, and ended up treating it in an almost sarcastic way, which, for all his good intentions, perfectly illustrated how he just didn't get the character. Hopefully whomever gets to do the next movie will.

[Hanshotfirst113]

Have you seen any of his movies? Read any of his comics? Listened to him speak? The guy is completely useless.

That's not entirely accurate, I don't think. Smith has certainly been overhyped by his fanboy cult, and he's definitely got a vastly overinflated ego, but in works like Chasing Amy, I was surprised that he really can write. Dogma has some good writing in it, I think even if it's mostly lost in the shuffle of his usual ego-tripping with his many Star Wars references. Smith's not perhaps as great as he thinks, but I do think that the guy does have some talent.


The animated series was terrific, of course, but it certainly had as many, and arguably more flaws than Superman The Movie, but what they both had in common was that the core qualities were mostly spot on, and that's what we need from the next Superman movie, whether it's a reboot or a sequel.

STAS isn't perfect, and it had it's share of "threat of the week" storylines (like 90% of the episodes, actually), but it was true to the spirit of the comics, seriious enough not to insult your intelligent, and not too serious as to seem ponderous. It was brilliantly well design, emotionally resonant, and just fun, which managed to make it endearing to me.

[Hobbes829]

it's was far more emotionally relevant as it treated the characters as real people and not just charicatures. I don't know how you could think that superman the movie was better than the cartoon if you say you like great writing.

i have looked at superman as a whole, and those things are glaring flaws. A bad climax, which is what any piece of writing is building towards can ruin a film. The entire film wasn't that great to begin with anyways as i've said before. I'm fine with minor things here and there, but major things like those are hard to ignore.

Smallville has it's share of terrible writing, but it has been great with it's characterization of lois and the scenes between lois and clark are always a plus. I don't mind the changing of certain characters. Comics are a flexible medium. The things i can't stand are the religious connotations, chloe (i hate everything about her), and the constant references to destiny. The mere fact that's it's destiny means you can't chose it, that's why i hate whenever they say, "chose your destiny" or anything along those lines. Personally, i think a lot of the flaws stem from the creaters taking their que (or is it queue) from superman: the movie.

I will go on the record as saying i liked dean cain as clark. He didn't have the stature (for the life of me i can't think of a better word and i know there is one) to play superman. It's a rare individual that can do both. Though once he and lois got together the series suffered as the sexual tension was gone.

what's wrong with "threat of the week"? That's like saying there's something wrong with case of the week on law and order.

Also, Smith isn't arrogant, or cocky. If anything, he'll be the first to crack a joke at his own expense. However, i'm tired of directors being humble. Stand up and be proud of your work.

[mr.happy]

That's not entirely accurate, I don't think. Smith has certainly been overhyped by his fanboy cult, and he's definitely got a vastly overinflated ego, but in works like Chasing Amy, I was surprised that he really can write. Dogma has some good writing in it, I think even if it's mostly lost in the shuffle of his usual ego-tripping with his many Star Wars references. Smith's not perhaps as great as he thinks, but I do think that the guy does have some talent.I would agree that Chasing Amy is Smith's least offensive work, but that's still just not good enough. I'm sure he can entertain his limited audience, and that's fine, but he needs to be kept far away from Superman. I suspect he would be worse than Singer.


STAS isn't perfect, and it had it's share of "threat of the week" storylines (like 90% of the episodes, actually), but it was true to the spirit of the comics, seriious enough not to insult your intelligent, and not too serious as to seem ponderous. It was brilliantly well design, emotionally resonant, and just fun, which managed to make it endearing to me.I've actually never had a problem with threat of the week. Although many people would say it became something of a burden for Smallville, it was perfectly appropriate for a Saturday morning cartoon, and as a concept, it has only a very superficial influence on an episode or show. And just to be clear, I wasn't taking a shot as STAS. Like I said, I thought it was a terrific show.


it's was far more emotionally relevant as it treated the characters as real people and not just charicatures. I don't know how you could think that superman the movie was better than the cartoon if you say you like great writing.I didn't actually say that. My point was that if you're going to nitpick minor flaws, STAS had as many as STM, and in the grand scheme of things, they were probably as inconsequential. STM is pure cinematic magic, and its imperfections are not so much flaws, as what gives it its character.


The things i can't stand are the religious connotations, chloe (i hate everything about her), and the constant references to destiny. The mere fact that's it's destiny means you can't chose it, that's why i hate whenever they say, "chose your destiny" or anything along those lines. Personally, i think a lot of the flaws stem from the creaters taking their que (or is it queue) from superman: the movie.I'd partly agree with that. STM's biggest problem is not what it did or didn't do, it was what it inspired. I didn't think its own use of religious imagery was a problem. It didn't affect the characterization or the core of the character, and it wasn't used as a theme. Singer, on the other hand, went too far with it, arguably because he just didn't know the core of the character, so he turned him into something he did know. In that sense, you could argue that STM was a bit like Jesus. Perfectly agreeable in itself, but problematic for what it/they inspired. ;)


I will go on the record as saying i liked dean cain as clark. He didn't have the stature (for the life of me i can't think of a better word and i know there is one) to play superman.Just between you and me, and I'll deny having said this should you ever bring it up again, I thought Dean Cain's Clark was... alright. Now, let's never speak of this again.


It's a rare individual that can do both. Though once he and lois got together the series suffered as the sexual tension was gone.And that's probably why a reboot is required. Superman and Lois' relationship has to be will-they-won't-they, and I just can't see how the damage Singer did could ever be repaired.


Also, Smith isn't arrogant, or cocky. If anything, he'll be the first to crack a joke at his own expense.But it's that deliberate, fake oh-look-I'm-so-down-to-Earth-I-can-make-fun-of-myself self deprecation. Press him on an issue of real importance, and you'll soon find out what a truly narcissistic, obnoxious boob he is. Not that this is necessarily a problem, very few people in the entertainment business are the kind of people anyone who values their sanity would want to hang out with. As long as their work is good, that's really the main thing, and I just don't think that's the case with Smith.

[Hobbes829]

from all the things i've heard from/of him he does seem like a guy you'd grow up with. It's just that he happened to make a film and get lucky. good for him. He's a guy that grew up in jersey and that informs a lot about him. He's hardly a hollywood type. Plus the fact that he grew up fat, and you can easily tell he's a little insecure, he's probably a very nice guy until you provoke him.

But yes i do agree about it being about the work. Personally, his work entertains me. I actually like chasing amy the least. I think dogma was his most original and interesting piece. At the end of the day, all i want from his comedies is a laugh, and that's what i get.

If anything, i think smallville has been burdened by it's arcs. They've never been very good with them. The last one, the doomsday arc was pretty good, but the ending fell a little flat.

Again, to me the flaws in stm are numerous and more than a few are big ones. Just for my edification (sp?) what minor flaws do you see in the animated series? Even if you're right, it's hard to compare as it's a series vs. a movie.

As a minor nitpick i dislike the prevailing belief in the movies that superman/kal-el is the true person, and that clark kent's the secret identity. There are 3 identities. There's the clark that everyone sees so as to destract from the idea that he could be superman, then there's the real clark that a select few individuals see, and then there's the superhero identity. The real identity is the clark that grew up in smallville. He may have grown up feeling different, but he doesn't have any real connection to krypton other than the fortress which he didn't get to until he was at least 18. He always knew himself as clark, and he's always considered himself as clark, yet once he finds out his kryptonian heritage, he thinks of himself as Kal-el? They've never said it explicitly, but that's always the impression that i got. That's why i love in the animated series when he's trying to stop the jet from crashing he accidentally pulls off the tale and says, "nice one, clark"

Also, here's another nitpick, how in the world did clark get a job at the DP if he didn't graduate high school? He went to the fortress as a teenager and came out as superman. How much time elapsed between him leaving and arriving at the DP?

While i don't think it can work in a movie, i think that lois and clark can work as a couple in a series beyond the will they won't they.

[mr.happy]

from all the things i've heard from/of him he does seem like a guy you'd grow up with. It's just that he happened to make a film and get lucky. good for him.I certainly don't begrudge him whatever success he's had, I just don't want him anywhere near Superman.


Again, to me the flaws in stm are numerous and more than a few are big ones. Just for my edification (sp?) what minor flaws do you see in the animated series? Even if you're right, it's hard to compare as it's a series vs. a movie.Apart from a ton of little episode specific things, issues with particular villains, plot points, and the fact that I didn't like their version of Krypton, the one thing that always stood out for me was Lois Lane. She was just too much of a 1-note character. It's perfectly understandable for the kind of show it was, of course, but I was thrilled to see what a terrific and superior job Anne Heche did in the animated Doomsday movie, which obviously also had a bit to do with the writing. Having said that, I had issues with Kidder's Lois Lane as well, so we'll call it even on that count.


As a minor nitpick i dislike the prevailing belief in the movies that superman/kal-el is the true person, and that clark kent's the secret identity.That's crucial, though. "Disguised as mildmannered reporter Clark Kent..." is one of the most fundamental core qualities of the character. Whether you call him Clark, Kal-El or Superman, the guy in the cape is the expression of his natural tendencies. Sure, when he's with Ma and Pa Kent, he lets his hair down a little, so to speak, but it's still the same guy. While the uniform has a certain iconic quality, the heroic fundamentals of the character doesn't change the way they do when he puts on the Clark Kent disguise.


and he's always considered himself as clark, yet once he finds out his kryptonian heritage, he thinks of himself as Kal-el? They've never said it explicitly, but that's always the impression that i got.I don't think that's the case. He certainly mentions the name Kal-El in the interview with Lois, but when he takes her to the fortress, he specifically says this isn't his home, just that it's a very special place to him, and that he lives just a few blocks from her in the city. I can't think of anything that suggest that finding out about where he was from meant anything more than that to him, or that it changed his perception of himself in any fundamental way. In fact, when Jor-El tells him that interference is forbidden, he flat-out ignores it like any good Earthling would do.


That's why i love in the animated series when he's trying to stop the jet from crashing he accidentally pulls off the tale and says, "nice one, clark"Sure, his name is still Clark, and this is pretty much day 1 of his superhero career, so he probably hasn't quite settled into the Superman name yet, and there was never an instance in the movies were he used the name Kal-El in that context.


Also, here's another nitpick, how in the world did clark get a job at the DP if he didn't graduate high school? He went to the fortress as a teenager and came out as superman. How much time elapsed between him leaving and arriving at the DP?If the Fortress could make him a cool costume, I'm sure it could whip up some fake credentials as well. Those sort of details are not really important, unless you're shooting for the sort of reality-based feel as the recent Batman movies. Superman was always more light-hearted adventure, and that's something I hope will return, once WB get around to producing another movie.


While i don't think it can work in a movie, i think that lois and clark can work as a couple in a series beyond the will they won't they.I suppose the same could be said for James Bond and Moneypenny, but it would be a fundamental and unnecessary change.

[Hobbes829]

but bond is fundamentally a loner. I never saw that relationship as anything more than a flurtation

interesting that you didn't like STAS version of krypton. I like it. It's warm and comforting as opposed to the sterile and lifeless quality of the movie's world. Jor-el is heroic in his doomed attempt to save his world and his son. When Krypton ends, i feel a sense of loss as i genuinely cared for those characters. Jor-el in the film was written as lifeless. He gave grand speeches, when telling his son "i love you" would've sufficed

I wasn't all that big a fan of heche's lois. It felt a bit forced. I'll admit, the animated series had written her a little 1 note, but there were times that she opened up and had the series gone just 1 more season i think we would've seen more of that.

Good point to about the lighthearted adventure.

My point about the credentials was the fact that having him go from 18 to about 30 overnight in the fortress was a lame device.

[mr.happy]

but bond is fundamentally a loner. I never saw that relationship as anything more than a flurtationIt could just as well have been Batman and Catwoman, but the point is not that the relationships are the same, but rather that there are certain fundamentals which shouldn't be changed. You saw Bond as a loner and his relationship with Moneypenny as a flirtation, I saw Superman and Lois as a classic will-they-won't-they. These were fundamentals that hadn't changed for nearly 50 years, and changing it was as much of a mistake, as it would have been for Bond or Batman to settle down with Moneypenny and Selina Kyle. Another Superman movie needs to reboot the relationship and bring it back to its roots.


interesting that you didn't like STAS version of krypton. I like it. It's warm and comforting as opposed to the sterile and lifeless quality of the movie's world.I've never really been crazy about any version of Krypton at all, to be honest, although I did think the crystal Krypton was an interesting change at the time. STAS Krypton was a little bit too Saturday morning cartoon for my liking. Generally speaking, the Kryptonian stuff has to play as small a role as possible, though. I think it draws too much attention to Superman as an alien, rather than the American icon and hero he really is.


I wasn't all that big a fan of heche's lois. It felt a bit forced. I'll admit, the animated series had written her a little 1 note, but there were times that she opened up and had the series gone just 1 more season i think we would've seen more of that.Yes, the final episode did seem to signal a change in their relationship, which I think would have been fine in the context of the cartoon.


My point about the credentials was the fact that having him go from 18 to about 30 overnight in the fortress was a lame device.I suppose, but it was still a few years too early for an 80s style training montage. :)

The way I look at it, when you're making a movie, TV show or a cartoon, you're forced to work within various constraints. STAS' Lois and Krypton were typical of the format and genre, and with STM, the crystals were an interesting alternative that worked visually on the big screen, in a way the silver age Krypton from the comics just wouldn't have done. These are very minor issues, though, and as long as the character fundamentals remain intact, it's not really a problem. And that's the challenge for anyone making a new Superman movie. Doing Superman himself justice. Forget the baggage, forget what the comics books have done in recent years, they've mostly just sucked the life out of the character, and copying Batman isn't going to work either.

[Hobbes829]

when something works, they tend to bury it into the ground. I think superman is more akin to the tone of Iron Man than it is The Dark Knight. Both tones are fine in and of themselves, but they work because they fit the character.

I think the will they won't they thing works, but i've never seen it as a fundamental except at the beginning. There was a lot more keeping batman and catwoman apart than their sexual tension. She's a villain, he's not.

I like the idea of the kryptonian heritage playing a role in the first film as i've come to see it as an analogy for him being the ultimate immigrant. He doesn't feel like he fully belongs, and that could be the arc of the first film if they were to reboot it. Have superman feel like an outsider, never really feeling like he belongs, and have the people fear a guy with this much power, but by the end he comes to see the earth as his home and the people embrace him as their hero. That's just an idea.

The montage comment made the Team America "montage" song pop in my head.

[mr.happy]

I like the idea of the kryptonian heritage playing a role in the first film as i've come to see it as an analogy for him being the ultimate immigrant. He doesn't feel like he fully belongs, and that could be the arc of the first film if they were to reboot it. Have superman feel like an outsider, never really feeling like he belongs, and have the people fear a guy with this much power, but by the end he comes to see the earth as his home and the people embrace him as their hero. That's just an idea.That could probably have worked as the premise for SR, but considering the obvious problems of Singer's movie, the next Superman probably needs to hit the ground running. Almost literally. I don't think we need to dwell on the hows and the whys of Superman anymore, just give the world the iconic superhero it knows and loves.


The montage comment made the Team America "montage" song pop in my head.Then my work here is done. :)

[Hobbes829]

That could probably have worked as the premise for SR, but considering the obvious problems of Singer's movie, the next Superman probably needs to hit the ground running. Almost literally. I don't think we need to dwell on the hows and the whys of Superman anymore, just give the world the iconic superhero it knows and loves.

Then my work here is done. :)
he did say that he wants to go Wrath of Kahn with the sequel.

[Golgo13]

I have as much faith in Abrams as I do with Nolan. He proved he can successfully reboot a franchise. And if there is any franchise that is in desperate need of a reboot, it's Superman. My biggest problem with Superman Returns was that it was trying way too hard to match Christopher Reeves Superman. What we need now is a standout Superman movie that can exist in it's own right without conforming to past incarnations. If Abrams could bring in his two buddies from Star Trek to write a Superman story, I'd be excited. After all, Abrams was a fan of Star Trek and made the movie with the fans in mind, but didn't conform to what the fans wanted exactly (unlike Spider-Man 3 and X-Men 3). If anybody could do a good Superman reboot, it'd be either Nolan or Abrams. And since Nolan only seems interested in Batman, Abrams is the way to go.

[Wonderwall]

Abrams was a fan of Star Trek? I thought he only had some knowledge of it but wasn't a big fan of it. I know he liked Star Wars a lot and he put some of that into the new Trek movie. I think I'd have him over Nolan as well seeing as Chris probably wouldn't want to do another superhero reboot and Ive yet to see any of his work that would make me confident in a Superman movie. Im specifically talking about the tone of his movies.

[Hanshotfirst113]

Not that I didn't like Abrams' Trek up to a point (my opinions are a bit mixed, but I did like it), but just because he rebooted one franchise successfully (from a financial standpoint at least, but again, that's a long other topic of discussion) doesn't mean that he cold do it for another, and quite frankly, he wouldn't be my first choice.


I would agree that Chasing Amy is Smith's least offensive work, but that's still just not good enough. I'm sure he can entertain his limited audience, and that's fine, but he needs to be kept far away from Superman. I suspect he would be worse than Singer.

Some of us happen to like Singer. Granting for a moment that he did mess up Superman as badly as you suggest, he still have an impressive back-catalog, something that you don't seem to feel about Smith. Though your references to him as "useless" and as his "least offensive work" are a little harsh. Shakespeare he's not, but I think that he is a bit more talented than you're perhaps giving him credit for.


I've actually never had a problem with threat of the week.

In fairness, exactly what else can you expect from a superhero show? I mean, STAS at least handled it well. Every Sherlock Holmes story has him solve the case, Law and Order is always about crime, etc., superhero stories are inevitably going to be about good vs. evil. Such is the way of things.



I'd partly agree with that. STM's biggest problem is not what it did or didn't do, it was what it inspired. I didn't think its own use of religious imagery was a problem.

The religious imagery is a key part of the Superman mythology, so I understand why it's there. It worked with Donner because he treated it with some degree of subtly.


Just between you and me, and I'll deny having said this should you ever bring it up again, I thought Dean Cain's Clark was... alright. Now, let's never speak of this again.


Can I quote you on that ;)?

And that's probably why a reboot is required. Superman and Lois' relationship has to be will-they-won't-they, and I just can't see how the damage Singer did could ever be repaired.


But it's that deliberate, fake oh-look-I'm-so-down-to-Earth-I-can-make-fun-of-myself self deprecation. Press him on an issue of real importance, and you'll soon find out what a truly narcissistic, obnoxious boob he is.

Exhibit A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou2mVnElp6c). WARNING: STRONG LANGUAGE.


Not that this is necessarily a problem, very few people in the entertainment business are the kind of people anyone who values their sanity would want to hang out with. As long as their work is good, that's really the main thing, and I just don't think that's the case with Smith.

I'd hobnob with Guillermo del Toro any day of the week. And I'd love to have a drink with Nicholas Meyer or David Cronenberg, amongst others. By and large, thought, you're right.

[Hobbes829]

The religious imagery is a key part of the Superman mythology, so I understand why it's there. It worked with Donner because he treated it with some degree of subtly.

It's only that way because people keep adding it to it. It's not important in the least.

[mr.happy]

Not that I didn't like Abrams' Trek up to a point (my opinions are a bit mixed, but I did like it), but just because he rebooted one franchise successfully (from a financial standpoint at least, but again, that's a long other topic of discussion) doesn't mean that he cold do it for another, and quite frankly, he wouldn't be my first choice.Yes, lightning rarely strikes twice like that. That's not to say Abrams isn't a good director, I just don't think Superman is the right project for him to do.


Some of us happen to like Singer. Granting for a moment that he did mess up Superman as badly as you suggest, he still have an impressive back-catalog, something that you don't seem to feel about Smith.Sure, I have no problems with Singer's other movies, in fact, I very much enjoyed his X-Men movies, but with Superman, he was just too far out of his comfort zone, not just with the character, but probably also the scale of the project.


Though your references to him as "useless" and as his "least offensive work" are a little harsh. Shakespeare he's not, but I think that he is a bit more talented than you're perhaps giving him credit for.I was actually showing a bit of restraint there.


Can I quote you on that ;)?Nothing good can come of that.


Exhibit A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou2mVnElp6c). WARNING: STRONG LANGUAGE.Embarrassingly crass. No wit at all. And, of course, it gets a huge reaction from the Comic Con thickos. I still say the guy is utterly useless, but he certainly knows his audience.


I'd hobnob with Guillermo del Toro any day of the week. And I'd love to have a drink with Nicholas Meyer or David Cronenberg, amongst others. By and large, thought, you're right.No rules without exceptions, of course. Be warned about Cronenberg, though. When he gets too much to drink, he's all hands. ;)


It's only that way because people keep adding it to it. It's not important in the least.Exactly. I remember someone on another forum had a signature that summed this issue up quite nicely. I'll see if I can find it.

[Michael24]

The religious imagery is a key part of the Superman mythology, so I understand why it's there. It worked with Donner because he treated it with some degree of subtly.

I never noticed any of that stuff while watching the film in the theater and still don't really see it (I suppose one can see just about anything in most films if they want to, kind of like how some thought The Phantom Menace was full of racial stereotypes), and had to say "What!?" when I started hearing about it afterwards. :confused:

[mr.happy]

I never noticed any of that stuff while watching the film in the theater and still don't really see it (I suppose one can see just about anything in most films if they want to...Or you can read or listen to Singer's interviews, where he's literally gushing with excitement about all the religious imagery he used in the movie.

[Hobbes829]

happy, i think you actually might enjoy or at the very least agree with his assessment of superman returns

[mr.happy]

happy, i think you actually might enjoy or at the very least agree with his assessment of superman returnsI have to admit, Smith's views on SR do appear to have been formed during one of his rare lucid moments, and it's surely another black eye for SR that it managed to establish common ground between myself and Tubby McLardass. :)

[Wonderwall]

Tubby McLardass. :)

Ok that made me chuckle pretty good.

[Mikintosh]

Ordinarily I'd be perfectly fine with Abrams taking over the sequel (if indeed Singer is gone), since I loved the recent Star Trek movie, though admittedly I haven't seen any of his other shows or movies besides a few episodes of Lost. However, his stated ideas for the movie are frankly horrible and unfaithful to the source material, and I'd hope for an assurance from the guy that he'd opt for a more conventional presentation. But I hope they don't recast Brandon Routh; I think he worked great.

[Robin2099]

It's terrible. The end has him flying around the world and turning back time. Nevermind the fact that he doesn't have that power, it's a crappy way to end a movie. In effect, superman doesn't have to try hard to do anything seeing as how he has the ability to selectively turn back time. By selectively i mean, he turns back time and yet the nukes are nowhere to be seen. Plus, why was he angry at the apparent death of lois lane, when mere seconds later he turns back the clock? Did he know he had that ability. The "can you read my mind" sequence is also terrible. Other than Reeve, and kidder in their respective roles, it's a pretty bad film. Superman may not have been treated as a joke but surely you have to say that lex was.

The whole point of it was that Superman tried it, without knowing that it would work. Plus we have to remember again that, was not the original ending of the movie. They had to use it because Donner didnt have Superman's ending finished.

As for Lex being a joke, that was sort of the point. Lex was never really a serious villian until the late 80 when businessman Lex emerged. Complaining that Luthor wasn't a serious villian in a 30 year old movie, is like complaining that Batman wasnt serious in the TVseries.


actually superman: the animated series is still the best incarnation of the character.]

Maybe in your opinion, but not in a lot of hardcore fan's opinions. STAS had plenty of great moments, but it also had its fair share of garbage too. The biggest problem being that they way underpowered him.

[Hobbes829]

if your climax involves him turning back the clock, there is very little jeopardy you can put your hero in. Plus, there's the plot hole of the missles all of the sudden disappearing. Considering the fact that he flew around the world and then back again, i'd say he knew what he was doing.

Yes i know that lex was a joke in the comics at the time, but this is a movie and if your aim is good art and not blindly sticking to comic book characterizations then lex was clearly mistreated.

The reason they underpowered superman is to make for better stories. If you can't put your hero in jeopardy then he's no hero and it makes for terrible stories. In the movies, he was WAY TOO powerful

[Hanshotfirst113]

As for Lex being a joke, that was sort of the point. Lex was never really a serious villian until the late 80 when businessman Lex emerged. Complaining that Luthor wasn't a serious villian in a 30 year old movie, is like complaining that Batman wasnt serious in the TVseries.

It's simply about different eras of the character. I, for example, always think of Batman as the Frank Miller-Dennis O'Neil-Neal Adams-Steven Englehart-Marshall Rogers-Chris Nolan "Dark Knight," being a child of the DCAU. But there are plenty of people who probably prefer "The Caped Crusader" to "The Dark Knight," and like the goofiness of the 60s type with Bat-gadgets and such, and find "The Dark Knight" incarnation rather ponderous. It all depends.


STAS had plenty of great moments, but it also had its fair share of garbage too.

I don't know if I'd say it had much "garbage," "Superman's Pal" and "Little Big Head Man" accepted.


The biggest problem being that they way underpowered him.

Yeah, I hear that a lot, there are clearly lots of Superman fans that haven't taken a shine to STAS.

[Robin2099]

if your climax involves him turning back the clock, there is very little jeopardy you can put your hero in. Plus, there's the plot hole of the missles all of the sudden disappearing. Considering the fact that he flew around the world and then back again, i'd say he knew what he was doing.

Again, that ending was meant for Superman 2, not Superman 1. Plus if you watch the movie, it's pretty evident, that Supes did that as a last hope resort, not a "oh, I forgot I can reverse earth's rotation. My Bad."


Yes i know that lex was a joke in the comics at the time, but this is a movie and if your aim is good art and not blindly sticking to comic book characterizations then lex was clearly mistreated.

So your saying that Lex should of been some super serious villain, despite the fact that he was never portrayed that way up until that point just because? Sorry but that's just goofy nitpicking.


The reason they underpowered superman is to make for better stories. If you can't put your hero in jeopardy then he's no hero and it makes for terrible stories. In the movies, he was WAY TOO powerful

And yet there are so many classic Superman stories in which he is still very powerful, but his power is downplayed. He's been around for 70 years, and in that time people have shown that you can write good Superman stories without depowering him to the point that Jimmy Olsen could beat him up, like the animated series did.


I don't know if I'd say it had much "garbage," "Superman's Pal" and "Little Big Head Man" accepted.

Garbage might of been overly harsh, but for the most part STAS seemed to have more episodes that fell into just "ok" as opposed to great. Personally, I dont think that it hit it's mark until the third season when Supergirl and Apocalypse showed up.

[Hobbes829]

Again, that ending was meant for Superman 2, not Superman 1. Plus if you watch the movie, it's pretty evident, that Supes did that as a last hope resort, not a "oh, I forgot I can reverse earth's rotation. My Bad."

So your saying that Lex should of been some super serious villain, despite the fact that he was never portrayed that way up until that point just because? Sorry but that's just goofy nitpicking.

And yet there are so many classic Superman stories in which he is still very powerful, but his power is downplayed. He's been around for 70 years, and in that time people have shown that you can write good Superman stories without depowering him to the point that Jimmy Olsen could beat him up, like the animated series did.

Garbage might of been overly harsh, but for the most part STAS seemed to have more episodes that fell into just "ok" as opposed to great. Personally, I dont think that it hit it's mark until the third season when Supergirl and Apocalypse showed up.
Still doesn't change the fact that he did it. As if when he was supposed to do it was relevant. It was a lame plot device.

that's not nitpicking. It's good storytelling. If your villain is a joke, then where's the jeopardy for the hero?

Jimmy couldn't beat him up. That's going overboard. There are plenty of crap superman stories due to the mere fact that he's too powerful. He was still very powerful, but not to the point where nothing can hurt him and he can turn back the clock.

to me, the animated series is the greatest incarnation of superman as it treated him as a real person.

[Hanshotfirst113]

Garbage might of been overly harsh, but for the most part STAS seemed to have more episodes that fell into just "ok" as opposed to great. Personally, I dont think that it hit it's mark until the third season when Supergirl and Apocalypse showed up.

That I'm much more inclined to agree with. It was a consistent show for the most part, but it was largely unspectacular in many place, excepting the Darkseid storylines.

[Jacob T. Paschal]

Routh's contract expires (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.omelete.com.br/cine/100020627/Superman.aspx&prev=/search%3Fq%3Domelete%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us&rurl=translate.google.com)...


...I'm awaiting some backlash from this, but I honestly can't say I care.

[Hobbes829]

That I'm much more inclined to agree with. It was a consistent show for the most part, but it was largely unspectacular in many place, excepting the Darkseid storylines.
it was certainly better than the movies which more or less treated everything including the villains as a joke. Okay, superman/clark and lois were okay, but everything else from the script to the design of krypton was terrible. Actually i like that the daily planet was a news room with life in it instead of being shiny and sterile but that's all i can really think of that had any value.

[The Overlord]

it was certainly better than the movies which more or less treated everything including the villains as a joke. Okay, superman/clark and lois were okay, but everything else from the script to the design of krypton was terrible. Actually i like that the daily planet was a news room with life in it instead of being shiny and sterile but that's all i can really think of that had any value.

This is likely why people like the corporate criminal version of Lex, because he was kinda a of joke till 1086. Though frankly I'[m a little sick of Lex. sure if they reboot the whole series, should use him as the first villain, but give him someone like Metallo or Parasite as a henchman and then use Brainiac as the mian villain in a sequel.

[Young Justice]

Routh's contract expires (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.omelete.com.br/cine/100020627/Superman.aspx&prev=/search%3Fq%3Domelete%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us&rurl=translate.google.com)...


...I'm awaiting some backlash from this, but I honestly can't say I care.

Just an inside info about this Omelete site: It's one of the best about comics, movies and games here in Brazil. How do I know? I'm Brazilian as well and I've been follow it quite a while.

[DisneyBoy]

Tubby McLardass
Who does this refer too?

...I'm awaiting some backlash from this, but I honestly can't say I care

Ditto. WB may have been downplaying and denying it, but they've taken a big step back to disassociate the Superman brand from the Singer film. A Singer sequel is not happening.

Here's hoping the just focus in on Wonder Woman or Green Lantern or Flash now...and give Superman a rest for another decade.

[Silverstar]

Here's hoping they just focus in on Wonder Woman or Green Lantern or Flash now...and give Superman a rest for another decade.

I would like to see some of DC's other heroes get the spotlight for a bit (I've been waiting for a Wonder Woman movie for years now), but I don't think Superman needs a rest right now. I for one would like to see a really good Superman movie or 2 and maybe another Superman cartoon show before Big Blue gets put on the shelf again. Superman shouldn't have to go out with Superman Returns.

I realize this is a biased statement because I prefer Superman to Batman, but if any DC character is getting overplayed right now and needs to be given a break for a while, it's Batman.

[Hobbes829]

I would like to see some of DC's other heroes get the spotlight for a bit (I've been waiting for a Wonder Woman movie for years now), but I don't think Superman needs a rest right now. I for one would like to see a really good Superman movie or 2 and maybe another Superman cartoon show before Big Blue gets put on the shelf again. Superman shouldn't have to go out with Superman Returns.

I realize this is a biased statement because I prefer Superman to Batman, but if any DC character is getting overplayed right now and needs to be given a break for a while, it's Batman.
batman isn't overplayed. he's had 2 films in the past 10 years and they were both extremely successful and great films. All i want is good stories. I don't care if they only do batman and superman so long as they are good. I would rather them not do something at all than do it and get it wrong.

[DarkAngel]

Superman shouldn't have to go out with Superman Returns.
I'm not sure what the issue is or what the hold is in regards to another Superman movie. If they put out a movie with Superman battling a supervillain, people will go see it. For all the talk of SR sucking, it still made $200 mil domestically, so I can only imagine how much a Supes movie could potentially make if audiences are seeing Big Blue duking it out with some big hitter from his rogues gallery. And its obviously not deep storytelling that audiences are looking for from their summer fare, as evidenced by TF, so I don't see why it would be so hard to gain success for Superman.

That's not to say I don't want great storytelling, but I'm baffled as to why they're not even trying to move ahead with something. From what I can see, if they were just looking for BO success, they should have moved forward with another Singer-directed movie, given that he'd said plainly he'd be using a supervillain and going "Wrath of Khan" on the sequel. I'm certain that would have filled theaters.


I realize this is a biased statement because I prefer Superman to Batman, but if any DC character is getting overplayed right now and needs to be given a break for a while, it's Batman.
After TDK's huge BO success last year, clearly audiences aren't finding Batman overplayed. We had a decent break after B&R, and now with some high quality stuff being put out from Nolan and company (and only two movies from him so far), I don't see a reason to stop.

Now, if Nolan's done creatively and can't think of anything else he wants/needs to do in a Batman movie, then yeah, take a pause and assess who'd be brought in to replace him and what the direction would be. But otherwise, it would seem like the smart move would be to aim for another Batman movie release in a couple years.

[mr.happy]

That's not to say I don't want great storytelling, but I'm baffled as to why they're not even trying to move ahead with something. From what I can see, if they were just looking for BO success, they should have moved forward with another Singer-directed movie, given that he'd said plainly he'd be using a supervillain and going "Wrath of Khan" on the sequel. I'm certain that would have filled theaters.It's not as simple as that. Just look at the latest Hulk movie. It had more of what everyone thought they wanted, and less of what made Ang Lee's movie so intolerably dull, and yet it was as much of a flop as the first one.

A SR sequel would still be saddled with too many problems carried over from the first movie. Just adding super villains doesn't address the fundamental problems with plot, cast, and even something as superficial as the costume.

Another problem is that some people have claimed Singer has a pay-or-play contract, which could complicate things a little bit.

[Hobbes829]

It's not as simple as that. Just look at the latest Hulk movie. It had more of what everyone thought they wanted, and less of what made Ang Lee's movie so intolerably dull, and yet it was as much of a flop as the first one.

A SR sequel would still be saddled with too many problems carried over from the first movie. Just adding super villains doesn't address the fundamental problems with plot, cast, and even something as superficial as the costume.

Another problem is that some people have claimed Singer has a pay-or-play contract, which could complicate things a little bit.
from a revenue perspective, The Incredible Hulk made good money. I think a sequel if done with the same people could be profitable if it's well written.

[mr.happy]

from a revenue perspective, The Incredible Hulk made good money.No, it cost more than the first one to produce, and made more or less the same amount of money, and the DVD sales were not great either.


I think a sequel if done with the same people could be profitable if it's well written.It's possible, I suppose, but the point I was making is that it isn't simply a matter of just adding super villains and more action to make a successful SR sequel.

[DarkAngel]

It's not as simple as that. Just look at the latest Hulk movie. It had more of what everyone thought they wanted, and less of what made Ang Lee's movie so intolerably dull, and yet it was as much of a flop as the first one.
Lol. No, I do know its not quite that simple. But nor is it that hard. I do expect some thought and intelligence to go into it, which I didn't get the impression there was enough of behind the most recent Hulk.

Superman wouldn't be nearly as difficult to get going again. Supes is a much more popular and familiar figure than the Hulk, and there's more success behind past Superman movies than anything we could point to with the Hulk. SR wasn't as close to as disasterous as Lee's Hulk.

[Hobbes829]

No, it cost more than the first one to produce, and made more or less the same amount of money, and the DVD sales were not great either.

It's possible, I suppose, but the point I was making is that it isn't simply a matter of just adding super villains and more action to make a successful SR sequel.
do you understand the concept of revenue. I didn't say profit.

There was a good plot and interesting characters in the previous hulk. They had dimension and were real. People don't want to see a whinny emo superhero movie. That goes for superman as well.

With superman, they need to go back to basics, get a good cast (kate bosworth has talent but she was completely wrong for lois lane. While it's a different medium and i'm not saying erica durance should be lois in a film, her characterization of lois lane is more or less what they should be aiming for) and tell a good story with life in it and a genuinely threatening villain. It also helps if superman isn't given so much power, like the ability to turn back time.

[mr.happy]

Lol. No, I do know its not quite that simple. But nor is it that hard.If it weren't hard, everyone would be making mega-blockbusters. If it weren't hard, Singer would have made a better movie the first time around.


Superman wouldn't be nearly as difficult to get going again. Supes is a much more popular and familiar figure than the Hulk, and there's more success behind past Superman movies than anything we could point to with the Hulk. SR wasn't as close to as disasterous as Lee's Hulk.Actually, it could be argued it was worse. It cost an insane amount of money to get Supes to the big screen, and not only did the movie end up in the red, it was embarrassing for WB/DC to have their supposed flagship character fall as short of Spider-Man's success as it did. And then there are the problems with plot, cast and director I mentioned above. Make no mistake, if it were easy to make a successful new Superman movie, it would already be out, or at least in production.

[Hobbes829]

If it weren't hard, everyone would be making mega-blockbusters. If it weren't hard, Singer would have made a better movie the first time around.

Actually, it could be argued it was worse. It cost an insane amount of money to get Supes to the big screen, and not only did the movie end up in the red, it was embarrassing for WB/DC to have their supposed flagship character fall as short of Spider-Man's success as it did. And then there are the problems with plot, cast and director I mentioned above. Make no mistake, if it were easy to make a successful new Superman movie, it would already be out, or at least in production.
there are probably good enough writers out there that could come up with a great script, but the problem is i don't think the people with the money (i.e. the studios) would know a good story if it came up and bit them.

[mr.happy]

do you understand the concept of revenue..Sure. Do you understand that revenue in itself means absolutely nothing, particularly if it's exceeded by cost and expenses?


I didn't say profit.Tentpole/franchise pictures like this exist almost purely to make profits. Big profits. If they don't, it isn't good.


there are probably good enough writers out there that could come up with a great script, but the problem is i don't think the people with the money (i.e. the studios) would know a good story if it came up and bit them.Most of the major studios make a profit. In fact, job security in this business is very much based on a profitability track record, much the same way was it is for a stock broker, so they generally do a pretty good job, even if we tend do pay more attention to their mistakes.

[Jacob T. Paschal]

DC likely limits itself from straying too far from the norm. I know if I was the one in charge of the next film it'd be a reboot with Superman--fresh out of high school--being trained by the JSA, led by an experienced Power Women, and making his name known in Metropolis as he took over the role of protector from the current ready to retire hero. Later down the line Superman would bring together a team made up of the current generation of hereos, the JLA (Bats, Wondy, Wally, John Stewart). Clark would be the actual personality and would have to learn to get to know his older cousin who came to Earth in 1940 after Krypton was destroyed in 1938 (Clark would land in the late eighties/early nineties). It'd be a refreshing change of pace from the normal 'origin'.


But maybe I'm just a man with an overactive imagination??

[mr.happy]

DC likely limits itself from straying too far from the norm. I know if I was the one in charge of the next film it'd be a reboot with Superman--fresh out of high school--being trained by the JSA, led by an experienced Power Women, and making his name known in Metropolis as he took over the role of protector from the current ready to retire hero. Later down the line Superman would bring together a team made up of the current generation of hereos, the JLA (Bats, Wondy, Wally, John Stewart). Clark would be the actual personality and would have to learn to get to know his older cousin who came to Earth in 1940 after Krypton was destroyed in 1938 (Clark would land in the late eighties/early nineties). It'd be a refreshing change of pace from the normal 'origin'.


But maybe I'm just a man with an overactive imagination??Nothing wrong with imagination, but Superman is such an iconic character, I think most people would resist changes that strayed too far from fundamentals, and it would probably devaluate the character to put him in a team or have another hero "mentor" him. It could be an interesting Elseworlds comic, but you'd never get anyone at WB/DC to sign off on it as a movie. I do think there's something to be said for a younger, more inexperienced Superman, though.

[Hobbes829]

Sure. Do you understand that revenue in itself means absolutely nothing, particularly if it's exceeded by cost and expenses?

Tentpole/franchise pictures like this exist almost purely to make profits. Big profits. If they don't, it isn't good.
i understand revenue and cost. I understand businesses exist to make profits. Most products don't make money, so the producers rely on their biggest money makers to make the bulk of their cash. Hollywood isn't unique.

You completely missed my point. i was saying that the movie brought in people to the theater but it lost money because of how much it cost. It brought in more people to the theater than something like Hot Fuzz, but because hot fuzz was made for much less than The Incredible Hulk, it's more profitable. IH cost around 150 million to make and made around 260 million world wide. That's nothing to sneeze at plus combine it with the dvd market both sales and rentals. You can possibly build on that considering that it had to overcome the stigma of the previous film.

hulk also had the stigma of the last film and i don't know this for sure, but i'm pretty positive that a lot of people don't understand that this wasn't a sequel.

superman doesn't have quite the hill to climb considering it's superman and the fact that if there's no kid. Though if i were in charge i would not have give it quite the budget that singer had.

[Jacob T. Paschal]

Nothing wrong with imagination, but Superman is such an iconic character, I think most people would resist changes that strayed too far from fundamentals, and it would probably devaluate the character to put him in a team or have another hero "mentor" him. It could be an interesting Elseworlds comic, but you'd never get anyone at WB/DC to sign off on it as a movie. I do think there's something to be said for a younger, more inexperienced Superman, though.

Thanks for such a positive response to the idea, though! :)



Just a quick note, even though my version is 'so young' in comparison to other origins, I couldn't see an eighteen or even twelve year old calling themselves 'Superboy' as opposed to 'Superman', but that's jus' me.

[DarkAngel]

If it weren't hard, everyone would be making mega-blockbusters.
I said it's not that hard, not that it wasn't hard at all.


If it weren't hard, Singer would have made a better movie the first time around.
He made a great movie first time around, so maybe it wasn't that hard.


Actually, it could be argued it was worse.
Sure, it could. But I don't see it as being as damaging given how much name-recognition there is behind him. I think it'll be a much more feasible prospect to get Superman back up and running than to make a theatrical Hulk successful. I don't know how many people find Hulk conceptually interesting enough.


Make no mistake, if it were easy to make a successful new Superman movie, it would already be out, or at least in production.
It should have been out. At the very least, it should have been in production.

[Hobbes829]

joss whedon should get a crack at superman. At least with a script. He understands story and character better than just about any writer.

[mr.happy]

You completely missed my point.Well, saying "it made good money" isn't much of a point, really. It's certainly a statement that's open to scrutiny and/or interpretation.


i was saying that the movie brought in people to the theater but it lost money because of how much it cost. It brought in more people to the theater than something like Hot Fuzz, but because hot fuzz was made for much less than The Incredible Hulk, it's more profitable. IH cost around 150 million to make and made around 260 million world wide.But remember, only around half of that $260 million goes to the studio, less for the international gross, depending on distribution specifics. That's less than it cost to make the movie, and we haven't even included promotional costs. It would have made some kind of a profit, but if it had made "good money", a sequel would have been announced by now, because that was the aim of the movie; to (re)kick-start the franchise.


You can possibly build on that considering that it had to overcome the stigma of the previous film.That's a big "if" in the two-strikes-and-you're-out movie business, though. I think Marvel will take another crack at Hulk at some point, but at the moment, it seems more likely that it will be as part of the Avengers movie.


hulk also had the stigma of the last film and i don't know this for sure, but i'm pretty positive that a lot of people don't understand that this wasn't a sequel.I think that's true, but I also don't think it would have made that much of a difference. It's not really my impression that most of the people who went to see IH were all that thrilled with it. Personally, I could almost find more redeeming qualities in the first one.


superman doesn't have quite the hill to climb considering it's superman and the fact that if there's no kid.Yes, that's what I meant about problems that would complicate a sequel. Reboot is really the sensible way to go.


Though if i were in charge i would not have give it quite the budget that singer had.Certainly wouldn't give it to Singer, but you do need the throw a lot of money at movies like this. You can't afford to under-fund it.


Thanks for such a positive response to the idea, though! :)It's what I do. ;)

... well, sometimes.

... alright, almost never.


Just a quick note, even though my version is 'so young' in comparison to other origins, I couldn't see an eighteen or even twelve year old calling themselves 'Superboy' as opposed to 'Superman', but that's jus' me.No, I think you're on at least half a roll. As much as Smallville is an absolute abomination in more ways than I care to mention, it does have a few pretty decent ideas that could transfer well to a rebooted take on Superman. It would be much easier to capture the sort of fun and exhilaration of learning the ropes as a superhero, if you're dealing with a young(ish) person. It doesn't all have to be doom, gloom and pouting. I'd probably stick with Superman rather than Superboy, though.


joss whedon should get a crack at superman. At least with a script. He understands story and character better than just about any writer.I have no faith in Whedon as anything other than a cult director/producer. I can't imagine anyone would entrust him with something as big a Superman.


He made a great movie first time around, so maybe it wasn't that hard.I can understand some people like the movie, but it just can't be called great in any objective sense. It failed in almost everything it set out to do.

[Hobbes829]

Well, saying "it made good money" isn't much of a point, really. It's certainly a statement that's open to scrutiny and/or interpretation.

Not if you had bothered to read the context of the actual statement. I said from a purely revenue perspective.

Personally, I could almost find more redeeming qualities in the first one.

I really can't. No interesting characters. Mellow drama. Bad acting. Terrible direction.

Yes, that's what I meant about problems that would complicate a sequel. Reboot is really the sensible way to go.

This is something we can agree on.

Certainly wouldn't give it to Singer, but you do need the throw a lot of money at movies like this. You can't afford to under-fund it.

Singer was great with x-men and x-men 2. The problem is that he didn't understand the character. As for the budget, yes it can be a big budget but 200 million dollars is way too much to tell a superman story.

I have no faith in Whedon as anything other than a cult director/producer. I can't imagine anyone would entrust him with something as big a Superman.

Whedon is a great writer and director. There is more thought in his movies and shows than i think most directors and writers have. there's a universal quality to his shows (the pain of high school and teenagers, the pain of loss), and that's their appeal. He understands emotions and action. If you don't believe me watch the episodes of buffy entitled "the body", "hush" and "fool for love"

[Plague Rat]

DC likely limits itself from straying too far from the norm. I know if I was the one in charge of the next film it'd be a reboot with Superman--fresh out of high school--being trained by the JSA, led by an experienced Power Women, and making his name known in Metropolis as he took over the role of protector from the current ready to retire hero. Later down the line Superman would bring together a team made up of the current generation of hereos, the JLA (Bats, Wondy, Wally, John Stewart). Clark would be the actual personality and would have to learn to get to know his older cousin who came to Earth in 1940 after Krypton was destroyed in 1938 (Clark would land in the late eighties/early nineties). It'd be a refreshing change of pace from the normal 'origin'.


But maybe I'm just a man with an overactive imagination??
Overactive thinking more like. To be honest, I can't call that imaginative though, no offense.

... Hobbes, you might as well not even continue to respond to mr.happy. The endless wars between you two in like every thread are ridiculous.

[Hobbes829]

Overactive thinking more like. To be honest, I can't call that imaginative though, no offense.

... Hobbes, you might as well not even continue to respond to mr.happy. The endless wars between you two in like every thread are ridiculous.


depends on what you mean by war. there's no ill will on my part in this context. There's no problem with two people having opposing POVs and going back and forth with their views. Neither of us will probably win in the traditional sense, but that's not really the point of a debate is it?

[mr.happy]

Not if you had bothered to read the context of the actual statement. I said from a purely revenue perspective.Right, but that's sort of of meaningless in the context of the expectations and demands placed on a movie like that.


I really can't. No interesting characters. Mellow drama. Bad acting. Terrible direction.Yes, it didn't really gel or come together as a good movie, but I thought it had a few set pieces that were at least worthwhile, and I thought the Hulk design was better. The new Hulk looked a bit freaky, and the movie just bored me, and although the first one did too, it was almost more offensive for the second one to do so.


Singer was great with x-men and x-men 2. The problem is that he didn't understand the character.Absolutely. It also seemed like maybe he was just a bit out of his depth with a project of this scale, and he doesn't have a track record of producing great action. A lot of people complain about SR's lack of action. It actually had a fair bit, much of it just wasn't any good.


Whedon is a great writer and director. There is more thought in his movies and shows than i think most directors and writers have. there's a universal quality to his shows (the pain of high school and teenagers, the pain of loss), and that's their appeal. He understands emotions and action. If you don't believe me watch the episodes of buffy entitled "the body", "hush" and "fool for love"I recognize his qualities, but like I said, I don't think it makes him more than a cult director. I think it would be an incredible fluke for him to have any real mainstream success. He's kind of like the Kevin Smith of sci-fi/fantasy. Actually, I take that back. That's just mean.


depends on what you mean by war. there's no ill will on my part in this context.Same here. Nothing wrong with a bit of lively discussion.


Neither of us will probably win in the traditional sense, but that's not really the point of a debate is it?I'm pretty sure I'm ahead on points, though. ;)

[Hobbes829]

i don't know about points. You said in another thread something about having diplomatic immunity to which i replied "it's just been revoked" That's gives me a ton of points.

As for the action in returns, i agree about that to an extent, i thought the plane sequence was pretty cool. Though there wasn't much in the first superman either.

The problem with superman and his rogues gallery is that if you make superman too powerful (which most incarnations make that mistake) it's hard to come up with scenarios that put him in real jeopardy. It's only so interesting to see superman lift stuff or catch stuff. That's why he needs to be depowered. A good villain in a movie will not only threaten the hero on a physical level, but also some sort of emotional level.

One thing that i think would be great is if lex plays the main bad guy but has a physical counterpart to go up against the man of steel. Superman eventually beats the physical bad guy but he can't link it to lex. Superman can do a lot, but he has self imposed limitations and legal limitations. I'd imagine that it would play out kinda like the confrontation at the end of 3rd episode of the animated series where luthor taunts superman by saying "i don't know what you heard, but i know what you can prove, and that's nothing" at the end superman simply says "i'll be watching you luthor" There's a lot of cool things you can do with that rivalry thematically. You don't even have to have lex in every film. Perhaps even have lex put on that mechanical suit that allows him to fight superman in a sequel down the line. There's so much fertile unexplored territory with superman, and that's a shame

Considering whedon's success with tv i'd say buffy was far more than a cult hit.

[Master Moron]

As much as I love Joss Whedon's work, I don't know if I would trust him with Superman. I mean, I didn't like his ideas for Wonder Woman. Not having her fly because Superman flies? That's just stupid.

[mr.happy]

i don't know about points. You said in another thread something about having diplomatic immunity to which i replied "it's just been revoked" That's gives me a ton of points.Doesn't count, since the thread was locked before I could reply. And hasn't Hollywood taught you anything? When you revoke the hero's privileges, he just goes rogue, and that's when the real ass-whuppin' begins. :p

Meanwhile, back on topic: I can't remember if I heard about this in the real world or around here, but wasn't there some suggestion from one of the SR writers that two major Superman announcements were likely to be made around June/July? Can anyone confirm or debunk?


The problem with superman and his rogues gallery is that if you make superman too powerful (which most incarnations make that mistake) it's hard to come up with scenarios that put him in real jeopardy. It's only so interesting to see superman lift stuff or catch stuff. That's why he needs to be depowered. A good villain in a movie will not only threaten the hero on a physical level, but also some sort of emotional level.Yes, I always really liked the Fleischer Superman, and he was kind of a weakling compared to most incarnations, but he still came across as heroic and dynamic, which is what you want more than just ultimate power. That said, I do have a conceptual soft spot for the turning back time thing.


Considering whedon's success with tv i'd say buffy was far more than a cult hit.Nah, it was only on a small network. It was the definition of cult hit.


As much as I love Joss Whedon's work, I don't know if I would trust him with Superman. I mean, I didn't like his ideas for Wonder Woman. Not having her fly because Superman flies? That's just stupid.I hadn't paid much attention to his Wonder Woman idea, but yes, that one sounds particularly stupid.

[Hobbes829]

Doesn't count, since the thread was locked before I could reply. And hasn't Hollywood taught you anything? When you revoke the hero's privileges, he just goes rogue, and that's when the real ass-whuppin' begins. :p

Meanwhile, back on topic: I can't remember if I heard about this in the real world or around here, but wasn't there some suggestion from one of the SR writers that two major Superman announcements were likely to be made around June/July? Can anyone confirm or debunk?
didn't you get the movie reference?


As much as I love Joss Whedon's work, I don't know if I would trust him with Superman. I mean, I didn't like his ideas for Wonder Woman. Not having her fly because Superman flies? That's just stupid.
i havent heard any of the ideas but the fact that she doesn't fly doesn't bother me. Why have an invisible jet if you can fly?

buffy had 4.5-5 million viewers tuning in. That's more than a cult hit.

[mr.happy]

didn't you get the movie reference?It seemed like kind of a Bond reference?


i havent heard any of the ideas but the fact that she doesn't fly doesn't bother me.Problem is, if there's no flying, there's going to be a lot of running it high heels. :)


buffy had 4.5-5 million viewers tuning in. That's more than a cult hit.From Wikipedia:
Buffy was also voted #3 in TV Guide's Top 25 Cult TV Shows of All Time

Not that Wikipedia should ever be considered the gospel truth of anything, but I'm fairly certain this little nugget is correct, and if you're in the top 3 of all time cult shows, I think it's fair to say you're a cult show. Although looking at the entire list, the definition does seem kind of broad.

[Hobbes829]

It seemed like kind of a Bond reference?

Problem is, if there's no flying, there's going to be a lot of running it high heels. :)

From Wikipedia:
Buffy was also voted #3 in TV Guide's Top 25 Cult TV Shows of All Time

Not that Wikipedia should ever be considered the gospel truth of anything, but I'm fairly certain this little nugget is correct, and if you're in the top 3 of all time cult shows, I think it's fair to say you're a cult show. Although looking at the entire list, the definition does seem kind of broad.
Nope, it's from lethal weapon 2.

Hence, the invisible jet.

As far as whedon or any director for that matter, i don't think anyone would've looked at momento and thought, that guy should direct a batman movie, much less that he would. Also, i'm sure that a lot of people thought ang lee would've directed a great hulk movie but we were sadly mistaken. Heck, Batman was directed by Tim Burton who directed Beetlejuice and Pee Wee's Big Adventure. It's hard to predict who will be good for a certain movie and who won't.

[mr.happy]

Nope, it's from lethal weapon 2.Ah, haven't seen it. I generally avoid Mel Gibson movies.


As far as whedon or any director for that matter, i don't think anyone would've looked at momento and thought, that guy should direct a batman movie, much less that he would. Also, i'm sure that a lot of people thought ang lee would've directed a great hulk movie but we were sadly mistaken. Heck, Batman was directed by Tim Burton who directed Beetlejuice and Pee Wee's Big Adventure. It's hard to predict who will be good for a certain movie and who won't.That's certainly true to an extent. The problem with Whedon is that what he does is essentially very comic book themed in a way, and that he's only been moderately successful, where someone saw untapped, visionary potential in Nolan and Burton. Buffy was a success for Whedon, of course, but both Firefly and Dollhouse probably fall in the failures category. Maybe he could fluke a Superman movie, I'd probably rather see him have a go than Singer at this point, I'm just saying, I don't have an awful lot of confidence in him.

[Hobbes829]

Ah, haven't seen it. I generally avoid Mel Gibson movies. The lethal weapon films are excellent, so are braveheart, we were soldiers, conspiracy theory, maverick and ransom.

That's certainly true to an extent. The problem with Whedon is that what he does is essentially very comic book themed in a way, and that he's only been moderately successful, where someone saw untapped, visionary potential in Nolan and Burton. Buffy was a success for Whedon, of course, but both Firefly and Dollhouse probably fall in the failures category. Maybe he could fluke a Superman movie, I'd probably rather see him have a go than Singer at this point, I'm just saying, I don't have an awful lot of confidence in him.
he also has writing credit on toy story.

Say what you will about mel gibson the man, that SOB knows story structure.

Don't forget Angel. That was successful. Whedon also wrote on Rosanne. I don't know about dollhouse (i can't stand eliza dushku) but firefly was fantastic but was a failure not due to its stories (they are tremendous) but the network (fox) screwed them at nearly every turn. Also, firefly and serenity needed time to find an audience, which it wasn't given. All superman needs is a good story, a decent but conservative budget and a good director. Whedon's a capable director and a tremendous storyteller. In fact, a lot of the stories that Bruce Timm and his team use are inspired by joss whedon's in some fashion.

[mr.happy]

he also has writing credit on toy story.I don't know that what amounts to in real terms, but let's be realistic; When people think Toy Story, it's not exactly Whedon's name that springs to mind.


Don't forget Angel. That was successful. Whedon also wrote on Rosanne. I don't know about dollhouse (i can't stand eliza dushku) but firefly was fantastic but was a failure not due to its stories (they are tremendous) but the network (fox) screwed them at nearly every turn. Also, firefly and serenity needed time to find an audience, which it wasn't given.It got as much of a chance as any other show, and with Whedon's supposedly masterful mind and creative force behind it, why should it be treated like some "special needs" show? The same goes for the movie. It had very good reviews, spaceships, action and explosions, but for some reason or another, Whedon just doesn't connect well with a mainstream audience. He's a cult TV director. Anything more than that, and he's probably punching above his weight.


Whedon's a capable director and a tremendous storyteller. In fact, a lot of the stories that Bruce Timm and his team use are inspired by joss whedon's in some fashion.But they're not by Joss Whedon, which makes a world of difference. And as much as we all like Timm's work, he's even more of an unknown quantity outside TV. I think he'd be the first to tell you that, even by TV standards, he's a pretty small fish.

I'm sure there are a lot of directors who could do a great Superman movie. I'd want to hear a pitch or some ideas, though. The only one I would blindly trust with a blank check is someone like Brad Bird.

[Hobbes829]

I don't know that what amounts to in real terms, but let's be realistic; When people think Toy Story, it's not exactly Whedon's name that springs to mind.

It got as much of a chance as any other show, and with Whedon's supposedly masterful mind and creative force behind it, why should it be treated like some "special needs" show? The same goes for the movie. It had very good reviews, spaceships, action and explosions, but for some reason or another, Whedon just doesn't connect well with a mainstream audience. He's a cult TV director. Anything more than that, and he's probably punching above his weight.

But they're not by Joss Whedon, which makes a world of difference. And as much as we all like Timm's work, he's even more of an unknown quantity outside TV. I think he'd be the first to tell you that, even by TV standards, he's a pretty small fish.

I'm sure there are a lot of directors who could do a great Superman movie. I'd want to hear a pitch or some ideas, though. The only one I would blindly trust with a blank check is someone like Brad Bird.
most people don't think of writers when they are watching movies.

firefly didn't get the treatment it deserved. It was prempted, aired out of order, not advertised well, placed on friday nights. Plus, if you know anything about whedon, he generally isn't the biggest fan of the studios and they in kind don't treat him very well. However, Buffy and Angel by contrast were treated very well and eventually found a very good sized audience.

Fox has a track record of cancelling tv shows even when they have an audience. For instance, dark angel was a hit in it's initial season. i think it was on mondays and had like 10 million people watching, then fox in their infinite wisdom moved it to fridays and lost 4 million viewers. That combined with the fact that the show cost quite a bit to produce, the new night didn't allow it to generate enough money to be profitable. They killed it.

Even so, superman has a built in audience. They just need a capable writer who understands story and character. My point about Timm's work isn't that he should write this movie, although that would be cool, it's that in his genre, he's very successful both artistically and ratings wise.

if joss wasn't the director all you would need is a director with the ability to tell the story on the page visually. Hell, Nolan got David Goyer to help him write Batman Begins and other than the first blade, goyer hasn't really done much in the way of quality.

[mr.happy]

most people don't think of writers when they are watching movies.But even people who do don't associate Whedon with Toy Story.


firefly didn't get the treatment it deserved. It was prempted, aired out of order, not advertised well, placed on friday nights.Most likely because it was a show with very limited appeal.


Fox has a track record of cancelling tv shows even when they have an audience. For instance, dark angel was a hit in it's initial season. i think it was on mondays and had like 10 million people watching, then fox in their infinite wisdom moved it to fridays and lost 4 million viewers. That combined with the fact that the show cost quite a bit to produce, the new night didn't allow it to generate enough money to be profitable. They killed it.I've never bought into the conspiracy theories about Fox's supposed eagerness to cancel what fans believe are good shows. There were many good reasons for the cancellation of Dark Angel. Like you said yourself, it was too expensive, and once it had to be produced on a smaller budget, it really became a completely different show.


if joss wasn't the director all you would need is a director with the ability to tell the story on the page visually.I'm not sure I'd want them to tell anything that's been on the page of the regular Superman titles over the last 10-15 years. It's sad to see how the character has been treated. In some ways, it's been as bad as Singer's version, if not worse. That's why I was kind of encouraged when I first heard Singer would be staying with the Donner universe, but that didn't work out too well either.

[Hobbes829]

I've never bought into the conspiracy theories about Fox's supposed eagerness to cancel what fans believe are good shows. There were many good reasons for the cancellation of Dark Angel. Like you said yourself, it was too expensive, and once it had to be produced on a smaller budget, it really became a completely different show.

I'm not sure I'd want them to tell anything that's been on the page of the regular Superman titles over the last 10-15 years. It's sad to see how the character has been treated. In some ways, it's been as bad as Singer's version, if not worse. That's why I was kind of encouraged when I first heard Singer would be staying with the Donner universe, but that didn't work out too well either.
that's not what i said. I said it was expensive, but when it was on a good night like mondays it more than paid for itself, but fox pushed it to friday's and killed it. They lost 4 million viewers which means a lot less ad revenue. Friday night is a dead night for tv.

i meant the page of the script. Joss whedon has a track record of success on tv. The guys brought in to write SR only had x2. The donner universe was a product of the time, and completely overrated.

Fox cancelled shows like family guy and futurama.

Firefly needed a little time and a better night to hook the audience. Fox didn't even give it any time. I understand the neccessity of profit, but that doesn't come immediately. How are people ever going to know about something if you don't advertise it, air it out of order and on a night that people don't stay in to watch tv. Seinfeld took years to find it's audience and it's pilot was absolutely attrocious.

Superman needs to tell a good story, have an interesting villain(s) that can threaten him mentally and physically, as well have characters and locations that live and breath. I give all the credit to Reeve and Kidder for their portrayals of the characters because the writing for the 4 films they were in clearly doesn't understand that world or how to tell a proper story. It was successful, but it was a product of the time and just because it made money doesn't mean it was quality. I don't know how anyone could enjoy the ending with him turning back the clock. It is one of the worst plot devices ever conceived.

[mr.happy]

i meant the page of the script. Joss whedon has a track record of success on tv. The guys brought in to write SR only had x2. The donner universe was a product of the time, and completely overrated.I would disagree with that. I think it had a timeless quality and respected some of the fundamental aspects of the character. It wasn't perfect, but I definitely consider it one of the best Superman incarnations of all time.


Fox cancelled shows like family guy and futurama.Nothing wrong with that. I happen to like Family Guy, but it obviously wasn't performing as well as expected. I believe it was the emergence of the DVD market for TV shows that saved it more than anything else, though it was tweaked a bit on its eventual return.


Firefly needed a little time and a better night to hook the audience. Fox didn't even give it any time. I understand the neccessity of profit, but that doesn't come immediately. How are people ever going to know about something if you don't advertise it, air it out of order and on a night that people don't stay in to watch tv. Seinfeld took years to find it's audience and it's pilot was absolutely attrocious.I would imagine Fox looked at the trends for genre shows like that, and with seemingly nothing exceptional to drive the show to success, I guess it got the treatment it deserved. I know its fans love the show and will defend Whedon's supposed creative genius until the cows come home. I personally saw it as a show with very limited appeal, and so did Fox, apparently. Seinfeld is a very different story, as it, at least on paper, followed a formula with a proven track record.


Superman needs to tell a good story, have an interesting villain(s) that can threaten him mentally and physically, as well have characters and locations that live and breath.Yes, the cold, lifeless visuals of SR were definitely the wrong approach. Even the citizens of Metropolis came off almost as mindless zombies. I hated the scene with all the people dressed in black looking up against a dark sky. Just depressing.


I give all the credit to Reeve and Kidder for their portrayals of the characters because the writing for the 4 films they were in clearly doesn't understand that world or how to tell a proper story. It was successful, but it was a product of the time and just because it made money doesn't mean it was quality.The money is only part of the proof for its greatness. STM is a universally beloved and respected movie, and you'd be hard pressed to find a superhero director who doesn't cite it as an important influence. Some even claim the first two Spider-Man movies are blatant rip-offs of STM and SII.

[Hobbes829]

but a truely objective account in terms of the storytelling would tell you that it's an aweful story.

[James Harvey]

Just a reminder to make sure this thread remains on-topic. If you wish to discuss a particular show or movie, like the ones that have been lightly discussed in the last couple pages, then please seek out the proper talkbacks. If you want to discuss the merits of other movies and shows, then please take it to the appropriate thread. This talkback is for the discussion of the next Superman movie and discussion related to it, so please keep it that way. If the thread is derailed, then expect the necessary disciplinary action.

[Hanshotfirst113]

Yes, it didn't really gel or come together as a good movie, but I thought it had a few set pieces that were at least worthwhile, and I thought the Hulk design was better. The new Hulk looked a bit freaky, and the movie just bored me, and although the first one did too, it was almost more offensive for the second one to do so.The first one is probably less "offensive" in the sense that it's made by a genuine artist who is really interesting in exploring something. The problem is Ang Lee's art film sensibility was really not much of a fit for a summer superhero flick. But I'll give it full credit for trying something different. The second was just a glorified B-movie by a glorified B-movie director, which is fine in and of itself, but a bit disappointing when one considers that it's trying to be in the same league as the Speilberg/Cameron, etc. school of blockbuster, but I still find the second movie to have a sort of "dub fun" type of quality. There are many worse ways to spend two hours.


Absolutely. It also seemed like maybe he was just a bit out of his depth with a project of this scale, and he doesn't have a track record of producing great action.I don't know about that. Singer stages set pieces with some decent verve, especially compared to how clumsy most are today. He's not in the same league as cinema's best action directors at that top of their game-James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson, Kathyrine Bigelow, et. al-but he's got a good eye for action and he's better than many of the hastily thrown together messes. He's a great commercial filmmaker, I think.


A lot of people complain about SR's lack of action. It actually had a fair bit, much of it just wasn't any good.It was alright, it just wasn't really anything that hadn't been seen before. With a character like Superman, you really have the opportunity to cut loose with the effects and set pieces, and I just think that most people yawned as seeing him save Metropolis for the 1000th time. The scenes were well staged and choreographed, they just didn't really have much bite.


I recognize his qualities, but like I said, I don't think it makes him more than a cult director.His massive ego not withstanding, Whedon does indeed have talent.


I think it would be an incredible fluke for him to have any real mainstream success.He's much too idiosyncratic.


He's kind of like the Kevin Smith of sci-fi/fantasy. Actually, I take that back. That's just mean.Yes, but beneath his rock-em-sock-em action and dialogue, Whedon actually has things to say about real life.


Doesn't count, since the thread was locked before I could reply. And hasn't Hollywood taught you anything? When you revoke the hero's privileges, he just goes rogue, and that's when the real ass-whuppin' begins. :p

Yeah, then they've got to send folks like Rambo to handle those wishy-washy liberals :evil:!


Yes, I always really liked the Fleischer Superman, and he was kind of a weakling compared to most incarnations, but he still came across as heroic and dynamic, which is what you want more than just ultimate power. That said, I do have a conceptual soft spot for the turning back time thing.The Fleischer shorts are noteworthy for this still-influential and dazzling visuals and ambiance. They have a certain pulpy immediacy.


Nah, it was only on a small network. It was the definition of cult hit.Absolutely.


Problem is, if there's no flying, there's going to be a lot of running it high heels. :)

In slow motion. Like a Michael Bay movie :p!


Ah, haven't seen it. I generally avoid Mel Gibson movies.

It's not too bad. He and Glover have decent chemistry, and Donner's set pieces are fun. Not the most memorable or original movie ever made, but fun enough.


The problem with Whedon is that what he does is essentially very comic book themed in a way, and that he's only been moderately successful, where someone saw untapped, visionary potential in Nolan and Burton. Whedon is also very stylisticall different and idyosycratic. The way that directors like Nolan, Singer, etc. have been successful is by fusing the conventions of the genre with their own visionary styles. Whedon is far more idosyncratic and styled towards his own thing. I happen to like his thing, but that doesn't automatically mean that it will fit Superman.


Buffy was a success for Whedon, of course, but both Firefly and Dollhouse probably fall in the failures category.Firefly may have been a finacial failure, but judging by the solid gold reviews on Amazon and critical acclaim, it wasn't an artistic one.



Say what you will about mel gibson the man, that SOB knows story structure.

Eh, he's an OK exploitation-esque action director, but I have yet to see anything truly memorable from him, but maybe I've just watched the wrong stuff.


Don't forget Angel. That was successful.Since it's a spin-off, one could put Angel under the Buffy umbrella.


Whedon also wrote on Rosanne.Maybe, but I doubt that he was key factor in its success.


I don't know about dollhouse (i can't stand Eliza Dushku)She hung around Buffy a while, didn't she?


but Firefly was fantastic but was a failure not due to its stories (they are tremendous) but the network (fox) screwed them at nearly every turn. Also, firefly and serenity needed time to find an audience, which it wasn't given.Yeah, it was a brilliant show, canceled too soon.


All superman needs is a good story, a decent but conservative budget and a good director. Whedon's a capable director and a tremendous storyteller. Whedon is a decently talented director, but I think that writing is his real talent.


I don't know that what amounts to in real terms, but let's be realistic; When people think Toy Story, it's not exactly Whedon's name that springs to mind.

[QUOTE] It got as much of a chance as any other show, and with Whedon's supposedly masterful mind and creative force behind it, why should it be treated like some "special needs" show? The same goes for the movie. It had very good reviews, spaceships, action and explosions, but for some reason or another, Whedon just doesn't connect well with a mainstream audience. He's a cult TV director. Anything more than that, and he's probably punching above his weight.Yes, which is why I still fail to understand why a studio would have taken such a financially risky venture and pour so much money into. The audience is just not big enough.


But they're not by Joss Whedon, which makes a world of difference. And as much as we all like Timm's work, he's even more of an unknown quantity outside TV. I think he'd be the first to tell you that, even by TV standards, he's a pretty small fish.Which might well be why he got as much creative control as he did.


The only one I would blindly trust with a blank check is someone like Brad Bird.Dream on fanboy.


Even so, superman has a built in audience. They just need a capable writer who understands story and character. My point about Timm's work isn't that he should write this movie, although that would be cool, it's that in his genre, he's very successful both artistically and ratings wise.

Yeah, he should. But he won't.


If Joss wasn't the director all you would need is a director with the ability to tell the story on the page visually. Hell, Nolan got David Goyer to help him write Batman Begins and other than the first Blade, Goyer hasn't really done much in the way of quality.Which is why Nolan extensively rewrote Goyer's script. Blade II is a superior sequel, but since that probably more because of del Toro than Goyer, we'll drop it.


Most likely because it was a show with very limited appeal.

It was, but FOX still did screw up.


I've never bought into the conspiracy theories about Fox's supposed eagerness to cancel good shows.I don't think it's a conspiracy, I just think that they wanted bigger rating that cult show deliver, so they pull the plug on them. Sad, but pretty simple. You'd just think that cult hitmakers would learn to put their shows on another blood network.


Friday night is a dead night for TV.

Unless you're the Sci-Fi channel.


The guys brought in to write SR only had X2.Which, in fairness, was fantastic, but it also had David Hayter, who wasn't involved in SR.


The Donner universe was a product of the time, and completely overrated.You think so, but it has many, many fans.


Fox canceled shows like Family Guy and Futurama.Again, cult show, low ratings. Yeah, it sucks, but it's not like it doesn't make sense.


I would disagree with that. I think it had a timeless quality and respected some of the fundamental aspects of the character. It wasn't perfect, but I definitely consider it one of the best Superman incarnations of all time.

It has a certain indefinable magic to it.


I know its fans love the show and will defend Whedon's supposed creative genius until the cows come home.Have you ever seen all of it? It's a phenomenal piece of work.


I personally saw it as a show with very limited appeal, and so did Fox, apparently.Which begs the question of why they gave it the green light in the first place.


The money is only part of the proof for its greatness. STM is a universally beloved and respected movie, and you'd be hard pressed to find a superhero director who doesn't cite it as an important influence. Some even claim the first two Spider-Man movies are blatant rip-offs of STM and SII.Raimi and Nolan both cite it as inspiration, and it's been acclaimed by many fans and critics over the years. Love it or hate it, it's a key piece of the Superman mythology which many people identify with the character.


But a truly objective account in terms of the storytelling would tell you that it's an awful story.

How many times are you going to repeat the same thing? We know that this is your opinion, you've posted it at least a hundred times.

[Hobbes829]

before i talk about the next superman film, let me just say this about firefly. The execs that firefly were different from the ones that were there during it's run, so by the time that it aired (out of order, mind you) then there was a team of execs that weren't so thrilled about the project.

Hulk was a terrible experiment as it's characters were bland and uninteresting and hackneyed. How many times do we have to hear that there's something special inside bruce? How this relates to superman is that you can do a character study and keep it interesting. Hulk wasn't boring because it was a character study, it was boring because it didn't have any interesting characters. No one has done a superman story where Clark was as interesting as Superman. That's unexplored territory on film. These things are hinted on but never really fleshed out, and it's a shame. Batman begins got it right. It got the audience to emotionally invest in bruce so that by the time he put on the cape and cowl the people cared and knew why he did it. If they reboot superman, that's what they need to do.

[Hanshotfirst113]

before i talk about the next superman film, let me just say this about firefly. The execs that Firefly...

The execs that Firefly what? Proofread dude :p.


Hulk was a terrible experiment

Perhaps. But in a world of Hollywood where everything is screened to audiences to ensure that it pleases the maximum possible number of audience members so that it can make the maximum possible amount of money and sell the maximum possible amount of merchandise and everything is calculated like a fine machine, I'm willing to give pretty much anyone who's willing to try something different some credit.

[Hobbes829]

Perhaps. But in a world of Hollywood where everything is screened to audiences to ensure that it pleases the maximum possible number of audience members so that it can make the maximum possible amount of money and sell the maximum possible amount of merchandise and everything is calculated like a fine machine, I'm willing to give pretty much anyone who's willing to try something different some credit.
I'd much rather see a movie that has a good story and interesting characters even if it's formulaic. The next Superman can be as formulaic a movie as any but if it has a good plot and interesting characters then i don't mind.

[Old Guy]

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=56988



"The Court pointedly ruled that if Warner Bros. does not start production on another Superman film by 2011, the Siegels will be able to sue to recover their damages," Toberoff added.


To quote Bad Boys II, "[it] just got real."

[Wounded_Dragon]

How do you define "in production" though? Does that mean actual filming, or just contracts signed? Wasn't there something like 60 million in production costs attached to Superman Returns as a result of contracts signed while it was in development hell?

[Old Guy]

I assume the camera has to start rolling or be near to it. Also, I don't know about that contract thing. What I do know is that WB wasted a lot of money on the failed Superman movies like Superman Lives (the Jon Peters/Kevin Smith/Tim Burton project) and Flyby (the J.J. Abrams/McG/Brett Ratner project).

[rggkjg1]

i think it will be more than a coincidence if production gets going now that the lawsuit is settled, regardless if the court said warner bros had to start production by 2011.

don't forget we're supposedly getting some big announcement from michael dougherty at comic-con this month too.

http://www.bluetights.net/index.php?categoryid=19&p2_articleid=689

[mr.happy]

don't forget we're supposedly getting some big announcement from michael dougherty at comic-con this month too.

http://www.bluetights.net/index.php?categoryid=19&p2_articleid=689No, that turned out to be just a cheap, pathetic ploy to try and drum up some hype for a couple of his own projects.

[Jacob T. Paschal]

With Smallville supposedly on it's last legs this season I wonder if WB is thinking about just promoting them to the big screen...

[Spider-Man]

IESB has an update on the next Superman movie:

Currently, Superman is a hot property over at Warner Bros. Studios, this is known. But how do you move from Bryan Singer's recent attempt at rebooting the character in Superman Returns into something more action packed? Word out of WB is that Singer's film willl simply be seen as a "book-end" to the Richard Donner legacy, to complete the saga. The next films will be a completely new take on the character and the story.

And as everyone knows by now, Bryan Singer is no longer involved in the Superman franchise. Hence, the billion dollar question is...who is?

For the better part of the last month, I've been hearing a few names pop up in regards to who just might be involved in the reboot of the Superman franchise.

And from the recent lawsuit we all know that the new Superman film must be in production by 2011 and IESB has learned that it has indeed been put on the proverbial "fast track". So what names are we hearing?

This past weekend at San Diego Comic Con, I ran into plenty of DC and WB folks who turned pale when I started asking about the man in blue.

There is one thing we know for sure, there is currently a very short list of potential directors to bring Supes back to the big screen.

First are the Wachowski Brothers, yep, Andy and Larry. The other name I am hearing is James McTeigue.

Here's where things get fuzzy, because I am also hearing the Wachowski's may come in to produce with James McTeigue as the actual director.

Part of me wonders why WB would allow the Wachowski's anywhere near Superman after the amount of money they cost the studio after the disaster that was Speed Racer. But, then again, they did make WB plenty of dough on the Matrix trilogy plus Jeff Robinov loves these guys.

To me, it makes more sense to have Andy and Larry Wachowski serve as producers with James McTeigue to direct after the awesomeness that is his film Ninja Assassin because the one absolute mandate WB and DC have for the new Superman film is for it to be action packed, something Superman Returns was sorely lacking. And there is no doubt that the Wachowski's and McTeigue can be relied on for action.

One thing is for sure, Superman is moving faster than a speeding bullet and we can expect some major announcments coming from the Burbank studio in the very near future.
http://iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7198:iesb-exclusive-superman-rumblings-begin-now&catid=43:exclusive-features&Itemid=73

[rggkjg1]

There is one thing we know for sure, there is currently a very short list of potential directors to bring Supes back to the big screen. First are the Wachowski Brothers, yep, Andy and Larry.
ok, well they better shorten that list even more and cross them off. why do i get the feeling that wb is going to not take their time and just get a movie out because of the court decision?

i'm not flipping out yet, wasn't that wachowski bros thing bs awhile back anyway?

[Jacob T. Paschal]

I think at this point the film can be as lackluster as all Tremors 3536345153 and people will still go to see it if there's action.

[Young Justice]

IESB has an update on the next Superman movie:

http://iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7198:iesb-exclusive-superman-rumblings-begin-now&catid=43:exclusive-features&Itemid=73

If they indeed consider SR the end of Donner saga and this next movie is the reboot SR should have been, I'll be very happy.

Since Neo flies out of a phone booth in the end of "Matrix", I don't see why the Wachowski bros. can't make a Superman movie. James McTiegue, in the other hand, made "V" with those guys as producers. I don't mind him being the director either.

About Speed Racer: It failed on box offices but it was not necessarily a bad movie. I enjoy it a lot. It was just marketed in the wrong way. My point is, It was not because of the financial fail of Speed Racer that the Wachowski bros. are doomed to fail.

[rggkjg1]

wow. i can't believe i haven't brought up this point before. the answer has been in front of me all along. no matter what, a superman film is doomed to "fail". mostly because of the anti superman bias the world apparently seems to have.

[Hobbes829]

wow. i can't believe i haven't brought up this point before. the answer has been in front of me all along. no matter what, a superman film is doomed to "fail". mostly because of the anti superman bias the world apparently seems to have.
there already have been 2 successful movies. It's not a anti superman bias. It's that the movie was 2 and a half hours of really boring emo superman with a kid. They don't want to see that. They want to see superman/clark/lois triangle with superman duking it out with some other supervillain than lex luthor.

[Wonderwall]

wow. i can't believe i haven't brought up this point before. the answer has been in front of me all along. no matter what, a superman film is doomed to "fail". mostly because of the anti superman bias the world apparently seems to have.

I don't think there's been any concrete proof that there is an anti Superman bias.

[Jacob T. Paschal]

I wouldn't say the world wants the triangle. Honestly, most of the world probably doesn't know they've been married for over ten years now and are probably sick of seeing them not married in the films/Smallville.

And leave Jason outta this! :p

[defunctzombie]

I'm telling you, the only way I will see this film is if they put Darkseid in it. Don't waste him on Smallville.

[rggkjg1]

I don't think there's been any concrete proof that there is an anti Superman bias.
ask people what some of their favorite super heroes are. if none mention superman, ask "how about superman?" if they don't like superman, you'll most likely hear the reason being that he's too powerful, not interesting, not as "cool", ect, ect. just look around on the internet too, you'll find a whole bunch of sites/blogs/forums filled with anti superman comments.

http://www.bamkapow.com/bk-feature-why-superman-will-always-suck-1189-p.html

when ever i see/hear a "reason" for why someone doesn't like superman, i roll my eyes because it's not legit in my opinion. but that might also be because i'm a stubburn fan too.

i guess people want superman to be a "badass", but he's not supposed to be one.

[mr.happy]

there already have been 2 successful movies. It's not a anti superman bias. It's that the movie was 2 and a half hours of really boring emo superman with a kid. They don't want to see that.
Correct. The fact that SR made as much money as it did is a testament to the popularity of Superman. A movie like that would have struggled to make $100 million with any other character.


They want to see superman/clark/lois triangle with superman duking it out with some other supervillain than lex luthor.The relationship with Lois is a particularly important dynamic that has been part of every successful Superman incarnation. Not only did Superman have 2 successful movies, like you said, but Lois & Clark was very successful too, while they played on the aforementioned dynamic, and the show came crashing down the second they ruined that.


when ever i see/hear a "reason" for why someone doesn't like superman, i roll my eyes because it's not legit in my opinion. but that might also be because i'm a stubburn fan too.

i guess people want superman to be a "badass", but he's not supposed to be one.You're absolutely right, but it's worth remembering that most people don't know what they want, until you give it to them. Considering the mishandling of the character in movies, TV and comics, the complaints you mention are perfectly legitimate. People have rarely gotten to see the "real" Superman for decades. Hopefully a new movie will return him to his former glory.

[The Overlord]

I wouldn't say the world wants the triangle. Honestly, most of the world probably doesn't know they've been married for over ten years now and are probably sick of seeing them not married in the films/Smallville.

And leave Jason outta this! :p

Well either they reboot the franchise or they have spend the next movie breaking up Richard and Lois before clark and Lois could even be together.

Either way it wouldn't be till after till two new movies that they would even be in a position to marry.

[Old Guy]

WB loses more rights:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007269.html?categoryid=1236&cs=1

[dmxx116]

Even if they have some of the rights what they going to do with nothing,If I was Marvel or any other comic book company i won't touch it.

[mr.happy]

Even if they have some of the rights what they going to do with nothing,If I was Marvel or any other comic book company i won't touch it.I don't think there's been any suggestion that they're going to go to Marvel with any of this. The point is, the more rights they can get, the more license fee money they can demand from DC, when they use various elements of the character's backstory. If WB are serious about rebooting, they might now think twice about how big a part Superman's origin might play.

[Young Justice]

I don't think there's been any suggestion that they're going to go to Marvel with any of this. The point is, the more rights they can get, the more license fee money they can demand from DC, when they use various elements of the character's backstory. If WB are serious about rebooting, they might now think twice about how big a part Superman's origin might play.

I think they should have to pay to Sieger's family and get the whole origin. Money they have.

[Stu]

I think this only hinders our chance of a new Superman film, which will effectively cost even more than the ridicolous cost of the mediocre Superman Returns/Lives after SR damaged Superman's reputation.

This isn't good news for Superman fans.

[rggkjg1]

I don't think there's been any suggestion that they're going to go to Marvel with any of this. The point is, the more rights they can get, the more license fee money they can demand from DC, when they use various elements of the character's backstory.
so, if that's the case, they're going to do a sequel because the backstory was covered in returns and the first two films. therefore, they wont need to use any of it. ;)

[Jacob T. Paschal]

so, if that's the case, they're going to do a sequel because the backstory was covered in returns and the first two films. therefore, they wont need to use any of it. ;)

No, they aren't. Hardly anyone paid to see Superman Returns, Routh and Singer have been let go, and it's pretty inexcusible for a sequel to be anything but gloomy, like SR, and that is not what people want to see, as they didn't like SR, therefore, it shall not be.

[mr.happy]

so, if that's the case, they're going to do a sequel because the backstory was covered in returns and the first two films. therefore, they wont need to use any of it. ;)I'm not sure how this ruling would be enforced, exactly, but you could still do a reboot without relying too heavily on the origin aspects of the character. Remember, when Superman was first introduced, it wasn't an origin story. It was only years later all this tedious Krypton nonsense was established.

Either way, the amount of money the Siegels could reasonably ask for, if the origin were used in another movie, is unlikely to be substantial enough for it to be much of a stumbling block. If anything, getting all these legal issues out of the way, almost regardless of the specific outcome, can only be a good thing for the prospects of another movie, as they can start planning who gets what, what can be used, and how much it's going to cost.


No, they aren't. Hardly anyone paid to see Superman Returns, Routh and Singer have been let go, and it's pretty inexcusible for a sequel to be anything but gloomy, like SR, and that is not what people want to see, as they didn't like SR, therefore, it shall not be.The tone of another Superman movie has to be completely different, of course, but it's not accurate to say that hardly anyone paid to see SR.

[defunctzombie]

I don't think losing the origin is a big deal. Everybody and their grandmothers know where he came from so it's not like it's important. Besides if I see that on screen one more time I'm going to scream.

[rggkjg1]

No, they aren't. Hardly anyone paid to see Superman Returns, Routh and Singer have been let go, and it's pretty inexcusible for a sequel to be anything but gloomy, like SR, and that is not what people want to see, as they didn't like SR, therefore, it shall not be.
if we get a reboot with no connections to bryan singer and the returns cast, i'm hoping for a directors cut of superman returns. i'm convinced if a director's cut got released, more people would appriciate the film.

[Hobbes829]

I don't think losing the origin is a big deal. Everybody and their grandmothers know where he came from so it's not like it's important. Besides if I see that on screen one more time I'm going to scream.you've seen it 1 time. 2 counting the animated series. The movie did a piss poor job with the stuff on krypton. It was sterile and lifeless. Everyone knows batman's origin, but it's still important to show it.

[mr.happy]

you've seen it 1 time. 2 counting the animated series.The old b/w series showed it as well, it was constantly referenced, but never really shown on Lois & Clark, and even Smallville keeps drawing in kryptonian elements, so there's no question that most people will feel like they know this story, and there's really no need to waste too much screen time going over it again.


Everyone knows batman's origin, but it's still important to show it.I really don't think it is. Burton's Batman didn't show it, and it was a huge success. In fact, it made quite a bit more money than Batman Begins domestically, even before we adjust for 15 years worth of inflation. And outside comic book circles, Batman's origin was never really that well known, as, unlike Superman's, its brutal nature made it unsuitable for many of the various Batman shows/cartoons. It's just not as iconic and memorable an origin for most people.

A new Superman movie would be wise to minimize the origin aspects of the character, certainly all the Krypton nonsense. He needs to be re-established as an American action/adventure hero, not the world's most surly immigrant.

[Hobbes829]

The old b/w series showed it as well, it was constantly referenced, but never really shown on Lois & Clark, and even Smallville keeps drawing in kryptonian elements, so there's no question that most people will feel like they know this story, and there's really no need to waste too much screen time going over it again.

I really don't think it is. Burton's Batman didn't show it, and it was a huge success. In fact, it made quite a bit more money than Batman Begins domestically, even before we adjust for 15 years worth of inflation. And outside comic book circles, Batman's origin was never really that well known, as, unlike Superman's, its brutal nature made it unsuitable for many of the various Batman shows/cartoons. It's just not as iconic and memorable an origin for most people.

A new Superman movie would be wise to minimize the origin aspects of the character, certainly all the Krypton nonsense. He needs to be re-established as an American action/adventure hero, not the world's most surly immigrant.
everyone knows that batman's parents were killed in front of him. It's shown in Batman. not at the beginning of the film, but it's shown, just like kryptonian elements are referenced on smallville. Batman Begins had to erase the bad taste of batman and robin. Referenced, not shown.

He's an American who was born on krypton. It's fundamental to his character. Both aspects. He's the ultimate immigrant story.

[mr.happy]

everyone knows that batman's parents were killed in front of him.It's better known now that it's been covered in movies and cartoons, but it really wasn't well known in 1989.


He's an American who was born on krypton. It's fundamental to his character. Both aspects. He's the ultimate immigrant story.Yes, but my impression is that dwelling too much on that might be off-putting to most non-comic book audiences. I think defending Earth against evil kryptonian villains in SII worked, as it played on the subconscious theme of how the immigrant had integrated and become a true American, there was even a flag-waving scene, while him leaving Earth and his pregnant girlfriend for 5 years in search of elements of his kryptonian heritage sends a very different message, particularly when he suddenly only stands for "truth, justice and all that stuff" upon his return.

Apart from the fact that there's simply no need to go over the entire origin again, another Superman movie would have to be very careful not to repeat this unintentional mischaracterization that can happen when you put too much emphasis on the kryptonian heritage.

[Hobbes829]

It's better known now that it's been covered in movies and cartoons, but it really wasn't well known in 1989.

Yes, but my impression is that dwelling too much on that might be off-putting to most non-comic book audiences. I think defending Earth against evil kryptonian villains in SII worked, as it played on the subconscious theme of how the immigrant had integrated and become a true American, there was even a flag-waving scene, while him leaving Earth and his pregnant girlfriend for 5 years in search of elements of his kryptonian heritage sends a very different message, particularly when he suddenly only stands for "truth, justice and all that stuff" upon his return.

Apart from the fact that there's simply no need to go over the entire origin again, another Superman movie would have to be very careful not to repeat this unintentional mischaracterization that can happen when you put too much emphasis on the kryptonian heritage.
it's not about whether or not people know it. It was about if it best served the story, and showing the death of bruce's parents was neccessary for that story.

who said anything about dwelling? Where do you get the idea that it's off putting?

The problem doesn't come from delving into his kryptonian heritage, it comes from bad storytelling. I'm not saying you have to show Krypton but the fact is that the fact that he's an alien would come with a sense of isolation but the story could be how he overcomes that. While people can't relate to having superpowers, they can relate to feeling isolated and feeling like an outsider. You don't have to do it all gloomy.

[defunctzombie]

I'm just saying that Donner's Superman had it, Timm's Superman had it, Smallville has it, etc., and this is all screen time we can use to show S-man pounding away on somebody. Being a girl, you'd think I'd want to see the passive elements of his tale, but no, I want a fight that knocks half the city down. We need to see the actions he is famous for, not where he came from.

[Hobbes829]

I'm just saying that Donner's Superman had it, Timm's Superman had it, Smallville has it, etc., and this is all screen time we can use to show S-man pounding away on somebody. Being a girl, you'd think I'd want to see the passive elements of his tale, but no, I want a fight that knocks half the city down. We need to see the actions he is famous for, not where he came from.
you can still have story with the action. If it's just superman punching some guy who cares? You'd have transformers 2 all over again. you have to care about superman first. Batman Begins covered his origins very well and still had a room for a compelling story, characters and great action. It's not pick and choose. Timm did it but how many people saw it? Donner had it but it was garbage.

The interesting thing is that for some reason mr. happy doesn't want them to dwell on clark's kryptonian heritage, yet the climax of the film stresses it. He flies around the world and turns back time despite his father's warning to not meddle in human affairs.

You act as if Superman: the movie is a masterpiece. It was a popular film, but it was so poorly written.

[Jacob T. Paschal]

And you don't need to show the origin to care about the guy, either. You can do that via showing his present life in Metropolis. Who is this guy, not just as a reporter and superhero, but as a friend? A husband? A father?!

Everyone knows the origin "Alien from Krypton, raised in Kansas."

[Hobbes829]

And you don't need to show the origin to care about the guy, either. You can do that via showing his present life in Metropolis. Who is this guy, not just as a reporter and superhero, but as a friend? A husband? A father?!

Everyone knows the origin "Alien from Krypton, raised in Kansas."
everyone knows batman's. You dont have to do it the same way that they did in donner's version where it's Krypton-Smallville-Metropolis. You can start out in smallville then go to metropolis, then reveal his origins later on.

What's this aversion to showing his origin? What do you want? Action? You can still have that

Only 1 show has ever done his origin any justice.

[mr.happy]

it's not about whether or not people know it. It was about if it best served the story, and showing the death of bruce's parents was neccessary for that story.Sure, but it wasn't the usual origin story about the hero discovering his powers, training, learning, etc, etc.


who said anything about dwelling?I did. Excessive emphasis on these elements are detrimental to the character. It's something that's been completely overplayed in the comics, which have done almost nothing but chip away at the character's popularity over the last 10-15 years, and it's rarely been anything other than a weak setup for Smallville's Clark to get all pouty and overly emotional about, although to be fair, that does seem to be his reaction to most things.


Where do you get the idea that it's off putting?Because it detracts from the character's qualities. I'm not saying it's completely impossible to deliver a compelling Superman movie that includes a full origin, but it does make the job unnecessarily difficult, and there's just no good reason to tell the story again.


The problem doesn't come from delving into his kryptonian heritage, it comes from bad storytelling. I'm not saying you have to show Krypton but the fact is that the fact that he's an alien would come with a sense of isolation but the story could be how he overcomes that. While people can't relate to having superpowers, they can relate to feeling isolated and feeling like an outsider. You don't have to do it all gloomy.I completely disagree. The word outsider has to be flat-out banned from production meetings for the next Superman movie. That's exactly what SR was about.

[Palin Dromos]

I'm a fan of the Superman origin, but I'd agree that it would be unnecessary in whatever the next Superman film turns out to be.

However if they do reboot the franchise entirely, I would be in favor of finding a way to explore the origin in a sequel. Though only if they find a compelling way to present it. It can't be like the Donner version. That version is unique, but not the only valid one. I feel S:TAS's "Last Son of Krypton: Part 1" is one of the most exciting interpretations of Krypton and it's destruction, but it really is Jor-El's story.
To do it with the proper gravitas I'd almost suggest a "Godfather II" situation. Show 2 stories simultaneously- one about Jor-el's ultimate failure to save Krypton and a second about Superman successfully saving Earth (possibly from similar threats...like Brainiac.) Though a movie half set on Krypton would be expensive as all heck. (Man if I were a better writer I'd totally try to write that script.)

Oh and I think the Smallville portion of the origin is well past played out. The only thing I'd want to see is Clark's enjoyment of discovering his powers- positively no moping. (This from a continuing fan of the TV show, I'll watch till the bitter end.)

[Hobbes829]

completely disagree. The word outsider has to be flat-out banned from production meetings for the next Superman movie. That's exactly what SR was about.
the movie's fault was that it took the terrible elements of the donner films and magnified them. They made him mopey. It's possible to have clark feel like an outsider but still keep it upbeat.

they didn't tell the story well the first time, and that's a great reason. It became an embarrasing biblical alegory. Instead of Jor-el sending his son to earth to save the person he loved the most, they almost made it out like he sent kalel here for our benefit.

what qualities does it detract from specifically. You can show him as the boyscout, but not all the time. Show different sides of his personality.

What has chipped away at superman's popularity is that he's often shown to be way TOO powerful. That doesn't make for great stories.

[Wounded_Dragon]

I'd like snippets and flashbacks to an origin ala "Incredible Hulk" would be good for a reboot. Unfortunately, that didn't seem to work out too well for IH.

[Hobbes829]

I'd like snippets and flashbacks to an origin ala "Incredible Hulk" would be good for a reboot. Unfortunately, that didn't seem to work out too well for IH.
IH had the previous Hulk to overcome but unfortunately couldn't although in the long run it's been successful with the multiple revenue streams.

[The Overlord]

everyone knows batman's. You dont have to do it the same way that they did in donner's version where it's Krypton-Smallville-Metropolis. You can start out in smallville then go to metropolis, then reveal his origins later on.

What's this aversion to showing his origin? What do you want? Action? You can still have that

Only 1 show has ever done his origin any justice.

The aversion comes from the fact it is already covered territory, I want to see some thing new out of a Superman film, not things that have already been covered a million times already.

[Hobbes829]

The aversion comes from the fact it is already covered territory, I want to see some thing new out of a Superman film, not things that have already been covered a million times already.
only been covered 1 time. 2 if you count the tv series.

[Ioz]

I don't really care about having another origin movie, so that part doesn't concern me too much.


In 2008, the same court order ruled on summary judgment that the Siegels had successfully recaptured (as of 1999) Siegel's copyright in Action Comics No. 1, giving them rights to the Superman character, including his costume, his alter-ego as reporter Clark Kent, the feisty reporter Lois Lane, their jobs at the Daily Planet newspaper working for a gruff editor, and the love triangle among Clark/Superman and Lois.This part from the Variety article does concern me. So does this mean that Lois Lane and Clark Kent can't be used unless WB makes a deal with the Siegels?

[Old Guy]

only been covered 1 time. 2 if you count the tv series.

The Superman Serials from the `40s covered it. The 1950s Superman TV series starring George Reeves covered it. The 1978 movie covered it. The Superboy TV series from the late `80s covered it. Lois & Clark covered it. The DCAU covered it. Smallville covered it. And, the Max Fletcher cartoon shorts from the 1940s may have covered it as well, but I'm not 100% sure. Either way it's been covered a lot in Superman media, so that's why people want to move on.

[Hobbes829]

The Superman Serials from the `40s covered it. The 1950s Superman TV series starring George Reeves covered it. The 1978 movie covered it. The Superboy TV series from the late `80s covered it. Lois & Clark covered it. The DCAU covered it. Smallville covered it. And, the Max Fletcher cartoon shorts from the 1940s may have covered it as well, but I'm not 100% sure. Either way it's been covered a lot in Superman media, so that's why people want to move on.
how many of them actually showed it? TV series are naturally different. You have a much larger canvas to tell the story and delve into the nooks and crannies of the character. Covering it properly to tell another story with the character that hasn't really been properly explored except maybe in the animated series.

[Old Guy]

how many of them actually showed it?

Most of them. No other superhero has wasted more time on his origin than Superman. With the exception of Batman Begins, Batman's origin has always been told in flashback. With the exception of Spider-Man, Spider-Man's origin has always been told in flashbacks. Yet, with Superman most of the time they spend a lot of time on the origin. That's why people are tired of it. They wanna move on.

[Hobbes829]

Most of them. No other superhero has wasted more time on his origin than Superman. With the exception of Batman Begins, Batman's origin has always been told in flashback. With the exception of Spider-Man, Spider-Man's origin has always been told in flashbacks. Yet, with Superman most of the time they spend a lot of time on the origin. That's why people are tired of it. They wanna move on.
Superman's origin is usually told in flashback. it wasn't shown in lois and clark, and wasn't shown in smallville. I think even the adventures of superman started from his arrival in smallville. They can do it that way. Don't make stuff up like it's always shown. Most of the time? who are you trying to fool? I don't wanna move on from the origin because it's seldom done well and the character has rarely been explored properly. His sense of isolation as a kid, and finding a place to belong. Heck, even when he goes to metropolis, he doesn't try to fit in, the clark that he shows everyone is the Kansas farmboy. Why? Explore it but don't be pedantic.

I want to see some fights, but you can do those 2 things at once. Action should help the story. That's one of the big reasons why the first superman and superman returns are terrible. Lack of action and lack of action the drives the story forward.

I'm not saying show krypton at the start of the film, or even in the first film, but it does need to be addressed. If you don't have that, you certainly need to show him in Smallville.

[The Overlord]

Superman's origin is usually told in flashback. it wasn't shown in lois and clark, and wasn't shown in smallville. I think even the adventures of superman started from his arrival in smallville. They can do it that way. Don't make stuff up like it's always shown. Most of the time? who are you trying to fool? I don't wanna move on from the origin because it's seldom done well and the character has rarely been explored properly. His sense of isolation as a kid, and finding a place to belong. Heck, even when he goes to metropolis, he doesn't try to fit in, the clark that he shows everyone is the Kansas farmboy. Why? Explore it but don't be pedantic.

I want to see some fights, but you can do those 2 things at once. Action should help the story. That's one of the big reasons why the first superman and superman returns are terrible. Lack of action and lack of action the drives the story forward.

I'm not saying show krypton at the start of the film, or even in the first film, but it does need to be addressed. If you don't have that, you certainly need to show him in Smallville.

Its matter of time, you have about 2 hours to tell a story in a movie and I would prefer that all the time be spent building up the relationship between Lois and Clark, building up the rivalry between Superman and Lex and having Superman fight a super villain. All of that is more interesting then just rehashing superman's origin.

[Old Guy]

Superman's origin is usually told in flashback. it wasn't shown in lois and clark, and wasn't shown in smallville.

Those were the only two times. Well, in Lois & Clark there WAS a flashback. In the episode he finds his ship.


I think even the adventures of superman started from his arrival in smallville.

Nope. It stated in Krypton.


Most of the time? who are you trying to fool?

No one because it is true. George Reeves' series showed the origin. `78 Superman showed the origin. DCAU showed the origin. And, I just double-checked and the Max Fleischer series also showed the origin. Although in their case it was a prologue. So, yea, most of the time it has been shown.

[Hobbes829]

so what's the harm in showing it again, in some form or fashion if they can update it a little bit and use it to tell his story. Again, it's fundamental to his character and can be used to tell a great story. Perhaps they could do something like in smallville where it starts with him as a teenager who instead of just growing facial hair during puberty he develops powers and his parents reveal his ship. Then take something from the animated series and have a recording where he sees his parents and they give him a heartfelt message telling him about himself, why they had to send him away, why he's developing powers and not to become a tyrant as he will become the most powerful man on Earth due to the yellow sun, then that they love him. Then the story could play on the fact that he does have the power to become a tyrant.