-
Website
http://www.slashfilm.com/ -
Original page
http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/08/22/superman-reboot-confirmed/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- Iron Man 2 Movie Trailer
- FBI Finally Make An Arrest in the Wolverine Piracy Case
- The Inception Poster: A Couple Things You Might Not Have Noticed
- Bryan Singer: “I Just Signed a Deal to Do an X-Men First Class Origins Picture”
- Family Guy Moving From Star Wars Spoofs To… Indiana Jones, Back to the Future and Star Trek?
Try some new franchises, how many do they own
I hope Brandon Routh still does Superman. He's awesome.
KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!
But hell, they got their panties in a knot about Indiana Jones fighting the Soviets in 1957.
"We weren't in the U.S. looking for magic skulls!" etc., etc.
On second thought, they probably would be happy to see the U.S. attacked by a commie superman.
That said, a hero's optimism has to be challenged to make a good story. I'd love to see a truly twisted Lex Luthor. With any luck Doomsday is being thrown around aswell.
We'll see.
I'd like to see a 40 year old superman myself, something that give homage back to the days of George Reeves.
I'd also like to see a new vision of Krypton, maybe with just a set up for a villian. I don't want to see him grow up like in the original. Just have Superman fighting some serious stuff from the moment he appears on screen.
What's Kerry Conran doing these days? Even if you didn't like Sky Captain, it's hard to argue that his sense of design isn't amazing and a perfect fit for Superman. I'd love to see that guy get some redemption.
Exactly. Superman just isn't a dark character. He's everything that's good about humanity.
If they were smart they'd go in a completely different direction that doesn't shit on the previous movies (the good ones at least). Maybe a little more stylized and a bit more like the Max Fleischer cartoons.
Make Clark Kent into the hard-nosed reporter he was meant to be instead of the goofball dork they've portrayed him as since the Donner era.
You know who would be perfect to adapt it?
Bruce Timm.
The end.
Tired of them being worshipped as if they are somehow the reinvention of all that is cinema.
That is all.
I like the idea of Nolan writing, I don't think he's a one trick pony. He could do justice to Superman. However, I don't think a Batman V. Superman movie would be a good idea. The two don't belong in the same world, and ultimately it would only be good for the box office.
however, there are many story elements and visual aspects that i would love to see carried on from the richard donner films, ie the introduction of general zod and the crystalline krypton technology and setting.
tbh, id even like to see the way clark would learn to cope with his powers within a "cardboard" world.
but as for a story, i think jonothan nolan would be an excellent writer. his work on the dark knight was simply fantastic. but in this, i dont think it should be set in an uber-realistic environment as has been done with the batman franchise.
;-D
Why So Serious? Nolan is a great writer, especially at adapting comic-book superhero's. How is wanting him to write another adaptation "worshipping" him. If you do something good, you're going to be wanted to do more of it.
By the Way... Batman 3 in three years? I am already getting exciited (if Nolan agees that is).
My own personal observations tell me that moviegoers are too dumb for this to work. I can just picture one of those old ladies that always talks throught he movies completely freaking out...
"What do you mean he's a soviet? Why does his suit look different? Why doesn't Jimmy have a camera?"
I feel like studio execs just aren't getting what it was that made The Dark Knight so relatable and that it simply isn't going to work for everything. Superman himself simply isn't a very relatable character because of how not human he is. We can only relate to him when we see his more human traits. Using "Returns" as an example: his conflict about Lois being married and having a child, that he would spend years away just trying to find a piece of his homeworld...those are things we can relate to because they reflect some part of humanity.
A movie focusing too much on that side of the character would ultimatley fail because at the end of the day he is Superman people simply can't relate to a dude that can take a bullet to the eye or fly.
Too bad that doesn't leave it open for sequels, but perhaps something along those lines, the back story even.
Personally, I DONT want to see an origins story at all. We know who he is. We know how he got there. If you have to - use the opening credits for backstory. Start off after he spent years in the fortress - involve someone other than Lex as his enemy.
I would still love to see the ENTIRE doomsday/funeral for a friend/return of superman arc and do it with ALL the supporting cast. If they can make hobbits come alive damnit, they can make the flash. Do it in 3 movies, it would be epic.
That statement is scary as hell.
Look to the Grant Morrison All Star Superman stories for a guide.
HELL, GET GRANT MORRISON TO WRITE THE FREAKING THING.
Those stories are full of drama and pathos but they don't try to darken the character.
And don't get some scrawny soap opera actor to play Superman. Superman should be a big dude. It's too bad they can't clone Christopher Reeve.
You know who they should get to play Superman?
PATRICK WARBURTON.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman:_Speeding...
In the grim and desolate world of 'real' Metropolis, won't people immediately recognize that Superman is really Clark Kent without glasses? How would they get around that?
I just can't see them making the jump from 'Family-Superman' to 'Dark-Superman'. I think the only reason that Batman's reboot was successful was because Batman's heroics were plausible in reality. He didn't have superpowers so moviegoers could easily judge him from a tangible standpoint.
If they do make a 'Superman Begins' (followed by a 'The Man of Steel'), it would certainly take an effort much bigger than the Nolan brothers.
I live in Detroit. Detroit is a pretty ugly place. When I go to other cities, healthy cities (like New York, Chicago, etc.) it is a total culture shock because those towns are a totally different deal. They are not scary places. Detroit is a scary place.
Yet Detroit exists in the same "reality" as Chicago. I realize this -- much to my disappointment -- every time I pull off I-94 coming home.
So, think of Gotham City as a very large version of Detroit... and think of Metropolis as a fictional equivalent of Chicago or Manhattan.
Batman is appropriate for Gotham City.
Superman is appropriate for Metropolis.
Again, this is not necessarily rocket science.
Same reality, different characters, different cities, different vibes, different types of stories.
pssst... warner bros.
Kerry Conran is sitting by the phone.
I liked Jorel/Brando, I liked the music. I liked the catching the plane. not much else.
Dark is good as long dark means taking the character seriously. Equally a 'begins' that takes the character back to 30's in style and powers, would be interesting, provided this allows the character to evolve ie become more powerful over time as he did in the comics.
NB movies are by their nature elseworld stories - what works in the comics over many months even years as a story arc doesn't necessarily translate to a screenplay.
Things I don't want to see
1. Costume changes, the suit is the suit, the cape is red not maroon. How about making the stars stripes black and purple, does that work for you?
2. Lex Luthor as the main villain. the anti-batman - a clever rich guy, doesn't work as a major threat to Superman - without giving him a technological advantage which isn't of this earth. (like a big rock) and we've done that already.
3. Which brings me to Krypton, be that technology or General Zod type characters - why does everything from Kyrpton that isn't Kal-El have to be evil or a threat, I'm tired of bad things coming to earth from Krypton because Superman is here. It's old and again has been done already.
The universe is a BIG place, surely some writer can imagine a worthy protagonist for the Man of Steel - Darksied, Mongul.
Why can't we have star wars - esque style space amarda's - a real extraterrestial attack - say like 911, and Superman goes to war, like the war on terror.
Also, for the love of all that is sacred, forgo the unnecessary love interest. A strong story doesn't need it. That's a huge part of what ruined the last movie....
Besides, a Superman reboot is necessary since we all know DC eventually wants to move ahead with a JLA movie. They have to have an answer to the upcoming Avengers movie, right?
and i agree that comment about going dark really scares me. he was bascially saying TDK did fantastic so we are going to copy the shit out of it. Superman is not dark.
He has earned it.
No more Origin stories. I think we know where Supes comes from by now.
Now as for Superman. Keep him in the world that was created in the last one. Brandon Routh was great as Superman. Superman Returns was the closure we needed from the previous films, and the ending left it open for so many possibilities.
Singer was great for Superman, bring him back and since the last one left it open ended it'll give him the freedom to give it the Xmen 2 treatment. If WB knows what worked for the last Batman movies, they are gonna realize that giving the director the freedom to execute their vision is gonna be the key to a phenomenal franchise.
oh yea and I really hope they dont try to rush Batman 3. Nolan needs his break from it, direct one or 2 other movies that have nothing to do with Batman, then let him get back to working his magic with the Caped Crusader.
-jonah nolan is doing the terminator & the inevitable thrid batman - i'd prefer to see him next write a completely original script. allowing him and his brother to take breaks from the superhero genre will keep them happy and also keep their material fresh. they are NOT the answer to every hero film in existence. when raimi did nothing but spider-man, we ended up with SM3, can we not learn from past mistakes people?
with the over saturation of comic-book/hero films, it's important that filmmakers like the nolans continue to make films outside of this genre whenever they can.
sounds cool... but please no
LEX LUTHOR!!! how many fucking
times are they going to have
this guy be the villian in the movies???
don't get me wrong I know Lex
is SUPERMAN's primary villian but please
DC spend some CGI cash on
villians like: BIZZARO, metallo, DARKSEID
or DOOMSDAY!!!!!
SUPERMAN give us fans what we we want DC!!!!
don't fuck this up again !!!!
ALL STAR SUPERMAN
Have him talk about Lex & Parasite & Toyman & Metallo. Maybe even show him have a quick dust-up with one of those guys. Put Daily Planet front pages on the walls with headlines about his past victories and histories. Then toss Braniac at him for the big baddie, saturate the conflict with talk about Krypton/ Kandor/ Supergirl/ Zod. Make nods to the Justice League and the Legion of Superheroes. Put Lois in as his WIFE not the ignorant woman he wants to romance.
Don't give us an origin or weak "new history". Toss us into the middle of Superman's existence as it is right now. Embrace his stories, don't write around them.
Fuck Lex Luthor forever,,,,,,
I say bring in Tom Welling as Superman. For the last few seasons the shows been more turning more and more into a movie type thing. What I mean is that for the first few seasons we learned about his powers and all that stuff. Now he has his powers and he actually fighting people who can fight back. I think this would be a great time to have the next season be the final season and turn to makeing movies based from where the show left off. I mean hell you can even set the movies 5 yrs later after the last show eneded. This is what the fans want.
If you want an already established Superman make Lex the background villian. making moves behind the seen while Superman is fighting the physically equal antagonist such as Darkseid, Mongul, etc. You could have Lex sending a team out @ the end of the film to retrieve anything left at the end of the battle. This could be genetic material such as blood from both combatants and leave and opening for the next movie with the birth of Bizarro or Doomsday.
Smallville `has got Lex Luthor pegged just right. Even in the stories where he is not he main antagonist for Clark he is always in the background planning something and making moves. The best part is that in his mind he is the hero! He believes that an alien threat is immenent and that ma must be ready for it. In his mind Superman can not be trusted or controlled so "make me someone who can be".
One last thing don't mess up Superman's suit. the one from from returns was so incredibly gay! No jeweled S symbol no color modified costume to show muscles that aren't there. Make a costume that looks like it could actually be worn under Clark's clothes. And Tom Welling would be great as well as Micheal Rosenbaum. Smallville von the big screen!
Hears an idea, why not do Doomsday? For an animated movie I thought it was really good for the Superman franchise. Do something along those lines WB
It was too much of a soap opera and not enough of an action film. THAT was the problem,.
Superman is less interesting to so many people precisely because he is about good, and light, and truth and light and the American dream. His motivation is not trauma, or vengeance, or dysfunctional rage. That's why making movies about him is harder - everyone knows villains are easier and more fun. If they really want to reboot Superman, going dark would be an easy cop-out. It takes a lot of skill and helluva cast and crew to make goodness interesting, BUT THAT's WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO WITH SUPERMAN. He is SUPERMAN for God's sake. I thought Singer and Routh pulled it off, so help me. Taking Superman "as dark as the characters allow" would be like Sinatra's disco album.
perhaps....not really.
it just takes casting this guy in the role.
http://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/partypictures... 6/images/royalchie/HSteifel-Matthew-Reeve.jpg
the goodness of reeve lives on in the son.
this is how Warner will make Superman #1 again.
Acting was the biggest problem with Returns the only decent actor hired was Kevin Spacey....people were chosen on looks alone, one of the worst reasons to cast "speaking/acting" roles....I could see that if they were extras or non-speaking roles..why pick an unknown actor without experience to play such important role in your film? A new director with smaller character driven films will have to be looked at...considering all the characters in Superman films feel 2D and you never invest in them, so you could careless if they are in peril...
So if they do a SB reboot, it would actually be a reboot of a reboot of a reboot. The decision not to reboot then would seem more revolutionary. Singer had mentioned that there would be more action, less exposition and a super-powered villain in a Superman Returns sequel. I think most viewers would like to see that.
Further, it's a shame Time Warner would abandon a successful franchise out of greed.
And what the hell? Why do they want to copy Batman and go all dark with Superman? SR was too dark as it was. Batman ain't Superman. They are completely opposite entities. Superman is the light not teh dark!
If anyone is interested in bringing back Routh for the next installment please go to: http://www.bluetights.net/theplanet/showthread.... to see what you can do to help get your voice heard.
Thanks
A darker reboot? What do Warner Execs exactly mean by that. Sure, they can explore Superman's range of emotions more if they want w/o going "dark", but if they want to turn Superman into Batman, that is foolish. There is no doubt that 'Superman Returns' had various script flaws but in all honesty, Brian Singer has to be given much credit for taking the movie out of Development limbo after so many years and actually got A film made. And he could not be totally blamed for the inflated budget after so much was spent on jump starting another Superman movie. Look how much Nicolas Cage got paid on the "Pay-or-Play" method.
As a fan of almost all things Superman, I am not thrilled at yet-another-dark-reboot and probably will stay away from it, no out of spite but out of disappointment that SR was not continued in some form. Clearly, there is great potential for an exciting follow-up to SR (example: Superman son could be harmed/killed by any new arch villian introduced, giving Superman the impetus to reevaluate his values on not taking life, etc...) , but because Execs are currently blinded by the huge success of "The Dark Knight" and obsessed w/ the big dollar signs (which is quite understandable-who wants to lose money, right?), that follow-up film may never be made. In any case, Brandon Routh did a good job filling some big shoes and should at least be considered for any reboot.
Could a reboot be successful? Perhaps yes and perhaps no. Superman is a iconic character and has survived & thrived in many incarnations. But speaking for myself, I am just "rebooted-out" and will stay away from more comic film overkill for a while, which peaked w/ "The Dark Knight" (Btw, it is a excellent film, but I just don't want to see the same approach to every comic movie from now on or more 'darker interpretations of certain iconic characters, like Superman.) Not only that, "The Incredible Hulk" was rebooted and was no more succesful than Ang Lee's take on the Hulk. A reboot as this point is very iffy, but I can't say if it will succed or not. All I know is alot a fans who enjoyed SR won't be looking forward to it.
Execs should also consider that "Batman Begins" was not necessarily a reboot as it was a reintroduction of Batman, which has existed in comic form for years now (ex. Frank Miller's "Dark Knight Retruns"), and it made about the same amount of money as SR. Then "The Dark Knight" came out, as history was made. Well, consider also that Brian Singer did a fine job w/ X2, and he already knew what was expected from him & at stake for the SR sequel (Recall his going "Wrath of Khan" on the sequel?)
In any case, whatever will be, will be. I was looking forward to a ramped-up, revved-up, action-packed SR sequel and the entire reboot thing has left me and many people just disappointed. Like I said, the least WB can do is keep Brandon Routh for the reboot.
However, there is a dark side to being Superman. Superman Returns did touch on great possibilities, but to the action-starved minds that watch these movies, it was boring.
Think of all the problems you would face as Superman, humanity's Savior. Who to save and who not to? The conflicts of humanity that preclude him from intervening, like wars btwn countries or religious wars. Who is he to judge who to help and who not to. Is he helping the right people? Is he on the right side. The world is wrought with these problems. There is great potential for the Superman's conflict to be gray, and great potential for internal conflicts like sacrificing his own happiness or the happiness of his friends. Superman Returns touched on these concepts like when he chose to try to save Metropolis from an earthquake instead of saving Lois first. He gives up his love interest in the end to uphold his moral standard. As for Luther, they can delve into his character and look for a more than just an evil genius bent on killing Superman. People complain that Superman has no real villain, but maybe if Luther's character wasn't so flat. Maybe give the guy a conscience and make the viewers relate to him more. Ironically it would be harder for Superman to deal with him, because who is he to judge.
a reboot never consider older actors, or older arguments, so Brandon Routh is aut of the picture . he is so gay to be superman
To everyone saying "Superman Returns made 200 million" as a indicator of it's success, think about this, the movie cost well over a hundred million to make. The movie was disappointing, mostly everyone who saw it came out thinking "was that supposed to be a superman flick?", hence the good opening weekend numbers and then the sharp decline in revenue and ticket sales in subsequent weeks. That's the type of thing that although ticket sales between "HULK" and "The Incredible Hulk" weren't that dramatically different, the impression was overall that the second reiteration was a kick ass action movie that redeemed the franchise and that was the word of mouth that sustained the film in it's theater run.
Brandon Routh is out, period. No reboot includes any cast member from previous versions of the film. The movie or trilogy (which is what every studio house wants to make these days) is really simple to make, and I think that's why it's so frustrating for fans to see what the WB is doing with this property.
First movie, no origin, he's the most recognizable comic book superhero in the world. Quick clips are cool, but nothing more than 5 minutes of the entire movie. Physical threat, I am NOT watching another Superman movie with no fight in it with a villain that can actually physically challenge him and make the climax of the movie exciting. No more drawn out romance, or at least make the romantic interest hot. I don't think anyone believed the most powerful man in the world was really fawning over this last version of Lois Lane, her forehead was huge and she had the body of a 12 year old boy.
I'm all for Superman making hard choices, questioning those choices, even the public questioning his choices and calling into question their faith in him which leads to the always prevalent overlying question, "how can we trust one man/alien, with all this power?". That's the sentiment and deep underlying fear that many in Metropolis feel, even though they may never say it, and what imo Lex Luthor feeds upon. Now Lex being in the movie is cool, but he's got to be a Mogul, he's got to have power. The public on the most part has got to have an overall positive view of him or him being the villain is really one dimensional, i.e. all of Donner's films. Have Luthor always in the background, like funding the creation of Metallo, have Superman fight Metallo and also intergang who Lex is also backing to throw off the man of steel. In the second movie, have Luthor make contact with a probe from Brainiac and then actually make first contact with an alien being aside from Superman. Brainiac could be heralded as a savior and embraced by Earth only to betray them and pacify them for the greater coming threat of Darkseid. Then the third movie, depending on how many years the fist two take, and by that time you would have probably made a few other DC property movies like Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, etc., you could actually tie them into the story to help Superman with the invading Apokolips army and free up the load so Superman could have one epic battle with Darkseid one on one. After that, you could use that as a platform for a JLA movie if you want, or just leave it as is, but at least the option is there.
See, simple.
In regards to "The Incredible Hulk" you can find a lot of people who DISLIKED it as much as liked it. And my understanding is the producers are not going to make a direct sequel to it because it didn't exceed the box office expectations of Ang Lee's "Hulk". So regarding of whether it was a great film or not, the studios don't seem to feel justified to make another direct sequel. Instead they will opt for him returning in an "Avengers" movie.
"Superman Returns" was a successful film in the same way that "Batman Begins" reintroduced the character, except it drew from Richard Donner's previous films. An important note is that SR was in the red BEFORE Bryan Singer began even filming. While it is true the budget balloned up, Bryan Singer should still be given some credit for actually getting a movie made (which seemed to be in the Studio Development for eternity w/ so many script revisions, directors, etc.)
I am a fan of Donner's Superman and I understood what Singer was trying to do, but if a new Superman reboot can exceed expectations, that's fine by me. SR was not a perfect film, but it was not a bad one, either; it just didn't have enough punch to sustain an action-oriented audience. If the spirit of the Superman character is left intact, then I am always willing to give a new film a shot if it deserves it. In any event, Brandon Routh should stay. With no offense intended towards anyone in particular, I am not an obsessed fan like so many internet critics and all this venom towards "Superman Returns" is just unnecessary. I imagine if and when the reboot is done of Superman, those very same fans will dispense a fair share of criticism pointing out every flaw (I am even seeing critics popping up against "The Dark Knight" already, despite it being a fine film...)
Yourself and some people you know doesn't mean "everyone." In truth, MOST people seemed to like the movie because the only Superman MOST people know is the Donner/Lester Superman. The movie didn't make 200 mil. It made 390 mil. It also rates a 77% (that's "fresh") on the critic pages. If you didn't like the movie, that's not an issue, but it's best not to just make things up to prove your point that your opinion is king.
The Incredible Hulk, this summer's crowning example of a "successful" reboot, will not end up grossing much more than its allegedly inferior predecessor. Recent news indicates that Marvel isn't even keen on making a sequel because of its moderate success as compared with other comic book movie franchises. The reboot worked with Batman. The pseudo-continuation worked with Superman for many people. A reboot will likely NOT surpass its gross.
STUDIOS DO NOT REBOOT FRANCHISES IF THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL! IF "MOST" PEOPLE LIKED THE MOVIE THEN IT WOULD HAVE DONE BETTER AND PROMPTED THE STUDIO TO MAKE A DIRECT SEQUEL!
So what does that mean in the big picture?, I guess me and the people I know were correct. So if that makes you upset, and if you feel my opinion is wrong, then I guess you have to take that up with the WB. Oh, and it wasn't Marvel who said they wouldn't make a sequel to the incredible hulk, it was Letterier the director who said they may not, but he doesn't know, most of the cast is contracted for a sequel. The only reason why it may not happen is because of Marvels' big picture with the Avengers movie. But guess what, it doesn't matter because the overall consensus on the movie was favorable and it redeemed the franchise, the same cannot be said for Superman Returns, no matter what your fanboy mind might suggest.
I actually enjoyed the "The Incredible Hulk" very much, but I still know alot of people who did see the first film and also knew that it was in fact a reboot, and simply were not motivated to go see another interpretation so soon after Ang Lee's film came out. It was just too soon to have to take another crack at it, in my humble opinion. I liked that the reboot included nods to the 70's show starring Bill Bixby AND mixed in the essence of the comic book Hulk, as well. I think the producers they could still do a hugely successsful SR follow-up w/o actually completely rebooting, so-to-speak.
As for fans and source material, people like different approaches to comcis. Just like comics are broken down into different ages and styles, and in the Golden Age, Silver Age, Bronze, etc., some fans will say "I grew up w/ the Hulk of the 60's and that's the one I like", and others will go w/ the TV show starring Bill Bixby from the 70's, and so on. I am a fan of both the comics, cartoons AND shows because I see them as part of the same mythology; just different interpretations. For example, Adam West's Batman was campy and funny and I like watching them on DVD for fun, but I definitely wouldn't want to see a modern, campy version of the dark knight as a big budget movie. Some comcic fans can't stand the TV Batman of the 60's, which was clearly a spoof of the character. I judge each interpretation based on how it was approached.
For some, "Superman Returns" was not a perfect film, and I agree, but it had the potential to be great and included some fine moments. These days, eveyone is a critic, and no matter how good (or bad) a film is, it is going to be scrutinized. If SR was judged solely on action, then for some it failed to deliver. Yet despite it's flaws, most people I know enjoyed it. Would I and other people had preferred to see a new action-packed version? Perhaps; I would not mind seeing an "updated" film which still keeps Superman's character intact, but I also enjoyed Richard Donner's interpretation, too. So I was not disappointed in w/ most of Bryan Singer's choices and the idea of a direct lineage to the other movies (like using the "Superman" theme , and Production Design nods to Donner's films...and I can only imagine how "Superman II" would've been done w/ today's technology and CGI effects.) . Did I want to see more knock-out, drag-out action? Definitely. I wanted to see more action, and new villians, like Braniac or Darkseid. This may sound cynical (Iam not a cynic, though) but I just think it is a shame after 20 plus years to revive a Superman film ionly to reboot him again and leave fans of SR who were expecting a action-filled follow-up hanging, just for love of money.
I think the primary reason for the reboot comes from Marvels' overall success (which has been killin' DC and WB) and also what Begins and DKR proved to them. What it proved was that fan friendly super hero movies (which every studio was afraid to make for a while) that take the source material seriously, stays generally faithful to it and doesn't just give fan boy service but also makes the characters understandable and endears the general public to them is the way to go. A director who really likes the character and will do their best to bring a faithful adaptation to the screen is key. That's why when I say Singer was more in love with the idea of making a Richard Donner Superman movie and not making a SUPERMAN movie, I really believe it. While I don't think DKR was incredibly faithful to the source material, because it wasn't, it still had the mood, weight, darkness and meaning that the book has always conveyed, and fans appreciated that and the general public "got it". (As a side note, this is that same thing I think will happen with Watchmen, Snyder knows what that movie needs to be great he'll try his best to do the material proud)
All of this I think is especially important if you want to bring these characters into the same universe as other franchise characters which is definitely a cue taken directly from Marvel studios. Yea, it may be motivated by dollar signs, but hell, if you get a good Wonder Woman movie, a good Flash and Green Lantern film and then end up with a great JLA movie to boot then that'll only benefits us, the fan.
Superman Returns IMO was written for an old Superman. The story seemed more appropriate for a retiring hero, not one in his prime. I think it would have been better if framed in a different context and an older Superman portrayed. Then a reboot really would have been not only appropriate, but understood.
I really loved the airplane scene in the movie, but how was it the only meaningful action scene in a Superman movie? That's what Superman cinematic experience is about, "the feats"! That's why I think the heavy script called for an older cast actually. Anyway, because I wasn't even born when the first Superman movie came out, I don't hold the same nostalgia as some fans might, nor did many of the children, adolescents, teens, and young adults which this movie was very much advertised toward. Maybe it's a generational gap. I love heavy and thoughtful films, just not for a new Superman movie after 20 years of being out of the cinema scene.
Time to put Donner's version to bed cause really in this day and age who wants to see Supes turning time as a climax to a movie?Audiences are well tuned into comic lore and well very clued up and will not indulge mediocrity.Ironman is not even Marvel's top tiered hero and he managed to do what Superman,the ultimate flying guy,could not do.
Get someone who cares and know about Superman to write it and try and cast people who actually have some chemistry.Some of the best Superman stories are Elseworlds...darker themed...where Supes actually remains the moral compass and beacon of light amidst the darkness.His movies don't have to keep the jokey tone of Donner's to be good.
Again, no offense intended, but this is why such comments have turned me off to the "know-it-all" generation of comic readers (I am not talking about j. smith, but lots of fans I encounter, in general). This is the same kind of rhetoric that purist of "The Lord of the Rings" books use to denegrate Peter Jackson's excellent trilogy. I am a fan of the LOTR books, and saw the movies as a companion. Superman is a character of many incarnations and SR was just another variant on him. It's a companion piece to a part of his history, for some better, for others worse.
I am not here to defend everything Bryan Singer did with SR. No one is arguing that Bryan Singer made a movie weak in story and action. Superkid is also a lousy idea, btw. But I argue it was the lack of knock-out, drag-out fist-fighting, Metropolis-leveling action that made SR a disappointment, not it's ties to Donner's version. SR actually had some nice art deco-style scenes that suited Metrolpolis very well.
As for Donner's version, I enjoyed it for what it is & the sense of fun and wonder. Certainly, Richard Donner's films had a healthy dose of camp & humor (and the 'turning back time' was a cope out to a certain extent, but in comics past Superman did do that...), but at least they had a nature of goodwill. And btw, if you go back and watch "Superman", you will note that Lex is tryin' to sink California with nukes, all the while smiling and joking while doing it! For it's time, it was a technical achievement, as well. Back then, there was no CGI like today. Likewise, I like "Smallville" and other things related to Superman to see how others interpret the character. I would also enjoy a totally different version, as well, if the character of Superman remains true. My point is people's tastes vary. Your Superman may not neccessarily by my Superman. The tent is big enough for many ideas, I think.
Well see how long it takes fans to denegrate Iron Man several years from now. To me a classic is a classic, and regardless of the passing of time, I look at it through the eyes of the era. For example, the original "King Kong" was a milestone of filmmaking, yet today the puppetry of FX guy Willis O'Brien looks like bad claymation. Believe it or not, I am already seeing fans coming down from their summer fan 'high' actually putting down "The Dark Knight"! No joke. Like I said, each person has his/her own tastes. My only point about a reboot is that it is too soon. I like Brandon Routh and would at least keep him. If not, maybe Warner should wait a few years so it will appear fresh and knew.
Btw, I am NOT trying change people's minds on SR, Bryan Singer, etc. I wasn't trying to give a comic movie history lesson either. All I'm saying is people in general should be objective and fair-minded on all sides. I want a great Superman movie as everyone else, but this constant internet banter on how bad SR was and whatever else is off-putting (not here, but on other blogs I've seen). Let's hope Warner can make a movie that we can agree on and be entertained by. Thanks, and again I don't mean to offend anyone if I did.
I would say this, I actually believe people, at the announcing of Superman Returns were looking forward to a lighthearted, clear cut battle between good and evil, without too much nuance and angst and ramped up action sequences with greatly upgraded special effects from it's 20 year predecessor. I think that's what people were excited about, now some including myself, didn't want a product having anything to do with the Donner line of films, but it did not stop me from seeing the movie on opening day and giving it a real chance.
http://www.bluetights.net/theplanet/showthread....
I still enjoyed "Superman Returns" for it's many fine scenes (some of the more majestic scenes, like hovering over Metropolis "listening" to the city, or when when he explained how the world needed a savior...) but it definitely needed better pacing and more dynamic action.
how are you doing today? I want to become a superman just like you. I want you to come to pick me up from my house.
Thank you
Sincerely,
Maraphalla Chan