- Home
- CHUD Populi
- CHUD POPULI: SUPERMAN REBOOTED (THE REPLIES)
CHUD POPULI: SUPERMAN REBOOTED (THE REPLIES)
- By Devin Faraci
- Published 09/7/2008
- CHUD Populi
Welcome to the first installment of CHUD Populi, the column where you get to make your voice heard. For this inaugural edition, I asked you your thoughts on the reboot of the Superman franchise and I was flooded with replies. As I thought, this is a subject that many of you care about. This is just a sampling of the replies I got - three pages of it! Do you guys want to see more responses next time? Less? Let me know - drop an email to devin@chud.com and tell me what you think.
So, without further interruption or comment, here are your thoughts on the Superman reboot:
Hey Devin,
Here is my response to the first CHUD Populi
1. Edgar Wright could do a great Superman film. He has the kinetic style of a Sam Raimi, the sense of humour that is right for the chacater, and is at the right phase of his career where a Superman film could put him over the top, and he would take the time and be committed to making a great film. Also he would actually be interested in making the movie as oppossed to snorting coke and getting fucked up the ass.
2. NO Warner Brothers is doing the right thing (no pun intended). Pretend that Superman Returns never happened. It was a fever dream Lex Luther had while getting rammed in Cell Block D
3. All Star Superman has the perfect tone, though I'm not sure it would carry over into film. I think you could do a grim plot or even show a "darker, more gritty" Metroplis, but retain the character of Superman. Superman is a the ultimate Boy Scout: it could be interesting watching him deal with a darker world.
4. I have no insight into Mark Millar. Sorry
5. One can see from Dark Knight an evolution from "the real world" to a comic book type world: so I could see them actually using Superman to "up the ante" on the world created at the end of Dark Knight. Also, who wants to see movies based on Booster Gold of Blue Beetle?
Cheers,
Cylon Baby
So I'm kinda answering all the queries together in a lump. I hope you like lumps.
Picking a new director for Superman is tricky business at this point. Given his previous track record and the winning success of the X-MEN movies, I had assumed Singer was an excellent choice for RETURNS. Certainly better than Wolfgang Petersen, Tim Burton, or McG at that point. Upon seeing the movie though I was left thinking that Singer was simply not a good bond with the Superman character and world. An illegitimate child? A love triangle? Detached sullenness? Huh? The very things that made Singer the perfect choice for the moody X-Men world possibly sank SUPERMAN from the get-go.
Personally I've never found Superman to be a very interesting solo character. He's too powerful, too dull, his weakness too gimmicky. I guess I understand why WB wants to keep him alive, but I'm just not sure there's a quality movie there to be had for audiences who've tasted the likes of IRON MAN, X2, SPIDER MAN 2 or DARK KNIGHT. Frankly I'm not very interested in any of the DC prospects outside of The Flash. Wonder Woman is equally as non-relatable as Supes. Green Arrow is too much like Batman and Iron Man (how many billionaire heroes can we stand?), and I worry a Green Lantern movie will just be silly; the comedic Jack Black version proposed a while ago actually seemed logical to me.
But since they're gonna make another Superman flic and you've been so kind as to pose these questions...
If we're thinking inside the box, which WB seems to be doing in wanting to ape DARK KNIGHT's edgy tone - as much as I hate saying this - I'd take a trip to the Bay.
Even though Michael Bay almost singlehandedly represents everything I dislike about current action movies, TRANSFORMERS proves the man would be able to deliver on what was most peoples complaint about SUPERMAN RETURNS: the super battles, or rather lack-there-of.
I don't think Superman can successfully be made "dark." Not in the DARK KNIGHT sense. The character isn't complex enough. But since Bay is incapable of adding character depth to anything, I don't think we'd have to worry about that rabbit-hole. As opposed to Singer's gloomy-Abercrombie-model Supes, Bay would no doubt channel the character's manliness and raw power, taking every chance for him to punch the shit out of shit. Superman would be the bigger-than-life character he needs to be. A handsome alien so powerful he exacts his own will over an entire population that didn't ask for him (much like the Bay himself). The dark, edginess WB wants will come through the amount of action and danger Bay will send Supes through; just like with TRANSFORMERS, which underneath all the explosions and screeching metal was still basically a PG movie at its heart.
I won't be excited for a Bay/Superman combo. But I'd most certainly rip a bowl and get in line opening weekend for some solid super-punchin' fun.
My outside-the-box answer is: Brad Bird. Much like with Spiderman, Superman is kind of a glossy character in a glossy world, full of bright colors and crazy villains. Given the nature of Supes' powers, the style of the movie needs to be kinetic, almost, shall we say, "cartoonish." Bird can do the super-action we know, and his movies usually have a strong subtext about the "normals" oppressing the extra-special and creative elite. So I think he might actually be able to add an interesting layer to Superman's attitude as an all-powerful-outsider while also keeping the bright, light tone going strong. He'd be the man to chose if WB wanted to be more in line with the TV cartoons. And let's be honest. Superman is a kids' character at his core. They should make the movie accordingly.
I won't lie, I'd probably smoke a bowl before this one too - it's still a Superman movie - but I'd be much more excited about the prospects.
Have a good one, sir.
- josh
In answer to your questions:
- Who do you think would be the best director to tackle Superman Rebooted?
People find fault with the story of Superman Returns - but I don’t believe that anyone who decries the film can take away from the production’s beautiful design and epic scope. I believe Singer should be allowed to, as he puts it, “go all Wrath of Khan” with a follow up - but if the final decision has indeed come down…
…perhaps Warners need only retain the services of Newton Thomas Sigel and Guy Dyas, pull the sets out of storage, and give the directorial reins to someone who understands performance - and I’m not saying Singer doesn’t, but if it’s a forgone conclusion that the film won’t be moving forward with him, then you need an actor’s director on the set. Shoot the second film hi-def - like Returns - and give the chair to someone who knows how to both shoot hi-def, and get the very best from his actors - someone like Michael Mann.
Of course, that’s pie-in-the-sky fantasy crap - so let’s try to look at this the way Hollywood does. Let’s look at directors who have had success in moderately sized dramas and see who among them can step up 2 the streets of tentpole feature filmmaking.
Based on the look of both Pleasantville and Seabiscuit, Gary Ross seems appropriate (though that might be all about John Schwartzman’s shooting). After The Notebook, Nick Cassavettes seems like a guy who can handle actors and shoot a pretty picture…and Rian Johnson shot an oftentimes-gorgeous film (witness the formal introduction of Nora Zehetner’s Laura at the party Brendan crashes) with Brick. These guys are capable of the gentle grandeur the project requires, and might desire the larger canvas.
- Do you think Warner Bros is making a mistake in junking Bryan Singer's film?
Absolutely. If you believe Singer was an issue - and there is info to support this in Jake Rossen’s Superman vs. Hollywood, as well as anecdotal info from people who have worked with Singer in the past who claim that he’s a bit too prone to partying during production - then remove him from the chair. However - the success of the next film depends on a sense of continuity. Don’t undo what was done - build on it. Keep the cast. Keep the look. Maintain the tone. The Batman films are proof that this is important. People stopped caring about that franchise when it became clear that there was a revolving door in terms of casting (even the films referenced it - Batman Forever was so named to imply that they’d found a guy who’d stick) and tone and style and look…
Over at Marvel, the Hulk reboot cost more to make less - that could be because (as has been said about Superman) the Hulk just doesn’t work on film, but it’s more than likely because the studio chose to ignore something that’s only five years old. “Relaunch” means “remake” to most people - and even the least media-savvy among us get the sneaking feeling that if something is being remade before the corpse of the original is cold - then that something must have had a real fucking stink to it - which tarnishes the new project, and cheapens the previous one.
“Re-imagining” Superman at this juncture would be no different than Fox and Lucasfilm announcing a deal to “re-envision” Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of The Sith. Would that make any sense?
Okay, yeah - I guess it would…wait - lemme’ see if I can come up with something better…
Would you say, “You know, the movie was a moderate success, but I really think we should get a director not-as-good as Danny Boyle and “relaunch” 28 Days Later as a franchise. If it had a sexier cast and a bigger effects budget, maybe it would really connect!” Nonsense. Naomie Harris is as sexy as it gets.
Not that critical consensus is everything, but Superman Returns is at 74% “fresh” via Top Critics at Rotten Tomatoes - hardly as reviled as Ang Lee’s Hulk at 54% (I love Ang Lee’s Hulk, by the by). By way of comparison, Batman Begins is 64% “fresh” via Top Critics (I love Batman Begins, by the by). Which number suggests greater difficulty in moving forward?
People say that Batman Begins has a deeply flawed third act (like, for example, people who made Batman Begins). They say the same about Superman Returns. Both films have narrative flaws - but the respective takes on the material (Batman as practical and real-world as will ever exist; Superman as close to an actual God as will ever exist) are not just sound - they’re perfect.
Batman Begins limped its way to $200,000,000 domestic - just like Superman Returns did. It stands to reason that without the untimely demise of one of its principals, The Dark Knight would not have become the need-to-see, water cooler juggernaut (bitch) that it did, and a $320,000,000 take would have been a far more…rational haul.
The infrastructure/sets in place…the effects work figured out…the deals brokered - a profitable Superman sequel could be made for less money than the first film - and if you take your time and get it right and get it into theaters in 2011…Warners just might have that Batman/Superman/Justice League synergy they crave…
…while Marvel’s trying to figure out whom they can cast as Bruce Banner. Again. I hear David Ducovny’s available - though probably not even close to desperate enough.
- What angle should Superman Rebooted take? Do you think it should follow The Dark Knight playbook, or should it be more like the recent cartoon show?
Apparently, the new WB/DC mandate is that all of the new superhero films will be “darrque” (say it like Doug Bradley) - in an attempt to ape The Dark Knight. The problem with that rationale is that The Dark Knight isn’t really dark - it’s intense…perhaps grave - but it’s not that faux, affected “darrque” that the Hot Topic crowd loves so much. The darkness comes from the cruelty of the Joker and the toll being Batman takes on Bruce Wayne and the people around him. It’s organic. The elements are in place to take a Superman sequel in a similarly intense direction - without compromising/betraying the characters. I’m not gonna’ pitch here, but it’s pretty much math.
Lex Luthor’s hate + he knows it’s Superman’s kid + Lex’s “fire to the masses” dialogue = equals kidnapping plot /vivisection/dead kid/science run amok/spate of superhuman criminals/Superman angry enough go places we’ve never seen him go and might not want him to.
I’m just saying. It’s there.
- Do you believe notorious self-promoter Mark Millar when he says that he's got a Superman trilogy just moments from a green light at Warner Bros?
I hope to hell not. Millar is so horrifyingly one-note that we’ll all be wondering if Superman is faster than a curved bullet.
- Should Warner Bros even be bothering with Superman right now, or should they be turning to the hundreds of other DC characters available to them?
- If the rumored game plan (to re-establish the Batman and Superman characters at the forefront of adventure cinema, and then create a vehicle where they would meet) was ever more than just rumor, then it’s something they have to concentrate on.
But sure - they should be thinking about how to take a character no one really knows or cares about and turn it into something special - like Marvel did with Iron Man. Flash, Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Doom Patrol, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Suicide Squad…Arm Fall Off Boy…Felina Furr…
There’s a lot of talent in Hollywood. Lots of people who can write and make and do, you know? Task a few to develop some properties…and then…at the same time…also work on Superman. That shouldn't be too hard…right?
Thanks,
Jason P
Picking a new director for Superman is tricky business at this point. Given his previous track record and the winning success of the X-MEN movies, I had assumed Singer was an excellent choice for RETURNS. Certainly better than Wolfgang Petersen, Tim Burton, or McG at that point. Upon seeing the movie though I was left thinking that Singer was simply not a good bond with the Superman character and world. An illegitimate child? A love triangle? Detached sullenness? Huh? The very things that made Singer the perfect choice for the moody X-Men world possibly sank SUPERMAN from the get-go.
Personally I've never found Superman to be a very interesting solo character. He's too powerful, too dull, his weakness too gimmicky. I guess I understand why WB wants to keep him alive, but I'm just not sure there's a quality movie there to be had for audiences who've tasted the likes of IRON MAN, X2, SPIDER MAN 2 or DARK KNIGHT. Frankly I'm not very interested in any of the DC prospects outside of The Flash. Wonder Woman is equally as non-relatable as Supes. Green Arrow is too much like Batman and Iron Man (how many billionaire heroes can we stand?), and I worry a Green Lantern movie will just be silly; the comedic Jack Black version proposed a while ago actually seemed logical to me.
But since they're gonna make another Superman flic and you've been so kind as to pose these questions...
If we're thinking inside the box, which WB seems to be doing in wanting to ape DARK KNIGHT's edgy tone - as much as I hate saying this - I'd take a trip to the Bay.
Even though Michael Bay almost singlehandedly represents everything I dislike about current action movies, TRANSFORMERS proves the man would be able to deliver on what was most peoples complaint about SUPERMAN RETURNS: the super battles, or rather lack-there-of.
I don't think Superman can successfully be made "dark." Not in the DARK KNIGHT sense. The character isn't complex enough. But since Bay is incapable of adding character depth to anything, I don't think we'd have to worry about that rabbit-hole. As opposed to Singer's gloomy-Abercrombie-model Supes, Bay would no doubt channel the character's manliness and raw power, taking every chance for him to punch the shit out of shit. Superman would be the bigger-than-life character he needs to be. A handsome alien so powerful he exacts his own will over an entire population that didn't ask for him (much like the Bay himself). The dark, edginess WB wants will come through the amount of action and danger Bay will send Supes through; just like with TRANSFORMERS, which underneath all the explosions and screeching metal was still basically a PG movie at its heart.
I won't be excited for a Bay/Superman combo. But I'd most certainly rip a bowl and get in line opening weekend for some solid super-punchin' fun.
My outside-the-box answer is: Brad Bird. Much like with Spiderman, Superman is kind of a glossy character in a glossy world, full of bright colors and crazy villains. Given the nature of Supes' powers, the style of the movie needs to be kinetic, almost, shall we say, "cartoonish." Bird can do the super-action we know, and his movies usually have a strong subtext about the "normals" oppressing the extra-special and creative elite. So I think he might actually be able to add an interesting layer to Superman's attitude as an all-powerful-outsider while also keeping the bright, light tone going strong. He'd be the man to chose if WB wanted to be more in line with the TV cartoons. And let's be honest. Superman is a kids' character at his core. They should make the movie accordingly.
I won't lie, I'd probably smoke a bowl before this one too - it's still a Superman movie - but I'd be much more excited about the prospects.
Have a good one, sir.
- josh
In answer to your questions:
- Who do you think would be the best director to tackle Superman Rebooted?
People find fault with the story of Superman Returns - but I don’t believe that anyone who decries the film can take away from the production’s beautiful design and epic scope. I believe Singer should be allowed to, as he puts it, “go all Wrath of Khan” with a follow up - but if the final decision has indeed come down…
…perhaps Warners need only retain the services of Newton Thomas Sigel and Guy Dyas, pull the sets out of storage, and give the directorial reins to someone who understands performance - and I’m not saying Singer doesn’t, but if it’s a forgone conclusion that the film won’t be moving forward with him, then you need an actor’s director on the set. Shoot the second film hi-def - like Returns - and give the chair to someone who knows how to both shoot hi-def, and get the very best from his actors - someone like Michael Mann.
Of course, that’s pie-in-the-sky fantasy crap - so let’s try to look at this the way Hollywood does. Let’s look at directors who have had success in moderately sized dramas and see who among them can step up 2 the streets of tentpole feature filmmaking.
Based on the look of both Pleasantville and Seabiscuit, Gary Ross seems appropriate (though that might be all about John Schwartzman’s shooting). After The Notebook, Nick Cassavettes seems like a guy who can handle actors and shoot a pretty picture…and Rian Johnson shot an oftentimes-gorgeous film (witness the formal introduction of Nora Zehetner’s Laura at the party Brendan crashes) with Brick. These guys are capable of the gentle grandeur the project requires, and might desire the larger canvas.
- Do you think Warner Bros is making a mistake in junking Bryan Singer's film?
Absolutely. If you believe Singer was an issue - and there is info to support this in Jake Rossen’s Superman vs. Hollywood, as well as anecdotal info from people who have worked with Singer in the past who claim that he’s a bit too prone to partying during production - then remove him from the chair. However - the success of the next film depends on a sense of continuity. Don’t undo what was done - build on it. Keep the cast. Keep the look. Maintain the tone. The Batman films are proof that this is important. People stopped caring about that franchise when it became clear that there was a revolving door in terms of casting (even the films referenced it - Batman Forever was so named to imply that they’d found a guy who’d stick) and tone and style and look…
Over at Marvel, the Hulk reboot cost more to make less - that could be because (as has been said about Superman) the Hulk just doesn’t work on film, but it’s more than likely because the studio chose to ignore something that’s only five years old. “Relaunch” means “remake” to most people - and even the least media-savvy among us get the sneaking feeling that if something is being remade before the corpse of the original is cold - then that something must have had a real fucking stink to it - which tarnishes the new project, and cheapens the previous one.
“Re-imagining” Superman at this juncture would be no different than Fox and Lucasfilm announcing a deal to “re-envision” Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of The Sith. Would that make any sense?
Okay, yeah - I guess it would…wait - lemme’ see if I can come up with something better…
Would you say, “You know, the movie was a moderate success, but I really think we should get a director not-as-good as Danny Boyle and “relaunch” 28 Days Later as a franchise. If it had a sexier cast and a bigger effects budget, maybe it would really connect!” Nonsense. Naomie Harris is as sexy as it gets.
Not that critical consensus is everything, but Superman Returns is at 74% “fresh” via Top Critics at Rotten Tomatoes - hardly as reviled as Ang Lee’s Hulk at 54% (I love Ang Lee’s Hulk, by the by). By way of comparison, Batman Begins is 64% “fresh” via Top Critics (I love Batman Begins, by the by). Which number suggests greater difficulty in moving forward?
People say that Batman Begins has a deeply flawed third act (like, for example, people who made Batman Begins). They say the same about Superman Returns. Both films have narrative flaws - but the respective takes on the material (Batman as practical and real-world as will ever exist; Superman as close to an actual God as will ever exist) are not just sound - they’re perfect.
Batman Begins limped its way to $200,000,000 domestic - just like Superman Returns did. It stands to reason that without the untimely demise of one of its principals, The Dark Knight would not have become the need-to-see, water cooler juggernaut (bitch) that it did, and a $320,000,000 take would have been a far more…rational haul.
The infrastructure/sets in place…the effects work figured out…the deals brokered - a profitable Superman sequel could be made for less money than the first film - and if you take your time and get it right and get it into theaters in 2011…Warners just might have that Batman/Superman/Justice League synergy they crave…
…while Marvel’s trying to figure out whom they can cast as Bruce Banner. Again. I hear David Ducovny’s available - though probably not even close to desperate enough.
- What angle should Superman Rebooted take? Do you think it should follow The Dark Knight playbook, or should it be more like the recent cartoon show?
Apparently, the new WB/DC mandate is that all of the new superhero films will be “darrque” (say it like Doug Bradley) - in an attempt to ape The Dark Knight. The problem with that rationale is that The Dark Knight isn’t really dark - it’s intense…perhaps grave - but it’s not that faux, affected “darrque” that the Hot Topic crowd loves so much. The darkness comes from the cruelty of the Joker and the toll being Batman takes on Bruce Wayne and the people around him. It’s organic. The elements are in place to take a Superman sequel in a similarly intense direction - without compromising/betraying the characters. I’m not gonna’ pitch here, but it’s pretty much math.
Lex Luthor’s hate + he knows it’s Superman’s kid + Lex’s “fire to the masses” dialogue = equals kidnapping plot /vivisection/dead kid/science run amok/spate of superhuman criminals/Superman angry enough go places we’ve never seen him go and might not want him to.
I’m just saying. It’s there.
- Do you believe notorious self-promoter Mark Millar when he says that he's got a Superman trilogy just moments from a green light at Warner Bros?
I hope to hell not. Millar is so horrifyingly one-note that we’ll all be wondering if Superman is faster than a curved bullet.
- Should Warner Bros even be bothering with Superman right now, or should they be turning to the hundreds of other DC characters available to them?
- If the rumored game plan (to re-establish the Batman and Superman characters at the forefront of adventure cinema, and then create a vehicle where they would meet) was ever more than just rumor, then it’s something they have to concentrate on.
But sure - they should be thinking about how to take a character no one really knows or cares about and turn it into something special - like Marvel did with Iron Man. Flash, Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Doom Patrol, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Suicide Squad…Arm Fall Off Boy…Felina Furr…
There’s a lot of talent in Hollywood. Lots of people who can write and make and do, you know? Task a few to develop some properties…and then…at the same time…also work on Superman. That shouldn't be too hard…right?
Thanks,
Jason P
- Who do you think would be the best director to tackle Superman Rebooted?
I think the most important aspects of Superman are as follows:
Boyscout morals
Sci-Fi action
Inspiration
While he's far from my favorite director, Michael Bay, to me, would fit this well. He loves placing American imagery to his films (from slow-mo walking in front of giant American flags to shots of hard working middle Americans looking up in hope while farming). He loves crazy action scenes and has done his fair share of sci-fi and I'm sure he thinks he can inspire people, but that aspect would really have to come from the script itself.
- Do you think Warner Bros is making a mistake in junking Bryan Singer's film
Yes and no. I think the mistake was ever going in that direction, but I don't think you need to do a full reboot either. We all know who Superman is, so there is no need for a new origin movie. What I think Warner needs to do is go for a straight out showing of why Superman is awesome, which would include lots of insane battles. Go with some kind of alien invasion using Darkseid, Brianiac or Mongol so that Superman has something he can really let loose on. With some work, you can make the son of Superman work into the story (though I don't really know how at this point).
- What angle should Superman Rebooted take? Do you think it should follow The Dark Knight playbook, or should it be more like the recent cartoon show?
Superman should never take on an overly dark tone; he is not a dark character. Superman is supposed to show the promise of all humanity, hence the Man of Tomorrow tag, and a brooding angry fighter is not that promise. I would go more towards the cartoon, with over the top action and Superman looking for the good in people at all times. This is not to say that there shouldn't be dark moments for Superman, but the power of the character is how he overcomes those moments. Personally, I would much rather see a All Star Superman take for the film, but that kind of Superman may be to far fetched for people to connect with; while Superman sewing the moon together with bridges is great in the comic, it could easily be laughed at in a movie.
- Do you believe notorious self-promoter Mark Millar when he says that he's got a Superman trilogy just moments from a green light at Warner Bros?
I'm sure Millar has a Superman trilogy in his head, and I'm sure that Warner has listened to his pitch, but I would be surprised if they went with it.
- Should Warner Bros even be bothering with Superman right now, or should they be turning to the hundreds of other DC characters available to them?
Superman is a viable franchise that pulls in millions in revenue every year through comics, toys, shirts and all other kinds of crap for people to buy. He is one of the most recognizable icons in the world. Superman is something Warner should always be working on, if just to keep his image out in the public. That said, there are plenty of great characters that could be and maybe should be used before Superman.
Derek
I think the most important aspects of Superman are as follows:
Boyscout morals
Sci-Fi action
Inspiration
While he's far from my favorite director, Michael Bay, to me, would fit this well. He loves placing American imagery to his films (from slow-mo walking in front of giant American flags to shots of hard working middle Americans looking up in hope while farming). He loves crazy action scenes and has done his fair share of sci-fi and I'm sure he thinks he can inspire people, but that aspect would really have to come from the script itself.
- Do you think Warner Bros is making a mistake in junking Bryan Singer's film
Yes and no. I think the mistake was ever going in that direction, but I don't think you need to do a full reboot either. We all know who Superman is, so there is no need for a new origin movie. What I think Warner needs to do is go for a straight out showing of why Superman is awesome, which would include lots of insane battles. Go with some kind of alien invasion using Darkseid, Brianiac or Mongol so that Superman has something he can really let loose on. With some work, you can make the son of Superman work into the story (though I don't really know how at this point).
- What angle should Superman Rebooted take? Do you think it should follow The Dark Knight playbook, or should it be more like the recent cartoon show?
Superman should never take on an overly dark tone; he is not a dark character. Superman is supposed to show the promise of all humanity, hence the Man of Tomorrow tag, and a brooding angry fighter is not that promise. I would go more towards the cartoon, with over the top action and Superman looking for the good in people at all times. This is not to say that there shouldn't be dark moments for Superman, but the power of the character is how he overcomes those moments. Personally, I would much rather see a All Star Superman take for the film, but that kind of Superman may be to far fetched for people to connect with; while Superman sewing the moon together with bridges is great in the comic, it could easily be laughed at in a movie.
- Do you believe notorious self-promoter Mark Millar when he says that he's got a Superman trilogy just moments from a green light at Warner Bros?
I'm sure Millar has a Superman trilogy in his head, and I'm sure that Warner has listened to his pitch, but I would be surprised if they went with it.
- Should Warner Bros even be bothering with Superman right now, or should they be turning to the hundreds of other DC characters available to them?
Superman is a viable franchise that pulls in millions in revenue every year through comics, toys, shirts and all other kinds of crap for people to buy. He is one of the most recognizable icons in the world. Superman is something Warner should always be working on, if just to keep his image out in the public. That said, there are plenty of great characters that could be and maybe should be used before Superman.
Derek
Who do Ι think would be the best director to tackle Superman Rebooted? Someone with a vision. Someone who's not afraid to break the mould of seven decades of continuity and ready to do something new with Superman, give some depth to one of the most two-dimensional characters out there. WB needs to find someone with Nolan's passion, not a Nolan clone. A real director who will take the source material seriously enough in order to create a rich story but will not be a slave to it. The key to the success of the Dark Knight was Nolan's insistence on treating the Batman's world as real and the characters inhabiting it as real people. It had nothing to do with that world supposedly being "dark". The key to Singer's failure, on the other hand, was his lack of ambition. He didn't want to leave his own stamp on the character. Although this was supposedly a passion project, he was essentially a hired gun. And, of course, what worked thirty years ago, what was cutting edge back then, is trite and pedestrian today.
Nikos Alepis,
mastronikolas on the boards
Nikos Alepis,
mastronikolas on the boards
First and foremost, yes DC should be bothering with a Superman movie. As Sin City proved there are a lot of things that can work well and be said on the page, but not on the screen. DC has seemingly continued its existence by reaping the benefits of people's nostalgia towards what are basically stupid characters like Flash, Wonder Woman, Green Lanern, etc. The only two characters that the general movie going public share this nostalgia for is Superman and Batman. It seems to me that if DC can't even get a decent Superman movie made, then why should anyone bother watching the fucking Flash?
Perhaps the most disappointing thing about the first one is that Singer was the right director and he fucked it up. He made the same mistake that every live action Superman screen endeavor has made. For some reason Singer felt the need to make the story revolve around the origin, kryptonite, and not punching anything. Yes we get it. Superman is strong. He can lift shit. They spent years on Smallville proving that to us. For the love of fuck, let Superman fight something. Directors have not figured out what the comics figured out years ago. Kryptonite is boring, and let's face it, kind of stupid. Clark Kent does not need to be an annoying dork. It doesn't have to have stupid cheesey characters like Hackman's Luthor or whoever the fuck Parker Posey was supposed to be. And as far as all the love for the Donner films go. Has anyone watched them lately? They are boring. They have not stood up against time. The first two Superman movies seem to exist only to showcase the best specia l effects of the day, and have no real compelling story aside from the one that everybody knows. Ditch the origin, kryptonite, and cheesey characters.
The next movie will almost certainly completely ignore Returns, since no one will want to touch the idea of Superman having a kid. It in no way should move toward the direction of Dark Night though. Batman is inherantly a dark character, so those movies should be that way. Superman is not. This dynamic has become so understood in the comics that they don't even expalin it anymore. While most of the general public has been eating up the dark superhero thing, I really don't think they want to see Superman in that light. Incidentally the reason I think people have moved that way is that a lot of the lighter adaptation movies have just spat in our faces. While the dark ones haven't been perfect, off the top of my head I would say they have a better track record. The lighter movies that fucked up (Hulk, Superman Returns, Narnia, etc.) however did not fuck up in their decision to not be dark though.
Despite the departure being inevitable, I do think that Singer could make an excellent sequal if he decided to try and be semi-original and let Superman punch something. I however, do not think he'll be given the chance. After briefly thinking about the list of directors that would make a Superman with interesting and compelling characters that don't belong on the back of a cereal box or the liner notes of the next Dashboard Confessional album I came up with Robert Zemeckis. He's shown throughout his career that he can make compelling movies without them needing to be dark. He's also had a varied enough career that he could handle a super hero movie without it being completely one dimensional. I am interested to see what other people suggest, because I'm sure there are other directors out there who could and would be willing to make an excellent Superman movie. I know that Zemeckis could do it though.
-nevermindno4
Perhaps the most disappointing thing about the first one is that Singer was the right director and he fucked it up. He made the same mistake that every live action Superman screen endeavor has made. For some reason Singer felt the need to make the story revolve around the origin, kryptonite, and not punching anything. Yes we get it. Superman is strong. He can lift shit. They spent years on Smallville proving that to us. For the love of fuck, let Superman fight something. Directors have not figured out what the comics figured out years ago. Kryptonite is boring, and let's face it, kind of stupid. Clark Kent does not need to be an annoying dork. It doesn't have to have stupid cheesey characters like Hackman's Luthor or whoever the fuck Parker Posey was supposed to be. And as far as all the love for the Donner films go. Has anyone watched them lately? They are boring. They have not stood up against time. The first two Superman movies seem to exist only to showcase the best specia l effects of the day, and have no real compelling story aside from the one that everybody knows. Ditch the origin, kryptonite, and cheesey characters.
The next movie will almost certainly completely ignore Returns, since no one will want to touch the idea of Superman having a kid. It in no way should move toward the direction of Dark Night though. Batman is inherantly a dark character, so those movies should be that way. Superman is not. This dynamic has become so understood in the comics that they don't even expalin it anymore. While most of the general public has been eating up the dark superhero thing, I really don't think they want to see Superman in that light. Incidentally the reason I think people have moved that way is that a lot of the lighter adaptation movies have just spat in our faces. While the dark ones haven't been perfect, off the top of my head I would say they have a better track record. The lighter movies that fucked up (Hulk, Superman Returns, Narnia, etc.) however did not fuck up in their decision to not be dark though.
Despite the departure being inevitable, I do think that Singer could make an excellent sequal if he decided to try and be semi-original and let Superman punch something. I however, do not think he'll be given the chance. After briefly thinking about the list of directors that would make a Superman with interesting and compelling characters that don't belong on the back of a cereal box or the liner notes of the next Dashboard Confessional album I came up with Robert Zemeckis. He's shown throughout his career that he can make compelling movies without them needing to be dark. He's also had a varied enough career that he could handle a super hero movie without it being completely one dimensional. I am interested to see what other people suggest, because I'm sure there are other directors out there who could and would be willing to make an excellent Superman movie. I know that Zemeckis could do it though.
-nevermindno4
If I had to pick a director for the Superman reboot, I’d go for Spike Jonze. Most people have finally gotten a whiff of the man’s genius and are down on the bandwagon. But, a lot of people would need convincing. “Where the Wild Things Are” is his biggest film to date and it’s already running into a world of trouble.
Spike Jonze working with Lance Acord has helped to bring some incredible visuals to the screen. While, Jonze isn’t so much a writer, that can be fixed. Throw on Dave Eggers (Puzo worked on the first film, why not throw on another novelist) to script it. A few other cats could rework it, maybe Kaufman. What would set it apart is the fact that Jonze nails pacing and can capture scenes with a distilled sense of perfection. Take the car crash from “Adaptation” or the broad strokes that he used to paint his videos. The man’s got range and this could be his chance to show it.
Warner Brothers did what was right from a financial standpoint and I agree with the decision. “Superman Returns” was a dense appreciation of the 1978 film and not an appreciation of the character. Therefore, you automatically shut the door on new viewers as Singer got to bask in the glow of the sunlight off of Richard Donner’s balls. Too many kids don’t know who the hell Superman is, but they can tell me about the latest Anime Claptrap coming to bookstores. That’s wrong on so many levels.
Superman should try to reboot from scratch. I don’t want to see an origin ala the J.J. Abrams abortion of a script from 2003. You could take the entire mythology of Superman from 1939 to present and cherry pick. Every era had great ideas and they can co-exist in a perfect world. This is the chance to make a Krypton that works. You can make Argo City, Kandor and even Krypto make sense onscreen.
The essential conceit that Spike Jonze or anyone else needs to realize in rebooting Superman is hope. Superman/Kal-El/Clark Kent is what everyone can be at their best. He’s something to strive to attain. You’re never going to be him, but you can follow in his example and try to do good. Anyone can be better than what they are, it doesn’t matter what you came from. Whether you’re an archer stranded on a deserted island, a Forensics Specialist dosed in chemicals or a test pilot that stumbles upon a UFO. What you choose to do from that key moment is what matter.
Choice should be the idea that pushes these new films. Whether it’s Jor-El’s decision to keep his people alive via his son. Whether it’s the Kents deciding to stop by the side of a country road and examine a strange rocket. Whether it’s Kal-El’s decision to never stop fighting for his adopted home. The choice to do the right thing is simple and timeless. When’s the last time that there was a film franchise that really inspired people? Superman should be the polar opposite of Batman in every single way. That’s why it kills me that Warner Brothers is even debating the notion of trying to tap into “The Dark Knight” for relaunch material.
Mark Millar probably has a Superman Trilogy in his head and I’d like to see it on paper. But, I don’t think that I could stomach Kal-El asking Braniac if he thinks the S on his chest stands for “Senegal”. He’s a self-promoter and he makes good comics 75% of the time. Sorry, man…I can’t stand your take on the Fantastic Four. If Millar gets his hands on Superman, well I’m ok with it. I could think of worse writers than him.
Warner Brothers should take care of Superman first. It’s the flagship of the DC line and an iconic emblem of 20th Century American fiction. The core characters of the DC Universe are tied to Superman and his inspiration should drive the other properties. Green Lantern will come, so will The Flash and all of the others. All in good time. Take care of one home fire, before you go torching a village. Hell, I still want to see Tucker Carlson and James Carville as “Hawk and Dove” within the next six years.
Troy Anderson
Spike Jonze working with Lance Acord has helped to bring some incredible visuals to the screen. While, Jonze isn’t so much a writer, that can be fixed. Throw on Dave Eggers (Puzo worked on the first film, why not throw on another novelist) to script it. A few other cats could rework it, maybe Kaufman. What would set it apart is the fact that Jonze nails pacing and can capture scenes with a distilled sense of perfection. Take the car crash from “Adaptation” or the broad strokes that he used to paint his videos. The man’s got range and this could be his chance to show it.
Warner Brothers did what was right from a financial standpoint and I agree with the decision. “Superman Returns” was a dense appreciation of the 1978 film and not an appreciation of the character. Therefore, you automatically shut the door on new viewers as Singer got to bask in the glow of the sunlight off of Richard Donner’s balls. Too many kids don’t know who the hell Superman is, but they can tell me about the latest Anime Claptrap coming to bookstores. That’s wrong on so many levels.
Superman should try to reboot from scratch. I don’t want to see an origin ala the J.J. Abrams abortion of a script from 2003. You could take the entire mythology of Superman from 1939 to present and cherry pick. Every era had great ideas and they can co-exist in a perfect world. This is the chance to make a Krypton that works. You can make Argo City, Kandor and even Krypto make sense onscreen.
The essential conceit that Spike Jonze or anyone else needs to realize in rebooting Superman is hope. Superman/Kal-El/Clark Kent is what everyone can be at their best. He’s something to strive to attain. You’re never going to be him, but you can follow in his example and try to do good. Anyone can be better than what they are, it doesn’t matter what you came from. Whether you’re an archer stranded on a deserted island, a Forensics Specialist dosed in chemicals or a test pilot that stumbles upon a UFO. What you choose to do from that key moment is what matter.
Choice should be the idea that pushes these new films. Whether it’s Jor-El’s decision to keep his people alive via his son. Whether it’s the Kents deciding to stop by the side of a country road and examine a strange rocket. Whether it’s Kal-El’s decision to never stop fighting for his adopted home. The choice to do the right thing is simple and timeless. When’s the last time that there was a film franchise that really inspired people? Superman should be the polar opposite of Batman in every single way. That’s why it kills me that Warner Brothers is even debating the notion of trying to tap into “The Dark Knight” for relaunch material.
Mark Millar probably has a Superman Trilogy in his head and I’d like to see it on paper. But, I don’t think that I could stomach Kal-El asking Braniac if he thinks the S on his chest stands for “Senegal”. He’s a self-promoter and he makes good comics 75% of the time. Sorry, man…I can’t stand your take on the Fantastic Four. If Millar gets his hands on Superman, well I’m ok with it. I could think of worse writers than him.
Warner Brothers should take care of Superman first. It’s the flagship of the DC line and an iconic emblem of 20th Century American fiction. The core characters of the DC Universe are tied to Superman and his inspiration should drive the other properties. Green Lantern will come, so will The Flash and all of the others. All in good time. Take care of one home fire, before you go torching a village. Hell, I still want to see Tucker Carlson and James Carville as “Hawk and Dove” within the next six years.
Troy Anderson
