CHUD POPULI: SUPERMAN REBOOTED (THE REPLIES)
http://chud.com/articles/articles/16244/1/CHUD-POPULI-SUPERMAN-REBOOTED-THE-REPLIES/Page1.html
Devin Faraci
Devin Faraci is. You can friend him on Facebook, and you can follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/ devincf.Drop Devin an email at devin@chud.com. Let him know how much you love him; he needs the positive reinforcement.
By Devin Faraci
Published on 09/7/2008
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
Page two of replies!
Who do you think would be the best director to tackle Superman Rebooted?
Right off the bat, that's a tough question. My ideal would be a guy whose proven himself on indie and/or mid-scale projects, who has the potential to make it in the majors, and who can handle character and story as well as he can special effects and action sequences. You want this kind of movie to take your B-list director and anoint him as part of the A-list club (with Jon Favreu being the most recent example of this, and Peter Jackson probably being the ultimate).
For a long while, I thought Richard Kelly would make a good director for Justice League. Then Southland Tales happened. So that canned that idea, at least until he proves himself beyond being a one hit wonder.
Depending on how City of Ember turns out, maybe Gil Kenan would be the way to go. I thought Monster House was an incredibly enjoyable kids movie - perhaps the Favreu formula for success could repeat itself?
I'd suggest someone from the indie set who could step up, but nobody's springing to mind at the moment.
In any case, the further away you run from the Brett Ratners, the Stephen Sommers', the McGs and the Rob Cohens, the better.
Do you think Warner Bros is making a mistake in junking Bryan Singer's film?
I don't think they are, but I can't help but feel bad for the guy. His career seems to be taking a very steep downward trajectory all of a sudden. It's not like Returns was a disaster, or even a genuinely bad movie. It was just a little misguided - a little too blind in its devotion to the Richard Donner films, and far too reliant on an emotional climax rather than an action-based one.
I do think, however, that Warner Bros is making a mistake in believing all their superhero films need to be dark now. They looked at the success that Dark Knight has had and took the entirely wrong lesson from it.
Dark Knight didn't work because it was dark. Dark Knight worked because it was true to the character (certainly a lot more true to the character than Batman Begins). It had respect for the character and his world.
That's why Spider-Man worked. That's why the X-Men movies worked. You can even take that logic one step further and say that's why the Spider-Man and X-Men series stalled out creatively - by the time they were ready for the third go-around, the studios were far more focused on the films as franchise products, rather than as characters with a story to be told.
(Obviously, they also went "dark" with Spider-Man and the X-Men, and while the movies did well commercially, they were the least well-reviewed out of all their respective entries, and are generally regarded as disappointments).
All of that isn't to say that a darker Superman movie couldn't work. You face him off against Darkseid and there's already going to be a grim edge to everything, especially if you have the climax take place on Apokolips. What I worry about with the "dark" approach is that that means black leather suits and excessive force and generally an entire ethos that's untrue to what Superman represents as a character.
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?
No. I'm sure he's had meetings, and they've gladhanded him. Hell, maybe a few of the execs actually think his take is worthwhile (we're talking about the studio that wanted to go with the utterly horrible JJ Abrams / McG version, after all).
I think WB is so far turned around on their DC properties they don't know where to start, and Millar being Millar I imagine what he has in mind is probably too ambitious to appeal to them. Or maybe that's just my secret hope, because a Millar Superman is the last thing I want - I don't want the same sarcastic, cynical dialogue coming out of every single character's mouth. But that's probably exactly what WB is pushing for.
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?
It seems odd that they're rushing to go back to that well so soon after Returns under-performed. I think it's a reflection of the complete ignorance that the WB executives have when it comes to the kind of properties they have such unrestricted access to.
Both Flash and Green Lantern have been languishing in development hell, when both could make for A-grade summer blockbusters (I say this even with some movement having taken place recently).
Flash is so in the mould of a fun, action-adventure film like Iron Man or Spider-Man it's mind-boggling they haven't put more time and effort into it (Shawn Levy? Dave fuckin' Dobkin?? Seriously???).
Green Lantern gives you grand space opera stuff and a street-level, relatable hero to anchor it with (take your pick of which GL you want. Hell, I think working them all in with Hal Jordan as the lead would be a good way to go).
Both these characters are just the tip of the iceberg, with dozens more all viable film properties. If you build it slowly, if you create a cohesive universe with clear links between the films, then in ten years you've laid the groundwork for a Justice League film people will actually want to see. You know, exactly like what Marvel's been doing.
But the higher-ups at the WB have no idea, not one, when it comes to the depth and breadth of the comic book properties they have on hand. And that's why they keep going back to Superman and Batman, because they think that's all they have. In fact, it seems that if these projects aren't brought to them by writers/directors, they don't even know they have them, let alone what they should do with them.
Thanks very much for the opportunity to speak. If you use any of this mess, please credit me just as 'Steve'.
Cheers
This sounds like a reaction to Marvel's public franchise plans stretching into the next decade. It feels like filmmakers don't know how to tackle Superman in the modern age--the Boy Scout who never lies is a hard concept for them to grasp without tacking on angst, yet the original concept of Superman worked in the cynical 70s. People like Superman because he's the embodiment of all-American optimism punishing evil in spite of a cynical world. When Superman at the end of the first film says, "Don't thank me, we're all part of the same team" before flying away, it's hard not to like the character and his values.
Personally, I think they should avoid Superman for a while, but part of me doesn't want the character to dwindle from the public's consciousness. The new film will go "dark," but if my armchair filmmaking skills landed me in the producer's chair, I would set it in the Depression Era 1940s with villains out of a Max Fleischer cartoon. Mobsters, mad scientists with boxy robots, and more. I'd tone down Superman's strength so that breaking chains and lifting cars was still an amazing feat.
I'd make it a hopeful, optimistic movie. The bad guys get what's coming to them, and there would be no force-fed social commentaries or cynicism. It would be an homage to the Golden Age of comics and a fictional look at a troubled time in America's history in which pulp heroes like Superman were born. Come to think of it, the Batman films could have been set in the same era, but then we wouldn't have as many explosions.
- Preston
What you have to say about the reboot of the Superman franchise!
CHUD POPULI: SUPERMAN REBOOTED (THE REPLIES)
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
CHUD POPULI: SUPERMAN REBOOTED (THE REPLIES) PAGE TWO
Page two of replies!
Who do you think would be the best director to tackle Superman Rebooted?
Right off the bat, that's a tough question. My ideal would be a guy whose proven himself on indie and/or mid-scale projects, who has the potential to make it in the majors, and who can handle character and story as well as he can special effects and action sequences. You want this kind of movie to take your B-list director and anoint him as part of the A-list club (with Jon Favreu being the most recent example of this, and Peter Jackson probably being the ultimate).
For a long while, I thought Richard Kelly would make a good director for Justice League. Then Southland Tales happened. So that canned that idea, at least until he proves himself beyond being a one hit wonder.
Depending on how City of Ember turns out, maybe Gil Kenan would be the way to go. I thought Monster House was an incredibly enjoyable kids movie - perhaps the Favreu formula for success could repeat itself?
I'd suggest someone from the indie set who could step up, but nobody's springing to mind at the moment.
In any case, the further away you run from the Brett Ratners, the Stephen Sommers', the McGs and the Rob Cohens, the better.
Do you think Warner Bros is making a mistake in junking Bryan Singer's film?
I don't think they are, but I can't help but feel bad for the guy. His career seems to be taking a very steep downward trajectory all of a sudden. It's not like Returns was a disaster, or even a genuinely bad movie. It was just a little misguided - a little too blind in its devotion to the Richard Donner films, and far too reliant on an emotional climax rather than an action-based one.
I do think, however, that Warner Bros is making a mistake in believing all their superhero films need to be dark now. They looked at the success that Dark Knight has had and took the entirely wrong lesson from it.
Dark Knight didn't work because it was dark. Dark Knight worked because it was true to the character (certainly a lot more true to the character than Batman Begins). It had respect for the character and his world.
That's why Spider-Man worked. That's why the X-Men movies worked. You can even take that logic one step further and say that's why the Spider-Man and X-Men series stalled out creatively - by the time they were ready for the third go-around, the studios were far more focused on the films as franchise products, rather than as characters with a story to be told.
(Obviously, they also went "dark" with Spider-Man and the X-Men, and while the movies did well commercially, they were the least well-reviewed out of all their respective entries, and are generally regarded as disappointments).
All of that isn't to say that a darker Superman movie couldn't work. You face him off against Darkseid and there's already going to be a grim edge to everything, especially if you have the climax take place on Apokolips. What I worry about with the "dark" approach is that that means black leather suits and excessive force and generally an entire ethos that's untrue to what Superman represents as a character.
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?
No. I'm sure he's had meetings, and they've gladhanded him. Hell, maybe a few of the execs actually think his take is worthwhile (we're talking about the studio that wanted to go with the utterly horrible JJ Abrams / McG version, after all).
I think WB is so far turned around on their DC properties they don't know where to start, and Millar being Millar I imagine what he has in mind is probably too ambitious to appeal to them. Or maybe that's just my secret hope, because a Millar Superman is the last thing I want - I don't want the same sarcastic, cynical dialogue coming out of every single character's mouth. But that's probably exactly what WB is pushing for.
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?
It seems odd that they're rushing to go back to that well so soon after Returns under-performed. I think it's a reflection of the complete ignorance that the WB executives have when it comes to the kind of properties they have such unrestricted access to.
Both Flash and Green Lantern have been languishing in development hell, when both could make for A-grade summer blockbusters (I say this even with some movement having taken place recently).
Flash is so in the mould of a fun, action-adventure film like Iron Man or Spider-Man it's mind-boggling they haven't put more time and effort into it (Shawn Levy? Dave fuckin' Dobkin?? Seriously???).
Green Lantern gives you grand space opera stuff and a street-level, relatable hero to anchor it with (take your pick of which GL you want. Hell, I think working them all in with Hal Jordan as the lead would be a good way to go).
Both these characters are just the tip of the iceberg, with dozens more all viable film properties. If you build it slowly, if you create a cohesive universe with clear links between the films, then in ten years you've laid the groundwork for a Justice League film people will actually want to see. You know, exactly like what Marvel's been doing.
But the higher-ups at the WB have no idea, not one, when it comes to the depth and breadth of the comic book properties they have on hand. And that's why they keep going back to Superman and Batman, because they think that's all they have. In fact, it seems that if these projects aren't brought to them by writers/directors, they don't even know they have them, let alone what they should do with them.
Thanks very much for the opportunity to speak. If you use any of this mess, please credit me just as 'Steve'.
Cheers
Hello Devin,
I want to start off by saying I love Chud.com. I have been a long time reader. Now onto the meat:
Do you think Warner Bros. is making a mistake in junking Bryan Singer's film? No, I don't. I feel it is almost necessary. I mean, here the studios had an opportunity to make a Superman film for a new generation. In an age when the next great revolution of technology is just around the corner, the "Man of Tomorrow" aspect could have really been utilized. In an era where everything is classified, labeled, categorized, and understood, here comes a Man who defies everything we know about the world...about humankind itself. The story can almost write itself. Instead, they set the film "somewhere" between Superman II or III...or wait maybe its I and II. Aw hell, its somewhere between I and IV: The Quest for More Money. We are then treated to some half assed reason why Superman was absent...simply put, he was on vacation to the homeland. Meanwhile, Lois starts dating Cyclops, has a Super-tot, and Lex Luthor, despite being relieved of the Boy Scout's meddling ac tivities, opted not to break out of jail and like a freshman shuffling his feet on the first day of school, lazily attempts to take over the world only after Superman has returned. The result? A mish-mash of EPIC WTF plot holes so large, I could drive through them with an eighteen-wheeler full of pre-diet Oprahs on a Quadruple Chocolate Fudge Cake binge. That's only the story aspect. That really doesn't even cover the actors. As you said on AotS, we were presented with an Emo-Superman, and I'll add the worst Lois Lane performance ever. In my opinion, the only saving grace was Kevin Spacey, even though he falls short of the Hack-Man. With all this mind, Warner Brothers could either give their writers a brain aneurysm by trying to figure out some sequel that will fit into the shredded continuity, or say, "F*ck It, we're starting over." Really, that was their only option.
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? That's a tough call. I don't pretend to be a Superman expert nor an armchair movie producer. However, I will say this. Superman is not a dark franchise by nature. Unlike Batman, Daredevil, Watchmen, or even Gin and Tonic Tony Stark, Superman was the "light" to the Batman's "darkness". He stood for Truth, Justice, and the American way. Yes, Superman story arcs have been occasionally dark, but not on the essential characteristic level that Batman is. Superman is supposed to guide humanity, watch over them, and to be a shining example to everyone that good does exist. That said, choosing a new route for a Superman movie will be tough. Lex Luthor has been beaten to death in every media incarnation, and the pool of Superman's rouge's gallery contains the likes of General Zod, and the Toyman. I would like to see the or igin story ditched or at the very least given over the opening title sequence. Even my 80 year old schizophrenic Grandmother knows Superman came from Krypton, lets concentrate on a new story, shall we? I tell you what I do want, some seriously mind-blowing special effects. As you said, lets see him punch a meteor or something. Come On, let's see a show! I wouldn't mind watching a villain with similar powers to Superman Mark Maguire him with a semi-truck while tearing Metropolis to shreds. Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and put out a radical idea. Why not place this film late in his history. Lets bring down the Lois romance with Superman a tad by writing the story in a period where she already knows Clark is Superman. It could even be taken a step further by having Lois narrorate the entire film through flashbacks of Superman's history. We can have multiple stories in one film tying them all together with her being held hostage by Luthor for the epic showdown at the e nd of the film. Just a thought...
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? I've got to ask, who are these hundreds of other DC characters? As far as popularity go with DC, Batman and Superman are about it. Unlike Marvel with its comic juggernauts like X-men, Spider-man, Fantastic Four, Avengers, Hulk, and to some lesser extent Punisher. Bats and Supes are about all DC can market effectively for motion pictures. The primary reason, I think, is realism. Many Marvel heroes come to birth through science mishaps, or they are plain men doing amazing things. They take ordinary men and women, and make them extraordinary through cosmic mishaps or scientific blunders. In the DC Universe, many of the characters are just mysteriously Super and often never seem to have limits to their respective powers. And honestly, a lot of DC characters are a bit more cartoonish compared to their Marvel counterpart s. Do you really think a Green Lantern movie will be a huge success? I don't know of too many people that will wait in line to see a super hero fight off evil with giant green egg beaters and mousetraps all the while avoiding exposure to a certain troublesome primary color. Wonder Woman can barely keep her powers straight over the years not to mention the off again on again invisible jet and the lack of any arch-nemesis. And the Flash? Well, I don't know if I could watch a movie where the super heroes sole power was that of, "sprinting." Art imitates Life. Right now, its darkness. With the War on Terror and the poor economy, America is in a slump and our movies show it. Many of the DC characters do not operate in depressed worlds. Any superhero movie portraying a bright world with happiness flowing from the fountains of bliss will be flopped out and shunned off for being too childish and un-realistic (ironic that a superhero movie can be seen as unrealistic). Perhaps, a new S uperman film can start dark, and being true to his character, Super man can bring light and hope to the second half of a film.
Sincerely,
Dan Herald
I want to start off by saying I love Chud.com. I have been a long time reader. Now onto the meat:
Do you think Warner Bros. is making a mistake in junking Bryan Singer's film? No, I don't. I feel it is almost necessary. I mean, here the studios had an opportunity to make a Superman film for a new generation. In an age when the next great revolution of technology is just around the corner, the "Man of Tomorrow" aspect could have really been utilized. In an era where everything is classified, labeled, categorized, and understood, here comes a Man who defies everything we know about the world...about humankind itself. The story can almost write itself. Instead, they set the film "somewhere" between Superman II or III...or wait maybe its I and II. Aw hell, its somewhere between I and IV: The Quest for More Money. We are then treated to some half assed reason why Superman was absent...simply put, he was on vacation to the homeland. Meanwhile, Lois starts dating Cyclops, has a Super-tot, and Lex Luthor, despite being relieved of the Boy Scout's meddling ac tivities, opted not to break out of jail and like a freshman shuffling his feet on the first day of school, lazily attempts to take over the world only after Superman has returned. The result? A mish-mash of EPIC WTF plot holes so large, I could drive through them with an eighteen-wheeler full of pre-diet Oprahs on a Quadruple Chocolate Fudge Cake binge. That's only the story aspect. That really doesn't even cover the actors. As you said on AotS, we were presented with an Emo-Superman, and I'll add the worst Lois Lane performance ever. In my opinion, the only saving grace was Kevin Spacey, even though he falls short of the Hack-Man. With all this mind, Warner Brothers could either give their writers a brain aneurysm by trying to figure out some sequel that will fit into the shredded continuity, or say, "F*ck It, we're starting over." Really, that was their only option.
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? That's a tough call. I don't pretend to be a Superman expert nor an armchair movie producer. However, I will say this. Superman is not a dark franchise by nature. Unlike Batman, Daredevil, Watchmen, or even Gin and Tonic Tony Stark, Superman was the "light" to the Batman's "darkness". He stood for Truth, Justice, and the American way. Yes, Superman story arcs have been occasionally dark, but not on the essential characteristic level that Batman is. Superman is supposed to guide humanity, watch over them, and to be a shining example to everyone that good does exist. That said, choosing a new route for a Superman movie will be tough. Lex Luthor has been beaten to death in every media incarnation, and the pool of Superman's rouge's gallery contains the likes of General Zod, and the Toyman. I would like to see the or igin story ditched or at the very least given over the opening title sequence. Even my 80 year old schizophrenic Grandmother knows Superman came from Krypton, lets concentrate on a new story, shall we? I tell you what I do want, some seriously mind-blowing special effects. As you said, lets see him punch a meteor or something. Come On, let's see a show! I wouldn't mind watching a villain with similar powers to Superman Mark Maguire him with a semi-truck while tearing Metropolis to shreds. Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and put out a radical idea. Why not place this film late in his history. Lets bring down the Lois romance with Superman a tad by writing the story in a period where she already knows Clark is Superman. It could even be taken a step further by having Lois narrorate the entire film through flashbacks of Superman's history. We can have multiple stories in one film tying them all together with her being held hostage by Luthor for the epic showdown at the e nd of the film. Just a thought...
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? I've got to ask, who are these hundreds of other DC characters? As far as popularity go with DC, Batman and Superman are about it. Unlike Marvel with its comic juggernauts like X-men, Spider-man, Fantastic Four, Avengers, Hulk, and to some lesser extent Punisher. Bats and Supes are about all DC can market effectively for motion pictures. The primary reason, I think, is realism. Many Marvel heroes come to birth through science mishaps, or they are plain men doing amazing things. They take ordinary men and women, and make them extraordinary through cosmic mishaps or scientific blunders. In the DC Universe, many of the characters are just mysteriously Super and often never seem to have limits to their respective powers. And honestly, a lot of DC characters are a bit more cartoonish compared to their Marvel counterpart s. Do you really think a Green Lantern movie will be a huge success? I don't know of too many people that will wait in line to see a super hero fight off evil with giant green egg beaters and mousetraps all the while avoiding exposure to a certain troublesome primary color. Wonder Woman can barely keep her powers straight over the years not to mention the off again on again invisible jet and the lack of any arch-nemesis. And the Flash? Well, I don't know if I could watch a movie where the super heroes sole power was that of, "sprinting." Art imitates Life. Right now, its darkness. With the War on Terror and the poor economy, America is in a slump and our movies show it. Many of the DC characters do not operate in depressed worlds. Any superhero movie portraying a bright world with happiness flowing from the fountains of bliss will be flopped out and shunned off for being too childish and un-realistic (ironic that a superhero movie can be seen as unrealistic). Perhaps, a new S uperman film can start dark, and being true to his character, Super man can bring light and hope to the second half of a film.
Sincerely,
Dan Herald
I think the best guy for the job is the director of Wanted. His visual style, humor and action is perfect.
As far as a mistake with Singer's film I think it was possible to salvage it. I you are left with a lot of problems that would carry on with sequels. The three main ones are the director doesn't get the character, miscast Lois Lane and jumped the shark by giving us a Superman offspring.
This is where I probably have conflict of interest because I feel strongly about my own take on the material and where they should start. I personally would set the film in the Richard Donner movie universe. I would have the first film take place in the 13 years Clark spent after his dad died. You would have the suit. You would have the Fortress. The Clark I envision would be learning about himself, going to school, learning from his birth father, his planet and about his powers. It would share similarities with Batman Begins because it starts with our hero lost. Another important thing I could see being brought up is the Clark Kent persona because in Superman the movie he goes from awkward teenager to bumbling reporter in Metropolis. Christopher Reeve talked about Gary Grant in Bringing Up Baby as the inspiration of the character and it could in fact be worked into the movie that this is where Clark gets the inspiration to portray himself so people would never suspect he's Superman.
I suspect Millar has an idea and a director he recently worked with and maybe studio interest. Who knows. I certainly hope they don't wait another 10 in pre production to figure this out.
Superman is Mickey Mouse. He is instantly identifiable. Letting a property just sit there would be criminal. The problem is finding people to work on it that are passionate about it and know how to take on the property so it will connect with audiences.
Brandon
As far as a mistake with Singer's film I think it was possible to salvage it. I you are left with a lot of problems that would carry on with sequels. The three main ones are the director doesn't get the character, miscast Lois Lane and jumped the shark by giving us a Superman offspring.
This is where I probably have conflict of interest because I feel strongly about my own take on the material and where they should start. I personally would set the film in the Richard Donner movie universe. I would have the first film take place in the 13 years Clark spent after his dad died. You would have the suit. You would have the Fortress. The Clark I envision would be learning about himself, going to school, learning from his birth father, his planet and about his powers. It would share similarities with Batman Begins because it starts with our hero lost. Another important thing I could see being brought up is the Clark Kent persona because in Superman the movie he goes from awkward teenager to bumbling reporter in Metropolis. Christopher Reeve talked about Gary Grant in Bringing Up Baby as the inspiration of the character and it could in fact be worked into the movie that this is where Clark gets the inspiration to portray himself so people would never suspect he's Superman.
I suspect Millar has an idea and a director he recently worked with and maybe studio interest. Who knows. I certainly hope they don't wait another 10 in pre production to figure this out.
Superman is Mickey Mouse. He is instantly identifiable. Letting a property just sit there would be criminal. The problem is finding people to work on it that are passionate about it and know how to take on the property so it will connect with audiences.
Brandon
- The second question should be answered first: YES. Bryan Singer hamstrung himself by using the Donner cannon as the premise for Superman Returns, but he did well with it. He also planted the seeds for a truly evil turn for Lex from the comedic villain he was in Donner's films. Now that the character had been reintroduced and an original trilogy completed, he could have gone in so many directions with the story. Like X2 was to X-Men, I believe the next Superman by Bryan Singer would have greatly upped the storytelling, action and quality.
- Superman Rebooted should, at this point, continue the current cannon from Smallville, using as many of the same actors as possible. At this point, Smallville has, in one form or another, introduced nearly every major DC character that movies can be made of, sans Wonder Woman. As such, it makes sense to move on with that story instead of introducing another Superman story and arc that may not have anything to do with what has been established in the last 8 years (which, truth be told, hasn't been bad for the most part). Given that premise, I do believe Millar when he says he has something ready to go with WB if for no other reason, it would be incredible for me to think that at some point in the last 8 years, he hasn't devised at least some sort of outline for a final transformation from small town Clark into big city Superman
- The big question is who should direct and what tone to take. I can't stress enough that Superman should be the absolute antithesis of of Dark Knight, as Superman is the light in the DC Universe to Batman's dark. The action quotient would serve to be ramped up though, so I would suggest someone like a Peter Berg or Alex Proyas to put a unique stamp on it. Of course, a truly geek-tastic writer would be Kevin Smith, but I'm not sure we could handle the actual visual of Brodie's fantasy from Mallrats.
- Dan
- Superman Rebooted should, at this point, continue the current cannon from Smallville, using as many of the same actors as possible. At this point, Smallville has, in one form or another, introduced nearly every major DC character that movies can be made of, sans Wonder Woman. As such, it makes sense to move on with that story instead of introducing another Superman story and arc that may not have anything to do with what has been established in the last 8 years (which, truth be told, hasn't been bad for the most part). Given that premise, I do believe Millar when he says he has something ready to go with WB if for no other reason, it would be incredible for me to think that at some point in the last 8 years, he hasn't devised at least some sort of outline for a final transformation from small town Clark into big city Superman
- The big question is who should direct and what tone to take. I can't stress enough that Superman should be the absolute antithesis of of Dark Knight, as Superman is the light in the DC Universe to Batman's dark. The action quotient would serve to be ramped up though, so I would suggest someone like a Peter Berg or Alex Proyas to put a unique stamp on it. Of course, a truly geek-tastic writer would be Kevin Smith, but I'm not sure we could handle the actual visual of Brodie's fantasy from Mallrats.
- Dan
Dear Devin
Thank you for the opportunity to throw some of my thoughts on Superman at you.
Who do you think would be the best director to tackle Superman Rebooted?
Personally i would choose Michael Bay to be the director of the next superman movie. Transformers has proven he does big throw down well. Wasn't that one of the great things from the original movie the large action set pieces. Singer's did not have that same impact.
Do you think Warner Bros is making a mistake in junking Bryan Singer's film
I think Warner bros is right to let singer's film go, the franchise deserves to be moved on to another team. Singer does movies about character interaction in a closed environment like plays. Movies especially films involving action are more grander and more set pieces. How many action pieces bar X-MEN has he done.
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?
If you mean the cartoon from the same makers as batman the animated series then yes it would be a good direction. Superman by its nature is a more brighter character that's why the movies starring Reeve are so great as well as being accepted by geeks everywhere. Either do a reboot and head down the smallville direction or just accept, that here he is boyscout from beyond the stars. Smallville would not be my choice A) because its been done and B) From season 2 became the Lex Luthor show. I do love the series however.
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?
Not sure about the Mark Miller thing but i can only say lets see what you've got.
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?
You have to tackle Superman if you do DC, especially if you want to ever do JLA, and they do to compete with avengers. Batman and Superman are the two jewels of DC so they have to do them.
Thanks
Fred Daw
North Shields
Tyne and Wear
United Kingdom
I'm glad you called for responses about this, I've recently been thinking about the mistakes WB can make with this.
If they insist on making this, I have no problem with WB ditching the last movie in favor of a new start. But no prolonged origin, no waiting for an hour to see the cape and the tights. I feel bad for Brandon Routh, he didn't do a bad job especially considering they just wanted him to be Christopher Reeve and not give anything of his own to character. This is where the problem lies, Bryan Singer, a man who ruined two movies at a time. He left the X-Men to be deflated by a subpar creative team to make this half-baked sequel. A sequel to a movie that ends with Superman basically saying he'd never leave again. So they start this off with him being gone for 5 years.
I was actually excited about the prospect of Luthor getting his hands on Kryptonian techology, then it just turned out to be a bunch of fucking rocks. No power suits, no massive space cannons, rocks and crystals. And his big move is shanking Superman. Bravo.
Now in terms of directors who should handle this, I can't easily think of exciting prospects for Superman. WB is completely out of touch if they think making dark it like Batman is the key. Dark isn't Superman. After seeing some of the sketches being done for Tim Burton's approach, it's easy to see why grim doesn't mix with big blue. That tone would kill it. And if they ever got their dream of a Supes/Bats movie, there'd likely be no contrast between the two. Metropolis needs to be the sunny flip side to Gotham. Someone in the vein of Favreau could approach this with the right attitude.
As for Millar, I'll believe it when it's official until then I'd be interested to see what his concept is.
Your last question would diffuse the rest of this discussion if he was just laid to rest in favor of other characters. I can't help but have Steel flashbacks when lesser DC characters are talked up. From my comic geek days, I'd like to see Green Lantern or Starman before I saw another Superman flick (unless it was an adaptation of his Madman crossover). I think he deserves another shot. But it needs more cooling off time. We had the better part of a decade to let the memory of Batman and Robin grow hazy.
-Jeffrey
Thanks for this opportunity to be a part of the site, the work put in by you and the team is much appreciated and having the chance to contribute in a more meaningful manner than screaming "FIRST!!!" or throwing insults around is very cool. Here's my two cents.
I think that your jumping off points were interesting, but they make more sense answered in a different order. Should Warner Bothers bother with Superman right now? Yes. He's the character that leads to all others, both in a historical context and in a moral context. What I mean is that, as is frequently stated in the hundreds of crossovers DC has rammed down our throats for years, he'd the standard by which the others heroes measure themselves, he's the beacon of all that a hero can and should be. In addition, Superman's purview is worldwide. From purely a business angle he makes the most sense because he doesn't have to stay in Metropolis, he is not defined by his city, and so he can go to other places, interact with other cultures, meet other heroes. Actually, Clark Kent is the perfect agent to introduce an audience to other DC characters and it would give Kent a legitimate reason to be on screen. Which brings us to the angle Superman Rebooted should take and whether Bryan Singer's film should be junked.
The comments recently by Jeff Robinov about "exploring the evil side to characters" are disheartening because Mr. Robinov seems to have missed a crucial distinction that Chris Nolan and many of the (successful) Marvel movies understand: you don't have to make the movies serious, you have to take them seriously. While Mr. Singer may have taken the job seriously his final product was poorly plotted fanfic and not even Superman fanfic: it was Richard Donner fanfic. The entire movie felt like a 13-year old's dream of what would have happened next with the slight problem of imagining things and then not knowing how to get out of dead-ends. So, yes, Superman Returns should be cast aside as a sequel to a series of films made thirty years ago. I'd go so far as to include it in a DVD box set with Superman 1-4 and not associate it with any others going forward. Superman Returns ends those films and should end all the themes from them. If they refuse to ignore that film, well, I'd piss off Alan Moore some more, steal the entire plot device from 'For the Man Who Has Everything' and throw 30 seconds of scenes from Returns when the Black Mercy attaches itself to Superman. God knows the whole film felt like a frigging nightmare to sit through.
The next Superman film, in my opinion, needs to be defined by what it doesn't have. No Lex Luthor. At least, not in a meaningful way. The threat has to be global. Galactic, even. I'd use Mongul. He poses a danger to the planet and to thousands of other planets. He can stand toe-to-toe with Superman, they could actually fight! The trick with Superman is always that the threat has to match his potential and the complaint is frequently that he doesn't do anything interesting except for lift things and then throw them into orbit or put them down in a safer place. Mongul offers the threat and his intelligence and abilities would force Superman to work harder to win.
Next, I'd bin the Clark Kent/Lois Lane dynamic. Throw her in the newsroom but no puppy-dog eyes from Kent, no stalking from Supes and no acting like a complete moron when she's around. Didn't Moonlighting show us how two characters can act when they're in love but don't admit it? And isn't that more fun than sub-par slapstick and cresting musical cues? Oh, and Jimmy Olson would not exist. At all.
The shadow of Batman is interesting for a future Superman film -- actually, I think it's interesting for Watchmen, but that's a different essay. As Mr. Robinov stated, they are "going to try and go dark to the extent that the characters will allow it." Superman can't go dark, it would be ridiculous and contrary to the character. But you can make his world a darker place and that in turn would make Superman shine as the beacon he's frequently written as being.
Ah, Mark Millar. A taste of fame goes to your head fast doesn't it, Mr. Millar? Enjoying the rush? Good. Now go shut up. As I frequently tell my kids, nobody likes someone who gloats and his statement reeks of a self-important puffed-up flavor of the moment blowing smoke up his own ass. If he's really got that clout and that deal lined up good for him. Try not to crow, alright?
Finally, the director. There's a really nasty part of me that doesn't think it matters. Superman doesn't lend himself to a singular vision, he is an archetype. I don't know his films allow a style to be imprinted on them by a director. And yet, if that were the case, Brett Ratner would be a fine choice. I'm not going to go there. You know who I think would be a good director for Superman? Mel Gibson. He's a foreigner who came to the US and made his career here. He can direct action, he knows iconography, he's not averse to effects but he's invested in characters. I'd float Mel Gibson.
My two cents turned into $14.87. Sorry about that, I didn't realize I cared that much about this topic. That's probably a sign of a good column, Devin, well done on a solid first choice. I look forward to see what the rest of the Chud faithful come up with.
Best,
Chris Cardno
Potomac, MD
Thank you for the opportunity to throw some of my thoughts on Superman at you.
Who do you think would be the best director to tackle Superman Rebooted?
Personally i would choose Michael Bay to be the director of the next superman movie. Transformers has proven he does big throw down well. Wasn't that one of the great things from the original movie the large action set pieces. Singer's did not have that same impact.
Do you think Warner Bros is making a mistake in junking Bryan Singer's film
I think Warner bros is right to let singer's film go, the franchise deserves to be moved on to another team. Singer does movies about character interaction in a closed environment like plays. Movies especially films involving action are more grander and more set pieces. How many action pieces bar X-MEN has he done.
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?
If you mean the cartoon from the same makers as batman the animated series then yes it would be a good direction. Superman by its nature is a more brighter character that's why the movies starring Reeve are so great as well as being accepted by geeks everywhere. Either do a reboot and head down the smallville direction or just accept, that here he is boyscout from beyond the stars. Smallville would not be my choice A) because its been done and B) From season 2 became the Lex Luthor show. I do love the series however.
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?
Not sure about the Mark Miller thing but i can only say lets see what you've got.
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?
You have to tackle Superman if you do DC, especially if you want to ever do JLA, and they do to compete with avengers. Batman and Superman are the two jewels of DC so they have to do them.
Thanks
Fred Daw
North Shields
Tyne and Wear
United Kingdom
I'm glad you called for responses about this, I've recently been thinking about the mistakes WB can make with this.
If they insist on making this, I have no problem with WB ditching the last movie in favor of a new start. But no prolonged origin, no waiting for an hour to see the cape and the tights. I feel bad for Brandon Routh, he didn't do a bad job especially considering they just wanted him to be Christopher Reeve and not give anything of his own to character. This is where the problem lies, Bryan Singer, a man who ruined two movies at a time. He left the X-Men to be deflated by a subpar creative team to make this half-baked sequel. A sequel to a movie that ends with Superman basically saying he'd never leave again. So they start this off with him being gone for 5 years.
I was actually excited about the prospect of Luthor getting his hands on Kryptonian techology, then it just turned out to be a bunch of fucking rocks. No power suits, no massive space cannons, rocks and crystals. And his big move is shanking Superman. Bravo.
Now in terms of directors who should handle this, I can't easily think of exciting prospects for Superman. WB is completely out of touch if they think making dark it like Batman is the key. Dark isn't Superman. After seeing some of the sketches being done for Tim Burton's approach, it's easy to see why grim doesn't mix with big blue. That tone would kill it. And if they ever got their dream of a Supes/Bats movie, there'd likely be no contrast between the two. Metropolis needs to be the sunny flip side to Gotham. Someone in the vein of Favreau could approach this with the right attitude.
As for Millar, I'll believe it when it's official until then I'd be interested to see what his concept is.
Your last question would diffuse the rest of this discussion if he was just laid to rest in favor of other characters. I can't help but have Steel flashbacks when lesser DC characters are talked up. From my comic geek days, I'd like to see Green Lantern or Starman before I saw another Superman flick (unless it was an adaptation of his Madman crossover). I think he deserves another shot. But it needs more cooling off time. We had the better part of a decade to let the memory of Batman and Robin grow hazy.
-Jeffrey
Devin,
Please allow me one paragraph before I get to SUPERMAN, for I have a question. Devin: tell me. Are you Devin the Dude? Cause Devin's the Dude you'll probly hear me talkin bout. (Also, if you are Devin the Dude then I urge you to reconsider your stance on purple drink. It's fucking codeine, Dude. Codeine.)
Anyway, SUPERMAN REFUCKINGBOOT.
So, the thing that bothers me most about THE DARK KNIGHT is its much-ballyhooed "darkness". The film's "darkness" is constant and pervasive, turning what I thought would be an intense action flick into something that felt more like a grueling psychological horror film. But somehow, the "darkness" doesn't seemto have the impact on audiences that it should. A favorite comparison point ofmine is NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. I think the two films are remarkably similar,thematically speaking: they are both about an unstoppable tide of chaosovertaking society and the powerlessness of good men to stop it; the chaos ineach is anthropomorphized as an elemental and unknowable villain; the onlychance at survival in each comes from the flip of a coin; and every characterin both films are eventually tarnished by the choices they are forced to maketo survive. However, NO COUNTRY hits its audience like a sucker-punch. When Isaw that movie, the people I saw it with were literally too upset and disturbedto talk about it for an hour afterward. THE DARK KNIGHT, by comparison, pullsits punches: there are countless killings and maimings and yet virtually noon-screen blood; some of the most horrific acts of violence are played aspunchlines; and, basically, the film's caustic nihilism is glossed over, givena happy ending, and made to look pretty damn cool. The people who love THEDARK KNIGHT seem to dwell on how cool it is without pausing to think about howpointedly depraved it is as well.And this is with Batman, where darkness isone of the basic ingredients.
Now. Superman is (news flash!) Batman's antithesis. Superman is truth,justice, apple pie, your mother, and etc., and dammit, that works really wellfor the guy. My favorite Superman is the one from the old Fleischer cartoons,which is the only lasting version of Superman that allows him to be completelyunironic: he's just a big square-jawed idol who punches lots and lots of giantrobots, burns things with his eye lasers, and then gets the girl. And he doesit all without ever once mussing his spit-curl. Who could ask for more? It'sthe Saturday matinee spirit at its purest and best. As such, I think that mypersonal version of Superman would be a lot like SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OFTOMORROW. (Only I would have my actors act sometimes.)
But Warner's has threatened/promised to make Superman dark. BOOOOOO. HISSS. It seems to me that angsty Superman is like lobster ice cream: these twoflavors just don't belong. It's a betrayal of the thing's nature. Supermancan feel isolated, sure, as any self-reflective man-god is wont to, but he morethan any other character embodies the serial adventure spirit for me. There isnothing to him except uplift and frothy thrills and, dammit, if that's not goodenough for you then why do you like Superman? It's too late to re-invent himbecause he, of all superheroes, has remained both culturally prevalent andvirtually unaltered for most of a century.
This is my fear about Warner's using THE DARK KNIGHT as a model for all their DCUniverse movies. It might work sometimes (Green Arrow), but for the most partit seems pretty obviously wrong. IRON MAN was a success because it was happyto be "just" an adventure movie and more or less refused to engage with thedarker aspects of the character. Would it've banked like it did if it'd beenall about Stark's alcoholism? Or all about the spiritually corrosive world ofbig-business arms manufacture? Or all about the war on terror? I really doubtit would not have. In the same way, I don't think audiences would cotton to a SUPERMAN that focuses entirely on corrupting Supes' soul. But then Ithink...what if they make a nihilistic SUPERMAN...and what if it's a hit? Forme, it would be a toppling of one of the last standing American icons. Itwould be a sort of death knell for 20th century pop culture: a signal that thattime is truly past, and that most people don't miss it.
But here's some more concise answers to your questions.
1) My pick for director would be, I think, Peter Weir. Call it an odd choice,but he makes really well thought-out adventures on a large scale. Plus the guyjust does not get enough love.
2) Throwing out SUPERMAN RETURNS is smart. It had a pleasant sort ofgold-tinted nostalgia about it, but nostalgia is what comforts old people andputs them to sleep.
3) I think the reboot should take notes from the OLD cartoon. But I said thatalready.
4) Fuck Mark Millar. And his lies.
5) Most of the other DC characters suck and the only ones I really want to seeon screen are Green Arrow and The Flash. But given that Warner's has sorecently shit in Superman's bed, I think they should (a) finish Batman and (b)launch another character or two before trotting out the golden boy again.
Best,
Darren
Dear Devin,Please allow me one paragraph before I get to SUPERMAN, for I have a question. Devin: tell me. Are you Devin the Dude? Cause Devin's the Dude you'll probly hear me talkin bout. (Also, if you are Devin the Dude then I urge you to reconsider your stance on purple drink. It's fucking codeine, Dude. Codeine.)
Anyway, SUPERMAN REFUCKINGBOOT.
So, the thing that bothers me most about THE DARK KNIGHT is its much-ballyhooed "darkness". The film's "darkness" is constant and pervasive, turning what I thought would be an intense action flick into something that felt more like a grueling psychological horror film. But somehow, the "darkness" doesn't seemto have the impact on audiences that it should. A favorite comparison point ofmine is NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. I think the two films are remarkably similar,thematically speaking: they are both about an unstoppable tide of chaosovertaking society and the powerlessness of good men to stop it; the chaos ineach is anthropomorphized as an elemental and unknowable villain; the onlychance at survival in each comes from the flip of a coin; and every characterin both films are eventually tarnished by the choices they are forced to maketo survive. However, NO COUNTRY hits its audience like a sucker-punch. When Isaw that movie, the people I saw it with were literally too upset and disturbedto talk about it for an hour afterward. THE DARK KNIGHT, by comparison, pullsits punches: there are countless killings and maimings and yet virtually noon-screen blood; some of the most horrific acts of violence are played aspunchlines; and, basically, the film's caustic nihilism is glossed over, givena happy ending, and made to look pretty damn cool. The people who love THEDARK KNIGHT seem to dwell on how cool it is without pausing to think about howpointedly depraved it is as well.And this is with Batman, where darkness isone of the basic ingredients.
Now. Superman is (news flash!) Batman's antithesis. Superman is truth,justice, apple pie, your mother, and etc., and dammit, that works really wellfor the guy. My favorite Superman is the one from the old Fleischer cartoons,which is the only lasting version of Superman that allows him to be completelyunironic: he's just a big square-jawed idol who punches lots and lots of giantrobots, burns things with his eye lasers, and then gets the girl. And he doesit all without ever once mussing his spit-curl. Who could ask for more? It'sthe Saturday matinee spirit at its purest and best. As such, I think that mypersonal version of Superman would be a lot like SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OFTOMORROW. (Only I would have my actors act sometimes.)
But Warner's has threatened/promised to make Superman dark. BOOOOOO. HISSS. It seems to me that angsty Superman is like lobster ice cream: these twoflavors just don't belong. It's a betrayal of the thing's nature. Supermancan feel isolated, sure, as any self-reflective man-god is wont to, but he morethan any other character embodies the serial adventure spirit for me. There isnothing to him except uplift and frothy thrills and, dammit, if that's not goodenough for you then why do you like Superman? It's too late to re-invent himbecause he, of all superheroes, has remained both culturally prevalent andvirtually unaltered for most of a century.
This is my fear about Warner's using THE DARK KNIGHT as a model for all their DCUniverse movies. It might work sometimes (Green Arrow), but for the most partit seems pretty obviously wrong. IRON MAN was a success because it was happyto be "just" an adventure movie and more or less refused to engage with thedarker aspects of the character. Would it've banked like it did if it'd beenall about Stark's alcoholism? Or all about the spiritually corrosive world ofbig-business arms manufacture? Or all about the war on terror? I really doubtit would not have. In the same way, I don't think audiences would cotton to a SUPERMAN that focuses entirely on corrupting Supes' soul. But then Ithink...what if they make a nihilistic SUPERMAN...and what if it's a hit? Forme, it would be a toppling of one of the last standing American icons. Itwould be a sort of death knell for 20th century pop culture: a signal that thattime is truly past, and that most people don't miss it.
But here's some more concise answers to your questions.
1) My pick for director would be, I think, Peter Weir. Call it an odd choice,but he makes really well thought-out adventures on a large scale. Plus the guyjust does not get enough love.
2) Throwing out SUPERMAN RETURNS is smart. It had a pleasant sort ofgold-tinted nostalgia about it, but nostalgia is what comforts old people andputs them to sleep.
3) I think the reboot should take notes from the OLD cartoon. But I said thatalready.
4) Fuck Mark Millar. And his lies.
5) Most of the other DC characters suck and the only ones I really want to seeon screen are Green Arrow and The Flash. But given that Warner's has sorecently shit in Superman's bed, I think they should (a) finish Batman and (b)launch another character or two before trotting out the golden boy again.
Best,
Darren
Thanks for this opportunity to be a part of the site, the work put in by you and the team is much appreciated and having the chance to contribute in a more meaningful manner than screaming "FIRST!!!" or throwing insults around is very cool. Here's my two cents.
I think that your jumping off points were interesting, but they make more sense answered in a different order. Should Warner Bothers bother with Superman right now? Yes. He's the character that leads to all others, both in a historical context and in a moral context. What I mean is that, as is frequently stated in the hundreds of crossovers DC has rammed down our throats for years, he'd the standard by which the others heroes measure themselves, he's the beacon of all that a hero can and should be. In addition, Superman's purview is worldwide. From purely a business angle he makes the most sense because he doesn't have to stay in Metropolis, he is not defined by his city, and so he can go to other places, interact with other cultures, meet other heroes. Actually, Clark Kent is the perfect agent to introduce an audience to other DC characters and it would give Kent a legitimate reason to be on screen. Which brings us to the angle Superman Rebooted should take and whether Bryan Singer's film should be junked.
The comments recently by Jeff Robinov about "exploring the evil side to characters" are disheartening because Mr. Robinov seems to have missed a crucial distinction that Chris Nolan and many of the (successful) Marvel movies understand: you don't have to make the movies serious, you have to take them seriously. While Mr. Singer may have taken the job seriously his final product was poorly plotted fanfic and not even Superman fanfic: it was Richard Donner fanfic. The entire movie felt like a 13-year old's dream of what would have happened next with the slight problem of imagining things and then not knowing how to get out of dead-ends. So, yes, Superman Returns should be cast aside as a sequel to a series of films made thirty years ago. I'd go so far as to include it in a DVD box set with Superman 1-4 and not associate it with any others going forward. Superman Returns ends those films and should end all the themes from them. If they refuse to ignore that film, well, I'd piss off Alan Moore some more, steal the entire plot device from 'For the Man Who Has Everything' and throw 30 seconds of scenes from Returns when the Black Mercy attaches itself to Superman. God knows the whole film felt like a frigging nightmare to sit through.
The next Superman film, in my opinion, needs to be defined by what it doesn't have. No Lex Luthor. At least, not in a meaningful way. The threat has to be global. Galactic, even. I'd use Mongul. He poses a danger to the planet and to thousands of other planets. He can stand toe-to-toe with Superman, they could actually fight! The trick with Superman is always that the threat has to match his potential and the complaint is frequently that he doesn't do anything interesting except for lift things and then throw them into orbit or put them down in a safer place. Mongul offers the threat and his intelligence and abilities would force Superman to work harder to win.
Next, I'd bin the Clark Kent/Lois Lane dynamic. Throw her in the newsroom but no puppy-dog eyes from Kent, no stalking from Supes and no acting like a complete moron when she's around. Didn't Moonlighting show us how two characters can act when they're in love but don't admit it? And isn't that more fun than sub-par slapstick and cresting musical cues? Oh, and Jimmy Olson would not exist. At all.
The shadow of Batman is interesting for a future Superman film -- actually, I think it's interesting for Watchmen, but that's a different essay. As Mr. Robinov stated, they are "going to try and go dark to the extent that the characters will allow it." Superman can't go dark, it would be ridiculous and contrary to the character. But you can make his world a darker place and that in turn would make Superman shine as the beacon he's frequently written as being.
Ah, Mark Millar. A taste of fame goes to your head fast doesn't it, Mr. Millar? Enjoying the rush? Good. Now go shut up. As I frequently tell my kids, nobody likes someone who gloats and his statement reeks of a self-important puffed-up flavor of the moment blowing smoke up his own ass. If he's really got that clout and that deal lined up good for him. Try not to crow, alright?
Finally, the director. There's a really nasty part of me that doesn't think it matters. Superman doesn't lend himself to a singular vision, he is an archetype. I don't know his films allow a style to be imprinted on them by a director. And yet, if that were the case, Brett Ratner would be a fine choice. I'm not going to go there. You know who I think would be a good director for Superman? Mel Gibson. He's a foreigner who came to the US and made his career here. He can direct action, he knows iconography, he's not averse to effects but he's invested in characters. I'd float Mel Gibson.
My two cents turned into $14.87. Sorry about that, I didn't realize I cared that much about this topic. That's probably a sign of a good column, Devin, well done on a solid first choice. I look forward to see what the rest of the Chud faithful come up with.
Best,
Chris Cardno
Potomac, MD
CHUD POPULI: SUPERMAN REBOOTED (THE REPLIES) PAGE THREE
This sounds like a reaction to Marvel's public franchise plans stretching into the next decade. It feels like filmmakers don't know how to tackle Superman in the modern age--the Boy Scout who never lies is a hard concept for them to grasp without tacking on angst, yet the original concept of Superman worked in the cynical 70s. People like Superman because he's the embodiment of all-American optimism punishing evil in spite of a cynical world. When Superman at the end of the first film says, "Don't thank me, we're all part of the same team" before flying away, it's hard not to like the character and his values.
Personally, I think they should avoid Superman for a while, but part of me doesn't want the character to dwindle from the public's consciousness. The new film will go "dark," but if my armchair filmmaking skills landed me in the producer's chair, I would set it in the Depression Era 1940s with villains out of a Max Fleischer cartoon. Mobsters, mad scientists with boxy robots, and more. I'd tone down Superman's strength so that breaking chains and lifting cars was still an amazing feat.
I'd make it a hopeful, optimistic movie. The bad guys get what's coming to them, and there would be no force-fed social commentaries or cynicism. It would be an homage to the Golden Age of comics and a fictional look at a troubled time in America's history in which pulp heroes like Superman were born. Come to think of it, the Batman films could have been set in the same era, but then we wouldn't have as many explosions.
- Preston
I think either Alex Proyas, George Miller, or James Cameron would make awesome Superman movies. I think it is kind of a mistake dumping Singer and his crew, I felt confident that there would be a great sequel. I definitely think Mark Millar should write Superman, I love his idea of shooting them back to back. I also think WB should get started on Green Lantern!
-JACK
-JACK
Well, I'd go through the questions that you posed on the site one at a time, but I have something to make clear first: I think they oughtta just leave SUPERMAN alone. I think the character is incredibly boring, the villains are fucking lame, and every incarnation of the film has just seemed cheesy to me.
With that said, I know there are huge numbers of SUPERMAN fans out there, and maybe just as many fans of some of the films. But I've always found the character inherently boring. There's no real angst to the character to provide an interesting character arc. Oh, the Lois Lane/Clark Kent angst? Fuck that. Boring. Lois Lane is a boring, one note character who's storylines never provide anything worth scripting and filming. Oh, the "my planet blew up and I'm the only one of my kind" angst? Waaah, Supes. Once you get right down to it, there's not all that much worth saying with this character. You do the same shit, over and over, and when that's done, you fly around in circles to do it again. Cockfag.
And, lest we forget, the obstacles put in his way are always fucking weak (that's Cartman "weak", not strength-"weak"). There's a reason that almost all the films used Luthor as the main foil: the rest of Superman's villains are going to look absolutely retarded if filmed as live action characters. Brainiac? Try turning that dude into a moving image and not have every audience in the country comparing his head to a nutsack. Mr. Mxp(whateverspellingneededhere)? Retarded. Full retarded. Total Corky. Doomsday? Not unless you're killing off the franchise, WB, and even then it's gonna look dumber than a box full of Lohans. I know there's plenty more, but they all suck thick, veiny, moist dicks and are not worth mentioning.
Batman has cinematic villains with interesting, compelling backstories and attributes that make a well-done Batman film, well, kickass. I wanna see a Zodiac-killer style Riddler in the next one, for one thing. Or...well, I'll get to it in a second.
Sounds like the WB has misinterpreted the huge grosses of THE DARK KNIGHT into thinking that "dark" and "gloomy" are what made the film so fucking great. How is it that these imbeciles are running a major studio? That thing made $500+ million, but these are the fucktards that get to figure out how to spend it?! They have no idea why the film was successful. How are you going to apply that "dark and gloomy" tone to a Superman film, anyway? We got as close to that as possible with Singer's version, and that was the very definition of weak sauce. That movie bored me to tears and self-soiling.
So, yeah, I think they oughtta leave this property alone. Or, if you're really, really determined to get that caped lummox up on a film screen, pair him up with Batman in a VS. movie (how about adapting some of THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and having Supes be the villain? How's that for "dark and gloomy", you doucheboxes?) or, if you absolutely insist, in a Justic League movie. Which, by the way, will also likely suck. Sure, roll out the Martian Manhunter and see if he doesn't get laughed right the fuck off screen. I dare you. And this wetdream ya'll have been jerking yourselves off to about a WONDER WOMAN movie? Never gonna fucking happen. Again, same reason: It will look absolutely absurd if put on a film screen. Modify the costume and the jagoff storylines (an invisible jet? Fuck your mother), and then all you have is a roomfull of pissed off fans who didn't want their favorite heroine changed. They're the only ones that give a shit. And there's about 27 of them. Worldwide.
If you absolutely have to make another Supes movie (or, as that fuckmouth who made WANTED would have us believe, a fucking trilogy of new Supes movies), and you want that dark and gloomy pallette, go balls out.
Give David Lynch $190 million to make that trilogy, and don't check up on him at all. Don't look into his casting choices, script, dailies, anything. Just give him all that DARK KNIGHT money, twenty pounds of mushrooms, a camera, and let him disappear into Washington state for five years as he creates what would, in all likelihood, be a series of films an assfull more entertaining than anything anyone else will come up with.
Have Michael Stephenson, the little kid from TROLL 2, play Superman. Have Stanton LaVey-- grandson of Church of Satan founder Anton LaVey--play Luthor's brother, Cassius. Laura Dern's a shoe-in for Lois, and have here inexplicably change her hair color six times over the course of the film in between shots of children fucking bicycles in an empty warehouse that's on fire during a snowstorm in the 50's. Then have Roy Orbison's corpse play the new theme underwater, remixed by Fallout Boy (you know, for the kids).
This is box office gold I'm knocking out here, WB, listen up.
To answer the rest of your questions:
No, WB didn't make a mistake burying that fucking thing now that all their hype failed. Flick sucked, so what would we have them do? Insult us by repeatedly releasing "new" versions of it every 18 months with bullshit special features that only the most minutaue-hungry geek would care about? George "King Lord Smug Face" Lucas has that market cornered, people.
And, no, I don't believe Millar. I don't want to. WANTED was a taint punch.
Fuck this.
Love,
Scott
With that said, I know there are huge numbers of SUPERMAN fans out there, and maybe just as many fans of some of the films. But I've always found the character inherently boring. There's no real angst to the character to provide an interesting character arc. Oh, the Lois Lane/Clark Kent angst? Fuck that. Boring. Lois Lane is a boring, one note character who's storylines never provide anything worth scripting and filming. Oh, the "my planet blew up and I'm the only one of my kind" angst? Waaah, Supes. Once you get right down to it, there's not all that much worth saying with this character. You do the same shit, over and over, and when that's done, you fly around in circles to do it again. Cockfag.
And, lest we forget, the obstacles put in his way are always fucking weak (that's Cartman "weak", not strength-"weak"). There's a reason that almost all the films used Luthor as the main foil: the rest of Superman's villains are going to look absolutely retarded if filmed as live action characters. Brainiac? Try turning that dude into a moving image and not have every audience in the country comparing his head to a nutsack. Mr. Mxp(whateverspellingneededhere)? Retarded. Full retarded. Total Corky. Doomsday? Not unless you're killing off the franchise, WB, and even then it's gonna look dumber than a box full of Lohans. I know there's plenty more, but they all suck thick, veiny, moist dicks and are not worth mentioning.
Batman has cinematic villains with interesting, compelling backstories and attributes that make a well-done Batman film, well, kickass. I wanna see a Zodiac-killer style Riddler in the next one, for one thing. Or...well, I'll get to it in a second.
Sounds like the WB has misinterpreted the huge grosses of THE DARK KNIGHT into thinking that "dark" and "gloomy" are what made the film so fucking great. How is it that these imbeciles are running a major studio? That thing made $500+ million, but these are the fucktards that get to figure out how to spend it?! They have no idea why the film was successful. How are you going to apply that "dark and gloomy" tone to a Superman film, anyway? We got as close to that as possible with Singer's version, and that was the very definition of weak sauce. That movie bored me to tears and self-soiling.
So, yeah, I think they oughtta leave this property alone. Or, if you're really, really determined to get that caped lummox up on a film screen, pair him up with Batman in a VS. movie (how about adapting some of THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and having Supes be the villain? How's that for "dark and gloomy", you doucheboxes?) or, if you absolutely insist, in a Justic League movie. Which, by the way, will also likely suck. Sure, roll out the Martian Manhunter and see if he doesn't get laughed right the fuck off screen. I dare you. And this wetdream ya'll have been jerking yourselves off to about a WONDER WOMAN movie? Never gonna fucking happen. Again, same reason: It will look absolutely absurd if put on a film screen. Modify the costume and the jagoff storylines (an invisible jet? Fuck your mother), and then all you have is a roomfull of pissed off fans who didn't want their favorite heroine changed. They're the only ones that give a shit. And there's about 27 of them. Worldwide.
If you absolutely have to make another Supes movie (or, as that fuckmouth who made WANTED would have us believe, a fucking trilogy of new Supes movies), and you want that dark and gloomy pallette, go balls out.
Give David Lynch $190 million to make that trilogy, and don't check up on him at all. Don't look into his casting choices, script, dailies, anything. Just give him all that DARK KNIGHT money, twenty pounds of mushrooms, a camera, and let him disappear into Washington state for five years as he creates what would, in all likelihood, be a series of films an assfull more entertaining than anything anyone else will come up with.
Have Michael Stephenson, the little kid from TROLL 2, play Superman. Have Stanton LaVey-- grandson of Church of Satan founder Anton LaVey--play Luthor's brother, Cassius. Laura Dern's a shoe-in for Lois, and have here inexplicably change her hair color six times over the course of the film in between shots of children fucking bicycles in an empty warehouse that's on fire during a snowstorm in the 50's. Then have Roy Orbison's corpse play the new theme underwater, remixed by Fallout Boy (you know, for the kids).
This is box office gold I'm knocking out here, WB, listen up.
To answer the rest of your questions:
No, WB didn't make a mistake burying that fucking thing now that all their hype failed. Flick sucked, so what would we have them do? Insult us by repeatedly releasing "new" versions of it every 18 months with bullshit special features that only the most minutaue-hungry geek would care about? George "King Lord Smug Face" Lucas has that market cornered, people.
And, no, I don't believe Millar. I don't want to. WANTED was a taint punch.
Fuck this.
Love,
Scott
Regardless of who directs the movie, I'd like to see Superman take a more realistic tone. They also need to move away from using Lex Luther, who has become a tired and wimpy villain. Instead there should be gigantic battles where Superman can truly use his powers. Let's have giant robots, evil aliens and even demonic characters!!!! So much for realistic! LOL
Cheers,
Rolando E. Corujo
Cheers,
Rolando E. Corujo
Hi, Devin.
I had written a CHUD blog a while back on why I thought disregarding Singer's film is a mistake. The link is this:
http://chud.com/articles/blogs/855/A-not-so-Super-idea-.html
But I'll repeat my argument here, if that is easier:
First off, this would be a reboot practically on top of a reboot. Now I know the argument will be that "The Incredible Hulk" was also, coming just five years after Ang Lee's "Hulk" movie. But the 2003 "Hulk" was a self-contained story that was not especially well received by audiences. There was no built-in audience base, in the sense that a "Hulk" movie had not been tried before. How much the character would appeal to moviegoers was uncertain. When the movie flopped, it was easier to forget a one-time failed experiment and start fresh, as opposed to a situation involving a long-established franchise.
That's why, with "Superman," it's a different story. The first two Christopher Reeve films did such a tremendous job of telling the origin story and making the character popular with filmgoers. I'm one of the few people, I think, who enjoyed "Superman Returns," because I get what Bryan Singer was trying to do. He realized that what made those first two movies special was what went on in between the action sequences. The stories had heart.
The extent to which Singer succeeded in imbuing his 2006 movie with that quality can be debated. Indeed, "Returns" has its share of problems. The biggest, I thought, was that Kate Bosworth was miscast as Lois Lane. Since they were trying to make this a continuation of the earlier films, they needed someone who at least suggested the spunky quality of Margot Kidder, which Bosworth totally does not. Not in the way Brandon Routh creepily resembled Reeve, or Kevin Spacey sometimes evoked Gene Hackman.
So when people talk about the need for a "Superman" film with amped-up action at the expense of everything else, that strikes me as such a boring prospect, because although the action and spectacle are important, they are not the only reason that the previous movies have worked. Maybe we just need to see Supes doing different kinds of things. Lifting heavy objects like the plunging airplane -- OK, we've seen that before in the previous films. Luthor's wacky real estate scheme -- OK, we've seen that before in the previous films.
A reboot is not automatically the answer. If that were the case, they could have done a reboot in 2006 to erase the memory of the disastrous third and fourth "Superman" films. But enough time had passed where that was not an issue.
If Hollywood insists on a reboot, then it would be wise to wait at least 10 years or so, if not longer. But I think Singer and Routh were on the right track the first time. Maybe the issue is that audiences have changed, and those who flock to the movies now are not the same demographic, necessarily, that went to see the Reeve movies years ago. The expectation has become one of more spectacle, more faster-paced storytelling for people with shorter attention spans.
I think Routh did a good enough job, and showed sufficient promise of growing into the role, that he and Singer should be given another chance. Don't just throw another reboot at us. Let them make "The Man of Steel" -- and if that one does not work, then maybe it is time to just let Superman go.
And as far as whether the "Dark Knight" approach is the way to go, I hesitate to paint with a broad brush -- meaning, the approach that works for one character is not necessarily the way to go with every character. Batman, by nature, is dark and disturbing. Superman is not. You have to be true to the character and the source material, not just take a "successful template" and try to force the material to fit it. Remember what happened when Tim Burton tried to take a "Burtonesque" story and force the Batman characters and situations to fit it? We wound up with "Batman Returns." It was an interesting film on many levels, but not something I'd consider genuine Batman.
And yes, I think Superman is worth bothering with. He's the signature character of DC Comics, and judging by the movies and various TV incarnations, is still quite popular. There is an audience for a good movie with a compelling, well told, heartfelt story.
Anyway, thanks for hearing me out. Hope you use some of this.
Ron
I had written a CHUD blog a while back on why I thought disregarding Singer's film is a mistake. The link is this:
http://chud.com/articles/blogs/855/A-not-so-Super-idea-.html
But I'll repeat my argument here, if that is easier:
First off, this would be a reboot practically on top of a reboot. Now I know the argument will be that "The Incredible Hulk" was also, coming just five years after Ang Lee's "Hulk" movie. But the 2003 "Hulk" was a self-contained story that was not especially well received by audiences. There was no built-in audience base, in the sense that a "Hulk" movie had not been tried before. How much the character would appeal to moviegoers was uncertain. When the movie flopped, it was easier to forget a one-time failed experiment and start fresh, as opposed to a situation involving a long-established franchise.
That's why, with "Superman," it's a different story. The first two Christopher Reeve films did such a tremendous job of telling the origin story and making the character popular with filmgoers. I'm one of the few people, I think, who enjoyed "Superman Returns," because I get what Bryan Singer was trying to do. He realized that what made those first two movies special was what went on in between the action sequences. The stories had heart.
The extent to which Singer succeeded in imbuing his 2006 movie with that quality can be debated. Indeed, "Returns" has its share of problems. The biggest, I thought, was that Kate Bosworth was miscast as Lois Lane. Since they were trying to make this a continuation of the earlier films, they needed someone who at least suggested the spunky quality of Margot Kidder, which Bosworth totally does not. Not in the way Brandon Routh creepily resembled Reeve, or Kevin Spacey sometimes evoked Gene Hackman.
So when people talk about the need for a "Superman" film with amped-up action at the expense of everything else, that strikes me as such a boring prospect, because although the action and spectacle are important, they are not the only reason that the previous movies have worked. Maybe we just need to see Supes doing different kinds of things. Lifting heavy objects like the plunging airplane -- OK, we've seen that before in the previous films. Luthor's wacky real estate scheme -- OK, we've seen that before in the previous films.
A reboot is not automatically the answer. If that were the case, they could have done a reboot in 2006 to erase the memory of the disastrous third and fourth "Superman" films. But enough time had passed where that was not an issue.
If Hollywood insists on a reboot, then it would be wise to wait at least 10 years or so, if not longer. But I think Singer and Routh were on the right track the first time. Maybe the issue is that audiences have changed, and those who flock to the movies now are not the same demographic, necessarily, that went to see the Reeve movies years ago. The expectation has become one of more spectacle, more faster-paced storytelling for people with shorter attention spans.
I think Routh did a good enough job, and showed sufficient promise of growing into the role, that he and Singer should be given another chance. Don't just throw another reboot at us. Let them make "The Man of Steel" -- and if that one does not work, then maybe it is time to just let Superman go.
And as far as whether the "Dark Knight" approach is the way to go, I hesitate to paint with a broad brush -- meaning, the approach that works for one character is not necessarily the way to go with every character. Batman, by nature, is dark and disturbing. Superman is not. You have to be true to the character and the source material, not just take a "successful template" and try to force the material to fit it. Remember what happened when Tim Burton tried to take a "Burtonesque" story and force the Batman characters and situations to fit it? We wound up with "Batman Returns." It was an interesting film on many levels, but not something I'd consider genuine Batman.
And yes, I think Superman is worth bothering with. He's the signature character of DC Comics, and judging by the movies and various TV incarnations, is still quite popular. There is an audience for a good movie with a compelling, well told, heartfelt story.
Anyway, thanks for hearing me out. Hope you use some of this.
Ron
While I have my misgivings with Superman Returns, and while, no, it didn't make as much money as the studio expected, I don't think at all a reboot is the answer. Richard Donner's Superman is a classic that set the standard for superhero movies, and any reboot (i.e. remake) wouldn't do the character(s) any justice, as Donner treated each character with the respect and flippant sense of fun that defined those characters at the time the movie was made. The reboot to the Batman series was necessary as there were still so many unanswered questions about the character in terms of how he was portrayed in film, and the sequels had gotten worse and worse and worse. Superman, though, seems a character whose origin is so well-known that he doesn't need to be "reintroduced" to today's audiences. And if Superman Returns failed, it was because there was no real action, which is what every superhero movie needs to have. It shouldn't be a question of rebooting the character as much as it is just providing interesting adversaries that can work thematically into the story (such as Sam Raimi's handling of Spider-Man's adversaries, or Christopher Nolan using the Batman rogues to emphasize the themes in his Batman series). Continually using a depiction of Lex Luthor that became outdated back in the mid-1980's? Not developing Clark Kent into something more than the equivalent of a goofy, bumbling nerd? Not accessing Superman's more formidable rogues: Conduit? Metallo? Darkseid? InterGang? Doomsday? Parasite? Hell, even throw in Toyman as a minor character, turn him into the child molestor he's portrayed as in the comics today if DC wants to go "dark and brooding". And if they really want to make things interesting, while retaining Lex Luthor as one of the main villains, why not introduce Bizarro and show his origin? Or even Mxypltz? Warners and DC need to move the series in another direction, not backtrack and tread ground that has already been covered damn-near perfectly 30 years ago. Going "dark and brooding" won't work, as Superman isn't dark, brooding, or realistic at all. The Dark Knight worked well (except in Japan) because all of the elements that make the character popular were respected and augmented. That same approach needs to be done with Superman: not a reboot, not a "reintroduction", but an evolution of the series that makes audiences interested again. We don't want to continually watch Superman lifting up heavy crap. We want to see him struggle. That's why Superman Returns wasn't as exciting or successful as it needed to be: there was no suspense, no threat. That needs to change. (But keep Routh and Spacey ---should Luthor return--- they were perfect, and in the hands of more determined directors, their portrayals could become vastly more interesting). Also, as a final note, creating a sense of contunity within the DC film universe, like what Marvel is doing, would be great fun, even if it were just references to other characters or the events depicted in their films (Clark and Lois work in a newspaper...why wouldn't theycover those stories?)
Hopefully enough filmgoers (not just fanboys, but genuine filmgoers) will feel the same way. We want to see this character on the screen again. We really do.
mr. bond440
Hopefully enough filmgoers (not just fanboys, but genuine filmgoers) will feel the same way. We want to see this character on the screen again. We really do.
mr. bond440
Devin,
My thoughts on the Superman concept as a franchise are not in one camp or another. While the "soft" reboot Bryan Singer did with Brandon Routh in the lead wasn't up to everyone's expectations, I think those expectations are largely what ended up sinking the film theatrically. Singer had already proven his ability to manage a comic-based property with the first two X-Men films, and managed to get together a reasonably solid cast for his Superman (Spacey, Langella, an otherwise-unknown who looked and delivered lines quite like Reeve did) while hewing pretty closely to the first two films from which he was inspired (which was his intent from the get-go, as he had said in interviews that the Donner film and the 3/4 Donner sequel was what he wanted to try to build off of for his own). I think he largely succeeded, in that the style of Superman Returns was a lot like Donner's.
That being said, I can definitely see where some people would have issues with the film, as the Lois/Superman lovechild was definitely something that should not have been made possible by the second Superman film. I can also see the problem that people have with Superman, in the same scene, speaking as if he is taking responsibility for his son, and then leaving him. Had that subplot been removed, I think the film could've stood far better on its own merits. Luthor's plot in the film is just as goofy as anything in the first two films or the comics. A nuke on a fault line is more plausible than using crystals to build a continent where Superman can' t get him, but still, it is a pretty smart plan, given the fake science involved.
The other main issue people seemed to have is that mostly Superman just lifted things or used his strength to solve the crises at hand. In all fairness, I think the airplane rescue was a great sequence that showed just what he could do, however I think it would've shown him as far more an altruistic savior if Lois hadn't been on the plane, and still would've been as thrilling.
All in all, I personally think that the most important part of the film, the feel, was there. It felt like Superman; far more than any Nic Cage-starring abortion could've. Far more than several of the other possible concepts surrounding the character. Including Superman 4.
And I don't think that Brandon Routh was the biggest problem in the film; I think Singer's instinct conflicting with his own nostalgia got in the way. He went about it from a reverent, Donner-fan angle, but didn't know when to let his own style take over and add to the proceedings. I know this sounds like I'm conflicting myself from earlier about the "feel" of the film, but the film's biggest flaw is that it came off seeming like Singer didn't know whether he wanted to mimic Donner or let himself take the reigns in some scenes. The best example is the scene where (spoiler) Superman flies the kryptonite continent to space, expending his last bit of energy, and falls to earth. Mimicing Donner, Singer would've followed Superman from a mid-range wide shot, and let the earth come to meet him, with a loud crack of earth. Instead, we get a limp Superman hurtling downward, only cutting to a wide shot of the park where he slams into the earth, with a dulled and suppressed thud and a bit of dust, and no image of the crash site.
Again I need to reiterate that overall I did like this film, and honestly would've liked to see Singer give it another go, expanding on the story he started/continued, and maybe fixing some of the problems he brought to Superman Returns. He's a directorial talent who just got lost in nostalgia when it came time to figure his own film out.
-Sean Beattie
My thoughts on the Superman concept as a franchise are not in one camp or another. While the "soft" reboot Bryan Singer did with Brandon Routh in the lead wasn't up to everyone's expectations, I think those expectations are largely what ended up sinking the film theatrically. Singer had already proven his ability to manage a comic-based property with the first two X-Men films, and managed to get together a reasonably solid cast for his Superman (Spacey, Langella, an otherwise-unknown who looked and delivered lines quite like Reeve did) while hewing pretty closely to the first two films from which he was inspired (which was his intent from the get-go, as he had said in interviews that the Donner film and the 3/4 Donner sequel was what he wanted to try to build off of for his own). I think he largely succeeded, in that the style of Superman Returns was a lot like Donner's.
That being said, I can definitely see where some people would have issues with the film, as the Lois/Superman lovechild was definitely something that should not have been made possible by the second Superman film. I can also see the problem that people have with Superman, in the same scene, speaking as if he is taking responsibility for his son, and then leaving him. Had that subplot been removed, I think the film could've stood far better on its own merits. Luthor's plot in the film is just as goofy as anything in the first two films or the comics. A nuke on a fault line is more plausible than using crystals to build a continent where Superman can' t get him, but still, it is a pretty smart plan, given the fake science involved.
The other main issue people seemed to have is that mostly Superman just lifted things or used his strength to solve the crises at hand. In all fairness, I think the airplane rescue was a great sequence that showed just what he could do, however I think it would've shown him as far more an altruistic savior if Lois hadn't been on the plane, and still would've been as thrilling.
All in all, I personally think that the most important part of the film, the feel, was there. It felt like Superman; far more than any Nic Cage-starring abortion could've. Far more than several of the other possible concepts surrounding the character. Including Superman 4.
And I don't think that Brandon Routh was the biggest problem in the film; I think Singer's instinct conflicting with his own nostalgia got in the way. He went about it from a reverent, Donner-fan angle, but didn't know when to let his own style take over and add to the proceedings. I know this sounds like I'm conflicting myself from earlier about the "feel" of the film, but the film's biggest flaw is that it came off seeming like Singer didn't know whether he wanted to mimic Donner or let himself take the reigns in some scenes. The best example is the scene where (spoiler) Superman flies the kryptonite continent to space, expending his last bit of energy, and falls to earth. Mimicing Donner, Singer would've followed Superman from a mid-range wide shot, and let the earth come to meet him, with a loud crack of earth. Instead, we get a limp Superman hurtling downward, only cutting to a wide shot of the park where he slams into the earth, with a dulled and suppressed thud and a bit of dust, and no image of the crash site.
Again I need to reiterate that overall I did like this film, and honestly would've liked to see Singer give it another go, expanding on the story he started/continued, and maybe fixing some of the problems he brought to Superman Returns. He's a directorial talent who just got lost in nostalgia when it came time to figure his own film out.
-Sean Beattie
Hey Devin, my thoughts here…
I’m not a massive fan of Superman as a character, I think his time has come and gone and needs some serious re-invention to “fit” the world we live in today – if in fact that is a direction that is worth going in. My ideas below are from the perspective of taking Superman “out” of our world “today” because with events like Terroism, 9/11 and the recent direction of US policys (and from my perspective, their effect on the world) I can’t seriously see a Superman “fitting” into the new millennium as a character that is going to resonate with Audiences in the way, Batman or Iron-Man have. They “Fit” into a darker world, a REAL world. Superman doesn’t, he’s NOT a dark character, he’s a character invented to lighten Dark Times, to bring a sense of ‘Fantasy’ to the real world and right now, I don’t think cinema-goers are LOOKING for fantasy for escapism anymore.
Which I way I think a Superman re-invention needs to occur in the Past.
They way I would approach a re-boot would be an older Superman, perhaps even a dying Superman reliving his “greater” years in the past. I’d do a period Superman basically. Perhaps during a WWII setting, that way you can build on some great fantasy Nazi elements (Ala Indiana Jones) and not have to rely on the crux of a Lex Luthor or “Space Alien” type characters. You can do it “real” but perhaps in an alternative “Fantasy” Universe.
Here’s my answers to your questions given that initial premise
Who do you think would be the best director to tackle Superman Rebooted?
A period Superman only two directors come to mind that could fufill that type of “Vision”
First up would be Martin Scorsese. It’s a genre of film he’s never done to begin with, and I think Fanboys would salivate at the thoughts of the little master putting his “spin” on not only a comic-book franchise, but a revisionist tale of Superman during a war-period. You could build into the script themes that would resonate with todays “war on terror” environment, whilst still having Superman kick-arse…against Nazis! He would be my number one choice, he’s done period pieces before and approaching it from a pseudo-real-world type angle, you’d have a great story-telling director who can still handle a great action set-piece or two. Unfortunately, you wouldn’t get him for a 3 picture-type deal…so you’d need to do a “Harry Potter” or “Bond’ and build on what was set up from there.
…my other choice to direct such a ‘style’ of superman would be Martin Campbell. Lets face it, he’s a SOLID director. He knows action set-pieces, he KNOWS how to re-boot a franchise and he KNOWS how to create a character (Bond) who is timeless and re-invent him from a “no specific-time period” type angle. Casino Royale showed he can handle action scences whilst still keeping Bond in a pseudo “world-without-a-period” look. He was classic bond, had technology but wasn’t quite “of this time” in a lot of scenes he could’ve been in the 60s or the 2000’s. I think Martin Campbell is the other obvious choice to re-boot a Superman ‘period’ piece, if not a contemporary Superman
Do you think Warner Bros is making a mistake in junking Bryan Singer's film/
The mistake Warners (and Singers Script) made is they were basically doing a style of film that was connected to an 80’s style of Superman – but placing him in todays environment where Superman is unfortunately, a little unbelieveable (given how close it was released to events in Iraq etc). Superman just doesn’t work in that environment anymore, and having a gutless Superman moping about lost loves and who has “been gone” for a long time, just doesn’t work. He wasn’t there when earth needed him most (9/11) if anything, Singer could’ve riffed on that motif more, rather than stalking Lois. So no, I think forgetting the Singer fan-film piece is for the best.
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?
As I said above, I view Superman taking place from a flashback perspective during a WWII period, if they’re going to go for a Trilogy I think the first movie should start off with Superman being killed by an “unseen” enemy. You then flashback to a WWII period where Superman “arrives” on earth, you briskly move through a basic “revisionist” origin story and how Superman battles with is he on the right side of the war. Ends up helping the “Allies” take on the Nazi’s in the war – that sort of thing.
That’s film One, film two is during the end of WWII where Superman is battling with his decisions during the war and the rise of Lex Luthor, who’s been profiteering from the previous War. Perhaps he’s now working on his own super-weapon and funding peoples efforts to re-take the globe, that sort of thing. Superman is helping re-build the US and then BAM, Peal harbour occurs and Superman is pushed back into a war he’s not sure he wants to be a part of again. The film ends when Superman decides he doesn’t want to be pawn in the plots of the US Government anymore, so they decide to drop “The Bomb” to end the war. All of a sudden, Superman realises his decisions have consequences and what he thought he did for the good of Humanity, ended up being a greater threat.
Film Three picks up again “today”, with Superman having being gone for many years – the decisions during the war forced him into hiding and lives his life as “Clark Kent” (I ideally see the “Clark Kent” character being a minor hardly-seen role in the first two-films. Lets focus solely on Superman for those). He’s still wrestling with his decision to not get himself involved in world events since “the Bomb” and the war on terror has all-but forced him to abandon Superman All together.
This is when Lex comes back into the story, as an old man who’s “perfected” the weapon (or whatever) he began in film two turns out to be an “alternate” (perhaps cloned?) “Superman” to protect the world, but one who is under his control, who does his bidding and ultimately, is just being used to push Lex’s agenda on the world.
The film would end with a huge battle between the two “Super-men” and ultimately end with the real Superman prevailing and the flashbacks from Film 1 turn out to be a “dream” of the young Clark Kent during WWII as he forsee’s his future – which is where the film ends with the young Superman stepping out from his “Spaceship” that has just crashlanded in a small farm during that time period. The 3 films come full circle and you end the last, with the beginning of the first.
Basically, you turn Superman GLOBAL rather than US-bound. You put him in extreme situations where he has to battle his own inner-feelings of is he just being USED by the US and their allies rather than making his own choices. Along with an EPIC tale throughout Time placing Superman at the forefront of real-life events.
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?
No, he’s full of crap.
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?
Given the right approach, I think Superman needs to become relevant again and could be a great money-maker but you need to have the right “Superman” story to tell. No necesscarily using a comic-book ark that exists but building on the great storys and the “Theme” of Superman, but giving him something NEW to do. Something people wouldn’t expect.
Andrew
I’m not a massive fan of Superman as a character, I think his time has come and gone and needs some serious re-invention to “fit” the world we live in today – if in fact that is a direction that is worth going in. My ideas below are from the perspective of taking Superman “out” of our world “today” because with events like Terroism, 9/11 and the recent direction of US policys (and from my perspective, their effect on the world) I can’t seriously see a Superman “fitting” into the new millennium as a character that is going to resonate with Audiences in the way, Batman or Iron-Man have. They “Fit” into a darker world, a REAL world. Superman doesn’t, he’s NOT a dark character, he’s a character invented to lighten Dark Times, to bring a sense of ‘Fantasy’ to the real world and right now, I don’t think cinema-goers are LOOKING for fantasy for escapism anymore.
Which I way I think a Superman re-invention needs to occur in the Past.
They way I would approach a re-boot would be an older Superman, perhaps even a dying Superman reliving his “greater” years in the past. I’d do a period Superman basically. Perhaps during a WWII setting, that way you can build on some great fantasy Nazi elements (Ala Indiana Jones) and not have to rely on the crux of a Lex Luthor or “Space Alien” type characters. You can do it “real” but perhaps in an alternative “Fantasy” Universe.
Here’s my answers to your questions given that initial premise
Who do you think would be the best director to tackle Superman Rebooted?
A period Superman only two directors come to mind that could fufill that type of “Vision”
First up would be Martin Scorsese. It’s a genre of film he’s never done to begin with, and I think Fanboys would salivate at the thoughts of the little master putting his “spin” on not only a comic-book franchise, but a revisionist tale of Superman during a war-period. You could build into the script themes that would resonate with todays “war on terror” environment, whilst still having Superman kick-arse…against Nazis! He would be my number one choice, he’s done period pieces before and approaching it from a pseudo-real-world type angle, you’d have a great story-telling director who can still handle a great action set-piece or two. Unfortunately, you wouldn’t get him for a 3 picture-type deal…so you’d need to do a “Harry Potter” or “Bond’ and build on what was set up from there.
…my other choice to direct such a ‘style’ of superman would be Martin Campbell. Lets face it, he’s a SOLID director. He knows action set-pieces, he KNOWS how to re-boot a franchise and he KNOWS how to create a character (Bond) who is timeless and re-invent him from a “no specific-time period” type angle. Casino Royale showed he can handle action scences whilst still keeping Bond in a pseudo “world-without-a-period” look. He was classic bond, had technology but wasn’t quite “of this time” in a lot of scenes he could’ve been in the 60s or the 2000’s. I think Martin Campbell is the other obvious choice to re-boot a Superman ‘period’ piece, if not a contemporary Superman
Do you think Warner Bros is making a mistake in junking Bryan Singer's film/
The mistake Warners (and Singers Script) made is they were basically doing a style of film that was connected to an 80’s style of Superman – but placing him in todays environment where Superman is unfortunately, a little unbelieveable (given how close it was released to events in Iraq etc). Superman just doesn’t work in that environment anymore, and having a gutless Superman moping about lost loves and who has “been gone” for a long time, just doesn’t work. He wasn’t there when earth needed him most (9/11) if anything, Singer could’ve riffed on that motif more, rather than stalking Lois. So no, I think forgetting the Singer fan-film piece is for the best.
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?
As I said above, I view Superman taking place from a flashback perspective during a WWII period, if they’re going to go for a Trilogy I think the first movie should start off with Superman being killed by an “unseen” enemy. You then flashback to a WWII period where Superman “arrives” on earth, you briskly move through a basic “revisionist” origin story and how Superman battles with is he on the right side of the war. Ends up helping the “Allies” take on the Nazi’s in the war – that sort of thing.
That’s film One, film two is during the end of WWII where Superman is battling with his decisions during the war and the rise of Lex Luthor, who’s been profiteering from the previous War. Perhaps he’s now working on his own super-weapon and funding peoples efforts to re-take the globe, that sort of thing. Superman is helping re-build the US and then BAM, Peal harbour occurs and Superman is pushed back into a war he’s not sure he wants to be a part of again. The film ends when Superman decides he doesn’t want to be pawn in the plots of the US Government anymore, so they decide to drop “The Bomb” to end the war. All of a sudden, Superman realises his decisions have consequences and what he thought he did for the good of Humanity, ended up being a greater threat.
Film Three picks up again “today”, with Superman having being gone for many years – the decisions during the war forced him into hiding and lives his life as “Clark Kent” (I ideally see the “Clark Kent” character being a minor hardly-seen role in the first two-films. Lets focus solely on Superman for those). He’s still wrestling with his decision to not get himself involved in world events since “the Bomb” and the war on terror has all-but forced him to abandon Superman All together.
This is when Lex comes back into the story, as an old man who’s “perfected” the weapon (or whatever) he began in film two turns out to be an “alternate” (perhaps cloned?) “Superman” to protect the world, but one who is under his control, who does his bidding and ultimately, is just being used to push Lex’s agenda on the world.
The film would end with a huge battle between the two “Super-men” and ultimately end with the real Superman prevailing and the flashbacks from Film 1 turn out to be a “dream” of the young Clark Kent during WWII as he forsee’s his future – which is where the film ends with the young Superman stepping out from his “Spaceship” that has just crashlanded in a small farm during that time period. The 3 films come full circle and you end the last, with the beginning of the first.
Basically, you turn Superman GLOBAL rather than US-bound. You put him in extreme situations where he has to battle his own inner-feelings of is he just being USED by the US and their allies rather than making his own choices. Along with an EPIC tale throughout Time placing Superman at the forefront of real-life events.
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?
No, he’s full of crap.
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?
Given the right approach, I think Superman needs to become relevant again and could be a great money-maker but you need to have the right “Superman” story to tell. No necesscarily using a comic-book ark that exists but building on the great storys and the “Theme” of Superman, but giving him something NEW to do. Something people wouldn’t expect.
Andrew