Henry Cavill is Zack Snyder's Superman [Archive]

Darth Sinister

10-20-2007, 10:50 PM

New update from Voices From Krypton.com

VOICES FROM KRYPTON: There are so many rumors on the Internet, including that Bryan Singer’s Man of Steel is not happening. Is that film still on the table?

GREGORY NOVECK: Oh, yeah, absolutely.

VOICES FROM KRYPTON: Well, the word is that it’s been put on “indefinite hold” because of Justice League.

GREGORY NOVECK: That’s not true. The reason that Justice League is powering forward first is because the script came in and it was phenomenal.

VOICES FROM KRYPTON: It’s really that good?

GREGORY NOVECK: It is, and that very rarely happens in Hollywood on a movie of this scale, and when it does you have no choice but to say, “We’d better catch lightning in a bottle and go!” All of a sudden, six months later, who knows what’s going to happen? You want to hold on to those writers, you’ve got massive interest from directors, you land someone like George Miller, so you go. And in the middle of it all, you’ve got Bryan going off to make another movie, which was a passion project of his. When he comes back, we’ll dive right in to Man of Steel. We’re scripting and it’s going to happen. We’re not going to make it until the script is great, but we’ll get there one way or the other and it’s not going to take nine years.

VOICES FROM KRYPTON: I think Bryan has said this himself, but the difference between Superman Returns and Man of Steel needs to be the difference between Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Wrath of Khan.

GREGORY NOVECK: I think that’s accurate, absolutely. But I think what Superman Returns did was that, at the very least, it brought the character back to the forefront and got people talking about him. The thing with Batman is that Batman will always be cool because he’s an iteration of your Id. He a cool, dark character who has the cool toys, has no remorse and yet there’s a moral line that he won’t cross. Plus he’s got a great, tragic back story. You never have to worry about Batman going out of style because of those elements. With Superman there’s always that thing that he’s not cool anymore, he’s got the blue suit and the red cape and he’s such a product of his era. How do you update it? But I think one of the things that Bryan was really successful at conveying in the movie, is that you don’t need to update that. It’s iconography that’s so universal at this point, that you just have to maintain it. Now does that mean you can have a more action-packed story and play up the relationships? Of course, but it doesn’t mean let’s have Versace design the cape.

VOICES FROM KRYPTON: And you don’t have to, as Jon Peters tried to do for 10 years, get him out of the costume or depower him.

GREGORY NOVECK: No, because I think the minute you do that, you’ve screwed up and it’s no longer Superman. That was the problem with so much of the development of the project for years.

VOICES FROM KRYPTON: I liked Superman Returns, but like I said, I should have loved it and I couldn’t.

GREGORY NOVECK: Look, I totally understand the criticism. For me, it was such a struggle to get to that point and I thank God every day that Bryan said, “I want to do it,” because he at least came in with a respect for the character.

So it is happening.

Gringo Loco

10-20-2007, 11:27 PM

Wow, that write up got me excited about the new Justice League movie. So will Brandon Routh and Christian Bale make an appearance?

DRE

10-21-2007, 12:16 AM

I think if Justice League is a smash then this film is done for. Nolan has done such a wonderful job that his trilogy is safe, but with Singer's film not doing as well as they'd hoped it seems to be the WB is on the fence about.

It's the reason they went with JL over MOS in the first place, which was supposed to be the 2009 tentpole. I don't know how much hope I myself have for Justice League though.

The Dark Vampire

10-21-2007, 12:26 AM

I think MOS will be made Superman will always pull in a good crowd I highly doubt SR was the last Superman solo movie we will see.

DRE

10-21-2007, 12:37 AM

Of course not, but they may spin their Justice League Superman off instead of continuing from Returns, which is why I at least hoped they stuck with one of their two current Supermen.

NW77

10-21-2007, 03:06 AM

I disagree that MoS won't happend. And SR performance at the box office has nothing to do with JLA IMO. Batman Begins didn't even made a lot either & the sequel to it is almost here. Not to mention if SR is the reason JLA is being made with Supes in it, then why is Batman is in it?.The way I see it, they made JLA after the success of X-Men. It possible they notice the box office performance of the X-Men films, that they want to do the same thing with JLA. I think MoS is just taking a break for JLA & it will come out in either 2010 or 2011.

DRE

10-21-2007, 03:30 AM

We will see.

Darth Sinister

10-21-2007, 04:03 AM

"Superman Returns" made the $200 million that WB cited as a requirement for making "The Man Of Steel". Singer is known for making a sequel that surpasses the original in many ways. This film won't have as big a budget and it won't have to deal with the ten years spent in developmental hell, complete with contract clauses for certain folks such as Nic Cage. They're not using Welling because he is not Superman, he is Clark Kent. And while Routh isn't being used, as pointed out by Noveck, Miller wants to use his own actors rather than Bale or Routh.

DRE

10-21-2007, 04:23 AM

Scarecrow

10-21-2007, 08:20 AM

A bit too obvious a title IMO. Personally, I want to see a return for Nuclear Man. :p ;)

- Scarecrow

sickboy

10-21-2007, 10:58 AM

Sod MoS, I want Elisha Cuthbert as Supergirl...

Just Jeans

10-21-2007, 01:16 PM

The Man of Steel is going to happen. Superman Returns was too successful for it not to (it was a slow burn, but all told it made over $200 million, and with the promise of more action, the sequel will probably do even better.) There's no way they're going to dump the project simply because Justice League does well (if indeed it does do well.) If anything, I would expect the success of JLA to push The Man of Steel into production ASAP, and while it's being made the next JLA movie will probably enter the early stages of pre-production.

NW77

10-21-2007, 09:00 PM

Doesn't matter what you call him, he is still playing Superman. You should know that better than anyone Lord Sinister. The suit does not make Superman, the choice to help people is what makes him Superman and that is what "Clark" has been doing since the beginning (Other than pining for that damn Lana.)

Well, to some of us he isn't Supes. Beside, I thought Superman was a name Lois Lane used when she first met him. Welling hasn't put on the suit yet, so he is just Clark Kent/Kal-El for now. :p

Darth Sinister

10-21-2007, 10:12 PM

I know about Superman, but the suit and name is as important to who Superman is as Clark's actions are. Right now in "Smallville", Tom Welling is playing Kal-El aka Clark Kent, the last son of Krypton who uses his powers to do good but he has yet to answer the call to duty that is required of him. When he has made his public debut and created his dual identity, he is now two things. He is Clark Kent, mild mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper and he is Superman, the Last Son of Krypton and a superhero.

That is why Welling isn't Superman. Not in the strictest sense. He is a man before the suit.

Just Jeans

10-21-2007, 10:17 PM

The suit does not make Superman...

I think it does. But then my personal take on the Smallville mythology is that Clark Kent is the person and Superman will ultimately be the disguise. It's a reversal on the typical thinking (that Clark Kent is the disguise and Superman is the person) but I've always been more interested in Clark Kent than Superman. Smallville is the only version of the mythology that dwells in his human identity, which is why it's my favorite mythology.

DRE

10-21-2007, 11:13 PM

That is why Welling isn't Superman. Not in the strictest sense. He is a man before the suit.

Who does everything now that he will do in the suit (He even took flight several times) later. Spin it how you like, but we both know they are inherently the same character except one is dressed for the occasion and the other hasn't put the underwear on yet.

Alex DeLarge

10-21-2007, 11:26 PM

I think it does. But then my personal take on the Smallville mythology is that Clark Kent is the person and Superman will ultimately be the disguise. It's a reversal on the typical thinking (that Clark Kent is the disguise and Superman is the person) but I've always been more interested in Clark Kent than Superman. Smallville is the only version of the mythology that dwells in his human identity, which is why it's my favorite mythology.

Not really, that's a common misconception, propegated by Kill Bill Volume 2. In comics lore, it switches back and forth, back and forth, constantly. The Silver Age and Silver Age-ish interepretaitons (such as the current one) succumb to that, but take John Byrne's Man of Steel and the immediate post-Crisis Superman and it has the "Smallville" interpretation (even Lois and Clark had Clark as the "real person," though does anyone want to remember that;)).

Just Jeans

10-22-2007, 12:43 AM

Not really, that's a common misconception, propegated by Kill Bill Volume 2.

The reference is lost on me. :confused: I've only seen the film once.

Anyway, outside references aside, I own a handful of Superman comics spanning multiple eras, and Clark is often treated as the disguise rather than the real person. He acts different from his real personality in order to deflect attention.

In my mind, it's always worked like this -- the real Clark Kent and Superman are basically the same personality, while the bogus Clark Kent is the one he shows to the world.

I prefer being able to see Clark Kent be himself rather than having to pretend he's someone he's not, which is why I prefer Smallville. Even though he hides his abilities from everyone, personality wise, he's the same as I would expect him to be if he was dressed in the suit and calling himself Superman.

Darth Sinister

10-22-2007, 04:13 AM

Clark has only flown once on his own. The other times he's either been carried by Zod/Lex or punched hard. But Clark still isn't doing everything that he does as Superman. He only uses his powers when it affects the people that he cares for. Not just for random strangers. In fact, he tries to shy away from using his abilities.

Now, here's how it breaks down, identity wise.

Pre-Crisis, Clark Kent was the disguise and Superman is just a name that Kal-El uses to operate publically. He sees himself as Kal-El first and foremost. Listen to his conversation with Lois in Superman II. Post-Crisis, Clark Kent was who he saw himself as. He acknowledges that his birth name is Kal-El, but perfered not to dwell on that aspect of his life. Superman was just a name and a suit to help people without compromising his family.

There is Smallville Clark Kent, which is the real persona. The one when he's around those who know of his dual identity. There is Metropolis Clark, who is the mild mannered reporter who is a bit of a klutz and a bit flightly. See Christopher Reeve and Brandon Routh. Superman is a modified version of Smallville Clark, only he's allowed to be more stern and a bit intimidating.

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g92/darth-sinister/Avatars/Avatars-2/Avatars-3/metropolis02.jpg

Smallville Clark.

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g92/darth-sinister/Avatars/Avatars-2/Avatars-3/Avatars-4/Ac7.jpg

Metropolis Clark.

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g92/darth-sinister/Avatars/357b301b6598c2836a12b8a3e6a3946c.jpg

Superman.

The Dream Master

10-22-2007, 04:15 AM

Yeah, I agree with that Jeans. There's really three aspects to Clark/Superman's personality, and I think Superman Returns had the right idea in mind to show all three, but we just didn't get a whole hell of a lot of Clark on the farm when he returned home (some of the deleted scenes featuring this sound interesting). This is an entirely different Clark from the one we see in Metropolis. I'm not so sure it's accurate to say that he's just Supes without the suit when he's like this, but I guess that's a fairly accurate description.

Added: Darth Sinister beat me to it, but had a far more detailed and thorough description. I default to him. :bow:

DRE

10-22-2007, 05:35 AM

Actually he has flown three times, once with Lana when he gave her the ring and twice as Kal-El, the second time was with Lois last season, which could be seen a big leap but it was flight.

And once again, it's all just formalities, calling yourself a different name doesn't mean you are not the same man. At the end of the day, Bruce is Batman, Adam is He-Man and Clark is Superman. The only difference is that Bruce doesn't go around doing Batman-like things while he is Bruce Wayne, but Smallville's Clark Kent does (Minus the suit.)

ADDED:

Harris and Dougherty out as writers of MOS:

'Superman' writers won't return
Dougherty, Harris will not pen sequel
By MARC GRASER

'Superman Returns' scribes have opted not to return for sequel.

Superman needs some ideas for what his next adventure might be.

"Superman Returns" scribes Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris have opted not to come back and pen a sequel to the 2006 summer pic that would have reunited them with helmer Bryan Singer. The three also worked together on "X2: X-Men United."

As a result, WB is now taking pitches for Supe's next outing from other scribes -- just as the studio is trying to figure out which actor will don the character's tights in "Justice League."

Industry chatter claimed the studio would start fresh with a new take on the Man of Steel, as if the previous pic never happened.

Reasons mentioned were the introduction of Superman's son with Lois Lane, as well as the film's less-than-expected domestic haul of $200 million and another $191 million overseas.

Marvel Studios is adopting that let's-try-again strategy with "The Hulk" at Universal, hoping a new pic, starring Edward Norton, will launch a franchise that Ang Lee's 2003 actioner failed to do.

But WB denies such plans and said next pic would be a sequel with Brandon Routh likely to wear the "S" on his chest again. Legendary Pictures is co-developing and co-financing the project.

New pic also will up the action quotient, however -- something Singer promised fanboys at last year's Comic-Con in San Diego.

Dougherty and Harris are pursuing more directing gigs, with Dougherty having recently completed "Trick 'R Treat" at WB as his first pic. He's also looking to pen a graphic novel and children's book.

Harris, who had previously helmed "Imaginary Heroes," is writing and directing "I, Lucifer," based on the book, with Daniel Craig attached to star.

Article (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117974449.html?categoryid=13&cs=1)

Such wonderful news. Two down, and now for you Bryan Singer!

X2 is still a great film regardless of their Superman misstep.

The One and Only

10-22-2007, 03:55 PM

Comic writer Mark Millar has offered the WB to write the Superman Returns follow up...for free. (http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=133795)

Darth Sinister

10-22-2007, 09:19 PM

Actually he has flown three times, once with Lana when he gave her the ring and twice as Kal-El, the second time was with Lois last season, which could be seen a big leap but it was flight.

Actually, Clark jumped both times. Jumping is not the same as flying. Kal-El is a Kryptonian persona who is not bothered by heights. And if you know your Superman history, Clark was barely aware of what he did when the Eradicator brought it out. This is no different.

And once again, it's all just formalities, calling yourself a different name doesn't mean you are not the same man. At the end of the day, Bruce is Batman, Adam is He-Man and Clark is Superman. The only difference is that Bruce doesn't go around doing Batman-like things while he is Bruce Wayne, but Smallville's Clark Kent does (Minus the suit.)

Except he's not Superman at all. He's just Clark Kent right now. Clark did deeds without the suit, but that didn't make him Superman. Just a guy using his gifts.

ADDED:

Harris and Dougherty out as writers of MOS:

Article (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117974449.html?categoryid=13&cs=1)

Such wonderful news. Two down, and now for you Bryan Singer!

X2 is still a great film regardless of their Superman misstep.[/QUOTE]

Hardly. We'll see if Singer goes or not.

Comic writer Mark Millar has offered the WB to write the Superman Returns follow up...for free.

I'd rather he didn't. His attitude towards Superman has rubbed me the wrong way, since I heard about his proposal for the comics back in 1999.

DRE

10-22-2007, 10:05 PM

Except he's not Superman at all. He's just Clark Kent right now. Clark did deeds without the suit, but that didn't make him Superman. Just a guy using his gifts.

Isn't Superman just a guy using his gifts? Who is really just Clark (or vice versa) using his gifts?

Formalities. Same character, same man. We will agree to disagree.

Hardly. We'll see if Singer goes or not.

If Singer can get Christopher McQuarrie to write the film, then maybe there will be hope. Otherwise, meh. We'll see....

NW77

10-22-2007, 11:21 PM

If Singer can get Christopher McQuarrie to write the film, then maybe there will be hope. Otherwise, meh. We'll see....

I agree. McQuarrie is a great writer. Maybe they can get David Hayter, since he work with Singer & McQuarrie on the script beside being a comic book fan. Heck, why not get Geoff Johns. Yeah, that wishful thinking there. :p

DRE

10-22-2007, 11:50 PM

I love Hayter's work, he would be a good choice as well. Sony was stupid not to go with his Metal Gear script, nobody knows the game like him, except for Hideo Kojima.

Just Jeans

10-22-2007, 11:59 PM

I hope this "let's reboot the franchise after one film" thing doesn't become a trend. I think the idea can work -- it seems to be going well with the Hulk -- but I don't want them trying to reboot something like Spider-Man next (Toby and Sam don't want to come back? Well shit, let's just reboot this bad boy!)

I think Superman Returns was a bit weak, but I see no reason to reboot the franchise. Just up the adrenaline in the sequel, and everything should be fine.

DRE

10-23-2007, 12:11 AM

If executives would be smart enough to stick with what works and not let all these directors with "Big" visions come in and screw things up they wouldn't have to reboot after one film. It works sometimes (X-Singer, Bat-Nolan etc) and often times not (Singer-Man, Ang-Hulk etc.)

Just imagine if Begins had Robin in it from the start, and he was Bruce's son. That's the same uncorrectable mistake Returns made, what purpose does giving him a son (In this particular film) serve other than being able to recycle Brando's speech? If they had done it in a later film, fine, but it was far too out there for the re-introduction film. And it is for those reasons they reboot, and I don't blame them. Sadly, that's not what they appear to be doing with Superman.

Just Jeans

10-23-2007, 12:24 AM

If they think Clark having a super-kid is too much, then just write a sequence in which Clark takes the kid to the Fortress, sticks him in that convenient chamber, and render the kid 100% mortal man. Problem solved.

Sure, Clark still has a kid running about, but at least the kid can have a normal life and Clark can just let the boy think he's Cyclops' offspring.

Ultimately, I just think there are better ways to correct the flaws of the previous film than to scrap it entirely and start from ground zero.

DRE

10-23-2007, 12:47 AM

I don't think they will start from ground zero with MOS, it was Mark Millar's wish to "Revamp" the story but he hasn't even taken any meetings with WB yet. If Singer directs, it will follow the Returns storyline.

Darth Sinister

10-23-2007, 01:00 AM

Isn't Superman just a guy using his gifts? Who is really just Clark (or vice versa) using his gifts?

Superman is the symbol of hope and freedom. Of truth and justice. Something that people can aspire to become like.

Just imagine if Begins had Robin in it from the start, and he was Bruce's son.

There would be nothing wrong if Robin was in Begins. And Bruce formally adopted Dick Grayson and Tim Drake. Hell, he has son right now named Damian.

That's the same uncorrectable mistake Returns made, what purpose does giving him a son (In this particular film) serve other than being able to recycle Brando's speech?

You obviously don't understand Superman if you don't get why. It's not about recycling a speech. It's about his being the last of his kind. His whole world was destroyed. An entire race is gone. He doesn't know about Kara or Kandor. He knows about Zod, Ursa and Non but they are not good people. They must remain in the Phantom Zone. When Clark left Earth to find out if Krypton was truly destroyed or if it was still there, he did so because he didn't want to be the last of his kind. Forever alone. I quote from what was said in Action Comics #850, when a young Clark Kent asked Jonathan why Martha was so upset at her brother Bertram's death. Jonathan told her that there are two types of family.

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g92/darth-sinister/Avatars/Avatars-2/Avatars-3/Avatars-4/Ac5.jpg

When Clark returns to Earth, following his sojourn, he realizes how much he has lost. Not just from his world, but from Lois. When he learns that Jason is his son, Clark no longer feels alone. He is no longer one, but one of two.

Throughout the history of the character, he has grown up alone. His time with the Legion, the JLA, Kara, Karen, Chris, Krypto and his trips into Kandor have been worth while to him.

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o170/darth-ermac/DC/SuperMan-12.jpg

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g92/darth-sinister/Avatars/Avatars-2/Avatars-3/Avatars-4/Ac10.jpg

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o170/darth-ermac/DC/Superman-3.jpg

DRE

10-23-2007, 01:46 AM

You obviously don't understand Superman if you don't get why.

There's that old defense mechanism again.

I'm aware of his need to not be the last of his kind, I don't so much like the idea of Superman having a son for the sake of the movie just so we can have a bit of a plot device or dramatic tension, and that's all it was there for.

Returns should not have been about that particular story just yet, especially when you are reintroducing him to the world of general audiences again (Those who don't read every damn comic.) You don't bring him back, sulking around acting like a stalker. Why not wait until Superman and Lois are truly together before springing the child? And that's all I'm saying, there was no true reason other than to create false dramatic tension.

Sorry sir, I understand Superman very well, but I don't understand Bryan Singer's cheap approach to him.

Darth Sinister

10-23-2007, 02:22 AM

He wasn't acting like a stalker. He went to see if she did love him or not, since Jimmy raised that question. She did. She was lying when she said no to Richard. And they were together, when they had him. But because of his desire to find out about his world, he left before he could find out. Nor was it false dramatic tension. It serves to underline that what he wanted was what he already had. He just didn't realize it yet.

DRE

10-23-2007, 03:24 AM

NW77

10-23-2007, 03:59 AM

I love Hayter's work, he would be a good choice as well. Sony was stupid not to go with his Metal Gear script, nobody knows the game like him, except for Hideo Kojima.

Not to mention he did the voice of Snake on the video game. How the hell can you get rid of a guy who wrote a good script on a movie of a video game that he was involve with few times before? That's crazy. :(

And I disagree about Supes stalking Lois. I can understand many don't like Supes seeing what going on in her house with Richard, but I barely consider that stalking. He didn't threat her, go to her house many times, etc. I see it more of him trying to see if Lois still love him or just Richard. He never try to change their relationship, despite she was close to kissing him on top of Daily Planet.

Spade

10-23-2007, 10:40 AM

He's not a stalker, he's a peeping tom.

The Dark Vampire

10-23-2007, 11:01 AM

He's not a stalker, he's a peeping tom.

True he must of used that X Rey vision of his to have a quick peek of where he shouldn't have before.

NW77

10-23-2007, 01:44 PM

He's not a stalker, he's a peeping tom.

That's better than stalking if you ask me. He probably want to see if she wear a thong nowdays than the old days of women wearing big panties than thong. :p

Geddy Peart

10-23-2007, 06:58 PM

Remember in the first Superman film, he used his x-ray vision to see what color her panties were.

The Dark Vampire

10-23-2007, 07:22 PM

Remember in the first Superman film, he used his x-ray vision to see what color her panties were.

True but to be fair to him she did ask.

Darth Sinister

10-23-2007, 09:06 PM

If this film does in fact happen after Superman II, then no, they were not together as a couple, the magic kiss made sure of that. There is no logic in Lois knowing that Superman is the father if she doesn't know that she and Supes did the "dirty deed." And if she knows that much then she knows that he is Clark, right? It's a contrived storyline thrown in to create more drama for Superman, because him just leaving wasn't enough for Singer (When in fact, it was more than enough because him leaving the world after being the savior is dramatic enough.) Singer was just trying too hard, IMO, and it shows. That's why I don't care too much for it.

They were together as a couple when Jason was concieved, granted he broke it off, but it's not like that doesn't happen in real life. As to her memories, Lois realizes that Jason is Superman's son, when he shoved the piano. She doesn't know why she cannot remember that they had slept together, but she knows that she cannot deny the turth.

Oh, and going to see if Lois loved him is no justifiable cause for him to spy on her family, which is against the law. Jonathan Kent taught him not to use his powers for selfish reasons, I guess Singer missed that part.

Didn't stop Superman from disobeying Jor-El, much less Jonathan, when he reversed time to bring Lois back to life in the first film. Guess you must've missed that part. Singer didn't.

The Dark Vampire

10-23-2007, 09:15 PM

DRE

10-23-2007, 09:28 PM

They were together as a couple when Jason was concieved, granted he broke it off, but it's not like that doesn't happen in real life. As to her memories, Lois realizes that Jason is Superman's son, when he shoved the piano. She doesn't know why she cannot remember that they had slept together, but she knows that she cannot deny the turth.

Which makes it even more of a cheap contrivance. But hey, if you like it, more power. Dougherty and Harris are out and that's retribution enough for me...for now.

Didn't stop Superman from disobeying Jor-El, much less Jonathan, when he reversed time to bring Lois back to life in the first film. Guess you must've missed that part. Singer didn't.

Did you ever hear me say I agreed with that point in the original film? Sorry, no. I always thought it was a cop out. BUT, at least that was for a far more important reasoning than just "I wanted to see if she loved me, so I spied on her family."

In turning the world around he saved Lois' life, by spying on Lois and Richard he broke the law, when he could have simply asked her "Do you still love me Lois?"

Cheap Contrivances, brought to you by Singer, Harris & Dougherty.

Darth Sinister

10-24-2007, 01:10 AM

I think she must of known before the piano incident he must of used some powers before that and she did give the impression she knew.

Maybe she remembered bits and bobs of that day like a vague dream she remembers sleeping with him and maybe one or two other things but doesn't remember he's Clarke.

Nope, he never used any of his abilities prior to that. Even Jason was surprised. Being half human, his abilities probably develop a lot more slowly.

Which makes it even more of a cheap contrivance. But hey, if you like it, more power. Dougherty and Harris are out and that's retribution enough for me...for now.

Retribution? They were talking last year about the various other projects which may or may not have impacted their desire to return.

Did you ever hear me say I agreed with that point in the original film? Sorry, no. I always thought it was a cop out. BUT, at least that was for a far more important reasoning than just "I wanted to see if she loved me, so I spied on her family."

In turning the world around he saved Lois' life, by spying on Lois and Richard he broke the law, when he could have simply asked her "Do you still love me Lois?"

Cheap Contrivances, brought to you by Singer, Harris & Dougherty.

A lot of what Superman does by fighting crime is breaking the law. Taking the law into his own hands is, last time I checked, a crime in the eyes of the law. Note how Lex talks about due process and miranda rights. Unlike in the comics where he was deputized by the mayor, here he's just a guy breaking the law left and right.

The Dark Vampire

10-24-2007, 01:14 AM

Nope, he never used any of his abilities prior to that. Even Jason was surprised. Being half human, his abilities probably develop a lot more slowly.

I think that is why he's ill a lot to it's his human DNA conflicting with his Kryptonian DNA.

DRE

10-24-2007, 01:28 AM

Retribution? They were talking last year about the various other projects which may or may not have impacted their desire to return.

Yep. Doesn't matter how it happened, as long as it DID happen. I'm a happy camper.

A lot of what Superman does by fighting crime is breaking the law. Taking the law into his own hands is, last time I checked, a crime in the eyes of the law. Note how Lex talks about due process and miranda rights. Unlike in the comics where he was deputized by the mayor, here he's just a guy breaking the law left and right.

Come now, we know how the system works, and it is very biased. For any mortal man, yes, it is against the law to take it upon yourself to hand down justice, but that's not what Superman does. He simply stops the crime in progress and hands them over to the law, as many citizens in the world does also. Every other time, Superman is literally saving our asses, so that gives him a special pass.

But what Superman does not have is the right to spy on someone not committing a criminal act, especially when he can simply ask the question he wants the answer to.

The Patriot act was not in effect yet.

BTW, Sinister, don't take this as me being confrontational with you. I respect your views on many genre aspects and franchises, and while we may not always see eye to eye, I see it as nothing but healthy debate.

The One and Only

10-24-2007, 04:10 PM

^Another reason as to why Iron Man was right. Also if you remember Justice League Unlimited during the Cadmus arc, Amanda Waller made some pretty good arguments in The Doomsday Sanction to Batman as to who do the League answer to when they start overstepping thier bounds.
ADDED:
WB to Mark Millar, "No Superman for you.":ballshot: (http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=134016) Damn studio politics.:pull:

Darth Sinister

10-24-2007, 08:34 PM

Come now, we know how the system works, and it is very biased. For any mortal man, yes, it is against the law to take it upon yourself to hand down justice, but that's not what Superman does. He simply stops the crime in progress and hands them over to the law, as many citizens in the world does also. Every other time, Superman is literally saving our asses, so that gives him a special pass.

He's still interfering in police buisness and in the films, he's not sanctioned. Unless someone has Green or Gold Kryptonite, knows how to create red solar energy to freeze his abilities block out the sun all together without killing everyone, he can do whatever he wants. We just know that he chooses not to. And as you know in the comics, there are organizations created to keep tabs in case the heroes do go bad.

But what Superman does not have is the right to spy on someone not committing a criminal act, especially when he can simply ask the question he wants the answer to.

The Patriot act was not in effect yet.

The Patriot Act doesn't stop Superman, who spies on people all the time with his X-Ray Vision, Telescopic Vision and Super Hearing. Yes, he could've asked to begin with. But he's afraid to ask. However, as we see, she would lie to his face.

BTW, Sinister, don't take this as me being confrontational with you. I respect your views on many genre aspects and franchises, and while we may not always see eye to eye, I see it as nothing but healthy debate.

I know you're not being confrontational. When I get going, I get going.

Darth Reaper

10-26-2007, 02:25 PM

I think with Brainiac they need to create a look that demonstrates both brains and brawn. He should look intelligent, cold, and calculating. He should be someone who can match wits with not only Superman, but Lex Luthor too. But, he should also look physically intimidating as well. He should look like he could go a couple of rounds with Superman if he had to.

Also, I wonder what Brainiac's motivation would be. I'm partial to the motivations he had in SUPERMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES, being an artificial intelligence whose purpose is to collect and catalogue data, but who goes about it in a very destructive fashion. He'll slowly disect and experiment with entire worlds in order to gain as much information as he can on them. He'll explore every possiblility that he discovers, regardless of the consequences for his test subjects. I think there's something particularly chilling about the idea of a being who will destroy entire worlds and wipe out entire civilizations purely out of what ammounts to scientific curiosity. Knowledge is all he cares about, and to him we're just a means to gaining more knowledge.

As for SUPERMAN RETURNS, I do think there were things that could have been done better, but I figure that it's done now and the only thing we can do is hope that Singer and company learn from their mistakes, listen to the fans a bit, and try to do better the next time around.

NW77

10-26-2007, 10:50 PM

As for SUPERMAN RETURNS, I do think there were things that could have been done better, but I figure that it's done now and the only thing we can do is hope that Singer and company learn from their mistakes, listen to the fans a bit, and try to do better the next time around.

Same here. It would be great if he pull a "X2" on MoS if it does happend & he return with better writers.

The One and Only

11-03-2007, 04:59 AM

They could also bring Bizarro into this flick. Like they almost did in Superman IV. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LMeKmvZKPo)

Darth Sinister

11-03-2007, 07:42 PM

I'm thinking it'll be Brainiac before Bizarro. It fits with what Singer has said in the past about an ailen threat.

NW77

11-03-2007, 08:50 PM

I'm thinking it'll be Brainiac before Bizarro. It fits with what Singer has said in the past about an ailen threat.

Same here. Brainiac is who I want to see next. Not to mention I seen few polls on who fans want to see next & Brainiac is pretty much the top choice in quiet all of 'em.

Rich

11-04-2007, 04:34 AM

It will have more Action and superman Doing alot of Fighting

Thank god for that!

I never even bothered watching Superman Returns

Don't waste your time.

Darth Sinister

11-04-2007, 09:09 PM

Give the film a shot.

The Dark Vampire

11-04-2007, 09:25 PM

While I don't think Superman Returns was great it was much better than Superman 4 and about as good as Superman 3.

I'll be honest and say I was expecting it to be better and maybe wasn't worth all the hype it could of been worse.

Darth Sinister

11-08-2007, 01:28 AM

From the Superman Homepage.

ThisIsNorthScotland.co.uk reports that Brandon Routh recently revealed that the sequel to "Superman Returns" would also be delayed by the WGA strikes currently hitting Hollywood.

Superman actor Brandon Routh has revealed the film's sequel could be delayed after talks between screenwriters and studio representatives failed to resolve a dispute over royalties.
Brandon explained that his second Superman movie: "[Is] supposed to be happening. They're going to be getting the script written here after the writer's strike, so we'll start next year some time."

The Writers Guild of America asked its 12,000 members to stop working and set up picket lines until the issue is resolved, which will have a ripple effect not only on movies but also US TV shows.

Back in 1988, the last strike by screenwriters lasted 22 weeks. This time around most of Hollywood is hoping for a swift solution, particularly Brandon: "All the more power to the writers, everybody wants their fair share but I just trust we can get it done quicker - sooner rather than later."

You can read the report at the This is North Scotland website.

So that's what he knows at this point.

hack slash

01-03-2008, 05:58 PM

Singer not returning?
(from Variety)

Speaking of DC Comics pics, it is highly unlikely that Bryan Singer will return to shoot the next Superman movie. (The director is finishing up Tom Cruise's Nazi film Valkyrie, and prepping The Mayor of Castro Street). The next Superman we will see on the big screen will not be Brandon Routh, but a younger Superman among a cast of youthful superheroes in The Justice League. That movie will likely not be shot, however, until after the WGA strike is resolved. Warners is so happy with Dark Knight that their fondest hope is that Nolan will return to do another Batman.

DRE

01-03-2008, 09:12 PM

This was already predicted to happen, but some people didn't want to believe it.

NW77

01-03-2008, 10:48 PM

I'll believe it when it's confirmed. Anything can change, so we'll found out once WB announce what going on with the project.

Deathscythe

01-04-2008, 12:47 AM

Well he did ditch Xmen 3 so I wont be surprsied if he ditched this film as well.

NW77

01-04-2008, 03:03 AM

Well he did ditch Xmen 3 so I wont be surprsied if he ditched this film as well.

True. But that why I want to wait till we hear any more news on another Superman movie. Not to mention with writer strikes, I think it affecting MoS. That why I think they went ahead with the JL so quick.

The Dream Master

01-04-2008, 03:10 AM

I like Singer a lot, and I really enjoyed Superman Returns, but I sort of suspected this might happen because of the box office performance (which really wasn't that bad if you look just at the budget for Superman Returns).

If it is rebooted, then we at least got a decent send-off for the Donnerverse films. I'm not sure where they would have gone with the son angle, anyway.

Deathscythe

01-04-2008, 04:42 AM

I actually never saw Superman Returns but I thought Xmen 2 was really good. I've always wondered how Xmen 3 would have turned out to be if Singer directed it.

Just Jeans

01-04-2008, 05:49 AM

I'm not sure where they would have gone with the son angle, anyway.

I still think that, ultimately, Clark would have stuck the kid in the super power-sucking crystal chamber, in a bid to give the boy a normal life (the kind of life Clark himself always wanted).

DouglasJ

01-05-2008, 12:03 AM

With Singer out and Routh most likely not returning http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6648 it's looking like the next Superman movie will have whoever they wind up casting for JL.

I would have loved another Sequel, but I suppose (IMO) Returns works as a nice ending to the series that started with the 1978 movie (better than Quest For Peace anyway) with the sense that Clark/Supes and Lois WON'T be getting together, The Kid etc. maybe it is time for a new Superman story - I do not see though, why they just can't give Routh the JL Supes and carry on movies with him, just not bogged down in Donner Verse continuity.

Darth Sinister

01-05-2008, 01:26 AM

I still think that, ultimately, Clark would have stuck the kid in the super power-sucking crystal chamber, in a bid to give the boy a normal life (the kind of life Clark himself always wanted).

Can't do that as the Sunstones are all on New Krypton. And as we saw in Superman II, Clark couldn't deal with a normal life.

"Superman Returns" actually made it clear that Lois and Richard wouldn't last, since she's not over Superman and he knows that they'll never be able to last.

Just Jeans

01-05-2008, 04:39 AM

And as we saw in Superman II, Clark couldn't deal with a normal life.

I don't see how Clark's inability to have a normal life translates to Jason not being able to have a normal life.

NW77

01-05-2008, 05:18 PM

Now AICN (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35200) is saying Routh will still play Superman. While I know AICN are not the most trustworthy site, but a lot of their info. are 100% true. Like the leaked script of both X-Men 2 & 3. Many fans think AICN are faking it, but we all know they were right on the money once we saw the films. I really hope the rumor are true & Routh return, Singer or no Singer.

Darth Sinister

01-05-2008, 09:41 PM

I don't see how Clark's inability to have a normal life translates to Jason not being able to have a normal life.

Because Clark is not going to foist a decision on him that isn't his own. Clark made his choice when he chose to expose himself to the red sun molecue chamber. It will be Jason's choice to do it or not. Jason already doesn't like being normal, because of his asthema (sp) and his being sickly and frail all the time. Having the Kryptonian powers will make him feel healthy as they continue to develop. Losing them might not improve him at all. All Clark ever concerned himself growing up was being able to do sports without fear of hurting someone or drawing undue attention to his abilities. Once he was older and used to his powers, he had no problem using them in the service of others. The only issue he took was that he would have to give them up, which he ultimately did seeing as Jor-El wouldn't accept it any other way. The problem became that he wasn't used to being normal and because of that and because of his father's enemies, he went back. Jason, has dealt with normal and will be able to move past that into a much more well rounded person. Thus Clark will not place upon him something that the boy may not want.

Just Jeans

01-05-2008, 09:46 PM

According to CHUD (http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=13151):

UPDATE: Moriarty is claiming that a 'very high-ranking' mole has said that Latino Review's story is "absolutely false". The mole states that Routh is still WB's choice for any standalone film, as evidenced by conversations "as recently as a few weeks ago."

Because Clark is not going to foist a decision on him that isn't his own.

If Clark sees that Jason is struggling with his abilities, trying desperately to fit in and wanting nothing more than to be a normal little boy (which is the direction I expect this storyline to go, should the next film not reboot the franchise) I have no doubt that Clark would stick him in that chamber. Why subject the boy to a life of lies when he could be spared the burden?

Patrick

01-07-2008, 12:38 AM

I really liked Superman Returns. But, why do they always have to throw a kid in everything. That seems to be the norm nowadays. Next they'll be giving Jason and Chris Higgins a kid out of nowhere that noone new about.

Darth Sinister

01-07-2008, 08:38 PM

If Clark sees that Jason is struggling with his abilities, trying desperately to fit in and wanting nothing more than to be a normal little boy (which is the direction I expect this storyline to go, should the next film not reboot the franchise) I have no doubt that Clark would stick him in that chamber. Why subject the boy to a life of lies when he could be spared the burden?

That's where Clark comes in. He will help Jason get used to his abilities, train him in the proper ways of using them and make sure that he never feels alone and out of place because of them. Clark can give him something that the Kents never could. He would also not force this upon the boy unless he asked for it. And as I said, if Kryptonian powers can make Jason into a healthy person who won't be fragile again, the last thing he'd do is give it up. Breathing problems? Gone. Allergies? Gone.

Just Jeans

01-07-2008, 09:14 PM

Those powers don't seem to be doing his health much good as yet.

In any case, I suppose it's a moot point. If the next film pulls an "Incredible Hulk" and reboots the franchise, one would assume Jason will go bye-bye.

Darth Sinister

01-09-2008, 09:31 PM

Those powers don't seem to be doing his health much good as yet.

He hasn't developed them yet. He just demonstrated one burst of super strength and possibly telescopic and X-ray vision.

Cody

07-02-2008, 08:26 PM

Millar Has Director & Producer for Superman Revamp? (http://www.superherohype.com/news/supermannews.php?id=7431)

Back in October of 2007, Mark Millar (Wanted) said (http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6429) he was going to pitch Warner Bros. Pictures his vision of the "Superman" franchise. Now, just a few days ago, he told the Daily Record (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity-interviews/2008/06/26/exclusive-scots-comic-writer-mark-millar-is-toast-of-hollywood-after-wanted-86908-20621161/) he is taking it a step further:

But Mark's big dream is making a Superman movie.

He said: "Since I was a kid I've always wanted to reinvent Superman for the 21st century.

"I've been planning this my entire life. I've got my director and producer set up, and it'll be 2011. This is how far ahead you have to think.

"The Superman brand is toxic after that last movie lost $200 million, but in 2011 we're hoping to restart it.

"Sadly I can't say who the director is, but we may make it official by Christmas.

"But fingers crossed it could work out, that would be my lifetime's dream."

Millar later clarified on his message boards (http://www.millarworld.tv/forums.html):

That Superman news is interesting, isn't it? In the interests of clarity (because I'm sure this will be picked up somewhere) a very well known American action director heard about my love of Superman, approached my and asked me to team up with he and his producer to make a pitch for this. We've been talking for several weeks now and, if this is going to happen, we'll know by Christmas. He has huge pull at WB so fingers crossed. But this is nothing more than a huge US name pulling me into his fold and making me part of a package."

Back in March, Bryan Singer said he was still developing the sequel and in April, Legendary Pictures' Thomas Tull described a sequel in which we'd see "Superman as more of an angry god." We'll have to wait and see how this all turns out.

Alex DeLarge

07-02-2008, 08:42 PM

Hasn't Millar ben trying to convince Warner Brothers to do a Superman film for like, AGES? :p If he ends up getting it, I won't be too sad. The only Superman work I've read by him, Red Sun, about Superman growing up in Soviet Russia, was good (yes, I know it's not mainstream Superman but it still means he's a good writer).

The Dream Master

07-02-2008, 10:39 PM

Man, who could the director be? This is intriguing.

Jack Bauer

07-02-2008, 10:42 PM

Come on, everyone knows it's going to be Brett Ratner. :D

But I would love see del Toro or Jackson do a Superman film.

The Dream Master

07-02-2008, 10:44 PM

I'm not going to lie. Ratner's name crossed my mind. James Cameron's did too, but that's a long shot. Besides, I'm afraid if Cameron ever did Superman, it'd be as weird as his Spider-Man pitch (which involved Spider-Man threatening to rip people's heads off and shit, if I'm not mistaken).

DRE

07-02-2008, 11:10 PM

I hope this comes true and that it's enough to get Singer, Routh and all of them kicked the hell out. I won't say I told you so to those who were certain Singer would be back.

Jack Bauer

07-02-2008, 11:10 PM

And there was that sex scene on a Spider Web if I recall correctly.

Cody

07-03-2008, 12:18 AM

I hope this comes true and that it's enough to get Singer, Routh and all of them kicked the hell out. I won't say I told you so to those who were certain Singer would be back.

I'm interested in seeing what Millar and Anonymous Director have in mind. I liked Routh and wouldn't mind seeing him return, but if they're going for a big reboot I can understand why he wouldn't.

I just don't want to see any more of snotnosed Supes Jr.

James Cameron's did too, but that's a long shot. Besides, I'm afraid if Cameron ever did Superman, it'd be as weird as his Spider-Man pitch (which involved Spider-Man threatening to rip people's heads off and shit, if I'm not mistaken).

PETER
I'll kill you! Motherfucker! You hear me?!

Jack Bauer

07-03-2008, 12:44 AM

PETER
I'll kill you! Motherfucker! You hear me?!
For some reason, I could see Toby pulling something like that in a film.

Darth Sinister

07-03-2008, 02:47 AM

hack slash

07-03-2008, 03:23 AM

I'd like to see Michael Bay make a Superman movie, no matter what you think of him or some of his movies(I think most of them are good fun movies) the man can deliver on Effects and action, and what do I want to see in a Superman movie? Bad ass effects and kick ass action. No more super stalker/dead beat dad crap please!!!!!

The Dark Vampire

07-03-2008, 03:32 AM

. No more super stalker/dead beat dad crap please!!!!!
Tonight on the Maury show this guy gets her pregnant then leaves her and flys 200 million miles into space didn't even leave her with the money for any diapers and she didn't even see him again for 5 years then when he comes back he starts spying on her new family.

hack slash

07-03-2008, 03:42 AM

Tonight on the Maury show this guy gets her pregnant then leaves her and flys 200 million miles into space didn't even leave her with the money for any diapers and she didn't even see him again for 5 years then when he comes back he starts spying on her new family.

lol then sneaks in through the kids window while he's sleeping

Jack Bauer

07-03-2008, 03:58 AM

I would like to see Michael Bay handle a Superman film; because it would wonderfully filled with Bay explosions.

Of course his Superman would be:

http://www.solarnavigator.net/films_movies_actors/film_images/nicholas_cage_superman_outfit.jpg

NW77

07-03-2008, 06:27 AM

Though, take note of this. Millar has talked out of his ass before about Superman and other film projects. Back in 2004, he said that M. Night Shamaylan was going to replace McG and Brett Rattner on the then new Superman film.

Yep. Millar isn't going to be anywhere on this project. I read recently about his ideas & it quite horseshit. If you hate SR, I'm sure you will hate Millar's idea far worse. It just doesn't feel like Superman. Not to mention Routh recently said writers has supposely been working on scripts for MoS & he look like he bulk up than he was after he finish SR where he lost some bulk. And with Singer finishing up Valkeryie(sp?) soon, I imagine he's going back on doing Superman again. Time will tell.

DRE

07-03-2008, 06:36 AM

JVM

07-03-2008, 07:52 AM

Superman - the Man of Steel
Batman - the Dark Knight

Am I the only one who sees a vague pattern? What's next, "He Can Fucking Talk to Fish! (2010)"?

The Dream Master

07-03-2008, 07:53 AM

Well, considering both Batman and Superman have been known by those titles for years, I don't see what the problem is. What else were they going to call the sequel to Batman Begins? Batman Continues? :p

Anyway, I'm somewhat amazed by how my attitude towards Superman Returns has changed lately. I loved it when it came out a few couple years ago (saw it twice in theaters), but now I see it as a very good film that's really backed the franchise into a corner with the Super-kid. I love that it's essentially a love letter to the Donner films, and I'd be interested to see where Singer took it from there. However, I am also open to the prospect of someone else coming to the property too. As long as they keep John Williams's theme music, I'm down.

The Dark Vampire

07-03-2008, 07:57 AM

NW77

07-03-2008, 03:13 PM

Keep dreaming NW77, there's nothing wrong with holding out hope. Singer and Routh are history. The Incredible Hulk has shown that you can have a successful do over, and I'm willing to bet that WB is ready to go that route.

What make you think WB care or even going to bother looking at The Incredible Hulk for doing a reboot or not? TIH so far is not doing that well at the box office. WB are looking at how much a movie make at the box office along with story. Not to mention I think they're going to look at how The Dark Knight do. Beside, a sequel can sometime help improve over the previous film. Kinda like Spider-Man 2, The Dark Knight (with all the positive reviews it been getting), etc.

And there is no proof Singer & Routh are history. Until it happend, you have to keep dreaming they will be booted too. :p So far, there has been no talk of reboot at all. Again, a guy who work at Legendary Pictures & Routh both been talking about it and it seem very likely we're getting MoS until someone can give real proof Singer/Routh are history. But time will tell.

And I'm not holding out hope. There been more talk about MoS than a reboot. I thought you said you wouldn't say "I told you so" to those who are certain Singer will be back. Way to gloat there, man. ;)

Darth Sinister

07-03-2008, 08:47 PM

Keep dreaming NW77, there's nothing wrong with holding out hope. Singer and Routh are history. The Incredible Hulk has shown that you can have a successful do over, and I'm willing to bet that WB is ready to go that route.

Well, I've been on Millar's board and he has not said one thing about this. And given his reputation for blabing about these things, I'd take it with a grain of salt. So far, there as been almost nothing to confirm that Singer is off the project.

DRE

07-03-2008, 09:25 PM

We'll see.

Jack Bauer

07-03-2008, 09:30 PM

DRE, why do you hate Singer and Routh? I loved Superman Returns; I thought the both of them did a great job with it given the arc.

JVM

07-03-2008, 09:35 PM

Ya see, I'm the only person alive who isn't 'omg' when a superhero movie is out. I don't give two shits about Superman, Batman, Spiderman, the Hulk or any of them anymore.

I feel like I grew up in the 90s...

Darth Sinister

07-03-2008, 09:55 PM

I feel like I grew up in the 90s...

Why?

Anyway, I'm not doubting that Millar didn't say a thing. What I am doubting is that he is in and Singer is out. And until we hear official word, all it is is heresay on Millar's part. Especially since he has mouthed off before about Superman and Batman and turned out to be just full of it.

DRE

07-03-2008, 10:20 PM

DRE, why do you hate Singer and Routh? I loved Superman Returns; I thought the both of them did a great job with it given the arc.

I like Singer, Usual Suspects, Apt Pupil and X2 are some of my favorite films. I just didn't like his take on Superman, and he completely miscast the film, with only Spacey, Huntington, Langella and Marsden as the exceptions.

I like Brandon, but he just wasn't Superman to me. I think the movie looks good and Ottman's music is good, but the story and Bosworth just makes me puke.

Jack Bauer

07-03-2008, 10:36 PM

I see your point, and I never liked Bosworth as Lane either.

The Dream Master

07-03-2008, 10:41 PM

Bosworth was the weak link for me too because she was so different from Margot Kidder. I'm not saying she should have exactly mirrored Kidder to a T, but the character just seemed way off from her incarnation in the Donner films. I know people change over the course of five years or whatever, but she was way different.

Alex DeLarge

07-04-2008, 04:01 AM

I'll be happy, Singer or Millar (though my fanboyish side wants Mark "Ultimates" Millar to have a shot), reboot or sequel, as long as we get a Superman film that is it's own film and not an homage to Donner. I LOVE the Donner film but... that was the late '70s. The Superman mythos are open to different interpretations and I'd like to see a different one.

Cody

07-04-2008, 04:16 AM

Someone dug up Millar's views on Superman from a 2004 Wizard interview

This is from Millarworld itself. (Don't have the link now). Mark Millar's views on Supermaan and how would *FIX* him....

On his connection to Batman: "[Superman and Batman are] both orphans. They absolutely understand each other and know that there's nobody else they can count on as much as they other. PS I know Superman isn't an orphan in this dreadful period he's been under seige (from 1986 until Hitchy and I fix him again), but the true understanding of the character is, like Bambi, he loses his Mum and Dad again. All the iconic heroes do whether it's Superman, Bambi or Batman."

On why Bryan Hitch is his ideal Superman collaborator: "Hitchy's even worse than me. Although he looks much older and has trouble sleeping through the night without a piss, Hitchy is only three weeks younger than me. Thus, we grew up on the same Cary Bates Superman comics aged 6-14. Exactly the same comics. We were also 8 years old when we saw Superman and Hitch, like me, can repeat the entire movie line for line. You should hear our daily phone chats. They're a hymn to Superman. Fixing this mess has been our destiny. It'll happen. Not for a while, but it'll happen."

On Clark Kent: "Clark is a pair of glasses. Superman doesn't need glasses. He puts on the glasses for no practical reason; just to dress up and pretend to be this mid-westwern guy he's not as a means of rubbing shoulders with the people on this planet. Superman would have thought he was human until puberty. Until maybe 12. The easiest way to understand it is to think of Jesus in the temple and the moment where his mother has to tell him the truth. He always knew he was different and alone. This is when it was all explained to him. He could still love his parents, but Clark is him trying to understand what humans are all about. As Elliot Maggin puts it, Clark Kent is a living, breathing work of art."

On Lois Lane: "Superman doesn't love Lois. Clark loves Lois and Superman tries HARD to love Lois, but he can't because she's the wrong species. But he tries. Again, Maggin sums it up beautifully. It doesn't have to be complicated... Clark loves Lois, Lois loves Superman, Superman loves Clark [...] Perfect. This is also one of the reasons Superman shouldn't be married to Lois. It's just stupid. It makes no sense and destroys the whole dynamic. Superman is God, Jor-El is the Holy Spirit and Clark Kent is Jesus. The Kents are Mary and Joseph and Lois is Mary Magdelene. She's the NYC girl who's ____ed her way around the city and found nobody who measures up. She's just had it with men and is focusing on her career... then Superman shows up. This is why Margot Kidder was perfect for the role and why Lois should be played by someone around 30 even if Supes is being played by a 25 year old. You'll see what I mean when we fix it."

On the current version of the character: "[Kingdom Come] is close to perfect. Waid gets it. None of the other American writers do, though Loeb comes close. His only weakness is getting caught up in the whole farmboy thing. The farm is where he grew up and knew he was NOTHING LIKE THESE PEOPLE. He affects it for the Clark persona, but that's it. He's as Kryptonian as Jesus is divine. Did Jesus shag Mary Mag? I don't think so. Superman should never shag Lois. It's insane and what happens when artists start touching tyoewriters. Jimmy is the reader-identification figure and the comedy relief. PS I'm saving everything else for the launch. No other ideas from me here, I'm afraid, in case some ____ nicks em."

On mixing metaphors: "No brimstone for Superman. He's interesting enough without it. He sees Earth the way immigrants saw America 100 years ago. He sees a chance for hope and a new life after losing his homeland as a kid. He loves people because he recognizes their great potential and, like Krypton, he wants to encourage them towards the Utopia his father sent him from. Forget Byrne. Read the Bible."

On the previous pitch Millar had made with Grant Morrison, Mark Waid and Tom Peyer: "The pitch we did was very late 90s and all the things I WOULDN'T do if Superman was being revamped now. It was nice, but it was the whole retro 60s thing that Grant's into as opposed to what I'd want to do myself. This thing was pretty good, but would be absolutely wrong for now. It still had Superman married to Lois and all that ____. There was another draft Mark Waid added with Earth getting a mind-wipe to forget that stuff and it had some nice touches, but I'd just start from scratch."

On how close Superman is to humanity: "Humans were apes less than 50 million years ago. Kryptonians are what we'd be like in 20 billion years. I have this all worked out as part of the proposal. In the last two years, I've filled two entire ring-binders with the plan. There's some AMAZING stuff in here. Hitch has also been doing little design doodles for the last five years. It's fate that we met."

DRE

07-04-2008, 04:23 AM

Seems like he has a reasonable grasp on what he sees as Superman.

Alex DeLarge

07-04-2008, 05:21 AM

I'm not the biggest fan of "Superman = Jesus and anything that strays from that is wrong because by doing something new with Superman, you're contradicting the Bible version of Superman" and I disagree with a lot of the Clark/Lois stuff... but it DOES sound interesting. These are just the themes on who he thinks Superman is; the actual stories, still not sure what he'd do, but I have faith. Would not mind if he got the film.

Sketch Sanchez

07-04-2008, 06:08 AM

I think he's insane. and full of himself.

Superman isnt broken. Plenty of writers "get" Superman.

Geoff Johns current stuff with Gary Frank is fantastic, HE fucking gets Superman. Grant Morrison gets Superman, All Star Superman is fucking incredible.

I dont mind it if others have their own view on the character, but when you start thinking you're the only one who could do the job "right", I have a huge problem with that. I want him no where near Superman.

Alex DeLarge

07-04-2008, 07:09 AM

Well, to be fair, this was said before Geoff's run and he and Morrison are friends in real life. If you notice, he said, "None of the other American writers do." He wouldn't have worded that way if he wasn't referring to non-American writers who he does think has a grasp, probably talking about the Scottish Morrison.

DRE

07-04-2008, 07:39 AM

I dont mind it if others have their own view on the character, but when you start thinking you're the only one who could do the job "right", I have a huge problem with that.

Welcome to the world of Chris Nolan and Christian Bale.

The Dream Master

07-04-2008, 07:43 AM

Dre, when have either of those two acted like that? I'm genuinely curious because I haven't seen anything. I know both have had negative comments towards Robin in the past, but that's all I recall.

Alex DeLarge

07-04-2008, 07:51 AM

Dre, when have either of those two acted like that? I'm genuinely curious because I haven't seen anything. I know both have had negative comments towards Robin in the past, but that's all I recall.

I think he's referring to the Justice League moive they were going to make (or still are...?) with their own Batman and I think both got upset about it.

DRE

07-04-2008, 07:51 AM

They have had an air that they're doing everything right whereas the other films didn't, which in actuality, they are...so far.

Alex DeLarge

07-04-2008, 08:05 AM

They have had an air that they're doing everything right whereas the other films didn't, which in actuality, they are...so far.

Well, yeah. If *I* made a good Batfilm after four films of either a Goth paradise populated by a Batman who blew thugs up or a neon wonderland populated by a Batman with Batnipples, I'd have that air about me too.:p

DRE

07-04-2008, 08:14 AM

Yeah but Burton led the way. Without Batman, there would be no Batman Begins.

The Dream Master

07-04-2008, 08:17 AM

And without Batman '66, there'd be no...ah, who am I kidding, fuck it. :D

Deathscythe

07-04-2008, 08:20 AM

And without Batman '66, there'd be no...ah, who am I kidding, fuck it. :D

:(

As Don Dokken would say it: [Adam West] FOREVEEEEEEEEERRRR!

The Dream Master

07-04-2008, 08:21 AM

I've got a soft spot for that shit, I'll admit it.

Alex DeLarge

07-04-2008, 08:31 AM

And without Batman '66, there'd be no...ah, who am I kidding, fuck it. :D

Actually, that's kind of true. The 60s show rescued Batman...

DRE

07-04-2008, 08:39 AM

And made him a laughing stock to the general public until Batman 89, (The general public who did not read Dark Knight Returns.)

Alex DeLarge

07-04-2008, 09:48 AM

And made him a laughing stock to the general public until Batman 89, (The general public who did not read Dark Knight Returns.)

But the general public wouldn't have even KNOWN about Batman if not for the 60s show. Until the show, Batman comics were on a down-hill spiral and might've faded into obsecurity. The 89 film may have changed the mood and tone of the character in the public's eyes, but the 60s show made sure they were watching him in the first place.

DRE

07-04-2008, 10:00 AM

Can't argue with that.

Darth Sinister

07-04-2008, 07:27 PM

I think he's referring to the Justice League moive they were going to make (or still are...?) with their own Batman and I think both got upset about it.

Bale and Nolan were only upset because they didn't want to be involved until their films were done. They had just got the Batman series back on track and wanted to be able to complete their run, where they could have Batman established as a vigilante before he dives headfirst into working with the JLA. They didn't want JLA to clash with "The Dark Knight" and a third film, if it does happen. Which seems likely.

In the case of Mark Millar, his views just don't work with the way the character is. Not without doing a total relaunch with another Crisis. When he says that Lois and Clark being married doesn't make sense, he just shows how small minded he is. Two people love each other and despite having differences in their biology, there's no reason that they cannot be in love and be married. That's like saying two people of mixed race shouldn't get married. John Byrne got it right by having Clark see himself as a human, despite knowing that he is Kryptonian. Jerry Ordway, Marv Wolfman, Roger Stern, Dan Jurgens, Louise Simonson, David Michelline, Stuart Immoen, Jeph Loeb, Joe Kelly, Greg Rucka, Gail Simone, Kurt Buisek and Geoff Johns have a good grasp on Superman. The Post Crisis version, not the Pre-Crisis version which Millar perfers.

Alex DeLarge

07-04-2008, 08:34 PM

Bale and Nolan were only upset because they didn't want to be involved until their films were done. They had just got the Batman series back on track and wanted to be able to complete their run, where they could have Batman established as a vigilante before he dives headfirst into working with the JLA. They didn't want JLA to clash with "The Dark Knight" and a third film, if it does happen. Which seems likely.

Which I can understand 100%. I still think the "JLA before solos" is silly.

The Dark Vampire

07-04-2008, 09:12 PM

I agree I think Batman + Superman should get at least 3 movies each first the others should get 1 or 2 at the very least

The Dream Master

07-04-2008, 09:35 PM

When he says that Lois and Clark being married doesn't make sense...

What, was he channeling Quesada or some shit?

Sketch Sanchez

07-04-2008, 09:48 PM

In the case of Mark Millar, his views just don't work with the way the character is. Not without doing a total relaunch with another Crisis. When he says that Lois and Clark being married doesn't make sense, he just shows how small minded he is. Two people love each other and despite having differences in their biology, there's no reason that they cannot be in love and be married. That's like saying two people of mixed race shouldn't get married. John Byrne got it right by having Clark see himself as a human, despite knowing that he is Kryptonian. Jerry Ordway, Marv Wolfman, Roger Stern, Dan Jurgens, Louise Simonson, David Michelline, Stuart Immoen, Jeph Loeb, Joe Kelly, Greg Rucka, Gail Simone, Kurt Buisek and Geoff Johns have a good grasp on Superman. The Post Crisis version, not the Pre-Crisis version which Millar perfers.

My thoughts exactly.

Darth Sinister

07-04-2008, 11:04 PM

What, was he channeling Quesada or some shit?

Sorta. Millar has a big ego as noted. He thinks that he can fix what's been broken in his view, for a long time. He even went on to say that all of the Superman writers since 1986 weren't interested in writing Superman. They were too busy working with the supporting cast and having other heroes in Metropolis. And if they weren't doing that, they were changing him. I've enjoyed the supporting cast during the 80's and most of the 90's. I agree it got too big, by 1999, but having a supporting cast made things interesting. And the changes were done mainly for story purposes. The other heroes, they're nice to have. It adds contrast between Superman and the others. Be it the Guardian, Gangbuster, Agent Liberty, the Alpha Centurion or the Thorn.

But to me, J. Michael Straczynski said it best regarding both Superman and Spider-Man being married vs being single.

Over your career you’ve fielded a lot of questions about the marriage of Peter and Mary Jane. How do you feel about the marriage of Clark and Lois?

I’m cool with it. I can see the value of him being on his own and the value of him being married.

People tend to get really caught up in this whole thing, and I never saw a problem on either side. I was perfectly happy writing Peter and Mary Jane as a married couple. But in the end, it’s not my character. When you are handed someone like Superman, Spider-Man or Batman, you treat it like a sacred trust. Your obligation is not to break it. If the character is married, you have to respect that. When you are a writer on a television show, and two characters are married, you can’t write an episode as if they are single. You have to respect the characters. You can create cool stories to write in either venue.

There are ten thousand stories you can’t do with Peter Parker married. But there are ten thousand other stories you can’t do with Peter Parker single. Having said that, if you take those stories out, there are still an infinite number of stories. Infinity minus ten thousand is still infinity. It comes down to matters of personal taste.

Which then leads us to the following. When Clark and Lois got together, it was because Jerry Ordway felt it was the logicial thing to do. Given everything that had gone before, from Adventures Of Superman #467 through the midway point of "Krisis Of The Krimson Kryptonite", it made more sense for Lois to say yes than no, as originally planned. This is why the marriage happened. Grant Morrison, Mark Waid, Tom Peyer Jr., and Mark Millar were going to be the writers who would take over the books in 1999. They had wanted to undo the marriage as they weren't fond of it and felt it had gone too far astray. But what Millar doesn't say in his interview, which Morrison did say, was that they couldn't agree to undo the marriage. Not the way they were going about it. It was too complicated, much like "One More Day" became. So the four of them agreed to just write the stories with the marriage. However, their proposal was not approved and all four walked. Jeph Loeb, Joe Kelly and J.M. DeMatties joined Mark Schultz who was retained to take over. Later, minus DeMatties and with Joe Casey on board, there were plans to try and undo the marriage again. And again, the proposal was turned down. Casey implies that is why Loeb left the book. Geoff Johns and Kurt Busiek both made it a point to just leave the marriage be and write to the best of their ability, regardless of it. James Robinson, who replaced Busiek last month, has done likewise.

Millar, he just rubs me the wrong way. He may be passionate and he may care, but his attitude just stinks. Part of it is taste, which is understandable. But really, the marriage works for both characters and has moved them forward. It's logical. Lois Lane fell in love with Clark Kent, which the writers on the books went through great pains to show. And when they did get married, he was without powers.

The One and Only

08-22-2008, 08:39 PM

Well, it's official, Routh and the Kal-El's bastard child has been kicked to the curb.:ballshot:

Warner Brothers has announced the next Man of Steel flick will be a franchise reboot. (http://www.newsarama.com/film/080822-WBRebootSuperman.html)

Jeff Robinov, Warner Bros. Pictures Group President, tells The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121936107614461929.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) that the Man of Steel will be reintroduced on the big screen without regard to 2006’s Superman Returns.

“Superman didn’t quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to,” Robinov says. “It didn’t position the character the way he needed to be positioned. ... Had Superman worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009.”

There’s no mention whether Superman Returns director Bryan Singer will be part of the reboot. Earlier this week, Variety’s Anne Thompson reported “that it is a priority at the studio to find the right direction and if Bryan Singer is willing to do that, fine, but if he gets in the way, he may not stay on the project.”

Taking a page from Marvel, Warner Bros. has reversed its earlier position of using the now-stalled Justice League of America as a launching pad for other DC properties. Instead, it will focus on solo features to build toward a multicharacter film.

“Along those lines, we have been developing every DC character that we own,” Robinov says.

That may sound less like a “strategy” and more like a mad cash-grab.

Like the recent Batman sequel, Mr. Robinov wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as "The Dark Knight." Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.' DC properties. "We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," he says. That goes for the company's Superman franchise as well.

According to The Journal, Warner Bros. plans to release four comic-book movies in the next three years: the third Batman installment, the Superman reboot, and two focusing on other DC Comics characters. (It’s unclear whether Watchmen is included in that count.) Likely candidates include Green Arrow/Super Max, Green Lantern, Captain Marvel and, perhaps, Jonah Hex.

Now, WB, get either Geoff Johns or Kurt Busiek to write the sucker. Or else... :dead:

Cody

08-22-2008, 08:49 PM

Hopefully they'll have better luck getting this one together than they did in the decade of aborted attempts before Singer came along.

Just Jeans

08-22-2008, 08:52 PM

“Along those lines, we have been developing every DC character that we own,” Robinov says.

Is it too much to hope for a Helena Bertinelli film? Very probably.

Anyhow, I was expecting the series to go reboot direction, but it's a bit unexpected that they want to go The Dark Knight route with it. While I've always preferred my superhero films a little dark, Superman is the one franchise I always thought would be sort of bright and colorful.

WesReviews

08-22-2008, 09:25 PM

Oh great. Another film where Lex Luthor is the villain. :(

DRE

08-22-2008, 09:51 PM

Now, I WILL say I told you so to all those non-believers who were SO sure that Routh, Singer and the SR storyline were returning. Ha! ;)

Just kidding guys. Seriously, I knew Hulk would spell doom for the SR take on the franchise, in my gut I knew it. There were rumors that Robinov was no fan of the film at all. But, I look forward to a new take and a new Superman, but please retain the theme!

El Rooto

08-22-2008, 10:05 PM

Oh great. Another film where Lex Luthor is the villain. :(
My thoughts exactly.

I wouldn't say The Incredible Hulk is to blame for this.

DRE

08-22-2008, 10:12 PM

That film showed that a close reboot can be done successfully. It may not have been the main deciding factor, but it no doubt was among the factors.

JVM

08-22-2008, 10:29 PM

Oh Great Now. Seriously, this is why I don't really like Superman movies. I don't find Lex Luther a good villian. When I was a kid, if I ever saw a commercial or something with the Legion of Doom, I asked "who that bald guy was".

Honestly, Superman is a character that can't be done right. Just look at his video game roster.

NW77

08-23-2008, 01:15 AM

There were rumors that Robinov was no fan of the film at all.

He was a fan of bringing Justice League to the screen. Even with how shitty it was going to be with George Miller directing & having many casts that look teen rejects from OC tv show. :p

But right now, they didn't officially announce it's a reboot. For all we know, it might be a direct sequel with a revamp story. Kinda like James Bond before Casino Royale. I saw Jett on "Batman on Film" site mention 2 days ago or so where he talk about the revamp. Beside, I'll believe when it official happending. We heard this same kind of shit last year from Variety & others with Justice League supposely start filming last Nov. and that project is canned for now. And I don't like the idea of hearing Robinsov said it will be going in the direction of The Dark Knight with bringing up the "brooding tone" on this & others films. Some complain Superman Returns was a little too dark, but now reading the comment sound like if they reboot it could be darker than SR. Do people want Superman to be dark? :shifty:
ADDED:

I wouldn't say The Incredible Hulk is to blame for this.

Me either. I doubt they got the idea of doing a reboot (if it is officially confirm) from TIH. Hell, that film barely did better at the box office than the first film & didn't make more than what it cost to make either. If the reboot does happend, they've could got it from Batman Begins. Nowhere did WB even bother to look at TIH. Why couldn't they look at Iron Man, hmm? :D :D

DRE

08-23-2008, 01:20 AM

No, some complained that Brandon-man was a stalker, using his abilities to spy on Lois and the real Superman of the film Richard. But that's another topic for another day. I'm all for a new approach to the myth, I'm sure a darker approach can be done without ruining Big Blue.

The Dream Master

08-23-2008, 04:55 AM

In a way, I'm happy about this. I really enjoyed Superman Returns (aside from a few things), but I feel like it sort of painted the franchise into a corner with the kid. However, I do see it as a great wrap-up to the original series that Donner began.

Jack Bauer

08-23-2008, 05:13 AM

I'm kinda excited for a new Superman film, but I did like Returns.

Darth Sinister

08-23-2008, 05:28 AM

He was a fan of bringing Justice League to the screen. Even with how shitty it was going to be with George Miller directing & having many casts that look teen rejects from OC tv show. :p

But right now, they didn't officially announce it's a reboot. For all we know, it might be a direct sequel with a revamp story. Kinda like James Bond before Casino Royale. I saw Jett on "Batman on Film" site mention 2 days ago or so where he talk about the revamp. Beside, I'll believe when it official happending. We heard this same kind of shit last year from Variety & others with Justice League supposely start filming last Nov. and that project is canned for now. And I don't like the idea of hearing Robinsov said it will be going in the direction of The Dark Knight with bringing up the "brooding tone" on this & others films. Some complain Superman Returns was a little too dark, but now reading the comment sound like if they reboot it could be darker than SR. Do people want Superman to be dark? :shifty:
ADDED:

Me either. I doubt they got the idea of doing a reboot (if it is officially confirm) from TIH. Hell, that film barely did better at the box office than the first film & didn't make more than what it cost to make either. If the reboot does happend, they've could got it from Batman Begins. Nowhere did WB even bother to look at TIH. Why couldn't they look at Iron Man, hmm? :D :D

Well, when they say "reintroduce" that pretty much confirms that it is a reboot. A dark Superman film, yeah this might not go over well. Especially if it is as dark as what Jon Peters and Tim Burton wanted to go with.

Is it too much to hope for a Helena Bertinelli film? Very probably.

She's not on a high list priority for WB. Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash and Aquaman would be top priority. Especially for a JLA film. Green Arrow, Hawkman, the Atom, Firestorm, Captain Marvel and Metamorpho would be next. Teen Titans and possibly the JSA. Then the Birds of Prey. Then Huntress, Booster Gold, Blue Beetle and Captain Atom.

NW77

08-23-2008, 07:41 PM

I'm all for a new approach to the myth, I'm sure a darker approach can be done without ruining Big Blue.

I hope you're joking there, 'cause making a darker approach for Superman is not the best way to go & it can ruin Superman. Superman should never be dark. And not even the tone either. That just doesn't fit Supes where it does with Batman. Even Harry Knowles brought up a good point here (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38037). Superman is all about hope, thus the tone should be happily bright. :shifty:

DRE

08-23-2008, 10:40 PM

I hope you're joking there, 'cause making a darker approach for Superman is not the best way to go & it can ruin Superman. Superman should never be dark. And not even the tone either. That just doesn't fit Supes where it does with Batman. Even Harry Knowles brought up a good point here (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38037). Superman is all about hope, thus the tone should be happily bright. :shifty:

I'm not joking. No one is saying go the Burton route with Supes nor should the Man of Steel himself be the dark and brooding, maybe the world is what is dark and brooding. A "Kingdom Come" approach to a Superman movie is something that I believe can be done, and what better way to show the true spirit of Krypton's Last Son than to have him change the world for the better by the end of the trilogy? (If it's planned to be that.)

I've seen many comic boards and film boards up in arms about this, but come on, some writer out there can crack the code and give us something on par with The Dark Knight and still be true to the mythos of the Man of Steel. Hell, I'm willing to bet that Darth Sinister could break that code, as well as he knows the lore of these things.

Darth Sinister

08-23-2008, 11:50 PM

The Dream Master

08-23-2008, 11:53 PM

Rubinov refered to "Superman's evil side"...

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z175/McCaw420/evil-superman-1.jpg

Just Jeans

08-24-2008, 12:04 AM

Is that Atkins' hip at the far right of the frame? :X

Jack Bauer

08-24-2008, 12:51 AM

Did Superman ever have an evil side in the comics? I know they made Kal-El into the evil Superman since that was him at his fullest potential in Smallville.

Deathscythe

08-24-2008, 03:38 AM

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z175/McCaw420/evil-superman-1.jpg

Just because someone drinks does that make them a bad person.:mad:

El Rooto

08-24-2008, 03:40 AM

That's Evil Superman you're talking about.

The Dream Master

08-24-2008, 03:49 AM

Just because someone drinks does that make them a bad person.:mad:

That and the 5:00 shadow Supes is rocking there. Nothing says "evil" like unkempt facial hair.

Just Jeans

08-24-2008, 03:56 AM

Just because someone drinks does that make them a bad person.:mad:

Well no.

But look at that stubble. It's got "Bad Person" written all over it!
ADDED:
Damn your quickness, Brett. :misery:

The Dream Master

08-24-2008, 03:57 AM

Great minds think alike dere.

Deathscythe

08-24-2008, 04:20 AM

I know about the evil Superman thing, I was just trying to make a joke about the drinking. Oh well.

Anyway, I think I've seen that picture on every fourm I've been to.

Zombie

08-24-2008, 04:48 AM

I think they need to make a better villian for Superman. Not Luther or disasters. Something like Superman 2, I just think they're trying to make Superman movies with a "realistic" tone and thus that's why we've gotten what we have with those movies.

I liked Returns, and they could continue off that, they just need to lose the kid and now just bring in another villian and more action and it will do pretty good. I think Superman appeals more to kids then Batman, so they don't need to make it as mature/believable as the new Batman movies have been. Hell, we have a guy flying around with heat vision and super cold breath! So they can bring some kind of over the top villian, hell bring in Doomsday! That could be the PERFECT trilogy there.

The first one sets up the fight and death, then superman dies either at the end of pt1 or beginning of pt 2 and that sets up the fake supermen, and then 3 brings back the real superman with one more showdown with doomsday or one or two of the evil supermen, or like two of them turn evil and thus makes the return for the real superman... Maybe it won't be the perfect trilogy but it could be pretty darn good.

Even though if they dont do that which I doubt they would anyways, bring in Doomsday, or some kind of "alien" foe, like from another planet/universe, kind of like they did with Fantastic Four 2. That sure as hell wasn't "believable" or "Realistic" but it was a pretty fun movie and it made me not think about "come on something like this couldn't really happen".. Its a comic movie, and they need to add stuff like that, take people out of the "real world" for those 2 hours and just let them get sucked into the movie and have fun.

I think that's why Marvel's live action movies do so well is because they are will to do that and keep it a real comic movie and something you would see and read in a comic, but DC movies are wanting it to be more realistic and believable. Which works for Batman IMO and they made the Joker "realistic" which worked as well to, they didn't drop him in acid and actually make him have a "smiley" face ala tim burtons movie. Which is why I think it works for batman because there's no supernatural things or powers, it's just crazy people. That's why they have to be careful now with batman in the furture and what kind of villians they bring in for the next film. I could see Riddler being the next one, but I can't see like Mr Freeze, not in this series of Batman movies, heck I really even can't see Penguin either or anything that's to far out there. Riddler and Catwoman sure, Bane maybe, but then I don't know if there's a whole lot of people that know who Bane REALY is and not what they got fed in Batman and Robin??

Anyways though, kind of got off topic. But that's what they need to see is they can be totally different with Superman and still strike gold, they just need to let go of trying to be "realistic" and or thinking in that kind of direction. Sure we don't want it to be campy silly, but they can make a serious,marture, superman movie with a way better, bigger, stonger, villian then Luther and or a Natural Disaster.

SlasherFreak

08-24-2008, 09:48 AM

I never got into Superman. I may have seen the original with Christopher Reeves once, when I was little.

NW77

08-24-2008, 06:54 PM

It's not that a dark Superman film cannot be done. The problem is that a) WB wants to make everyone like the Batman films and b) Rubinov refered to "Superman's evil side" which screams to me that he wants Superman acting like Batman rather than acting like Superman. Given WB's track record, many of us fear a Jon Peters/Tim Burton Superman rather than the version of Superman as he should be.

Exactly. That is what I'm concern about. With The Dark Knight making amazing profit at the box office, Robinsov seem to think that "dark & brooding" is the way to go with other films, when that don't work with all of DC heroes. He just doesn't get it with forgetting Superman is about hope, not dark & brooding. Thus, Superman should have that happy & colorful look to his film. But hey, he wanted a Justice League film & not Supes. Hell, he gave the greenlight to the JL that many were against with having so many teenagers looking heroes. That would make SR look like Citizen Kane!! :eek:

The Dream Master

08-24-2008, 06:57 PM

The reason a lot of people seemed to dislike Superman Returns was the fact that Superman himself was "brooding." He wasn't so much dark, but there was this sense of angst. It personally worked for me, but I've seen a lot of people call it "joyless," so I doubt WB will go in that direction.

Darth Sinister

08-24-2008, 09:18 PM

Did Superman ever have an evil side in the comics? I know they made Kal-El into the evil Superman since that was him at his fullest potential in Smallville.

No, Superman has not had an evil side. Not like that. The Kal-El persona in "Smallville" was not evil. In 1986 when Superman's origin changed with "Man Of Steel", it was explained in "World Of Krypton" and "Day Of The Krypton Man"/"Eradication" that Kryptonians had developed into an emotionless state similar to Vulcans. Jor-El was the first Kryptonian in many long years to feel emotions. But when he programed an A.I. into his star drive, he intended for it to eradicate his human persona and replace it with a more proper Kryptonian one. The Eradicator would also attempt this, with far better results. Clark would become an emotionless, logical being who cared little for the trappings of his human half. Fortunately the Kents and a piece of Green Kryptonite helped Clark to break free.

The only time there has ever been an evil version of Superman, one who hasn't been influenced by mind control, is when it is an alternate Earth persona. On Earth-3 and in the Anti-Matter Universe, there exists an evil version of Superman known as Ultraman. An astronaut named Clark Kent who was reconstituted into a Kryptonian like being who became known as Ultraman. However his powers on the Anti-Matter Earth rely on Anti-Matter Kryptonite which the closer he is, the stronger he becomes. He's also a twisted individual. The only other evil versions are the Superman from Earth-16 and the Superman from Earth-9, who does not resemble Kal-El at all. And Superboy-Prime, who is a younger version of Kal-El from Earth-Prime who went evil during "Infinite Crisis".

Not Luther

Lex Luthor is more than capable of being a deadly foe. Granted, the film version to date hasn't done the things that the comic or animated version have done, but that doesn't make him any less of a threat. He can still be a villain and work with or control others to do his bidding. Superman also has a large number of villains who come in different modes. Either as brute strength, intellectual foes, technological foes, magic and Kryptonite based ones. It doesn't have to be Doomsday. You can have Imperiex, Metallo, Bizarro, Kryptonite Man, Toyman and Intergang.

Exactly. That is what I'm concern about. With The Dark Knight making amazing profit at the box office, Robinsov seem to think that "dark & brooding" is the way to go with other films, when that don't work with all of DC heroes. He just doesn't get it with forgetting Superman is about hope, not dark & brooding. Thus, Superman should have that happy & colorful look to his film. But hey, he wanted a Justice League film & not Supes. Hell, he gave the greenlight to the JL that many were against with having so many teenagers looking heroes. That would make SR look like Citizen Kane!!

There can and have been certain dark elements, but Superman has not always been dark himself. The times he has been, the sales on the book tanked and fans were sick of it. Mainly from the time period following "Our Worlds At War" through Action Comics #800 and then from "For Tomorrow" through "Infinite Crisis". Also the first half of "Exiled" focused on it a bit, but switched over once he got to Warworld. Aside from those stories, Superman doesn't really lamment his place in the universe. He rarely broods. Nor does he have an evil side.

The reason a lot of people seemed to dislike Superman Returns was the fact that Superman himself was "brooding." He wasn't so much dark, but there was this since of angst. It personally worked for me, but I've seen a lot of people call it "joyless," so I doubt WB will go in that direction.

That was a right balance between light and dark. But while that was true, more complaints were about him not punching someone. Superman doesn't always punch out people in the comics. As to brooding, the most he's ever done that was his feelings of being an outsider. Being the last of his kind. When Kara, Karsta and Chris showed up he was no longer brooding like before. And now with 100,000 Kryptonians about to be freed from Brainiac, he'll truly feel that he is no longer alone. Most dark elements surround his enemies, while he himself remains ever the same.

The Dream Master

08-24-2008, 09:40 PM

Like I said, Superman Returns worked for me; Superman invading Lois's privacy was taking things a bit too far, but, to me, it made sense for him to be kind of angsty and brooding over being completely alone. Most people complained that he was just being "emo." I don't get why some are suddenly clamoring for a "darker" Superman after seeing SR (which, to me, is the "darkest" the character should ever become).

The world of the film could certainly be dark, I guess. I think Donner's originally pretty much nailed what a Superman film should be, tonally speaking, but it seems like most people find that campy these days. To me, a Superman film should instill a sense of wonderment and amazement; it shouldn't depress me, except in rare cases. Then again, I guess "dark" can mean anything. I'm guessing here it's just being used as a bit of a "buzz word" because people like "dark" these days.

skuppy

08-25-2008, 06:21 AM

I kind of figured WB would try to "darken" their other super heroes. Its funny that WB thinks TDK was successful was because of how dark it is. Do they really have no clue? If they try to make Supes "dark", they're going to fuck up the franchise. I don't mind them doing a reboot though (I did like SR, and as others said, it made a good ending to the Donner storyline). I'm also sad to see Routh not coming back! I really liked him as Supes and was looking forward to see him return.

Lammert

08-25-2008, 12:47 PM

I like Superman 1 and 2... hell I even like some parts of Superman 3.
And Superman Returns was a good sequel.

Why do a dark Superman? Will he be like emo-spiderman in Spiderman 3? Fuck it... Just do a sequel to Returns and keep the original series alive in the spirit of Reeve!

The One and Only

08-25-2008, 05:55 PM

We have seen Superman in a bit of a dark mindset before. After being brainwashed by Darksied into believing he was his adopted son, and sicced on Earth in "Legacy", the two part finale to Superman:The Animated Series not only did he go into ass-kicking mode when returning to Apokalyps to deliver payback to Darksied. He almost knocked Professor Hamilton around when the latter refused to treat Supergirl, in the wake of the Man of Steel's attacks under Darksied's influence. Due to being charged with being an accomplice. not mention how scowly, as the Flash put it, Clark got during the whole Cadmus storyline. Even Lois commented that the Justice League came off as pretty heavy handed since increasing its ranks. People might be a slight bit frightened by this Strange Visitor from Another Planet with these wild powers because he might decide to turn on them. Also the flick could play up Lex's rationalization of Superman and his ilk by being around, are basically dumbing down humanity, causing them no longer to inovate. Why bother, when Superman could probaly do it ?

Also one thing I'm bummed about, Singer was supposedly planning to introduce Braniac to the big screen. One actor I'd think would be perfect for the role now reading the current "BRANIAC arc in Action Comics would be Pinhead himself, Doug Bradley.

Darth Sinister

08-25-2008, 09:26 PM

The darker aspects shown in the DCAU were handled well, but they didn't sink to the kinds of depths that would not fit Superman. That's the part that has many worried. Will they try to do Superman like Tim Burton/Jon Peters/JJ Abrams or will they find some middle ground like a number of comic tales and the work of the DCAU? Will they try and make him like Batman? Like TDM said, there's little coming out, but what there is and what their track recond has shown aren't favorable.

Here's the difference between Superman and Batman. When Batman enters a room, it's like someone died. Which is how Green Lantern Kyle Rayner described it to the Wally West Flash. While when Superman enters a room, you have a sense of awe and hope. Like Mr. Miracale's daughter said in "Kingdom Come" after Superman gave a speech, she'd follow him to Apokolips.

And here is an example of the optimism of Superman.

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o170/darth-ermac/DC/GABC_04.jpg

He has hope in a world when most people are cynical by nature, he keeps hoping for the best.

The Taff

08-25-2008, 11:16 PM

I recently worked with someone who went to school with Brandon Routh.

Says the guy was a self absorbed, bullying prick in high school. Must be why he sucked as Superman so much.

Darth Reaper

08-26-2008, 10:44 AM

I thought Brandon Routh did a fine job as Superman.

I think one thing that IRON MAN proved is that a super hero film can have a lighter tone and still be good. There was some dark subject matter in that movie, but overall it was much lighter than the BATMAN films and was still a very good film.

In some ways I think the Superman films should try to emulate IRON MAN rather than the BATMAN films.

JVM

08-26-2008, 10:47 AM

I won't see the reboot. Superman doesn't sit as a movie character to me. He just reads episodic...Comic, Show...but not Movie...Movies just don't feel right for him.

Batman on the other hand....I'm convinced Batman ONLY works for movies.

Spiderman is a whole different story.

DRE

08-26-2008, 10:50 AM

Routh was okay, but I'd like to see another actor give it a try.

Jack Bauer

08-26-2008, 11:21 PM

I'm glad that this is not the direction that they're going for Man of Steel:

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/7121/supes23lw1.jpg

:D

But personally I would love to see a World's Finest film (http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/2685/worldsfinest1bo7.jpg) then another re-boot flick.

NW77

08-27-2008, 01:58 AM

You're terrible, man. LOL! :p

But I think I heard one time Bale would like to work with Routh. Also, supposely he signed a contract to maybe play Batman outside of Nolan's Batman films.

MaC

08-27-2008, 02:20 AM

I really enjoyed Returns so I'm kind of sad that Singer is being taken out of the picture. This is compounded by the fact that I lost seeing his resolution to the X-Men trilogy for Returns, which will already be taken out of the picture. In my opinion, X-Men and X2 were far and away superior to Superman Returns, but I seeing how excellent Singer made X2 I was expecting something really great in a sequel.

Still, nothing I can really say until some news about the new director and writer are announced.

Nick Michalak

08-27-2008, 08:15 AM

What should be done for a Superman film is to introduce him into a very relatable world. One that is riddled with a lot of negativity, war, and jaded sensibilities. Then, Superman comes on the scene, and becomes this shining beacon of hope that the world needs. A symbol to show the world that they can aspire to be something better, that they possess the power within themselves to change the world.

Still, Superman has to be grounded, in terms of his personality. He's a man without an ego, and has nothing but the most optimistic view on humanity. He doesn't wish to be viewed as a god-like figure. Because he could be viewed by people as a serious threat to the world, he does everything possible to make his intentions and virtue known to them. He carries with him a great deal of responsibility, but carries himself with sophistication and maturity.

Basically, I think they need this re-boot to clear away all the contrived and convoluted bullshit Singer dumped on the franchise as well as the outdated junk from Donner's films. Give us the proper Lex Luthor - the genius billionaire corporate meglomaniac. Not some cheesy third rate villain with narrow-minded real estate scams - BORING! The Luthor we have these days has so much more potential for stories with more depth. Lex's psychology is fascinating because he believes himself to be the hero. We also don't need 'Son of Superman' - it throws up red flashing lights and sirens like before the Enterprise blew up in "The Search For Spock." I can't see anything but some horrible WB-style primetime "7th Heaven" crapfest developing there. It would get up there with Spider-Man 3, I can just see the horror of it all. I don't want to see Superman raising a family - I want him dealing with villains like Darkseid, Metallo, Brainic, and so forth. HE'S FUCKING SUPERMAN!!!! C'mon!

Seriously, if you're going to get a brand new, fresh filmmaking team on "Superman" - cut the strings. Don't have them be bogged down by all these mistakes by past filmmakers. Allow them the same freedom Chris Nolan had with Batman. Allow them to work without resolving continuities or hanging plot threads Singer left dangling. Start it fresh. Nothing wrong with that here.

-NJM

Scarecrow

08-27-2008, 08:55 AM

I've still not seen Returns but I think the son was always going to be trouble for a whole franchise.

- Scarecrow

Darth Reaper

08-27-2008, 12:08 PM

Give us the proper Lex Luthor - the genius billionaire corporate meglomaniac. Not some cheesy third rate villain with narrow-minded real estate scams - BORING! The Luthor we have these days has so much more potential for stories with more depth. Lex's psychology is fascinating because he believes himself to be the hero.- Nick Michalak

To be fair "the proper Lex Luthor" is a matter of opinion. The one that Donner and Singer presented is more in keeping with the pre-Crisis Luther. The genius billionaire corporate megolomaniac is simply the modern interpretation (and I think he's moved away from that form a bit in recent years). Both versions are equally valid, it's just a question of which one you prefer.

And, Singer's version of Luther seemed to fancy himself a hero too. He saw himself as Prometheus bringing fire to the people, while the great god Superman would keep it all for himself. Luther just wanted what he felt was his just due in return.

But, anyway, I do like the sound of a lot of what you're suggesting.

As I've said on another board, one idea that intrigues me is something along the lines of what I think Kevin Smith was going to do. Since we already know what Superman's origins are, why not simply put some text at the beginning of the film that gives a brief synopsis of it and then have the actual film take place after Superman has already established himself as a Superhero.

Also, I'd like to see John Williams' music remain a part of the series. I think it transcends continuity and fits Superman in any form.

TheShowstoppa

08-27-2008, 03:44 PM

Williams's score has worked through continuity and different universes, considering Smallville incorperated it into the score of the second season when Reeve was a guest star in "Rosetta." I personally love that score and I agree that it should remain so as the Man of Steel's theme.

About the reboot - I have to agree again with Reaper and say that we just need to put text at the beginning. I've been going through all 7 seasons of Smallville lately and it's going to become very worrysome to have to go through and watch the origins all over again when I'm watching Smallville. Superman is an established hero. If you don't know where he came from, you're on drugs. If you don't know at least SOME of his backstory - you've been dead for the last 70 years.

Just Jeans

08-27-2008, 04:13 PM

...considering Smallville incorperated it into the score of the second season when Reeve was a guest star in "Rosetta."

You know, people say this, but I've never heard it. I recall illusions to William's score, but no direct quotes (with the exception of perhaps the Krypton Theme... it's been ages).

Darth Sinister

08-27-2008, 09:15 PM

When we first see the exterior shots of NYC, we hear the Fortress Of Solitude cue and it continues as Clark walks in to Swann's lab/office. We hear a brief statement of the Main Theme when the show goes to commercial. When the episode picks back up, we hear a combination of different portions of the Fortress cue and the Planet Krypton/Kryptonopolis cue. The Fortress cue plays again when we come back to the farm. Superman's Main Title cue is heard at the end when the episode ends. We don't hear this music again until the finale, as we hear both the Fortress cue and the Main Title as the episode ends. The only difference is that Mark Snow had to do a new recording of those cues or a new mix, to track with what was going on screen.

What should be done for a Superman film is to introduce him into a very relatable world. One that is riddled with a lot of negativity, war, and jaded sensibilities. Then, Superman comes on the scene, and becomes this shining beacon of hope that the world needs. A symbol to show the world that they can aspire to be something better, that they possess the power within themselves to change the world.

That's what the first film and Returns did. The first film established that Metropolis was a crime filled city that had fallen hard times and the populace were rather jaded. So when Superman appears they start cheering him and the criminals are running scared. In Returns, we see Clark flip through the news and see that despite his five years away, the world was just as bad as it had been for. Even more so. This then builds to when he reappears as Superman with the world cheering his return and later when he tells Lois why the world still needs him, even if she doesn't. The fourth film, despite it's flaws, had Superman make an effort to try and bring about change, even though it went again what Jor-El wanted him to do. Had the Jeremy subplot not been cut down to what you see in the theatrical cut, you'd see more of Clark's indecision and resolution at the end.

I can't see anything but some horrible WB-style primetime "7th Heaven" crapfest developing there. It would get up there with Spider-Man 3, I can just see the horror of it all. I don't want to see Superman raising a family - I want him dealing with villains like Darkseid, Metallo, Brainic, and so forth. HE'S FUCKING SUPERMAN!!!! C'mon!

Superman can do both. Hell, we saw as much during the Chris Kent story arc. We got to see Clark divide his time in "Last Son", "Camelot Falls", "The Third Kryptonian" and the Daxamite story arc between his work as Superman and his taking care of Chris.

The Taff

08-29-2008, 01:37 AM

I'de go see this instead of Returns.... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONk2qnRBCGg)

happycampertwo

08-29-2008, 03:25 AM

I've never been a huge Superman fan, but this movie sounds like it could be good. I mean, I never thought they could make a good Batman film until Nolan came along, so they just might pull this off.

CosmoBubba

08-29-2008, 06:05 AM

I'de go see this instead of Returns.... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONk2qnRBCGg)

That movie needs to be made right the fuck now.

Deathscythe

08-29-2008, 07:01 AM

That movie needs to be made right the fuck now.

Seriously, ASAP!

Lord Darth Hunter

09-01-2008, 08:00 AM

I'm glad to hear that WB is going to do reboot Superman. I see that as the only option. Why? Because, while I enjoyed Superman Returns, despite all of Bryan Singer's comments to the contrary, it was a direct sequel to Superman I and II. There's just no arguing that now. The fears voiced by many turned out to be true; he made a movie for himself and for older fanboys of the original 1978 film, completely overestimating their value with today's audience. Superman Returns was a bookend to those story elements introduced in the first two films, thus it didn't really set anything up. It felt more like a wrap up than anything else, so there's pretty much nowhere to go now. Reboot the franchise as it should have been in the first place.

The problem with this though is that it seems like my new fear may be realized. A fear I've had since many years ago when Tim Burton and Nicolas Cage were attached to the pre-Superman Returns project. With The Dark Knight being so successful, WB now thinks every superhero has to be dark. They all need an "ooooooo dark and brooding" hero that needs to be explored. This is a part of a lot of superheroes, but its not a part of Superman. He's NOT dark. Period. To try and paint Superman with a dark side completely goes against everything the character stands for in the first place, to the point there's no reason to even call the character Superman. So I'd be for a reboot. But the only elements of darkness should be in the villains.

Darth Sinister

09-01-2008, 07:26 PM

The thing with the older films is that there was nothing wrong with the origin and there was plenty of places they can go with. WB is being its usual, ignorant self which is no surprise. They do not have any clue on how to run things and will continue to bungle things.

The Taff

09-01-2008, 08:13 PM

Superman is all about hope.

If you want a dark Superman movie, don't make Supes dark, make the situation dark. Give Supes a foe that represents hopelessness and dispair.

Give us Darkseid, baby!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/DarkseidsupermanTAS.jpg

Alex DeLarge

09-01-2008, 09:41 PM

NW77

09-02-2008, 02:33 PM

Personally, I would've prefer Darkseid in a Justice League movie. He is quite powerful to take on more than one heroes. For Superman film, I prefer Brainiac or maybe Bizzaro. I seen many fans poll on who they want to see next & Brainiac has been the most popular choice. :)

The Taff

09-02-2008, 04:06 PM

The reason Darkseid would work in a Superman movie is the same reason Joker works in a Batman movie. Darkseid is the anti-thesis of Superman.

Superman is hope, Darkseid is despair. Superman stands for freedom, Darkseid stands for tyranny. Superman stands as a beacon of truth, Darkseid represent vicious, cunning deception.

NW77

09-02-2008, 08:25 PM

I just prefer Darkseid for later. I just want Brainiac right now. :D

Alex DeLarge

09-02-2008, 09:32 PM

I'd be happy with ANYONE who isn't Lex or Zod, IE someone who hasn't been in a film before. I'd be happy with friggin' Mxyzptlk.

Darth Sinister

09-03-2008, 02:37 AM

The current Brainiac by Geoff Johns and Gary Frank.

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk27/Darth_Ermac/DC/DC-2/DC-3/Brainiac.jpg

Jack Bauer

09-03-2008, 03:52 AM

Superman still alittle Routh-ish in that pic.

The One and Only

09-03-2008, 04:33 AM

He's a bit more buff than I expected. I was expecting someone ,a wee bit more thinner.

NW77

09-03-2008, 04:56 AM

Superman still alittle Routh-ish in that pic.

Funny, but that is suppose to be Reeve's Superman actually. I recognize it, because I saw Gary Frank's art sketch preview of his look on Supes few years ago on Wizard magazine before. In fact, here the art I'm talking about.

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/miscellaneous/garyfrank-sketch1-tb.JPG

bloodlust

09-03-2008, 07:04 PM

I hope the next superman movie is better than the snorefeast superman returns

Darth Sinister

09-03-2008, 08:24 PM

Clark has only appeared similar to Brandon Routh when Adam Kubert drew him during "Last Son" and recently in "Last Will & Testament". But it is only the Clark Kent persona with his hair now being a bit unkempt looking, rather than slicked back.

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk27/Darth_Ermac/DC/Superman-65.jpg

Gary Frank's rendition of Lois and Clark from Action Comics #866.

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk27/Darth_Ermac/DC/DC-2/Superman-71.gif

Note that Clark not only looks like Reeve, but Lois bears a resemblence to Kidder.

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk27/Darth_Ermac/DC/DC-2/DC-3/Superman-88.jpg

While in JSA, New Earth Superman looks traditional while Earth-22 Superman looks like Alex Ross's design. It all depends on what the artist wants to do and how far DC will allow it.

Rich

09-03-2008, 08:46 PM

I really hope to finally see Metallo in a Superman film. Luthor is a great character, but they have him on overkill.

DRE

09-04-2008, 08:46 AM

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk27/Darth_Ermac/DC/DC-2/DC-3/Superman-88.jpg

While in JSA, New Earth Superman looks traditional while Earth-22 Superman looks like Alex Ross's design. It all depends on what the artist wants to do and how far DC will allow it.

Why is he beating up He-Man in that pic? ;):D

I know they fought in DC Comics Presents #47, but this is too much.

Darth Sinister

09-04-2008, 08:57 PM

That's Hercules. Not He-Man. In Justice Society of America #13, the two Kal's fight him.

Just Jeans

09-04-2008, 11:37 PM

Note that Clark not only looks like Reeve, but Lois bears a resemblence to Kidder.

Oh, I like that. I wish they'd go with that design more often.

Darth Sinister

09-05-2008, 02:25 AM

Well, it's mainly because Gary Frank is working with Geoff Johns, who is using elements of the films in his run. So he's using a combination of Curt Swan's classic design with Reeve and Kidder. Renato Guedes, Jamal Igle, Howard Porter, Ed Benes, Dale Eaglesham, Pete Woods, Adam Kubert, Mark Bagely, Carlos Pacheo, JG Jones and Dan Jurgens are sticking with their version. They've also been using Terence Stamp and Sarah Douglas for Zod and Ursa.

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk27/Darth_Ermac/DC/DC-2/Brainiac01.jpg

Lionel Luthor has been brought into continuity and is based on John Glover.

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk27/Darth_Ermac/DC/DC-2/DC-3/LionelLuthor.jpg

Jonathan and Martha were looking like older versions of John Schnider and Annette O'Toole, starting with "Birthright". But now they've gone to a different version, designed by Eric Powell.

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o170/darth-ermac/DC/Smallville.jpg

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g92/darth-sinister/Avatars/Avatars-2/Avatars-3/Avatars-4/Ac5.jpg

Darth Reaper

09-05-2008, 01:23 PM

Personally, I would've prefer Darkseid in a Justice League movie- NW77

I agree with NW77. I think Darkseid should be saved for a JUSTICE LEAGUE movie. It seems to me that, done right, Darkseid should be a threat that no single hero can defeat alone, not even Superman. Why, because he's not a lone character. He rules an entire planet, has legions of minions at his command, and knowledge that's far beyond our own. If he wanted to he could probably send an invasion force that could totally overwhelm this planet.

Hell, realistically I'm not sure if even the Justice League could stop Darkseid. The sheer weight of numbers would be hopelessly against them. Their only hope would probably be if you go with the JUSTICE LEAGUE UNLIMITED idea, in which case you have every super hero on the planet working together. You'd have an army then. Or, you'd have to get the New Gods involved, like they did at the end of an animated series.

And, personally, I've always thought that Darkseid should be more powerful than Superman. He should be one of the few characters against whom Superman is the underdog.

For a Superman solo film I think they should go with Brainiac as the next big villain. I could think of some wicked things to do with him.

The more I think about it the more I think that maybe I could live with Luthor not being the villain in the first reboot film. He should maybe have some kind of presence in the film; something to establish his place within the new continuity, but he doesn't have to be a big part of the story. For example, they could show a skyscraper in Metropolis that has Lexcorp on it in big letters, signaling that Lex will be the billionaire industrialist/criminal mastermind that he's often portrayed as these days.

The Dark Vampire

09-05-2008, 02:01 PM

They could even play that up as Lex was to smart to go up against Superman straight away as he knew he would possibly beat him so he waited to weigh up his options and learn as much as possible before taking on The Man Of Steel

Darth Reaper

09-05-2008, 02:53 PM

As I've said before, my idea is to have the reboot start with Superman already established as a Superhero (basically like the animated movie SUPERMAN: DOOMSDAY did). So, he and Luthor would already be enemies.

One thought that I've had is to have Luthor make a cameo appearance at the end of the first film that would set him up as the big bad for the second film. We'd see that he has a new plan for taking out Superman and that he's been taking his time developing it so that when the time comes to strike everything will be worked out.

I've even thought that they could have Superman turn to Lex for help defeating Brainiac. Then, at the end of the film, after the two of them have managed to work, we'd find out that Lex has his own plans for taking out Supes and he didn't want Brainiac to get in the way.

I went back and read Mark Millar's thoughts on Superman. Some of his ideas do sound good but some of them don't, and I don't like this attitude he has that Superman's been skrewed up and he's going to "fix" him. For one thing, I think Superman understands humanity pretty well because humanity is all that he's ever known. He grew up amongst humans. He has no memory of life on Krypton. And, I have no problem with him loving and marrying Lois.

Personally I think that neither Clark Kent or Superman represent the real man. When he's Clark Kent, the mild-mannered reporter for the Daily Planet, he's doing his best to make sure that nobody knows he's Superman. So he wears glasses and generally acts like a dork. When he's Superman he's trying to be everything that people expect him to be. People have come to see Superman as the guy who can do anything, can solve every problem, beat every bad guy, have all the answers, and he tries to live up to that because he feels that people need it. He can't allow himself to show fear, or doubt, or hesitation, because if he does he feels like he's letting people down. And, no matter how much good he does he'll always be tormented by the desire to do more.

I imagine that the real person behind Clark Kent and Superman is the guy we see when he's in Smallville with Ma and Pa Kent, or when he's at home with Lois, because there he doesn't have to put on any kind of show. He can be himself, with all of the strengths and weaknesses that come with the package.

And, I think people need to let go of the idea of Superman as Jesus a bit. He's not Jesus and he doesn't have to perfectly emulate him.

This hasn't eased my concerns about Millar being involved with Superman.

The Dark Vampire

09-05-2008, 03:54 PM

I can see your point however if they don't do a new origins story most of the public will just assume it's just another sequel more than likely Superman Returns 2 especially if Lex isn't the main villain.

I doubt any origins story could top the original one though.

Just Jeans

09-05-2008, 07:13 PM

The Incredible Hulk didn't retell his origins, did it? That was a series reboot too, wasn't it?

The Dark Vampire

09-05-2008, 07:14 PM

The Incredible Hulk didn't retell his origins, did it? That was a series reboot too, wasn't it?

True it did reference it though and it was in flashback so I would expect at least a quick flash back sequence

Darth Sinister

09-05-2008, 07:50 PM

It really depends on what WB wants to do and who is going to write the film. They've shown that they're not capable of making good decisions, at least, seldomly they do. Millar, if he gets the job, will probably go from the ground up with the origin.

Darth Reaper

09-11-2008, 01:35 PM

I think there are ways to establish a new continuity without having to dedicate the entire first film to retelling Superman's origins.

One way to do it would be to give a brief synopsis of Superman's origins in text at the beginning of the film, sort of like what they do at the beginning of every STAR WARS film.

Another way would be to actually have a flashback at the beginning of the film that shows Jor-El putting Kal-El in the space ship and sending him off into space before Krypton is destroyed. It could even end with the ship crashing to Earth and Kal-El being discovered by the Kents. By retelling the very beginning of Superman's story, and giving people, places, and things a new look that's distinctly different from what's come before, you can establish that this is meant to be a new beginning for the Superman franchise.

Then, you can flash foreward to the present, where Superman has been an established superhero for a number of years already.

Alex DeLarge

09-11-2008, 03:16 PM

Yeah, I have no problem with a montage in the opening credits (my choice) or SR-text, but I don't want another 30-40 minutes of "Krypton must be saved!" "Goodbye, my son!" "BOOM!" "Look, a baby!" etc.

Rich

09-11-2008, 05:04 PM

The Dark Vampire

09-11-2008, 05:09 PM

Come on, anyone who does not know Superman's origins by now must have been living under a rock for scores. There is no need to dedicate a film to re-telling Superman's origins. Everyone and their mother knows that Sup came from a dying planet blah blah blah. Just give us some Super-action already. Bring on Metallo, Bizarro, Brainiac. Let "Mr. Lutour" finally take a break.

True but like I sad earlier if they don't make reference to it somehow a lot of the casual and general public will think it's another sequel so i do think a few minutes flashback should happen.

However I have to guess if it is reboot they will do a new origins story but either way I'll be there.

Rich

09-11-2008, 05:23 PM

Yeah, but once you got butts in seats it does not matter if they think it is a sequel or not. You've already got their cash. You don't sell a film while people are watching it, you sell a film with marketing. They should have a little flash back and talk (briefly) about his origin in the trailer and then go off into the story of the film.

Superman's origins is common knowledge. The sky is blue. Grass is green. Poop is brown (generally). Superman comes from another planet.

Nick Michalak

09-11-2008, 05:27 PM

If they want a fresh start, they don't necessarily need to re-tell the origins, but they need to inject something that tells an audience it is a fresh start. Tell them that the slate is clean, and this is something provided with no strings attached. Batman Begins was easily able to tell the origins of Batman because no one had really done it on film before, at least not in any depth. Here, you've got the opposite. Everyone is very clear on Superman's origins, and to spend a good chunk of the film telling them what they already know is pointless. I don't suggest what they should do, but a solid screenwriter / director can conceive something satisfying and clever.

-NJM

The Dark Vampire

09-11-2008, 05:30 PM

True

To be honest I'm not 100% hot on the idea of a new origins story as I think the original was just about perfect and with the obvious exception of been able to do better FX now they couldn't improve the story

The ONLY problem really have with the original is when Clark becomes Superman in TFOS and that is because he literally (in mind anyway) vanished off the face of the Earth for 15 years all I could think off is how his Mother would of felt In reality if that happened she would think he was dead

Darth Sinister

09-11-2008, 08:33 PM

The Dark Vampire

09-11-2008, 08:39 PM

He was gone 12 years. But I'm sure she wouldn't be afraid that he was dead, given all the powers he has and the lack of knowledge of any weaknesses. When Clark left at age 18, he had all of his powers and understood how to use them. She just assumed that wherever he went, he wasn't able to communicate until he returned to the farm after he was done in the Fortress.

I'm still sure she was worried

But saying that whilst thy knew many of his powers (Speed and strength mainly) do we know if they knew his is virtually indestructible.

As far as the story goes I'm sure she knew it could be a while before he got in contact but when years started to pass she must of started to get worried that she would never see him again and what had happened or was happing to him.

Darth Sinister

09-12-2008, 12:15 AM

I'm still sure she was worried

But saying that whilst thy knew many of his powers (Speed and strength mainly) do we know if they knew his is virtually indestructible.

They knew about all of his abilities by the time he turned eighteen. Each one would've been discovered by then. As soon as the vision powers first manifested, they'd know. As soon as he didn't get hurt while being a young boy, they knew of his invulnerability. So on and so forth. In "Returns", they learned of his ability to defy gravity. And upon Jonathan Kent's death, when Clark was 15 in the first film, he stated that he had all of these powers.

As far as the story goes I'm sure she knew it could be a while before he got in contact but when years started to pass she must of started to get worried that she would never see him again and what had happened or was happing to him.

I'm sure she did.

Darth Sinister

10-10-2008, 08:57 PM

According to Paul Levitz, DC's president, Brandon Routh visted DC's offices in NY and LA to talk about Superman.

Jack Bauer

10-10-2008, 09:09 PM

I always thought Brandon Routh was a good Clark Kent/Superman/Kal-El, but he is no Chris Reeve. However if given a good enough script or director, he would have made the Superman thing work out.

Just Jeans

10-10-2008, 09:12 PM

Well that's unexpected. To be a fly on the office wall right now.

CosmoBubba

10-10-2008, 09:45 PM

I always thought Brandon Routh was a good Clark Kent/Superman/Kal-El, but he is no Chris Reeve. However if given a good enough script or director, he would have made the Superman thing work out.

To be truthful, I don't think anybody could match Chris Reeve.

Jack Bauer

10-11-2008, 12:20 AM

Because, in my eyes, Christopher Reeve was able to pull off both Clark and Superman. Either it was talking with Lois or saving people Reeve really made those two roles his own.

The Dark Vampire

10-11-2008, 12:22 AM

True he is the only one so far who has made me believe that Clark and Superman were 2 different people it's the only time I could see why people wouldn't realise who he really was

DRE

10-11-2008, 12:26 AM

Levitz seems to be on Routh's jock more than Singer was. I won't believe he is still Superman until Warner's announces it.

Just Jeans

10-11-2008, 06:20 AM

Brett Ratner wants to take the JJ Abrams scripted Superman: Flyby back to DC (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/09/16/brett-ratner-on-the-jj-abrams-superman-that-might-have-been/) for the franchise reboot.

Once upon a time, Bryan Singer and Brett Ratner swapped movies – Brett got the third “X-Men” and Bryan got “Superman,” which in his hands was “Superman Returns” starring Brandon Routh. We all know how that turned out.

But what would have happened if Ratner had continued along his merry way and done the “Superman” he wanted? What would it have been about? Brendan Fraser, who saw the script written by J.J. Abrams, was impressed. So was Ratner, who filled us in on the storyline and casting plans.

“The original movie I was going to be a part of,” Ratner said, “took place on Krypton for about half of the movie. So it was much more otherworldly, and much darker, because there was a civil war on Krypton. You’d get more of the history.”

“The Death of Superman” and the art of Alex Ross.

“That wasn’t just darker, but cooler, in my mind,” Ratner said. “That was what we were going to model the visuals after. When you have to translate it to a cinematic world, it’s a whole different animal, and he’s one of the best Superman artists I’ve ever seen.”

If it’s as dark as Warner Bros. wants for their reboot of Superman , Ratner still has a shot at making it: “Maybe we can go back to it one day,” he said.

But sorry, Brendan Fraser, that’s not a shot for you, too. “I definitely agreed with Bryan Singer that you need an unknown actor,” Ratner said. “I was going to surround Superman with known actors, but it’s important to get an unknown. I love Tom Cruise, but to have someone like him who you see as Tom Cruise would be a mistake.”

As for Routh returning (http://www.latinoreview.com/news/exclusive-dc-comics-president-gives-superman-update-5511):

The only thing better than living in New York, is being at a party in New York. I was out on the town this past Monday night with my partners in crime El Mayimbe and Ron Henriques at the special WATCHMEN presentation that was scheduled for a hand full of media outlets. The footage we watched to me was very good. It had its moments. I definitely believe just like SIN CITY, you will either love it or hate it. I loved the opening sequence explaining the creation and the rise of the Minutemen, which quite frankly blew me away! It was that good. And honestly while I’ve never read the book, I must say I was inspired to immediately go out and buy one just so I am up to speed.

Anyhow, the real action didn’t happen inside the screening, but rather outside of it. While mingling around with guest and watching my partner in crime sneak food into his Latin pockets, I saw the one and only Paul Levitz, the President of DC Comics. I walked over to him and had a moment to hang out and chat with him briefly. I could not keep my mouth shut and had to ask the questions that Latino readers are asking. So I went in straight for the kill.

“So Paul, what the fuck is happening with Superman?” Well not in those words actually. Paul looked over both shoulders like he was about to score some basura and said that things are still brewing.

In fact, he told me that “Last week Brandon Routh has come around the offices in New York and Los Angeles as of late to talk about Superman and what we want to do”……blah blah blah!

At first I thought it was the Apple Martini I was drinking but I soon realized that I just heard a bombshell go off in my brain! Brandon? He did say Brandon Routh was coming around talking about Superman! Why the hell would they be talking to Brandon if he was not going to be part of the reboot? Because he’s still in the mix!!!

The truth of the matter is that the way Mr. Levitz made it seem is that they love Brandon as Clark Kent and that he’s just a great guy, which I agree. I mean remember we at Latino Review told EVERYONE he was going to be the next Superman.

At that point my instincts kicked in and I continued with the questions. “What about Batman 3? You guys must be going crazy over the success of that film.” Paul pulls the cocktail shrimp from his mouth just enough to see him smile. I asked when were they going to get this Superman reboot done and he gave me a look like he was about to tell me the answers to the mysteries of the world. “Everyone is waiting for Nolan to sign on for another Batman, once that happens, the release date for Superman and all other future projects will follow.”

I could not believe my ears! Not only did my partner in crime blast wind next to me, but basically Superman’s future hangs in the balance until we have a concrete signature on the Batman contracts! The party was getting good, and the drinks were flowing making this just as easy as prom night picking. So I pressed with my questions. “What about Green Lantern and Supermax? How is that moving along?” Paul continued that Green Lantern was actually moving faster than Supermax, which to me makes sense because the Green Lantern script was badass!! If you do not remember the review we did, here it is again. The party went into the night, and the drinks continued to flow, finally I knew I had to leave as soon as my partner in crime started to stumble all over the place, looking kind of green in the face.

As of now just a few moments ago another inside source confirmed that yes they are waiting for Chris Nolan to sign the deal with the next Batman, and that they want him to commit to a July 2011 release. If that happens then the following superhero films will be released.

Green Lantern Summer 2010
Batman 3 Summer 2011
New Superman reboot Summer 2012

NW77

10-11-2008, 06:54 AM

Levitz seems to be on Routh's jock more than Singer was. I won't believe he is still Superman until Warner's announces it.

Don't forget me, Alan Horn, & Thomas Tull on Routh's jock too. But hey, that not a bad thing, right? :p

And btw, Jeff Robinsov want a reboot. But Horn is his boss & want a sequel along with Tull, who run Legendary Pictures.

Also, I read rumor about Clark Kent or Superman or both will possibilty be appearing in Green Lantern film and that might mean Routh will return in the role. If the rumor is true on this, could this mean they're going to set up a Justice League film soon? Marvel is starting this already with the Avengers. I wouldn't be surprise if WB going in the same direction with Justice League as well.

Darth Reaper

10-13-2008, 04:47 AM

I think I remember reading about that JJ Abrams script and overall I didn't care for it. I really hope they don't use it.

Cody

10-30-2008, 04:37 AM

Millar's Magnum Opus (http://www.empireonline.com/news/feed.asp?NID=23521)

Mark Millar wants to create an epic 8-hour screen story which will follow the entire life of Kal-El from his birth on Krypton a thousand years ago, until he is the last being left on Earth.

Empire sat down for a chat with comic book writer and creator Millar, the man behind Wanted and the upcoming Kick-Ass, and he filled us in on his pitch for the follow-up to Superman Returns.

Mark has been working closely with a ‘big-Hollywood action director’ – who he refuses to name at this stage – on a pitch for what he is calling the Magnum Opus of Superman stories. His idea is for an 8-hour saga, split into 3 films to be released a year apart, in a Lord of the Rings fashion. Although several other sources have reported similar conversations with Mark, he went into further detail, fleshing out the story arc a little more.

“It’s gonna be like Michael Corleone in the Godfather films, the entire story from beginning to end, you see where he starts, how he becomes who he becomes, and where that takes him. The Dark Knight showed you can take a comic book property and make a serious film, and I think the studios are ready to listen to bigger ideas now.”

“The problem with Superman Returns was like releasing Star Wars in ’77, The Empire Strikes Back in ’80 and then waiting 28 years to release Return of the Jedi, it wasn’t relevant. I understand what Bryan Singer was trying to do, to pay homage to Richard Donner’s original vision, but I think you should pay homage by doing something completely different.”

“I want to start on Krypton, a thousand years ago, and end with Superman alone on Planet Earth, the last being left on the planet, as the yellow sun turns red and starts to supernova, and he loses his powers."