Warner Bros Wants To Reboot Superman Again!

PullMyFinger!

Don't expect a sequel to Superman Returns...

Warner Bros. wants to once again reboot the Superman franchise with a new film, not a sequel to Superman Returns.

Warner Bros. Pictures Group President Jeff Robinov told The Wall Street Journal that Superman Returns "didn't quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to. ... 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. ... But now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman without regard to a Batman and Superman movie at all"

Robinov also said that the next Superman will be as dark as possible, based on the success of The Dark Knight.

They want to make Superman dark eh? :pac:

Eh?!

As an aside I lost all respect for Ian Nathan in Empire magazine when he gave Superman Returns five stars. FIVE stars for a film that maybe deserved 3 tops. Maybe.

"Superman doesnt fly, he soars"

No, he doesnt Ian. You just wanted that line on the DVD cover

JangoFett

I loved Superman Returns, great direction and acting...however, the plot was a bit diluted from a previous movie..."LAND", ok Lex, we get it...you want land so you can sell it

In a new one I want to see it darker, have Lex in the White House at the start, NO SUPERBRAT, and for the love of Aquaman I wanna see a supervillain, Brainiac or Bizarro anyone?

I think its a good idea as much as I liked Superman Returns

robby^5

Interesting to see wheter they decide to recast superman or any other characters for that matter, I loved spacey as luthor, just that luthor wasnt a proper villian in the film.

Mark Hamill

Warner Bros. wants to once again reboot the Superman franchise with a new film, not a sequel to Superman Returns.

Warner Bros. Pictures Group President Jeff Robinov told The Wall Street Journal that Superman Returns "didn't quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to. ... 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. ... But now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman without regard to a Batman and Superman movie at all"

Does this mean we can get our money back for the first one?

abouttobebanned

This is just a reaction to Batman.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Nobody can relate to superman. Batman has no special powers - only money and his determination. Batman FTW!

aidan_walsh

So, what? Jonathan Kent will be shot dead down a Metropolis back alley?

faceman

Superman... dressed in black... meh! Feck that!

How come in Superman Returns, he gets Lois up the stick and fecks off for years not knowing he has a sprog. He comes back, finds out and also sees how mentally challenged the kid is, yet at the end of the movie, fecks off to space again and leaves Lois and the kid??? Superman is a muppet!

MagicMarker

They should make it a drama, where superman falls off a horse and paralyses himself.

indough

tbh, i know it sounds a bit vulgar but don't you think if superman came in lois it would have killed her? i mean the force of it like?

MooseJam

Bring back Zod !

Wacker

PullMyFinger! wrote: »

"Superman doesnt fly, he soars"

No, he doesnt Ian. You just wanted that line on the DVD cover

Fine bit of posting that, if my opinion counts for anything around here.

Full_Circle

Make the next Superman film dark, just cause The Dark Knight did so well? Isnt that simplifying things a little? :rolleyes:

Batman is supposed to be dark and Superman is supposed to be the exact opposite; a bright colourful shining light, a big boy scout who saves the world from giant asteroids and still has time to rescue cats outta trees on his way back home.

If they wanted to make him dark in any way, they'd have to go the Spiderman route and gradually build up to a darker storyline over a number of films (culminating in something involving Darkseid, for example).

indough

perhaps they mean make the world in which superman lives more dark rather than the character himself

Retr0gamer

Full_Circle wrote: »

If they wanted to make him dark in any way, they'd have to go the Spiderman route and gradually build up to a darker storyline over a number of films (culminating in something involving Darkseid, for example).

Or an emo dancing scene.

Fysh

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Nobody can relate to superman. Batman has no special powers - only money and his determination. Batman FTW!

"Batman is a conservative's wet dream. F*ck Batman!"

On a serious note though, the big problem with Superman as a character is that he is the Man Of Steel. A man who can fly, who is impervious to bullets, who is stronger than anyone else alive....how do you get an audience to care for that character, while still making him a credible hero? A character with no vulnerabilities isn't interesting to watch, and it's very difficult to make Superman a vulnerable character without it seeming like a preachy "everyone's got problems" story. He has been presented in the past as the American Dream incarnate, the superhero version of Harvey Dent's White Knight if you will, but that's never going to be an easy sell to audiences who now expect a more grounded and realistic depiction of their superheroes, thanks to the Bryan Singer X-Men movies and the Nolan Batman film.

Galvasean

indough wrote: »

perhaps they mean make the world in which superman lives more dark rather than the character himself

Indeed. Superman's world usually comes across as a bit twee. It would be interesting to see how DC's golden boy would react to living in the Nolanverse. I bet he wouldn't like it, which could make for a good film.

madrab

wouldnt ind them doing a version of red sun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman:_Red_Son

indough

madrab wrote: »

wouldnt ind them doing a version of red sun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman:_Red_Son

pretty safe to say that wont happen in the current political climate

Fysh

madrab wrote: »

wouldnt ind them doing a version of red sun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman:_Red_Son

I think there are talks going on about making an animated adaptation of Red Son, although the only thing that's definitely been announced is the plan to make a Red Son Motion Comic.

Eglinton

I agree with a lot of the sentiments here. Superman 1 & 2 (I prefer to think of them as one film) are high on my favourite list , maybe even top. It's more of a boyhood eperience I suppose, rather like how some feel about Star Wars.

I was really looking forward to the 2006 film but very apprehensive about Singer's interpretation -And wow was I disappointed. The more I think about it the angrier I get. It's was all cutesy, no substance, story, sense of danger, character development. It was just candy floss.

I now think that the Smallville series is much more true to the story (the non filler episodes anyway) and I love the references, cameos and even the musical trends from the original films.

I wouldn't mind seeing a serious version of Smallville evolving into a Superman big budget flick, where something goes horribly wrong and as one poster said, the world becomes a much much darker place (please kill off Lana Lang soon! and get rid of the cheese). The only major problem with Smallville is that we've seen a huge amount of the villians already and they've effectively been killed off. They did a great job with some of the characters. It'd be tough to beat Zod and co from the original. I wouldn't have an issue with them bringing back characters that were killed off though. Continuity has never been a major forte of comic book flicks anyway.

BlitzKrieg

wait reboot again?

does it count as a reboot when its a sequel to the 2nd film and ignores the 3rd/4th film?

Handsome Bob

Dark eh? Not sure how well Superman will work set in a dark tone. He's not quite the conflicted and vigilante-like Batman. Superman has a clear way of doing things, that is why he clashes with Batman at times in the comics.

I had to laugh about the dark tone too for Superman. It reminds me of Kevin Smith writing a script for Superman with Jon Peters telling him he doesn't want Superman wearing a costume or actually flying.:pac:

BopNiblets

Noooooo no no, this is silly, knock it off Hollywood!
Just go ahead and make the Man Of Steel and have it so Luthor runs for president or something and some other villain shows up and beats Earth up a bit but supes saves the day in the end, srsly, knock it off you damn kids! >:(

Mully

indough wrote: »

tbh, i know it sounds a bit vulgar but don't you think if superman came in lois it would have killed her? i mean the force of it like?

I think this was done in Hancock, but was cut from the released version.

DVD maybe ?

Vic Vinegar

faceman wrote: »

Superman... dressed in black... meh! Feck that!

How come in Superman Returns, he gets Lois up the stick and fecks off for years not knowing he has a sprog. He comes back, finds out and also sees how mentally challenged the kid is, yet at the end of the movie, fecks off to space again and leaves Lois and the kid??? Superman is a muppet!

Way to spoil the film there for the uninitiated, Faceman!

zAbbo

It's more or less impossible not to make money from any big budget film, so why not reboot it into whatever style of movie is doing well.

The last Superman was utter pants, terrible.

FionnMatthew

Fysh wrote: »

"Batman is a conservative's wet dream. F*ck Batman!"

On a serious note though, the big problem with Superman as a character is that he is the Man Of Steel. A man who can fly, who is impervious to bullets, who is stronger than anyone else alive....how do you get an audience to care for that character, while still making him a credible hero? A character with no vulnerabilities isn't interesting to watch, and it's very difficult to make Superman a vulnerable character without it seeming like a preachy "everyone's got problems" story. He has been presented in the past as the American Dream incarnate, the superhero version of Harvey Dent's White Knight if you will, but that's never going to be an easy sell to audiences who now expect a more grounded and realistic depiction of their superheroes, thanks to the Bryan Singer X-Men movies and the Nolan Batman film.

I think the traditional approach has been to focus on his vulnerabilities as a person, and his attempted integration into society, and the pain it causes him etc... Of all the superheroes, his duality is the most striking, because it is Superman that Lois loves, etc.

TBH, I don't think a realistic interpretation is viable. Batman, after all, doesn't have super powers. He's a superhero by dint of his heroic conscience. Superman is a... well... a superman. It's kind of non-realistic on its initial premises.

Reginald D Hunter wrote:

"Rich dude, owns a corporation, has state of the art equipment. He uses this to beat up on street level crime. He doesn't mess with the industrialists or the super-capitalists, the Murdochs or the Trumps, he'd rather just **** with the chumps on his own corner. Batman is a conservative's wetdream. **** Batman."

Stupid point.

why does every political point have to be strictly liberal/conservative for Americans? It's such a false dichotomy.

He uses his equipment not to beat up on street level crime, but to bust ORGANIZED CRIME, and CORRUPTION within the established order. If anything, Batman is a reformist.

And anyone who knows anything about Batman knows that he goes after the industrialists and the super-capitalists just as doggedly. In Frank Miller's hands, he's essentially an anarchist.

It's just so banal to assume that just because American conservatives use the rhetoric of the sort of just war on crime that Batman embodies (and which is, in reality, impossible, but no more than an ideal) that Batman is therefore an "evil conservative." It's like saying oatmeal is bad because Saddam ate pools of it. Loved the stuff.

Batman is about an ideal of justice unbowed. He's completely uncompromising. Nobody is beyond his judgment. The sort of corruption and incest that characterizes mainstream American politics, whether it's "liberals" or "conservatives" is the sort of thing that Batman doesn't tolerate. He's not a conservative. He's not more of a conservative than Robin Hood.

"I won't watch Batman because he's conservative!"

What a join-the-dots, simplex, typically American political interpretation of Batman.

Fysh

FionnMatthew wrote: »

I think the traditional approach has been to focus on his vulnerabilities as a person, and his attempted integration into society, and the pain it causes him etc... Of all the superheroes, his duality is the most striking, because it is Superman that Lois loves, etc.

I think by "striking", you mean "boring", because that's what it is. Superman is pretty much the original teenage power fantasy - "beneath the boring, shy, unassuming and dutiful identity of Joe Nobody secretly lies Uberman, who no man can defeat and no woman can resist!".

His vulnerabilities as a person have mostly been rather poorly explored. As an individual the only way that the audience can sympathise with him is by presenting him as an outsider or an immigrant, because that way you can get at greater themes such as sense of identity, the sadness of being removed from your homeland with no chance to return, etc. Playing up this "oh, his vulnerability stems from his attempt to become human" nonsense is like the whole Kryptonite gubbins, an attempt to bolt on a vulnerability to a perfect character so that he can still be "interesting".

FionnMatthew wrote: »

why does every political point have to be strictly liberal/conservative for Americans? It's such a false dichotomy.

You, eh, appear to be taking a simple gag rather seriously, what with Batman being fictional and Hunter being a comedian. Aside from which, I took that joke as being as much about the over-simplification of political issues as about Batman's Bush-loving ways...

Alicat

They can't make Superman dark....the man wears bright red pants over blue tights....it's too corny to ever be 'dark'!

And while we're on the subject of the Superman movies, Kate Bosworth was absolute sh!te as Lois Lane. I couldn't have given a cr@p what happened to her that whole movie, so lifeless. I thought Lois was supposed to have balls?*




*obviously I don't mean real life testicles but you know what I mean!

Handsome Bob

Fysh wrote: »

You, eh, appear to be taking a simple gag rather seriously, what with Batman being fictional and Hunter being a comedian. Aside from which, I took that joke as being as much about the over-simplification of political issues as about Batman's Bush-loving ways...

Batman doesn't affiliate himself with any side, he see's himself as above the law and takes matters into his own hands. Superman believes in the system, if you take The Dark Knight Returns for example, he had the power to stop the nuke from launching but he gave the benefit of the doubt and as a result disaster struck. This is why I think using a dark tone for Superman is a bad decision.

pixelburp

Superman I couldn't give two hoots about - he's a posterboy for a bygone era when comic book heroes were all about the square-jaw posturing & "truth justice and the American way" actually had a legitimate ring to it. He's so out of place it's unbelieavable.

Now Lex Luthor on the other hand? Yes, I would tolerate a new Superman movie if Luthor was portrayed more accurately & fairly as the mastermind manipulator he was.

Fysh

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Batman doesn't affiliate himself with any side, he see's himself as above the law and takes matters into his own hands. Superman believes in the system, if you take The Dark Knight Returns for example, he had the power to stop the nuke from launching but he gave the benefit of the doubt and as a result disaster struck. This is why I think using a dark tone for Superman is a bad decision.

Wow, evidently my tongue was sufficiently camouflaged in my cheek that you thought I was serious.

I do find it absolutely hilarious that you'll get so bent out of shape about how someone else interprets a fictional character that you'll leap to their defence. Because, well, if Reginald D Hunter goes purely by the portrayal of Batman he's seen in the films (and let's be honest here, this thread is like a game of "spot the fanboy" in that regard) and thus believes that Batman holds or represents conservative ideals, so what? Does that stop you enjoying Batman stories? Does it make you complicit in some hideous right-wing conspiracy? Does it, God forbid, lead to a Diebold voting machine deciding that actually you want to vote conservative at the next local election you have a say in?

(Hint: The answers to those questions are "nothing", "no, or at least it shouldn't" "no", and "hopefully not, although without seeing their source code it's hard to be definitive".)

Seriously, if someone made a joke claiming that Batman was a gay cowboy would you be citing evidence that actually he has no rustic background and is in fact rampantly heterosexual?

Handsome Bob

Fysh wrote: »

Wow, evidently my tongue was sufficiently camouflaged in my cheek that you thought I was serious.

I do find it absolutely hilarious that you'll get so bent out of shape about how someone else interprets a fictional character that you'll leap to their defence. Because, well, if Reginald D Hunter goes purely by the portrayal of Batman he's seen in the films (and let's be honest here, this thread is like a game of "spot the fanboy" in that regard) and thus believes that Batman holds or represents conservative ideals, so what? Does that stop you enjoying Batman stories? Does it make you complicit in some hideous right-wing conspiracy? Does it, God forbid, lead to a Diebold voting machine deciding that actually you want to vote conservative at the next local election you have a say in?

(Hint: The answers to those questions are "nothing", "no, or at least it shouldn't" "no", and "hopefully not, although without seeing their source code it's hard to be definitive".)

Seriously, if someone made a joke claiming that Batman was a gay cowboy would you be citing evidence that actually he has no rustic background and is in fact rampantly heterosexual?

Woah woah calm down man. I wasn't attacking you. I was just addressing the general point of some that Batman is conservative. I just think that to say Batman is conservative is to take things out of context, and to totally ignore the world he lives in.

I know Reginald was joking but I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that there are people who seriously dismiss Batman as a "Bush lover".

Fysh

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I know Reginald was joking but I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that there are people who seriously dismiss Batman as a "Bush lover".

I imagine there are, I just don't really get why you'd care. Given that the political leanings of a fictional character only really make any difference within fictional stories featuring that character, misinterpretations of the political leanings of said character would rank pretty low on my "things-that-make-me-give-a-damn-o-meter" and it puzzles me when this isn't the case for other people. I mean, hypothetically speaking, if some numbnuts were to claim that the latest Batman film was clearly promoting the one-legged leprous omnisexual deviant agenda, would that make the film any less enjoyable to you? Or would you just dismiss that person as a twit?

Handsome Bob

Fysh wrote: »

I imagine there are, I just don't really get why you'd care. Given that the political leanings of a fictional character only really make any difference within fictional stories featuring that character, misinterpretations of the political leanings of said character would rank pretty low on my "things-that-make-me-give-a-damn-o-meter" and it puzzles me when this isn't the case for other people.

I'm allowed to debate a statement man, regardless of it being a fictional character.

Fysh wrote: »

I mean, hypothetically speaking, if some numbnuts were to claim that the latest Batman film was clearly promoting the one-legged leprous omnisexual deviant agenda, would that make the film any less enjoyable to you? Or would you just dismiss that person as a twit?

I enjoy something regardless of what anyone says, I know what I like. However, if someone makes a highly simplistic statement such as "TDK's huge success was down to Heath Ledger's death" I'm allowed to call someone on that statement.

FionnMatthew

Fysh wrote: »

Wow, evidently my tongue was sufficiently camouflaged in my cheek that you thought I was serious.

I do find it absolutely hilarious that you'll get so bent out of shape about how someone else interprets a fictional character that you'll leap to their defence.

It's more a defense of one's self at the rather facile attempt at implying that to endorse the ideals behind Batman is to endorse the capitalist-industrialist scumbags that run the United States. I for one became an enthusiast of Batman comics after reading stuff like Miller's TDKR, TDKSB and the serial No Man's Land. In those episodes, Batman is presented as such a thoroughgoing anti-establishment figure, and there is such an implied radical critique of the US federal government, the state-endorsement of corporate misdemeanour, and so called capitalist-industrialist scumbags (like Lex Luthor) and their eventual pawns (pro-establishment figures like Superman), that I was hooked by the sheer anti-conservative tone of most of the Batman stuff.

Watching TDK itself, what made it addictive to its core was the unmitigated, radical unlawfulness of the whole thing. It's the implication that the Batman is someone the conservatives, whether they be crime-syndicate bosses running the city or the elected officials they are in bed with, or the "legitimated" criminals who run major corporations (Lau), just don't want, because he stirs up trouble and change, and because he's actually genuine. The only people who understand him are the ones who are equally genuine, like Alfred or Gordon. The fact that only a vigilante like Batman could even put a dent in an unjust situation that just should not be is itself a radical critique of the establishment ideals like law and order, which, in this reading, enable corruptness, stagnation and eventual entropic failure. The conservative upkeep of the law is the pillar on which corruption and systemic injustice is built. The reason Batman busts people is not that they are "criminals" or "small time crooks" or etc. It's because they are doing wrong. Right and Wrong are the standards that Batman has to deal with, as opposed to Legal and Illegal. This message is the sort of point that conservatives appropriate in their rhetoric, but couldn't want to avoid more in reality, because it spells the end of the free lunch.

And I just feel inclined to make a correction when someone (granted a comedian, but not without a certain amount of heartfelt conviction) considers himself to be making a point in his completely off-target political critique of Batman. For a start, I dislike that he's misrepresenting material I enjoy to make a partial, narrow-minded, near sighted political point from within the facile, facade-like political spectrum of American politics, which is nothing more than a side-show anyway.

So, no. I'm not "leaping to the defense" of Batman. I'm disputing the veracity of this guy's interpretation, and his mandate in appropriating this material erroneously in service of his simplistic understanding of politics.

But that aside, and in response to what you said, I do perceive an implied criticism of people who like Batman. The implication is that we are willingly and unwittingly consuming "conservative propaganda", or that we are conscious of it, and are "conservatives by association."

To begin with, I think terms like "conservative" and "liberal" have outgrown their usefulness. I contend that there isn't a conversation employing either term in the mainstream media, in everyday political discourse, or in political rhetoric, here or in America, that isn't massively equivocating on the multitude of meanings either word can be made to stand for. The words have so many permissible inferences associated with them that they just don't mean anything useful anymore. So I actually dispute the idea that Reginald is making a point in that video. As far as I'm concerned he's uttering nonsense, in the classically positivist sense of the word.

So as to your accusation that this is a case of "spot the fanboy." I disagree. What annoys me most about this is that people I know who aren't Batman enthusiasts but who enjoyed TDK immensely are, for that reason, "conservatives by association." And all of this on the back of an erroneous belief about the ideals behind Batman. ("Spot the fanboy"? No. The only reason that the person who's making this point is someone who knows a bit (and not a whole lot, to be honest) about Batman is that only someone so endowed would know how stupid, and unsupported a point Reg is making.) It's like the way atheists are consistently labeled fascists because it is believed (erroneously) that Hitler was an atheist. It's the most facile, idiotic sort of reasoning available, a lowest-common-denominator, factional, biased sort of guilt-by-association fallacy, which goes to the generating of a whole tribe of soundbyte-like denouncements which are confused even in the point that they are making, and serve only to mandate the frustrated, inchoate noise of the people who mechanically repeat them. Who are consequently labeled "geniuses" by even more superlative idiots.

What really pisses me off about it is how f*cking stupid it is.

And while I appreciate that you posted that link in jest, I don't mean what I've written about it to be perceived as a criticism of you, but only of that guy in the video, and of the people of whom what he said is representative.

Galvasean

pixelburp wrote: »

Superman I couldn't give two hoots about - he's a posterboy for a bygone era when comic book heroes were all about the square-jaw posturing & "truth justice and the American way" actually had a legitimate ring to it. He's so out of place it's unbelieavable.

Maybe that's why Superman is having trouble being rebooted. He's a product of his time and a relic of a bygone age. To update him to fit in with the modern world would involve changing him to the point where he's not really Superman anymore.

Fysh

I didn't expect such a lengthy reply to my earlier post, but since you've taken the time and effort to explain where you're coming from it seems only for me to reciprocate.

For clarification purposes I should first point out that the clip in question was broadcast before TDK was released so, if anything, is likely to be based mostly on Batman Begins.

Furthermore, the wider cultural context of Batman doesn't include the comics to any real extent. Far more people know about Batman from the films, the '60s TV show or even the various cartoons than will have any significant familiarity with the comics. So saying that certain parts of the comic contradict the wider cultural comics doesn't matter, because the comic isn't the touchstone for Batman-as-cultural-entity.

Then there's the risk of taking a comedian's joking dismissal of Batman (a fictional character) on Have I Got News For You (a comedy/satire show) as being a serious and important political statement. Seriously, it's not. It was a joke. If it turns out that Reginald D Hunter has actually mounted an extensive campaign against "Conservative Wet Dream Batman" (available from right-wing toy stores now!) then I'll accept that I'm wrong on this, but chances are good that he, like me, really doesn't give two sh*ts whether Batman is republican, liberal, anarchistic, libertarian or any other political inclination you care to name.

So he's American? So what? How does the dumbed-down representation of American politics diminish his point? It appears you're claiming that Americans can't talk politics, although I hope you're not because that would be a notion so monumentally stupid as to undermine everything else you've said.

And I'll have to differ with you and state that, whether or not you mean to, you are leaping to the defense of Batman. You are rushing to point out that someone else's interpretation of the material is flawed and wrong, as though their interpretation of the material colours your enjoyment of it - when the reality of the situation is that the material is out there for all to see and interpret their own way. If someone differs with you in their interpretation of it, that's their right. If they assume you're enjoying what they perceive to be conservative propaganda without asking you what you enjoy about it, more fool them. It doesn't make you conservative, any more than me saying "all boards users are nazis" would make you a nazi.

My "spot the fanboy" comment probably would have benefited from further explanation - what I was trying to get at was that only those who had familiarity with the comics (whether the non-continuity stuff like DKR or the in-continuity ongoing title) would be able to give detailed explanations as to why Hunter's summary of Batman was wrong. In my personal opinion, they're also the only people likely to care about some random comedian's opinion enough to post a lengthy refutal of his joke.

I still maintain that you're taking this all far too seriously, but I don't mean that as a criticism - rather, I think that you'd have more time to enjoy the things you like if you ceased to care about the opinions of people who are unlikely to ever have any significant impact on your life. Certainly the discussion of whether Batman in the comics is conservative or not can be interesting objectively, but to take personally the criticism of a fictional character and their perception in the wider cultural context of Western entertainment is to suggest that you identify yourself significantly through the entertainment that you enjoy, which doesn't sound like a balanced position from which to debate and discuss said entertainment.

jackdaw

PullMyFinger! wrote: »

Don't expect a sequel to Superman Returns...



They want to make Superman dark eh? :pac:

Eh?!

As an aside I lost all respect for Ian Nathan in Empire magazine when he gave Superman Returns five stars. FIVE stars for a film that maybe deserved 3 tops. Maybe.

"Superman doesnt fly, he soars"

No, he doesnt Ian. You just wanted that line on the DVD cover

+1 ..

I don't trust ANY movie reviews in magazines, newspapers etc...

not after Indiana Jones and the kingdom of the crystal skull got such good reviews ... was proof that the movie co. was just paying off the papers...

Running Bing

I think superman is an awful character tbh.


I find it interesting how successful these comic book adaptations are because for me I find any comic book character aside from Spiderman and Batman very hard to relate to.

I dont think it is any coincidence that it is these characters who enjoyed the most success. Now these films always clean up at the box office but I think thats largely a result of clever marketing and hype. Ive gone to these films in the past and its only when Im sitting in the theatre I think to myself "hang on why am I here, I have no interest in what happens to a bloke who turns into a 30 foot tall green monster:D)


I dont think these films endure outside spiderman and batman because as much as they try the general public, with little interest in superpowers, just cant relate. Batman is obviously very easy to relate to and for me Spiderman is always peter parker...when you look at something like Superman I feel its the other way around i.e. Clark Kent is always Superman.

Maybe they want to reboot it due to the fact that as the film ends Superman is a deadbeat dad who abandons his ill son.

I figured that they were planning on introducing his son as a bad guy in a later film but if they decide to completely reboot then chances are they'll go with a childless Supes.

johnny_ultimate

While I enjoyed Superman Returns as an old fashioned piece of entertainment (mainly for the epic opening credit sequence) he is a hero that is becoming less and less relevant. There are strong propaganda elements associated with the character, and as people demand more introspection from there heroes Superman will increasingly grow less relevant. Superman Returns' reletaive box office failure was quite telling - people don't seem to interested in him anyway.

He is one hero I feel whose time is drawing to an end. As far I know they recently killed Captain America, a similiar character in many ways (without the invincibility) but Superman - with his endless defence of the American dream - will need to hang up his cloak someday - he is going to be one tough bastard to reinvent.

Galvasean

The problem with having Captain America is that he is the American way. Of course which is the true American way these days? Should he be in Afghanistan punching out Bin Laden or taking a more liberal stance and trying to bring the boys back home?
Interestingly I hear they're trying to make a new Captain America movie.

Fysh

Marvel's plan is apparently to try and bring Captain America into the fold a few months before launching the Avengers group movie; allegedly the title for the Captain movie is going to be Captain America: The First Avenger.

I'm inclined to agree that Captain America, as with Superman, does seem like an icon whose relevance to the modern day is difficult to imagine. As reported in the media widely, he (or at least Steve Rogers, the original and most famous person to don the costume) was reportedly killed and his WWII sidekick, Bucky Barnes, has taken over the role (as for why these people are still sprightly enough to wear tights and fight crime despite having been old enough to serve in WWII, it seems that every box of cereal in the Marvel U comes with a free jar of super-soldier/age-retardant serum). In defence of the "new" Captain America, the current writer is trying to explore the impact of having a Captain America who was formerly a sniper and who is happy to use guns to at least wound if not outright kill people. So it's possible to reinvent or revert these characters back to something that people can identify with. That said, I have no idea how you'd do it with Superman - I suspect it would involve playing up the "last son of Krypton"/"adopted earthling" thing and perhaps use a "stranger in a strange land" structure.

Take the recent Hulk film - the first 20 minutes played like an action/horror film. We knew that something happened to Banner once he is angered beyond a certain stage, but we're asked to pretend that we don't know what and so, the first time the special forces troops meet him, we see it from their view and it's presented as though it were a monster-in-the-dark film, which worked really well. So if a new Superman film reboots from scratch and introduces the idea of Superman as a lost and somewhat confused alien who knows that he's different to his peers but doesn't know/understand his origins or the source of his power. A good villain is vital for any superhero film, so they could perhaps follow the Smallville route and have Clark Kent initially befriend Lex Luthor and work with him, only to eventually learn of the full extent of his powers and decide what he's going to do with them as Luthor's ruthless and borderline-psychopathic nature becomes apparent. (Another problem that Superman has - most of the villains I'm aware of from the comics are horribly dated and simplistic, to the extent that it's difficult to imagine how they could be reimagined and taken seriously. Brainiac? Yeah, an alien that puts entire civilisations in bottles sounds really scary, especially since they continue to be alive inside those bottles. Metallo? Feh. Mister Mxltplys-however you write his name? Nobody in a bowler hat has ever been genuinely scary in the history of the world, plus the character is a "fifth-dimensional pixie". Even within a superhero film, there's only so much bullsh*t you can get away with. Darkseid? You'd have to either reinvent him or explain the whole New Genesis/Apokolips thing. Doomsday? Too simplistic. Bizarro? Too stupid.)

I'd be interested to see what they do with it if they get someone to come in and reinvent the franchise as Nolan did with Batman; that said, it will need to be a complete revamp in order to be succesful.

johnny_ultimate

Fysh wrote: »

That said, I have no idea how you'd do it with Superman - I suspect it would involve playing up the "last son of Krypton"/"adopted earthling" thing and perhaps use a "stranger in a strange land" structure.

Just what I was thinking. Throw in a heavy immigration subtext and you'd probably get some good reviews. But then again, the whole superhero not belonging thing has been done fairly heavily in the likes of Batman, so wouldn't seem particularly original. I'm not familiar enough with Superman as a character (definitely not a superhero I was ever a fan of) but from what I've seen playing up this angle would stay true to the character while giving the film of a bit of scope to play with. I still don't know if it would work though - Superman is such an exaggerated, iconic figure that maybe a reinvention wouldn't sit right.

That or, you know, make him go emo and ****.

Fysh

I'm not entirely sure that a total reinvention is needed, just presenting the concept in a new light. Play up the "last son of a dying world" aspect of him being an alien, find a way of presenting his loneliness without it being emo (which probably means ditching the Fortress of Solitude as a concept, since that's basically a teenage goth tantrum in architectural form) and perhaps have "Clark" battling with your typical immigrant issues like loss of identity, homesickness (except in his case he wouldn't even know what he was homesick for), and so on, perhaps coupled with concern over his lack of emotional connection with people which drives him at first to befriend Lex, a seemingly kindred spirit - only later on, Lex reveals himself as a ruthlessly intelligent psychopath and Clark opts to oppose him, with the "american icon" aspect thrust upon him rather than being something he chooses to be from day one.

The thing with all of DC's superheroes is that by and large their civilian identities play a very distant second fiddle to their superhero identities, in contrast with Marvel where the civilian identity is where the drama happens and thus generally at least as much a focus as the superhero side. And just as Batman when he finally becomes the full-on Dark Knight, able to outmanouvre all his opponents and terrify criminals into surrendering to him even if he's outnumbered, will be boring, Superman will be boring once he becomes the iconic Superman who's invincible, always-confident and always saving the day. A competent writer can still come up with an interesting path for the character to take on the way to becoming that iconic character. The key is to introduce some sort of humanising doubts and struggles into him and show how he works through them to become the hero.

Savman

Superman Returns Again Forever Begins Part II: The Sequel?

Boo :mad:

Fysh

More like "Not Your Father's Superman", I would've thought. And in fairness, it'd be hard for a total reboot to be more boring than Superman Returns...

indough

indough wrote: »

perhaps they mean make the world in which superman lives more dark rather than the character himself

lads i seriously don't think they're talking about making the character of superman dark, just the environment he lives in...lets face it the villains he has faced and the situations he has been in in previous works have been hard to take any bit seriously and we've never felt any sense of danger really

FionnMatthew wrote: »

TBH, I don't think a realistic interpretation is viable. Batman, after all, doesn't have super powers. He's a superhero by dint of his heroic conscience. Superman is a... well... a superman. It's kind of non-realistic on its initial premises.

I think you may be forgetting that Superman isn't actually even a man at all, don't think of him as a man with superhuman powers, he is supposed to be an alien after all...the fact that he looks identical to a human is pretty stupid but essential to the story really

FionnMatthew

Right. I didn't forget that. I wasn't speaking about him in terms of the continuity of the story, but in terms of what the premises for his creation are, and what he represents as a superhero. Which is the "superman." He's called "superman" FCS.