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