Potentially interesting news for Superman fans...

[firesprite]

Yes, he was a huge dude, but he was known as a nerd. He wasn't allowed to play sports thanks to Jonathon Kent. He basically had to repress everything that was super about him.

The thing that is missed, in my opinion, when people bring up some buff dude for supes is that Kal-El was the everyman. As Clark Kent, he blended right in. These strikingly handsome male model types are all the wrong idea. You cannot pass that guy off as Clark. Clark blends into the background and is forgettable.

The only reason Clark 'blends in' is because of his demeanor. Anyone who is a decent actor can pull that off. Again, I don't know if this guy IS a decent actor (much like the various Wonder Woman casting threads that pop up from time to time, I'm going off looks :lol), but if he is, I see no reason that he COULDN'T do it. Hell I can do it and I'm not an actress!

The fact remains that Clark and Supes are the SAME GUY and have the SAME physique. In the comics, Supes and Clark are both BIG, good looking guys and the only difference is the outward demeanor. Superman is Clark 'being confident' while Clark is Superman being quiet and low-key.

Their personalities are the same. Both are consistently described as 'boy scouts'. It's the way they express themselves that's different.

 

[CTF]

Honestly, Clark was still a huge dude in the comics, so I don't see it being too much of a stretch.

Well, that's in the comic.

We're talking 'bout the movie... which is an entirely different animal.

 

[firesprite]

Well, that's in the comic.

We're talking 'bout the movie... which is an entirely different animal.

No offense... but I think that this sort of thinking is part of why we've been subjected to some horrible films in this franchise.

What's wrong with going back to the source material? From what I've heard in several superman threads regarding favorite villains, Zod and his group top the list. That tells me that people are more interested in something closer to the comics where Superman actually faces someone who could be a threat to him.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Chris Reeves' Superman, but he didn't really LOOK like Superman. Same with Routh. There's a problem if we need to have padding and/or CGI muscles added to our actor to make him believable as Superman. If we can find someone who can act, but also LOOKS closer to the comics' version of Superman, what's wrong with that?

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

No offense... but I think that this sort of thinking is part of why we've been subjected to some horrible films in this franchise.

What's wrong with going back to the source material? From what I've heard in several superman threads regarding favorite villains, Zod and his group top the list. That tells me that people are more interested in something closer to the comics where Superman actually faces someone who could be a threat to him.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Chris Reeves' Superman, but he didn't really LOOK like Superman. Same with Routh. There's a problem if we need to have padding and/or CGI muscles added to our actor to make him believable as Superman. If we can find someone who can act, but also LOOKS closer to the comics' version of Superman, what's wrong with that?

Heathen! Reeve looked like Superman to me and quite a few others. He did not need padding either. I do agree that we need REAL threats, not some computer, or bald guy with kryptonite. A Doomsday movie would be killer.

 

[Rotwang]

Respect for Christopher Reeve, but I never quite liked the whole crystal Krypton thing and it really jarred me in Superman Returns. They tried to push the same kind of hokey silver age story with the kid etc. The original Superman movies always had this cold depressing side to them and if anything Singer managed to capture that sense all over again, almost completely ruining the film for me.

I think they should start afresh with Superman. I also hope Nolan understands that Superman isn't a dark character like Batman. Get a good solid Superman story with a worthy adversary. Spacey did a decent job out of one of the worst portrayals of Lex Luthor. He should be a genius capable of matching Superman's brawn at ever step. As said in one of the stories. Luthor is Superman's worst enemy because there is nothing Superman can do to humble him.

I wouldn't even be adverse to wait a few years until we get good photorealistic CGI characters so we can pick a great actor who can do a great superman without the need of looking like one, a mix of the Curt Swan and John Byrne versions with a dash of Alex Ross.

 

[Solo4114]

Returns was pretty good.

I only hated the costume, the Superstalking and the actress playing Lois was not believable as a seasoned journalist.

Routh was terrific, as was Spacey.

Plenty of fun.

You supposed Donner would Direct if asked?

Amazingly, Mic and I agree on this.

 

[hankey01]

And me.

I'm sure Donner wouldn't direct, but he did encourage Singer to run with his ideas.

 

[YenChih Lin]

Hmm, I read the article and I really can't say, if it's going to be good or bad.... but if Nolan makes his homework on Supes, he might be able to infuse some sun-power in the Kyptonite-weakened franchise.

I personally think, that the writes have to go to the absolute essence of Superman. No need for a second origin-story. Keep these things in in the planned Superman: man of Steel sequel.

1. Dual Identity: Clark Kent - mild mannered reporter, little bumbling, but not too over the top and still being able to do the right thing (aka boy-scout syndrome). Superman - the friend and saviour, when you need him and things get REALLY ugly.

2. Superman is reprensenting the hope, the light and the believe of the good side of mankind, even in the most desperate situation. He's not dark - he's no Batman.

3. Get the best stories of Action comics and Superman comics and analyse, how the story affected the reader - why do we love Superman the way we do in these paticular issues.

4. Talk to the comic writers like Geoff Johns and others to get helpful input.

5. Give Superman a real threat, an entity that really kill us all (ZOMG!!!1!!!1!) - Doomsday: maybe, it might be too early. Brainiac, Darkseid, etc. those are the enemies, where Supes has to work his butt off as I always say. Lex is getting boring....

6. Write this story as I would like buy in a store - test waters....

7. No darkend or muted colors for Supes - he has to stand out, he is the hero.

8. And if you really think, SR was bad - well, there's Tim Burton and Nic Cage to give you nightmares...

 

[Lancer]

Superman Returns had its high points (the plane rescue was 100% pure, unadulterated Superman). However, the creepy-stalker aspect, the utter bimbo-stupidity of Lois, and Super-baby ultimately killed it for me.

I'd be interested to see where this goes. In my opinion, we don't need yet ANOTHER retread of the origin story. If you don't know where Superman comes from after it being part of popular culture for over 60 years now, you need to crawl back under your rock and let the rest of us continue on our way.

wait a minute. you mean superman isn't human? you'll be telling me darth vader is luke's father next.

 

[firesprite]

wait a minute. you mean superman isn't human? you'll be telling me darth vader is luke's father next.

:lol

Dude, you're gonna have me giggling about this all day.

 

[Jet Beetle]

Okay, here's the problem, Warner clearly hasn't learned from it's mistakes and it seems like they don't plan on to anytime soon.

Nolan is not a good choice as Superman overloard. Nolan kicks all kinds of butt when it comes to Batman, but it is for this reason they need someone else. Warner made the same mistake back when they put Tim Burton in charge of Superman Lives - and more recently letting Singer spend all kinds of money because of his X-Men track record. just because someone is good at one Superhero movie doesn't make them automatically good at the other and Superman and Batman are as different as you can get. We do not need a dark, moody, underlit, shades of grey Superman movie and I have a feeling Nolan has schooled himself of what works when taking comic to screen by making Batman movies. He has a set viewpoint on what works and there's no way to argue with him.

Superman represents more than Batman - he embodies the dreams of the immigrants who came here looking for a better way of life. the idea that you can leave the old world behind and in America be all you want to be. That is why two poor Jewish kids dreamed him up. He's a call back to the promise of America. Those beliefs do not hold like they used to and maybe that's why Superman doesn't sell as easy as the Dark Knight . if you ignore the thoughts of what went into the character - you are missing a great deal and I can see how those thigns will want to be ignored just as they were in Returns - "Truth, Justice, All that stuff"... Hope comes off as cheesy in our cynical society, but you know what - if anything should give you hope, it should be a movie about Superman.

 

[terryr]

I just saw Superman 2 The Donner Cut, and liked it much more than 'normal' S2. Much more realistic. I hope they keep the tongue in cheek out. [Donner finished 75% of S2 at the same time as S1, before being firing. Lester threw out enough to get credit as director,and loved camp humor.]
But it is a cartoon. In real life anyone that knew Kent would see he was Superman.

Routh was handicapped by trying to mimic Reeves instead of going wherever he had to.

And the next movie does need a big villain. The average human is just no match for Superman.

 

[Westies14]

I'd rather see a proper lex in a reboot than a supervillain threat. Ultimately with a superpowered threat, you're gonna have a bash-to-the-finish between two fairly evenly matched combatants a la Iron Man or Hulk. What makes Superman VS Lex interesting is that Lex is untouchable. He's supremely powerful through his money and connections, he can't be connected to anything criminal, and Superman won't break the rules in order to bring him down. That's a good deal more interesting than a slugfest, to me. The cartoons got that much right.

I'd love to see a trilogy starting with a period piece. Have the ship crash in the 30s, capture that nostalgia (and loose adoption rules) of the era. Clark will be in his 20's in order to join the newspaper business in the 50's. Remember, he went into that profession in order to be on top of the latest news alerts so he could help people - Superman doesn't need a job and a modern-day superman would be ill-served by working a 9-5 in a dying industry. The 50's paper business would have the right "feel" and the wardrobe would look great. Growing up in these decades would also believably give Clark that boy scout personality, saturated with Americana and wholesome values. He'd come of age during WWII - perfect.

The second film would be at the height of his career, set in the 70's - a nice matchup with the Reeves films .

A third film could see him brought out of retirement in present-day, like we see in Kingdom Come. I'd love to see him working the farm back in Kansas. His values, his personality are from a bygone era and he feels alien all over again. Lois died while he aged slowly. It would take something huge to bring him back to the game, and could give him a huge finalé - either finally getting to end his career and rest in peace after giving us so much for so long, or realizing he needs to continue and rededicating himself to his work as a hero.

Has anyone here read "It's Superman!" ? Great book, interesting take on the origins of the character. Not perfect for a film in my mind, but a lot could be borrowed from it.

- D

 

[firesprite]

I'd rather see a proper lex in a reboot than a supervillain threat. Ultimately with a superpowered threat, you're gonna have a bash-to-the-finish between two fairly evenly matched combatants a la Iron Man or Hulk. What makes Superman VS Lex interesting is that Lex is untouchable. He's supremely powerful through his money and connections, he can't be connected to anything criminal, and Superman won't break the rules in order to bring him down. That's a good deal more interesting than a slugfest, to me. The cartoons got that much right.

I'd love to see a trilogy starting with a period piece. Have the ship crash in the 30s, capture that nostalgia (and loose adoption rules) of the era. Clark will be in his 20's in order to join the newspaper business in the 50's. Remember, he went into that profession in order to be on top of the latest news alerts so he could help people - Superman doesn't need a job and a modern-day superman would be ill-served by working a 9-5 in a dying industry. The 50's paper business would have the right "feel" and the wardrobe would look great. Growing up in these decades would also believably give Clark that boy scout personality, saturated with Americana and wholesome values. He'd come of age during WWII - perfect.

The second film would be at the height of his career, set in the 70's - a nice matchup with the Reeves films .

A third film could see him brought out of retirement in present-day, like we see in Kingdom Come. I'd love to see him working the farm back in Kansas. His values, his personality are from a bygone era and he feels alien all over again. Lois died while he aged slowly. It would take something huge to bring him back to the game, and could give him a huge finalé - either finally getting to end his career and rest in peace after giving us so much for so long, or realizing he needs to continue and rededicating himself to his work as a hero.

Has anyone here read "It's Superman!" ? Great book, interesting take on the origins of the character. Not perfect for a film in my mind, but a lot could be borrowed from it.

- D

Now those movies... those, I'd pay good money to see if done properly.

 

[troopermatthew]

Nolan :thumbsdown

 

[YenChih Lin]

I think, if Donner could make a new Superman in a modern way - he said in the DVD, said that he would shoot differently today - I would trust him, he knew all the what Superman was about - and his famous versimilitude.

@Jet Beetle: The more I think about your words, the more right you are. Maybe it's time for a collaboration between a pro screen-writer and a comic writer to translate the one medium to another.

@westies 14: I'm skeptic about the setting - Superman the movie already played in '48, where Kal-El landed on earth, grew up in the 50's going to high-school in the 60's and being a reporter in '78 then present day. Shifting the timeline further back smells like a terrible reboot. I rather like to see the today Superman - character-driven, in a dire situation on saving the world and how far he would go to do it. Give me a Michael Rosebaum Lex and I'm fine. But better would be a new villain, definitely...

 

[Solo4114]

I was never a huge Supes fan, but I recently read the Infinity Crisis TPB and I have to say, I think you can still do a "dark" superman while retaining a sense of optimism and goodness.

The thing is that studios don't get what it means to be "dark." Yeah, Batman is "dark." But "dark" really just means that the actions in the film have consequences, and that the characters are treated seriously rather than as campy, goofy, etc. Basically, "dark" really just means modern. That's it. Modern.

You could do a modern story of Superman. I thought Routh did a pretty good job with this, actually. I think what needs to come through is that Superman, even in a modern world, still retains his ideals and does what he does because he realizes his own importance. Not in an arrogant, self-satisfied way, but rather in the sense that the world NEEDS a Superman. The world NEEDS a paragon of virtue that they can look to and say "He can do it, why can't I?" Not because he's super-powered but because of his ideals.

In that sense, I think Nolan might actually do a good job. The key, I think, to doing a successful superhero movie is NOT whether it's dark or brightly colored. It's not how many badguys it has, or who the main villain is. It's two simple things: (1) take the material seriously, and (2) recognize that it's not about the superpowers these people have. It's about what drives them to do what they do. Ultimately, I think Nolan gets that about the Batman films. While I could've used a bit more focus ON Batman in TDK, the one thing Nolan absolutely freakin' nailed was Batman's commitment to his mission. He is utterly devoted to keeping Gotham safe, even at the cost of his own life and freedom.

Superman, in that sense, is similar, but goes about his goal differently. But as cornball as his "boyscout" ideals may seem, he is absolutely sincere about them. He believes in being honest. He believes in using his power to help people. He has a true sense of DUTY about what it is he does. Ultimately, Superman does what he does because he's the ONLY person who can do it. He wears his costume because he is a symbol. He is a living embodiment of what is good in this world and the power of human determination. If you want to make a good Superman movie, you focus on THOSE things. You show that he never gives up, that he's utterly committed, and that he stands for something. Something that doesn't have to be treated as corny or cheesy. Whereas Batman exists to inspire fear in those who are evil and act as a living sentinel for the people of Gotham, Superman exists to inspire humanity to strive to be better and to remind them that even in a world full of pain and bleakness, there's still goodness and that it does win in the end.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Personally, I think Superman is a really interesting character. He is a rock in a changing world. Not only does he have to fight those who want to hurt others, but he also has to fight those who wants to use his powers for their gain. I'm sure as hell if he was real that the politicians would demand that he be put in to end wars and all those things. I think perhaps it may be going a bit in the wrong direction with the movie to show how the real world would actually react to someone like Superman... but a little bit of it - the inspiration and the fear he instills in people, the awe and suspicion.

Superman doesn't have to lurk in dark corners or in your bad dreams to scare criminals to think twice about committing crimes. The fact that he's nearly all powerful and basically answers to no one but his ideals is enough to send the fear of God into most people.

What Luthor has on his side is the easily swayed masses and the fact that he's a rich mastermind. We've already seen two versions in the movies: the humorous, witty and ruthless version played by Hackman, and the nut-job psychopath played by Spacey.

Some of the more interesting villains are the ones who actually think what they are doing is for the benefit of the survival of the human race or for the people, who don't really want to fight Superman, but will try to reason with him and see his way.

 

[CTF]

Batman is all about the human condition and kicking ass, while ol' Superman is just about some dude with a God complex taking 'em to prison.

 

[Westies14]

I gotta disagree that we've ever seen a Superman period piece. Hearing that Clark's friends are gonna "spin some records" and showing an old red truck doesn't really cover it... They conveniently had him spend decades learning in the fortress so that the bulk of the movie could take place in 70's manhattan, Statue of Liberty and all. The Daily Planet is best suited for the heyday of the newspaper era! The 50's setting (for Supes, not for Smallville) would give us fedoras and long wool coats, an actual rarity in a professional and independent Lois Lane, classic cars, maybe even giant robots for Superman to fight. By the third movie, if we caught him up to our time and all of the politics and conflicts and complications in our world, we'd have a great understanding of his simple and pure idealism having seen the more innocent time that he's a product of.