Storylines for the next Superman movie

[FireStormTrooper]

OK, here's my take ... BATMAN BEGINS (from here called BAT05) is complete origin story, much like SUPERMAN:THE MOVIE (from here called SUP78). This makes sense as Bruce Wayne's origins haven't been shown onscreen before. However SUP78 already covered Kal-El's origins beautifully and probably cannot be topped. Why cover ground that's already been tread on? Plus, with SMALLVILLE going over Clark's formative years, I don't think we need to see him growing up again.

So, just like BAT05 is following SUP78's setup, I think the next Superman movie (from here called SUP08) should be similar to the story framework of the first Batman movie (from here called BAT89). BAT89 didn't have an extensive setup, but rather you got Batman in costume within the first five minutes of the film. We saw some of his origin through a dream-like flashback and that was it. It was not spelled out that Bruce Wayne was Batman ... it seemed like Bruce Wayne could have been just a slightly weird civilian. But it was done so that even those totally unfamiliar with Batman could figure it out.

Likewise with SUP08 (yeah I'm a pessimist about the date), it should be all about Metropolis. No Smallville (maybe a phone call to Ma and Pa), No Krypton (maybe a flashback), No Fortress (save that for a sequel). It should open with Superman's first day on the job. As in, there have been reports of "miraculous" rescues popping up all over the city and in five minutes of the opening credits we have Superman's public debut in broad daylight. No backstory, no explanation of who he is (yet). We get the citizen's perspective for a good deal of the movie. Maybe for SUP08, use a teenaged Jimmy Olsen the same way Knox was used in BAT89: The outside viewpoint on the man (Clark) and the legend (Superman).

So, that's my take on how the next Superman movie should unfold. We all know the origin. It's been done and done superbly. What hasn't been done is how would the world react to the presence of such a powerful being among them? Would he get endorsement offers on the spot? Marriage proposals? Would he be mistaken for a messiah-type figure and people start worshipping him? Or be condemned as a fraud with an ulterior motive? All of the above? I'd want to know.

[bottleHeD]

Yeah, no need for an extended origin, but the flashbacks should be pretty clear, because we cant just assume everyone'll have seen the first Supes movie, and that everyone will know about Krypton and stuff. Plus the original movie had a hookey origin, what with all the guys on the planet having s-shields already...

I dont think Luthor should be the villain straight away. If they're making the movie and aiming for a trilogy od something, then Luthor should be saved for the end. Like the best for the last. Show his hate develop slowly. Maybe even reveal he had a hand in everything that happened in the earlier two movies.

------------------
HeD t r i p p i n '

[FireStormTrooper]

I was thinking along the lines of Clark having a nightmare/flashback sequence where he remembers Jor-El and Lara putting him in the spacecraft as Krypton exploded. Brief, maybe five minutes or so.

I like the idea of having an overall villain for a trilogy, but Lex Luthor is not the guy for that. Luthor should be the main baddies for the first movie (perhaps with an indestructible Kryptonite-powered Metallo as the henchman), but there should be subtle clues in the movie and its sequel that someone else is pulling the strings all along ... DARKSEID ... who would be fully revealed in the final movie as he launches a full-on global invasion of Earth.

Lex Luthor is the beginning of the story, Darkseid is the end. Brainiac is somewhere in the middle.

[brokenstatue2001]

How about the "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" story? At this point, I think people can relate to Superman as easily as they can relate to Robin Hood or Sherlock Holmes. I think, though I might be alone here, that people can see a great story, and not have it being a sequel, or part of a franchise.

[FireStormTrooper]

That was a great story (one of Alan Moore's best) but you have to know that's not how Hollywood works. You can't tell that story because that's the end of Superman's career. They want to kick-start a new franchise, not cap the old one off. They'll go young and start at or near the beginning of Supes' career. HENRY CAVILL ("The Count of Monte Cristo"), one of the leading contenders for the role, is all of 21 years old right now. They want a young gun to bear the mantle of Superman for at least a few movies.

That said, going back to the idea of Darkseid being the ultimate villian of the Superman movie franchise, I think it'd be cool if one of Darkseid's less-assuming underlings had a role in the first movie. Glorious Godfrey, a.k.a. G.G. Godfrey, could have a cameo as an influential member of Luthor's cabinet (if its President Lex) or as a televised political pundit with a rant against all superheroes (like a Bill O'Reilly-type). He'd only be onscreen for a minute, but could be referenced in future films as Darkseid gets more involved with Earth (creating Intergang and then the eventual Invasion). Just a possibility ....

[kvdp12]

If Tom Welling plays Supes after Smallville is over then I think that the movie should start off with an over view of Kansas farms as the credits are shown. When the movie starts the over view of Kansas moves to a farm house while a car pulls up into the drive way. Out of the car walks Clark Kent in a suit. We see next Clark talking to Ma and Pa about the job he just got at The Daily Planet and that his first day is tommorrow. That will be all we see of Martha and Johnathan because remember Smallville is over this is Superman.

If Welling plays Kal-el in the new Superman movies then I don't think they should go strait to Metroplois, but rather show Smallville one time (and the only time in all the movies) as sort of a moving on thing, not a jump from clark off to College (where smallville ends) to clark with the "S" on his chest saving people.

After the Smallville scene it will start with Clark moving his way into Metrolpolis and the Daily Planet.

I think that the next movie should either take place after Smallville or a movie like FireStormTrooper's idea; but definetly not a Superman 5 following the last 4 movies. Etheir way I don't really think they should show the hole crash of the ship and the Kents finding clark scene, unless like many have said it is in a flash back.

Thats just my thought

KVDP

[This message has been edited by kvdp12 (edited 07-03-2004).]

[bottleHeD]

Well, i dont think the movie should pick up from where Smallville left off.
Movie are made for a worldwide audience. TV shows arent.
No studio would want to limit a movie's appeal like that.

Anywez, i somehow dont see Darkseid as a Superman villain. Darkseid, if he ever appears on screen, should be in a fourth world movie with Orion and New Genesis and Apocalypse.

I say Luthor should be the central character around the movie, and i dont wanna see any back history between them. The John Byrne version would work just fine - Superman waltzing in and stealing Luthor's glory.

It could be something like this -
Movie 1 - Luthor + some baddie do stuff, Luthor goes to jail.
Movie 2 - Luthor outta jail, angrier than ever. But is shown to die at the end.
Movie 3 - Luthor returns, but dies for real at the end.

All three movies could feature Luthor + a prominant member of Superman's rogues gallery.
This way, the trilogy would have a proper running plot.

------------------
HeD t r i p p i n '

[FireStormTrooper]

I don't think Lex Luthor should be the primary overall villian for the new Superman franchise (keep in mind these are merely my own humble opinions). The Christopher Reeve series did this approach in 3 of the 4 movies. Superman vs a normal human being, even one like Luthor, for three movies straight would bore me. Imagine Batman fighting the SAME villain (Joker or Ras al Ghul) over and over. Gets repetitive and boring.

As for Darkseid appearing in a NEW GODS movie ... hey, I would love to see a solo AQUAMAN movie, but I readily admit that the only realistic chance of seeing Arthur onscreen is as part of a JUSTICE LEAGUE franchise. Likewise with Darkseid, for better or worse he is known as a Superman villian to the public at large and that's really the only way he's getting onscreen. All his cartoon appearances have been as part of the Superman mythos (SUPERMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES and JUSTICE LEAGUE, as well as the old SUPERFRIENDS: GALACTIC GUARDIANS tv series). Plus, Darkseid made his comic debut in Jimmy Olsen #134. Darkseid is like Ra's al Ghul: not as classic as Luthor, but far more exotic and powerful. And a fitting villian for a finale.

So, I'd like it if the trilogy (assuming it's one director's vision guiding the whole thing) went something like this ...

PART I : A young Superman faces Lex Luthor as the main baddie, Metallo as the henchman built by Luthor, G.G. Godfrey (one of Darkseid's toadies in disguise) as a member of Luthor's staff.

PART II : Superman in his prime faces Brainiac as the main baddie, Bizarro as the henchman cloned by Brainiac, Bruno Mannheim and Intergang (a group secretly funded by Darkseid) to kick things off.

PART III : An older*, wiser Superman faces Darksied as the main baddie, Doomsday as the henchman unleashed by Darkseid, and the entire cast of Apokolips (Kalibak, Granny, Kanto, Steppenwolf, the Furies, the Parademons, etc) invading Earth.

* - Older wouldn't mean he's physically aged (since he ages very slowly upon adulthood), just that a lot of time has passed since Part II.

[D.K.HOOD]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FireStormTrooper:
Likewise with Darkseid, for better or worse he is known as a Superman villian to the public at large and that's really the only way he's getting onscreen. All his cartoon appearances have been as part of the Superman mythos (SUPERMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES and JUSTICE LEAGUE, as well as the old SUPERFRIENDS: GALACTIC GUARDIANS tv series). Darkseid is like Ra's al Ghul: not as classic as Luthor, but far more exotic and powerful. And a fitting villian for a finale. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto!

[FireStormTrooper]

OK, so I just read the report on SHH!'s website and this 18-year-old actor named SHIA LEBOUF apparently is in the running for Jimmy Olsen. Anyway, this same report says that the new Superman flick is scheduled to begin filming THIS NOVEMBER ... huh?

How can they be able to begin filming a scant 4 months from now when they haven't nailed down a director? Or a cast?? Or even a frickin' script??? That date is either pure speculation or this is a rush-job on a giant scale. I hope it's the former and not the latter. WB, why don't you take your time and get the right script, right director and right cast. Please.

[This message has been edited by FireStormTrooper (edited 07-09-2004).]

[FireStormTrooper]

McG is gone! McG is gone!! Thank the Lord, McG is gone!!!

Wolfgang Peterson, come on down!

[Oldsoul3300]

--While I would much prefer a transition from TV's Smallville to the next movie, all indications are that that won't happen.
It would seem that a lot of these superhero movies in development now are trying to capitalize on the success of Spider-Man, showing a young man gaining or finding his superhero persona and going on his first adventures.
That worked for Spider-Man.
It seems like it will work for Batman, simply to distance itself from the earlier films.
Superman doesn't need that.
Everyone knows who Superman is, and for those who don't, they probably either won't see the movie or will be able to figure it out by a simple flashback.
Some of these actors being mentioned for Clark, like this Henry Cavill (?) and Jake Gyllenhaal are much to young for Superman.
I think whoever plays Superman should be in his early to mid-thirties, not any younger.

[brokenstatue2001]

Okay, okay, so here is how I imagine the Superman flick should go....
They should start with Clark being introduced into the Daily Planet, and for his first assignment, he saves a bunch of people from an accident at a Lexcorp press conference, kinda like that scene in Robocop, where ED-209 went haywire and killed that guy, only Superman would stop it before anyone got hurt. Luthor blames Superman for the failure, but continues to make faulty law enforcement weapons, with Supes bailing people out of harm's way. Then he hears about a new type of nuclear based fuel called kryptonite, kinda like plutonium, only more powerful, so he begins hoarding as much stuff as possible, but a quarry worker died in an attempt to get more. Luthor decides that since the guy was in his employ at the time of his death, he decides to use his body for, like, cybernetic experiments, possibly even using the kryptonite as fuel, and it works! (ENTER METALLO (dum dum dummmm!)) Luthor decides to make him head of security and uses more krytonite as fuel for the robots, and start a crusade to find out who Superman is. (By the way, this is not connected to "Smallville".) So he hires a reporter at the Daily Planet named Lois Lane. Meanwhile, Supes is going around saving people, and Lois finds out that there is a small town in Kansas that experienced a series of rescues similar to the ones in Metropolis, so she goes out there and investigates, and she concludes that the saves stopped when the saves in Metropolis began. And she compiled a list of people who moved from Smallville to Metropolis around the time of Superman's appearance. She gives the list to Luthor, and Luthor sics some robots after the people, probably about 10 or so. And Superman stops them, but is weakened when one of the robots break open, revealing a small piece of kryptonite. Luthor sees this and starts construction of his power suit, fueled by kryptonite. Meanwhile, Lexcorp stock plummets, loses a lot of money, but Lex still blames Superman. Lex sends out Metallo to retrieve Superman, and is successfull, when he reveals his kryptonite heart. He then brings Supes to Lex's office. I'm tired of typing......very broad overview, they fight, building explodes, 'cause kryptonite is highly unstable, Lex is missing, Superman makes it out safely, Metallo is dead, and Lois finds out that Clark Kent is Superman. On to part 2.......
Now to make it more like something demolition18 would write, "The Rock should be Superman. Luthor says "Superman, you will die", Superman punches him. I like kittens."
If you made it this far, thanks. This is just a very broad overview of what I think would be a good Superman movie. Love it? Hate it? Would you like to kick Bon Jovi in the balls? Let me know. Thanks.

------------------
"Even homicidal maniacs have feelings." -Jon Stewart

[FireStormTrooper]

I think the next SUPERMAN movie should be its own entity and not a big-screen extension of SMALLVILLE.

That show merely takes elements of the Superman mythos and restructures them into a new take on the character. That experiment should end whenever the TV series does ... hmmm ... Clark graduates high school by next season's end, so maybe next season is the last one, unless they keep Clark in Smallville after he graduates. Eh, this part should probably have been posted in the SMALLVILLE thread.

Back to my original point, SUP08 (codename, remember?) should jumpstart the franchise. I agree that we don't need a full-blown origin movie. SUP78 already covered Superman's entire backstory beautifully. I say, hit the ground running. How about showing the movie from the outsider's point of view. We meet Superman and Clark Kent seperately, without overt hint that they are one and the same. That approached worked in BAT89 for Keaton's Bruce Wayne and Ol' Pointy Ears.

Movie opens in modern Metropolis (which really is New York City by day, as Gotham is New York by night). It's a normal bustling workday in the heart of Western Civilization. All of a sudden we are alerted to breaking news that a plane has been hijacked ... ummm, scratch that, too close to 9/11 ... well, something else goes terribly wrong in broad daylight. All eyes are riveted over whatever's happening. Then (cue classic John Williams' buildup music), there is a streak of red and blue.

In a flash, the crisis is averted. But millions of eyes are locked on the airborne figure responsible for averting the tragedy ... a flying man, garbed in a cape with an alien logo on his chest, who has just demonstrated powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. Within seconds of the rescue, he is gone. Leaving thousands of questions and the biggest news story of all time.

The flying man is all over the papers and TV news (though no good shot of his face exists). He is instantly the talk of late night talk show hosts and media pundits. The military take a strong and immediate dislike to him, publicly dubbing him an unknown and possibly uncontrollable threat to national security. They award a contract to LexCorp's Advanced Cybernetics Division to construct what will be their answer to this "Superman" ... a cyborg to be made of a nigh-unbreakable metal alloy, powered by an incredibly radioactive substance called Compound 1938x (eventually called kryptonite) and wrapped in living tissue.

LexCorp CEO Lex Luthors assures the Pentagon that Project:Metallo will yield a controllable superhuman soldier. He errs only in chosing which human brain to command his Frankenstein's monster: Luthor selects deathly ill soldier John Corben because he mistakenly believes Corben will be easier to control due to Corben's noted love of money.

That's a setup for some of the possible plotlines for SUP08. What do you think?

[brokenstatue2001]

That is amazingly similar to mine. QUIT STEALING MY IDEAS!!!!


JERK!!!!
http://www.comics2film.com/UBB/tongue.gif

------------------
"Even homicidal maniacs have feelings." -Jon Stewart

[FireStormTrooper]

Looks like we're both stealing ... from Bryne's '80s Superman run (though you've also got RoboCop's lawyers on your tail http://www.comics2film.com/UBB/wink.gif )
Plus, I could never see Luthor making Law Enforcement weapons ... why help the very people he stays 10 steps ahead of?

A Luthor and Metallo combo makes sense ... one creating the other, one the brain and the other supplying the brawn before they eventually turn on each other.

Anyways, about Lois Lane. I'd like it if she did NOT work for the Daily Planet. Or any newspaper, for the matter. She's too glamorous for that. She should be an anchorwoman for Morgan Edge's Galaxy Broadcasting Company Nightly News program. She's like Ted Koppel or Peter Jennings: a celebrity in her own right. Her face is well known across the nation. And she is very wealthy. She is sure that, with her influence and charm, she can land the story on Superman in an exclusive interview.

[brokenstatue2001]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FireStormTrooper:
<B>Looks like we're both stealing ... from Bryne's '80s Superman run (though you've also got RoboCop's lawyers on your tail http://www.comics2film.com/UBB/wink.gif )
Plus, I could never see Luthor making Law Enforcement weapons ... why help the very people he stays 10 steps ahead of?

</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let them come... I've been able to create my own ED-209!! They'll be obliterated before they step on my porch!

Anyways I think that Luthor making law enforcement weapons seems natural to me. I think that since Luthor found out that Superman is an alien, he's trying to save the world from this menace from outer space. But, he's also crazy, so he doesn't realize that he's also hurting people, too. And there should be a reason for him making robots and explosives.
And I think that Lois Lane idea could work, but I think that she is too smart to be an anchorperson, so she might be like a top investagtive reporter.

------------------
"Even homicidal maniacs have feelings." -Jon Stewart

[FireStormTrooper]

Here's why I like the idea of Lois Lane being an anchorwoman: She should be too glamorous for a beat reporter like Clark Kent. Clark should not appear to have a shot with her. Lois is so arrogant as to think only Superman (a flying man with the powers of a god) is good enough for her. Clark knows this and resents that Lois can't appreciate him as Clark. Which is why Superman continually snubs Lois Lane the way she rejects Clark. Until she accepts Clark as being good enough for her on his own, Superman won't accept her overtures toward him.

Clark himself should be something of a lanky gump ... think Jeff Goldblum: a nice quiet guy that people don't notice (but NOT a simpering wimp a la Christopher Reeve). Doesn't always wear a suit but keeps his physique mostly hidden from view. He wants to compete on an even playing field as Clark Kent, not dominate everything as Superman (he'd get bored so fast because he could have everything: fame, women, money, power, all because of his powers). This keeps it interesting for him.

[brokenstatue2001]

Well, I would think Lois would get bored sitting in a studio and reading a teleprompter. I would have her as a hard-hitting investigative reporter, intrigued by Superman, and having Luthor send her out to find out who Superman is would give her to fuel to do something she wanted to do. As similar as our stories are, it seems like we couldn't agree how Lois Lane should be portrayed. How about we let other C2Fers say how they feel about Lois? What do you say?

------------------
"Even homicidal maniacs have feelings." -Jon Stewart

[FireStormTrooper]

Sure, I'd love to hear other opinions about Lois. I guess what I really meant by "anchorwoman" is just that Lois Lane should be on TV (maybe as a TV reporter with young Jimmy Olsen as her cameraman) for Galaxy Broadcasting and definitely, definitely NOT be co-workers with Clark Kent at the Daily Planet.

I like the idea of Lois working for someone sinister, but not Lex. Lois Lane should work for Morgan Edge. Morgan Edge wants Superman exposed as a phony ... kinda like J. Jonah Jameson with Peter Parker, only Lois is genuinely curious about Superman's motives as well and vows to get to the bottom of it.

So I guess the set-up I'd like to see is a professional competition between Morgan Edge's Galaxy Broadcasting duo of Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen vs. Perry White's Daily Planet solo act of Clark Kent.

[Znluvx]

I don't know about everyone else, but I'd be interested in seeing a more fleshed out depiction of Krypton. Smallville has been totally showcased, and all we've seen of Supes birthplanet has been smoke and mirrors (with a little Brando through in).
So maybe a 5-10min intro where we actually see what the culture was like before the big bang. It could also delve into the struggle between Jor-el and the ruling body, and introduce Brainiac as a villian for the rest of the earth-bound story.

[FireStormTrooper]

I've got a very bad feeling that the next SUPERMAN movie is going to be a continuation of SMALLVILLE. It looks like both Tom Welling and Michael Rosenbaum are involved with a movie at WB, though they won't say which. Maybe it's LOGAN'S RUN or something, but I have a sinking suspicion that it's SUPERMAN http://www.comics2film.com/UBB/frown.gif

As for Krypton, I'd like to see that too, but not for the next Superman film ... unless it's a five-minute flashback. Superman's origin has been done to death at this point and we all know his backstory. I say let's get right to the action. But KRYPTON could make for a great TV series on the WB. Jor-El and Lara as the main characters, Zod and Brainiac as the villians. Maybe not for some years, but it could be done.

[FireStormTrooper]

Just bumping this topic up ...

OK, so it's 10 months later and we know a lot more about the upcoming SUPERMAN RETURNS movie ... not too much of it looks encouraging. Ah, well, what can you do?

We can pose the question: If you were in charge (and yeah none of us are nor are we likely to be) of making the next Superman movie, what would you do with it? What actors would you cast? What director would you want? What would the movie's premise and plot be?

I would like to do a cohesive trilogy, similar to LORD OF THE RINGS. A 3-part life story of Superman. And yes, I know we've seen his origins far too often in the last 20 years (SUPERBOY, LOIS &amp; CLARK, SMALLVILLE), so I would incorporate his origin into flashbacks throughout the movie. Begin with Clark's first day on the job at the Daily Planet. Show Superman five minutes into the movie (a la BATMAN '89). Mention LexCorp, but don't show or hear Luthor himself.

One thing (among many) that BATMAN BEGINS seems to be doing right (haven't seen it yet, so please no spoilers), is that it is showing something that has not been seen before. Batman's origin. His training. Ra's al Ghul. Henri Ducard. The Scarecrow. First time ever for all of these in live action portrayals. It's new and it's fresh, but it's still Batman. No Joker. No Robin. No Vicki Vale. We've seen that, so let's do something new (Alfred &amp; Gordon are vital mainstays of the mythos, much like Lois &amp; Jimmy).

So, no Luthor. No Zod. No time travel. No over-expansive Jor-El playing God. Keep Lois around, but change it up. What villains haven't been used or seen live-action. Geez, how about all of them except Luthor and Zod! I'd use Metallo (the flesh-covered Terminator-looking version) as a pawn of the military super-computer BRAINIAC. Or maybe have Intergang overwhelm the police and local law enforcement prior to Supes' arrival. Make Metropolis New York City at its brightest and most futuristic.

What are some your ideas?

[WC]

Well since Bryan Singer seems intent on simply remaking the original Superman films, I speculate that we'll see some super computer in the next installment with some black comedian playing the programmer. Chris Rock or Chris Tucker perhaps? Superman's already too dark costume will turn even darker too. Then in the 3rd part of the new trilogy, we'll see the return of Luthor and a new version of the Nuclear Man.

That sounds pretty accurate, doesn't it? :roll:

[The Xenos]

I would actually like Luthor here, but have Brainiac be the villian behind it all or at least one that shows up. Plus I think Luthor, while seen on film, needs to be shown as the brilliant and scheming businessman he has been in the comic. We need something better than.. whatever the otherwise excellent Hackman was.

-Xenos

[easy D]

I don't know about any one else, but my vision of Superman is like this. First of all, everyone here knows that Supes is an alien, if not, well, look a piece of string! But the citizens of Metropolis sort of see him like, a savior. A modern-day Jesus. Something like that. And that Luthor believes that Supes is probably up to something more. He feels he's gotta protect them from this threat. Something like the story ideas I posted earlier (as brokenstatue2001). Only Luthor's a little loco en la cabeza. So my idea is a little twisted in the aspect of different points of view. But, to this day, I still believe Bruce Willis will make a great Lex Luthor.

[The Xenos]

Well, if this rumor is true, the movie can kiss my $8 googbye.

(spoilers btw)
http://www.comics2film.com/FanFrame.php?f_id=14636

Wow. THat's just stupid. The scary thing is that it all makes sense with previous confirmed reports of what's been filmed. I do remember hearing about a hospital scene before.

-Xenos

[soonersuperman]

i think the new rumors could be both good and bad to the story. if the lois' son is richard whites, it could lead to some sort of jealousy, love triangle between the three and make superman realize how much he cares for lois. if the son is in fact supermans, it creates another story line w/in the movie, supermans love for lois and his family and his need to protect them from evil even more.
but these rumors could be problematic to the story b/c now we have a son fathered by superman that will have human qualities and kryptonian qualities. i think its agreed that the new superman movies shouldn't feature a superboy or supergirl b/c that would detract the audience and the story from what should be a resurgence in the superman story.
i'd be interested to see if singer is taking these new movies in that direction b/c it raises more questions, but also develops more story ideas that would be centered around supermans desire to save his family, and the world, from danger. what do you guys think?

[easy D]

I'm not too sure if this sounds good. I was rather hoping that Bryan Singer would take the Superman mythos in a new direction, kinda like Chris Nolan took Batman in a new direction, and not just retread the old movies. However, I do have confidence in Singer's ability, I'm just hoping it's not another Hulk.

[The Xenos]

He's not only taking stuff from the old movies and retreading them or even just spinnining off ot them, he's also just inventing stuff that has nothing to do with the character.

Seriously, the son of Superman? I remember a good Elseworlds about that, but it wasn't coninutity. To make a movie that seems like an Elseworlds instead of creating a movie of a familiar view of the character that fans and everone would recognize... I just don't see any sense in it.

There are so many good ideas in the books already. I know I've always been more of a Batman fan, but there are some good Superman storeis I like and I loved the stories in the animated series.

Why they need to invent such outlandish ideas is beyond me.

-Xenos

[trapdinsteel]

Outlandish compared to what? Is it completely ridiculous to believe that in Superman II when Superman gave up his powers and became human and obviously made whoopie with Lois (in an already established and respected movie) that a normal human child was the result in Superman Returns? I don't think so. I would also prefer this new idea which is an expansion of our beloved movie Superman from the 70's and 80's rather than a regurgitated comic book story arc.

I would assume Singer's goal in basing his new story off of the old movies has a lot to do with the fact that there has already been a fan base established with those movies that will be attracted by this. If anything I'm sure Singers experience with Comic 2 film movies has shown him that the comic book fanatics will always eventually show up to the theatre despite how much they b*&amp;ch and moan in the chat rooms. So by incorporating his story line from the two original successess (and excluding the second 2 flops) he is also pulling from that crowd of non comic reading "John Q. Public" film goers that remember the first two movies. I still do not see a problem.

[The Xenos]

Actually, I don't think I will line up for this one.

Singer has said he is mostly a fan of the Donner films and he is basing this film off them. Well, I thought the Donner films, save for Reeves as the man himself, were pretty unwatchable. For the time they were good, but with what I know as a somewhat casual fan of the characrter (for a comics fan), they do some really weird things.

Hell, even Family guy made fun of the stupid stuff like throwing an energy net from the symbol on his chest in Superman two. Hell, they had stupid crap like that in the second one and that was supposed to be the best. Indeed, what the hell was that crap?

Plus to (supposedly) use the whole Superman sleeping with Lois Lane as a jumping point into a major thing in this movie.. I don't get it. That just seemed dumb when I first saw it and not just because I was a kid and it was about (eeeeew) sex. That was again a really weird idea. It was Hollywood pulling crazy ideas and powers out of their butt and appluying them oddly to this known icon.

Even the going back in time power seemed pretty stupid in the first one. I know comic books don't have the most scientific reasoning even now, but they do make some kind of semi-sense. Then agian a number of my favorite writers like Ellis, Morrison, or Waid love tapping into recent real discoveries and technologies in a somewhat hard science fiction fashion.

Hell, this is a disservice to Singer himself. He needs to get his lips off Donner's butt and come up with his own more true and modern and sensable take of Superman. I'm sure he could do a dman good job. It doesn't and shouldn't be an origin, but to base it on the old movies with all their oddities is foolish.

I thought we were beyond ignoring the souce books in favor of crazy Hollywood ideas to make a movie. I was wrong. Now this isn't going to be another Catwoman or Elektra, but I think it will be devient enough to be like Batman Returns. I never cared for that much as Burton's crazy directorial vision twisted both villians to near unreconizable lengths. Back then, we accepted it, but it was still the closest to the comics there was back then. Now with more true stuff like Hellboy or Batman Begins or even Lord of the Rings, I don't see why we have to settle to crap ideas and changes pulled out of Hollywood's ass. There are directors that won't just have their way with a character or book, but stay true to a sensible version. I don't see what I've heard as being sensible at all other than Singer going out on a lim with his ideas and staying true to teh oddball Donner films.

If you're gonna adapt something from a book base it on the book or make your own damn character and story. Why not change it to say that Krypton sent him here to conquor Earth and the whole planet was under Zod. Hell, might as well dot that and make this a DBZ movie about Goku returing to Earth to find Chi Chi running off with Krillin or someone after having Goku's son Gohan.

See, you change things too much, you might as well give it a new name.

If I wanted to see a movie about an old flame returning, I'd go see some crappy romantic comedy or something. This is freaking Superman, Bryan, and that mixed up ideas is the best you can do with him and him and Lois? Sheesh.

-Xenos

[Znluvx]

Outlandish compared to what? Is it completely ridiculous to believe that in Superman II when Superman gave up his powers and became human and obviously made whoopie with Lois (in an already established and respected movie) that a normal human child was the result in Superman Returns? I don't think so. I would also prefer this new idea which is an expansion of our beloved movie Superman from the 70's and 80's rather than a regurgitated comic book story arc...

In all these years of watching Superman 2, I never thought he was "becoming human." I just believed he was giving up just his powers so he could fit in with non-super people.

Just me maybe:?:

[trapdinsteel]

Xenos,
I agree with the point that there were parts of the Donner films that were a complete stretch. I too hated the reversal of time, and always have said in previous posts that if he could have flown that damn fast that he should have been able to get to the two rockets before Lois kicked the bucket. Even more so I did not like how they killed off pa kent and made the driver behind his quest to help people that "all these powers and I could not save him" when it should have been the great morals instilled in him by the Kents. There are a few in II as well like you mention the S net was pretty ridiculous looking back. None the less, at the time, they worked and the films were very successfull and critically acclaimed(which I attribute to Reeve's masterful performance). And because those films were successfull, whether you like it or not there is an established fan base looking forward to this new movie. The fact that you cast judgment based off of rumors and have decided a year in advance that you will not see this movie even before a trailer has been viewed is quite silly. Stay in your bubble then, im sure your one ticket stub will not make a difference anyway.

Singer has said many times that this is a spring board off of the originals not a continuation. I don't know where your getting your information that Singer is basing this off of the Donner films alone, because everything that I have heard is quite different. Please cite these sources and Singers quotes where he says this because I would be quite interested to see it.

I don't know how you figure Superman Returns is going to be like Batman Returns with exception to the "returns" in the title. Where as in BR, Batman was basically fighting a circus the whole movie, in SR I see a look into the real emotions behind what the character of Superman has to deal with. Things like not knowing his heritage on Krypton, previously just feeling different on earth but now feeling completely useless because they have learned to survive without him, the fact that the woman he loves has moved on, and all of the potential emotions to finding out that he had a son when he got rid of his powers briefly.

A movie about emotion, hmm where have we seen that recently, oh yeah, Batman Begins with fear. Batman Begins was a great movie because it shows how fear is a constant in the life of Batman in various aspects. This is the same with Superman except the constant emotion is love and caring. The love that he has for lois and the important people in his life, the fact that he cares so much about helping people, the fact that his parents cared for him and loved him enough to send him away before Krypton met its doom, and the fact that since he was in such a caring and loving environment with the Kents that he is driven for Truth, Justice, and the American way.

Do not give me that BS that this is going to be a sappy chick flick, there is a romance aspect to every single superhero franchise, even with your beloved Batman and each of the different woman characters in all of his movies. I guess if you really think that the old flame thing will kill the movie then that must mean that you thought the character of Rachel Dawson killed Batman Begins, or Mary Jane killed both Spiderman movies, or Sue Storm was the downfall to the Fantastic Four. Give me a break.

Znluvx,
I'm not completely positive that he was actually turned into a human being, that is just my guess on how the story will be adapted. I previously mentioned in another post that my reasoning for this assumption is the hole Lara speech before he stepped into the chamber. Ya know the whole, "you will be one of them" speech. I'm just trying to connect the dots.

[The Xenos]

Oh yeah. I know most of this is rumor. I should have thrown some more 'if's in there. I sure hope Singer proves me wrong.

Yet I sure hope comic fans sit this one out, because he has basically said this is not a movie based on the comics. It's a movie based mostly on the previous movies. I remember reading a quote right from Singer about that, how he was a fan of the films and wasn't into the comics. He also said the main inpriation, and maybe this part was taken out of context and he was just talking about the costume, were the Felisher brothers toons, Alex Ross's stuff, and the Donner films.

Of course I still maintain that if some of those rumored new odd ideas and changes like the possible son of Superman may even alienate the general public who grew up on on the old movies.

As for comparing it to Batman Returns, I meant that from the aspect that the director was ignoring the books and doing his own twist on the characters. Now surely it will be more realistic and emotional than Batman Returns which had emotions, but were rather in a weird cartoony Burton way.

Also, I don't mind the romance angle at all. It is Superman and Lois Lane after all. There needs to be a love story there. It's just I think that they're aproaching it from a really weird angle. Yeah, it's an interesting and rather new concept, but I think a more traditional take on it would work just as well.

Also, as a side note on the other films, I don't think Holmes's character killed Batman Begins, but she was somewhat unneeded and, while still done well, the weakest part in the movie. Actually, I think she seemed a bit too similar to Mary Jane. I do have friends who think that the romance killed Spider-man 2, but he's a bitmore of a die hard fan and not quite a romantic. I rather liked it in Spier-man 2. Though I must say I am a bit iffy on Dunst with some of her off camera remarks on her character.

-Xenos

[easy D]

Well, I don't think that Katie Holmes' performance was weak at all. However, it did seem like she was supposed to be Batman's version of Mary Jane or Aunt May, a little of both actually.





Isn't it weird that female actors get little to no respect in this site?

[norrinraad]

Outlandish compared to what? Is it completely ridiculous to believe that in Superman II when Superman gave up his powers and became human and obviously made whoopie with Lois (in an already established and respected movie) that a normal human child was the result in Superman Returns?

Now this is another interesting idea. Before Superman Returns was even announced, I wondered what kind of change Superman went through in the second film. Did he literally become human or did his Kryptonian physiology (heh, where else in life do you get to use terms like that?) change so that Earth's gravity and yellow sun no longer had an effect on him? That part of the film was never explained, but if he did become human then it's conceivable (heh) that Clark and Lois could have produced a child.

Another explanation could simply be that human and Kryptonian DNA are compatible. Isn't the current Superboy supposed to be a clone with part Superman and part Lex Luthor DNA? If the two weren't compatible wouldn't the clone be some kind of genetic mess? This would be the easiest way around the whole issue and make the most sense. The whole idea of aliens and humans mating to create superheroes isn't exactly a novel one in the world of comics anyway, so including it here shouldn't alienate fans of the books.

One thing I hope they don't do is create a whole soap opera out of it, if they do go the child route. You know, spend most of the movie having Clark think the kid is his, having him go through this whole voyage of self-analysis, only to have a big PSYCH! at the end. That, more than anything, would turn me off the whole idea.

Of coruse, ages ago, back with the Knowles's unkown vs Millar's Cavizel rumors, there was another rumor. Singer wanted an unknown gay actor for Superman who would come out jsut before the movie would open. While Superman would still be satright, he would also use the alienation themes to relate to gay younf men in the country who feel lost and alone. I can still see this happening adn I think it's totally wrong.

Where exactly did this rumour get started? I keep reading about this on the net and I think it's ridiculous. I even posted a quote on this website before to this effect, and still can't find anything to substantiate it. Has Singer actually gone on record and stated this? I sincerely doubt it. For one thing, why would WB/DC allow one of its crown jewels to be used by Singer to make a political statement? WB is trying to build a franchise here. What would this do to the Superman movies in the long run? Also, why would Singer, in the year 2005, want to use Superman as a gay metaphor? What would the point be? It's not like it's 1986 and Madonna is just starting to drag gay culture out of the underground and into the mainstream. We have gay talk show hosts, gay characters on prime time TV, and openly gay pop stars, not to mention openly gay directors making $100 million Superman movies. Why would Singer feel compelled to make some kind of statement on the isolation of gay youth now? With the internet and major communities in most urban centres, how isolated do gay youth feel nowadays anyway? The last thing I would want is for a major C2F to be used as such a platform. I don't think it's necessary, nor would it benefit the franchise in the bigger picture.

If anything, I read all these changes as an honest attempt to make Superman more relateable to audiences. Superman, intrinsicly, is a pretty difficult hero to make interesting. He's two dimensionally noble and pretty much invulnerable, not exactly relateable qualities in a world where many people are self-absorbed to the point of being insular. I know most fans of the comics would like to see Supes ripped right off the page, but that's not realistic. Even my friend's 4 year old son, who loves Superman, understands that the Superman he sees in the movies is different than the Supes from the books, who's different from the Supes in the animated shows. It's all still Superman, just different continuities. In terms of film continuity, I can see where Singer is coming from and I'm hoping this film is a huge success for him, as Batman was for Nolan.
________
"We're just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl, year after year."

[FireStormTrooper]

I've made peace with the fact that this movie is not going in the direction I would have preferred. It looks like SUPERMAN RETURNS is shaping up to be next year's FANTASIC FOUR ... a critically savaged but commercially viable picture (as opposed to BATMAN BEGINS, which was critically acclaimed and made $200 million domestically). I dislike the alleged storyline, the way Brandon Routh looks as Superman, the choice of Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, the whole direct sequel to SUPERMAN II angle, pretty much everything that has been revealed up to this point. But me not liking it won't change anything.

So be it. I'm not directing or producing or writing the movie. My role as the member of movie going public is to decide whether or not to see the final product and then whether or not I like it. So I'll wait and see. I won't tear this movie a new one before its time but I won't give it the complete benefit of the doubt either. I'll wait on seeing it until after the 1st weekend and get feedback from others first. Word of mouth will be very important.

I want this movie to be successful enough to warrant some kind of future Superman movies, but not so successful that they continue to go with this tired psuedo-Donner storyline retread further ...

[The Xenos]

Yeah. I'm with you with all but the comment on Routh. I think he looks fine. The suit could use a bit more of a traditional look, but I could live with that if the story was decent. It does not sound even near it.

I agree that the Donner influence is crap, especially to fans. I understand the mass market appeal, but I am so (*$#(ing sick of mass market dictating changes to characters and stories. Singer could do something orginal based on the character and lose the odddity of the Donner films. No, he has a hang up on the old film and is limiting himself with it. Then again some of his own ideas are pretty odd too. Maybe not Wolfgang Peterson Batman vs Superman odd, but odd. I'd say Tim Burton Batman Returns odd, maybe more.

Then again Superman survived Donner's odd trip. Batman survived Burton's oddball more 40s take and reverted more to the recent books. Hell, he even survived the homoerotic overtones and neo-retro-camp of Shucmacher. Maybe years down the road a new director will do a more faithful take on Superman. I know I'd be interested in seeing a new X-Men and even a new Spiderman as much as I loved those and thought they were great jobs.

-Xenos

[FireStormTrooper]

I'm hoping that SUPERMAN RETURNS is successful. I feel it won't be the biggest blockbuster of 2006 (that honor will, in all likelihood, go to THE DA VINCI CODE with Tom Hanks). My gut tells me, unless it's really bad or ho-hum, SR will be more successful than X3 ... esp since SR more or less snatched X3's intended director Bryan Singer and his replacement is not as likely to be as familiar w/ the material.

I think WB should follow the 007 franchise model after this point ... no references to past movies, each one a standalone story. Keep Brandon Routh if he does a good job, but eliminate sequel-itis by crafting a brand new story that requires no familiarity with the previous movie.

What say you?

[denjin]

they should restart from scratch for the mere reason that movie goers of the past 25 years remember Christopher Reeves as the definitive Superman no matter what Brandon Routh does, the performances look silly and outdated granted theyre considered classics by many. The origin of Superman could be drawn out alot better with better CGI and better actors, Marlon Brando as Jor-El? Anthony Hopkin's was suppose to play Jor-El in Ratner's take on Superman but that went down the drain. Start the franchise over from scratch is what I say.

[FireStormTrooper]

I actually understand why they didn't go with a complete reboot. The problem is that we, as an audience, have already seen this story told. And re-told. A few times. In addition to the lengthy movie origin in SUPERMAN (1978), we've seen his origins televised in SUPERBOY (1988-1992), LOIS &amp; CLARK (1993-1997), SUPERMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES (1996-2000) and of course SMALLVILLE (2001-present). It's constantly been re-done. In contrast, we has never been shown a full Batman origin ... ever. So, the origin story in BATMAN BEGINS was a breath of fresh air for that character. Another origin story for Superman would feel like overkill.

That said, the solution did not have to be a direct continuation of a story that ended in 1987 (or 1981, since this movie seems ignores SUPERMAN III and IV altogether). It could have been a standalone story with no connection to any pre-existing Superman continuity. No origin necessary, maybe a glimpse told in flashback, that's it. No Luthor, no Zod. Take the BATMAN BEGINS approach: give the audience something new. New villains. Brainiac. Metallo. Darkseid. Doomsday. Bizarro. Mister Mxypltck. Maxima. Blaze. Gog. Any of these villians deserve their shot at big-screen glory. Can you imagine if the Batman movies always featured the Joker? It'd get tiresome. Which makes me worried about SUPERMAN RETURNS. Not enough originality from what I've heard so far.

Still, I'll be in line to watch it regardless on its June 30th opening weekend.

[denjin]

.........

[denjin]

I actually understand why they didn't go with a complete reboot. The problem is that we, as an audience, have already seen this story told. And re-told. A few times. In addition to the lengthy movie origin in SUPERMAN (1978), we've seen his origins televised in SUPERBOY (1988-1992), LOIS &amp; CLARK (1993-1997), SUPERMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES (1996-2000) and of course SMALLVILLE (2001-present). It's constantly been re-done. In contrast, we has never been shown a full Batman origin ... ever. So, the origin story in BATMAN BEGINS was a breath of fresh air for that character. Another origin story for Superman would feel like overkill.

.

You make some logical points in your assesment of the franchise but who's really gonna believe Routh refering to past Superman movie's as though he experienced them? Certainly not me, plus it would be cool if they did an extensive origin of Jor-El as well , thats something that hasnt been explored in the movies all to much. Plus if if youre talking about overkill why the hell include Lex Luthor again? He's in every god damn movie, they should definitely move on. The biggest plot hole in the movie is the references to past movies as though these actors experienced them ,thats why the franchise should be rebooted from the beginning, Routh will never live up to Reeve's legacy as Superman...never!

[FireStormTrooper]

I agree with you on the notion that linking this movie to past Superman movies is a bad move. However, we can't do anything about that. The movie is filming as we speak, around $300 million is already budgeted for the story they're already going with. This film WILL happen, like it or not. And I'll be watching it. If it's good, I'll be a very happy Superfan. If it's bad, I'll be a very unhappy Superfan. But I'll still be a Superfan.

And yes, Lex is overexposed. One of BATMAN BEGINS great successes was that it used villians that had never before been seen on the big screen (Ra's al Ghul, Scarecrow, Carmine Falcone, Zsasz) and blended them together almost seemlessly. Gave us a story we hadn't seen before: Batman's origin, told in full. So we got new villians and a new storyline.

So far, I haven't heard anything that indicates SUPERMAN RETURNS will give us either.

Just curious, what should they have done, in your guys' opinion? Say you're in Bryan Singer's position as director and you're given carte blanche to do whatever to bring Superman back to the big screen. And money (apparently) is no object. Let's hear your ideas ...

[denjin]

The Superman movie now should be the complete reimagining of the Superman mythos with a good 1/4 of the mvoie starting off in krypton following Jor-El as he tries to warn people of the impending doom they are in. The rest as most people know should be the life of Clark Kent given its strange having a tv show already doing that( Smallville should of been cancelled; it was had Bratner had his way). Throw in Lex Luther and Metallo. Part 2 would be about Darkseid and part 3 the death and rebirth of Superman.

[norrinraad]

The last thing we need is another origin story where Supes is concerned. Damn, we have an entire TV show devoted to showing us his life before the red &amp; blues. As for his parents on Krypton, that could be interesting but I don't see the point.

I've defended Singer's vision all along and continue to do so now. However, in the spirit of speculation, if a different approach were to be taken I say just dive right in. Allow a quick 5 minute intro at the beginning for all 3 audience members who don't know where the character came from :lol: then just go for it. Have Superman already well established as Metropolis' beloved protector and just tell the story from there. No Lex, no Zod, just a villain or two who haven't been in the franchise yet.

I can see the point of rebooting Batman as the producers wanted to distance themselves from the Shumacher films. However, Supes' film legacy doesn't have as much to live down (third and fourth films notwithstanding) so just give us a spectacle. The first two films don't even have to be directly referenced, a silent understanding would be good enough.
__________
"Out to lunch honey thanks a bunch
It wouldn't work out anyhow..."

[FireStormTrooper]

I agree that there's been enough about Superman's origins in the last 12 years (LOIS &amp; CLARK, S:TAS, SMALLVILLE), that the next movie should not be an origin movie at all. Reboot or no, let's have WB follow their BATMAN BEGINS model: show the audience something about the character that they haven't seen with new villians.

Well, we've seen Superman's origin again and again. What else is there?

We've seen Luthor (ad nauseum). We've seen Zod and the Phantom Zone Kryptionians. So those guys are out. I'd call the next movie SUPERMAN : THE MAN OF STEEL. And here's what I'd do.

I say bring on Brainiac. But a radically different version that what we're used to. I like the idea of an American military scientist named Milton Fine developing a brand-new state of the art military defense system codenamed BRAINIAC. BRAINIAC becomes self-aware and implants a chip into Fine, enabling it to control him. Brainiac pursues logic to the end, and views humanity as an emotional, illogical virus upon an otherwise perfectly logical natural world. Brainiac deduces that humanity must be eradicated for the world to resume its logical evolution.

And Brainiac also concludes for this master plan to commence, Superman (on the scene now for about a month or so) must be killed, as he would surely oppose any such genocidal plan. As the military's new ultracomputer, Brainiac convinces the military that Superman represents an intolerable threat to national security. The military agrees, but wants it done quietly as Supes has become a huge hit with the public. A specialized commando team is set up, made up of a number of secret experiments. Members of this squad would be lesser members of Superman's rogues gallery, such as the Parasite and other more recently created villians. John Corburn, a.k.a Metallo, a cyborg with flesh skin and a kryptonite heart, leads them into the battle. The squad engages Supes in battle in a 4 against a one, Supes loses when Metallo hits him with the Kryptonite beams.

He's brought before the lobotomized Fine, now merely a mouthpiece for his own creation. Brainiac makes a logical offer to Supes, figuring he may be more logical Kryptonian than emotional Earthling in nature. He's not. Supes refuses to cooperate and figures out how to shut out Metallo's kryptonite from hitting him. Brainiac prepared for this eventuality and activates his ultimate form, a towering behemoth (similar to Brainiac 13) capable of leveling entire cities. Superman and Brainiac fight, with Brainiac anticipating Supes every move. Supes is accidentally thrown into the controlled Fine, dislodging the main chip. A dying Fine tells Supes of Brainiac's one designed weakness and how to exploit it. Supes destroys Brainiac, but there is a military cover-up and none of the other parties are incriminated or even acknowledged.

Back in his Metropolis apartment, Clark is on the phone to his folks back in Smallville, talking about the whole thing when he sees something on the TV that catches his eye. The election results are in and it's a landslide: Lex Luthor is the President. Clark stares at the TV screen and just says "I'll have to call you back." And then a blur of red and blue. Fin.

Hmmm ... maybe this should have go on the storyboards thread, instead.

[Znluvx]

I know I said this before, BUT I'd really like to see what Kal-El/Supes early life on Krypton depicted on the screen.
He was born there, and unless he came out of the womb and right into his rocket, he had an albeit short life there. I'd like to see what the culture he was born into and forced to leave was like.

[Pod]

Wow it would be totally wierd if there was a comic or something about a version of Supes where he had a childhood in Krypton and lost his memory when in the rocket...That would be a very interesting idea...I wonder if it was already done.

[The Xenos]

Wouldn't that be Dragonball Z? Of course Krypton would also be an evil militaristic planet that never blew up who sent Kal here to capture Earth. Oh wait, that's what Warners wanted in that crappy script with Lex turned into Vegeta at the end. ("'It was mine!' and Lex begins to fly." It would be hialrious if it wasn't so lame.)

-Xenos

[Pod]

Wow I never saw a connection with DBZ and Superman before until now. Thats pretty wierd. And Lex copying Vegeta is just wacky.

[The Xenos]

Well, I was just refering to the crappy draft the studio made up in which there's a twist at the end where Lex reveals that he too is Kryptonian and is leading an invading army. Thankfully completely negative fan recation and digust made them reconsider that idea.

-Xenos