Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion

[Showtime]

I had said that a little back, that Superman could have just returned and found Lois to be engaged and Lex running Lexcorp and being entrenched as a savior to Metropolis.

[FlawlessVictory]

I had said that a little back, that Superman could have just returned and found Lois to be engaged and Lex running Lexcorp and being entrenched as a savior to Metropolis.

That would have been great to see. :up:

[Ultimate_Superman]

Agreed, the kid went a very long way in damaging the franchise, IMO. And could possibly be the determining reason in WB deciding against a SR2. I'll admit, had there been no kid in SR, I'd have much, much less of a problem with a sequel to SR. But the circumstances surrounding the kid and the baggage he brings completely turns me off to Singer's franchise and IMO has completely painted this franchise into a corner. And again, simply killing the kid or depowering him makes no difference to me because he should have never existed to begin with, with the cirumstances surrounding him. I have no problem with Superman and Lois having a child, just not under the circumstances that was given to us in SR. There are other ways Singer could have injected drama into the movie without having to resort to something as lame as a who's your daddy Maury Povich storyline.
Agreed, even though the storyline might have looked a little like Spider-Man 2 then I still think there was a lot you could have done with the Singer franchise had there been no kid if there had been one. I also agree that you just can't kill him off or depower him because you still then have Richard to deal with on the level of a father not just the person Lois was engaged to. Unless Singer was going to go the Death in the Family route (Batman) to give the WB the darker Superman they wanted. That is why I am torn with a sequel to the movie because in some ways I would love to see where Singer was going with this movie but in others I would just want to see a reboot because the kid's storyline really makes or breaks this movie now.

[Ultimate_Superman]

I had said that a little back, that Superman could have just returned and found Lois to be engaged and Lex running Lexcorp and being entrenched as a savior to Metropolis.

That would have been great to see. :up:
Agreed that is what should have happened IMO and you could have still kept the whole New Krypton plot but just say like how Lex did in the Cartoon or in the comics set up one of his employee's to take the fall for it or even Kitty. See you could have had the same movie just with out the kid.

[mego joe]

I had said that a little back, that Superman could have just returned and found Lois to be engaged and Lex running Lexcorp and being entrenched as a savior to Metropolis.

That would have worked, especially if Luthor was not only seen as the savior but he had also managed to turn public opinion against the absentee Superman.

[Showtime]

That would have worked, especially if Luthor was not only seen as the savior but he had also managed to turn public opinion against the absentee Superman.

That was exactly what I discussed next, that public perception of Superman was negative due to Lex. So not only does Superman Return and Lois has moved on, so has Metropolis, led by Lex Luthor. Luthor is running Lexcorp and out of that comes a supervililan ie Metallo or Bizzaro then upon Superman's Return I would say Brainiac is involved. Also Superman should have said bye to only two people, Lois and the U.S President (or leaders of the nations).

This would have pretty much fixed what was wrong with it, although there are other things, those are the glaring weakeness. This is all pretty moot considering, but this is how it could have been better.

[FlawlessVictory]

That was exactly what I discussed next, that public perception of Superman was negative due to Lex. So not only does Superman Return and Lois has moved on, so has Metropolis, led by Lex Luthor. Luthor is running Lexcorp and out of that comes a supervililan ie Metallo or Bizzaro then upon Superman's Return I would say Brainiac is involved. Also Superman should have said bye to only two people, Lois and the U.S President (or leaders of the nations).

This would have pretty much fixed what was wrong with it, although there are other things, those are the glaring weakeness. This is all pretty moot considering, but this is how it could have been better.

:csad: Sounds wonderful.

[Mostpowerful]

Ah, yes... I think that is because they're still considering possible sequels with Singer. If they were serious about a reboot, we'd probably be seeing production stuff by now. But no. They're likely in deep negotiations at this point over what needs to be the next step:

1. Nolanize. Do Superman Begins.

2. Singerize, kid and all.

3. Forget it and let superman linger in dev hell for another 20 years.

I doubt after the Dark knight's ri-damn-diculous box office, the last one will happen, so don't worry. It's just really a tough decision for WB to make now. Superman is still a lucrative franchise; all that needs to be done is find the right vision for the character now. :hehe:

A sequel by Singer would be great for me. :yay:

I LOVE SR, and I know Singer knows how to do great sequels.




I think Wb is probably waiting to see how Singer does with Valkyrie. If he proves himself yet again as someone who can make a successful movie that delivers on mulitple levels, Wb is likely to consider that they have him on the hook contract wise and he wants to make MOS.

Maybe.

[Showtime]

I don't see why WB would be waiting for Valkyrie? Makes no sense.

[mego joe]

That was exactly what I discussed next, that public perception of Superman was negative due to Lex. So not only does Superman Return and Lois has moved on, so has Metropolis, led by Lex Luthor. Luthor is running Lexcorp and out of that comes a supervililan ie Metallo or Bizzaro then upon Superman's Return I would say Brainiac is involved. Also Superman should have said bye to only two people, Lois and the U.S President (or leaders of the nations).

This would have pretty much fixed what was wrong with it, although there are other things, those are the glaring weakeness. This is all pretty moot considering, but this is how it could have been better.


Ah, what could have been. What SHOULD have been.

[Ultimate_Superman]

That was exactly what I discussed next, that public perception of Superman was negative due to Lex. So not only does Superman Return and Lois has moved on, so has Metropolis, led by Lex Luthor. Luthor is running Lexcorp and out of that comes a supervililan ie Metallo or Bizzaro then upon Superman's Return I would say Brainiac is involved. Also Superman should have said bye to only two people, Lois and the U.S President (or leaders of the nations).

This would have pretty much fixed what was wrong with it, although there are other things, those are the glaring weakeness. This is all pretty moot considering, but this is how it could have been better.That could have worked Showtime but even with the same storyline they had forget Lexcop it would have worked had they not added the kid. If not for the kid I think Superman Returns would have been in the same boat as Batman Begins where the WB would say lets see how they do in the sequel. Thats my point the main story to Superman Returns was good and solid expect for Jason. If you took him out of the movie and you were left with the same story the movie would have worked.

[Showtime]

The kid certainly turned out to be a problem, but I think without a well placed Supervillian, you are pretty much in the same boat box office wise.

[Ultimate_Superman]

The kid certainly turned out to be a problem, but I think without a well placed Supervillian, you are pretty much in the same boat box office wise.
Box office wise yes but sequel wise no. I mean I think the W.B. would have still been disappointed but they would have been more open to a sequel. Batman Begins for example I am sure the W.B. was some what disappointed with its Box Office (meaning they felt it should have made more) but I am sure also they would have given it a sequel with a lesser budget and just told Singer throw in a villain or two to make it work. But with the kid you now have so much more to deal with that it would have been hard to work all that out in just one movie. Which is why I say the W.B. understood this and the reason why they did not green light a sequel or are maybe slow to do so (Mainly waiting on a very good story for a sequel to S.R.).

[Showtime]

I think box office and sequel go hand in hand in this situation. I agree that Begins and Returns had similiarities. WB didn't automatically greenlight a sequel to Begins either, but Superman Returns was a much bigger investment then Begins. Let's be fair.

[FilmNerdJamie]

DVD sales also played a huge factor in The Dark Knight moving forward...

[I Am The Knight]

DVD sales also played a huge factor in The Dark Knight moving forward...

I haven't been able to find those anywhere. Do you know how many copies BB sold?

[FilmNerdJamie]

I haven't been able to find those anywhere. Do you know how many copies BB sold?

Alot.

I was talking to a webmaster from a film-news site over-the-phone awhile back (about a month before The Dark Knight opened) and he was telling me how it was going to make "$300 million easy!"

[I Am The Knight]

A lot.

I was talking to a webmaster from a film-news site over-the-phone awhile back (about a month before The Dark Knight opened) and he was telling me how it was going to make "$300 million easy!"

Fixed :o

So no numbers? Bummer.

[Antonello Blueberry]

I don't see why WB would be waiting for Valkyrie? Makes no sense.
Oscar buzz for the movie might put Singer back on the saddle.

[I Am The Knight]

At this point I'd rather he did another X-Men. I'm fine with SR as a standalone story, or closure for the Donner films.

[Showtime]

Oscar buzz for the movie might put Singer back on the saddle.

I'm not really sure what one has to do with the other personally.

[Nixon]

Oscar buzz for the movie might put Singer back on the saddle.

Valkyrie is getting Oscar buzz?

I think it looks good, but wasn't it getting moved all over the place schedule-wise because everybody else things it sucks?

[Ultimate_Superman]

I think box office and sequel go hand in hand in this situation. I agree that Begins and Returns had similiarities. WB didn't automatically greenlight a sequel to Begins either, but Superman Returns was a much bigger investment then Begins. Let's be fair.

DVD sales also played a huge factor in The Dark Knight moving forward...Agreed but then again Over Sea sales as well as DVD sales where huge for Returns as well. I under stand Returns was a bigger investment but at the same time the W.B. did set the bar high for the film in the first place. As I have said before I think if you had taken away Jason this would be a whole different story where the W.B. would have by now gave Singer his sequel.

[Showtime]

Fixed :o

So no numbers? Bummer.

Begins sold 6.15m units calculated to the end of 2005.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2006-01-02-dvd-sales_x.htm

Here are the numbers from February of 2006 until today, Begins has a spike in DVD sales due to Dark Knight.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2005/BAT5-DVD.php

[Antonello Blueberry]

Valkyrie is getting Oscar buzz?

I think it looks good, but wasn't it getting moved all over the place schedule-wise because everybody else things it sucks?
When they release a movie of this kind close to the end of the year, at 90% they think it's Oscar worthy.

[Nixon]

Well, that's reassuring. I was starting to worry that my taste in movies was going or something . . . .

[Showtime]

When they release a movie of this kind close to the end of the year, at 90% they think it's Oscar worthy.

Definately receiving Oscar buzz, just not sure how that really translates into Superman. They've waited this long not knowing what to do and then Valkyrie does well and boom, Singer appears. I don't know.

[Showtime]

Begins sold 6.15m units calculated to the end of 2005.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2006-01-02-dvd-sales_x.htm

Here are the numbers from February of 2006 until today, Begins has a spike in DVD sales due to Dark Knight.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2005/BAT5-DVD.php

Rentals: $55.1 Million as of December 25, 2005

[I Am The Knight]

Begins sold 6.15m units calculated to the end of 2005.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2006-01-02-dvd-sales_x.htm

Here are the numbers from February of 2006 until today, Begins has a spike in DVD sales due to Dark Knight.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2005/BAT5-DVD.php

Rentals: $55.1 Million as of December 25, 2005

Thanks, Showy :yay: These are great.

[FilmNerdJamie]

I'm amused at how some are now claiming there's a riff between Jeff Robinov and Alan Horn/Thomas Tull over the next Superman film. That's 100% Grade-A B.S. :whatever:

That said, WB deciding to keep Routh as Superman/Clark Kent is one thing. Doing so with Bryan (at this point) is quiet another.

One of the issues between Bryan and WB was how he opted to do Valkyrie as his next film (with an opposing studio, no less) instead of the Superman Returns sequel which he was already signed up and ready for.

I think that might have been what started the riff between them, and thus why Justice League: Mortal suddenly came out of nowhere to be a "higher priority" for the studio.

Is it possible that WB would be willing to let Bryan do another Superman film if Valkyrie was a big success? Sure.

Do I think that's happening? Hell, no.

[dark_b]

I'm amused at how some are now claiming there's a riff between Jeff Robinov and Alan Horn/Thomas Tull over the next Superman film. That's 100% Grade-A B.S. :whatever:

That said, WB deciding to keep Routh as Superman/Clark Kent is one thing. Doing so with Bryan (at this point) is quiet another.

One of the issues between Bryan and WB was how he opted to do ValkyrieSuperman Returns sequel which he was already signed up and ready for.
as his next film (with an opposing studio, no less) instead of the
I think that might have been what started the riff between them, and thus why Justice League: Mortal suddenly came out of nowhere to be a "higher priority" for the studio.

Is it possible that WB would be willing to let Bryan do another Superman film if Valkyrie was a big success? Sure.

Do I think that's happening? Hell, no.he said tha the wanted to do a small movie right?
doesnt look like a small movie :o

[FilmNerdJamie]

he said tha the wanted to do a small movie right?
doesnt look like a small movie :o

Compared to the X-Men and Superman, Valkyrie is small. But it became a bigger production (in terms of budget and shooting-time) than originally intended.

Plus, Bryan had multiple projects lined up as possible follow-ups to Superman Returns - Valkyrie, The Mayor of Castro Street, Logan's Run and the Superman sequel.

[Double Down]

Compared to the X-Men and Superman, Valkyrie is small. But it became a bigger production (in terms of budget and shooting-time) than originally intended.

Plus, Bryan had multiple projects lined up as possible follow-ups to Superman Returns - Valkyrie, The Mayor of Castro Street, Logan's Run and the Superman sequel.

I remember reading that it became a much larger movie than Singer intended once Cruise came aboard.

[Mostpowerful]

Valkyrie is getting Oscar buzz?

I think it looks good, but wasn't it getting moved all over the place schedule-wise because everybody else things it sucks?

http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/09/30/leaked-mgm-internal-memo-about-valkyries-breathtaking-buzz-surge/

On related stories, make sure to watch the "Valkyrie's Featurette: through Bryan Singer's eyes.

[Double Down]

I remember reading that it became a much larger movie than Singer intended once Cruise came aboard.

This is what I read (from Anne Thompson of Variety):
When Bryan Singer first approached United Artists with the idea of making Valkyrie, he wanted to do it for about $25 million. Then Tom Cruise got interested and the budget exploded. The same thing happened to Lions for Lambs -- to Cruise and Robert Redford, it seemed like a modest little movie; at $35 million plus marketing, it was still too expensive for what it was.

[Mostpowerful]

One of the issues between Bryan and WB was how he opted to do Valkyrie as his next film (with an opposing studio, no less) instead of the Superman Returns sequel which he was already signed up and ready for.


.

And why would Singer do this? I mean, after the performance of SR, which I think was solid, why would he want to risk it all? :huh:



:csad:

[FlawlessVictory]

I'm amused at how some are now claiming there's a riff between Jeff Robinov and Alan Horn/Thomas Tull over the next Superman film. That's 100% Grade-A B.S. :whatever:

That said, WB deciding to keep Routh as Superman/Clark Kent is one thing. Doing so with Bryan (at this point) is quiet another.

One of the issues between Bryan and WB was how he opted to do Valkyrie as his next film (with an opposing studio, no less) instead of the Superman Returns sequel which he was already signed up and ready for.

Then that's WB fault for being so stupid and signing him to that contract. So basically, no matter what, Singer gets paid unless Singer walks which he won't, why would he. Brilliant move on Singer's part, moronic on WB's end. If they were so desperate to have Singer begin work immediately on SR2 why didn't they write that into his contract? Seems likes its a no lose situation for Singer as far as getting paid. Did WB need to sign Singer to that contract?

[Nixon]

http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/09/30/leaked-mgm-internal-memo-about-valkyries-breathtaking-buzz-surge/

On related stories, make sure to watch the "Valkyrie's Featurette: through Bryan Singer's eyes.

Cool, thanks for the heads-up!

[Nixon]

I'm amused at how some are now claiming there's a riff between Jeff Robinov and Alan Horn/Thomas Tull over the next Superman film. That's 100% Grade-A B.S. :whatever:

That said, WB deciding to keep Routh as Superman/Clark Kent is one thing. Doing so with Bryan (at this point) is quiet another.

One of the issues between Bryan and WB was how he opted to do Valkyrie as his next film (with an opposing studio, no less) instead of the Superman Returns sequel which he was already signed up and ready for.

I think that might have been what started the riff between them, and thus why Justice League: Mortal suddenly came out of nowhere to be a "higher priority" for the studio.

Is it possible that WB would be willing to let Bryan do another Superman film if Valkyrie was a big success? Sure.

Do I think that's happening? Hell, no.


But wasn't he kinda sorta working on it? I mean, there were those pitches, the ones that got shot down, weren't there?

[dark_b]

Did WB need to sign Singer to that contract?
again the problem is that SR didnt brake records. it was nto a smash hit.
thats the problem. i understand if it would make IM or TF numbers. then i would understand that kind of contract. but here?

[FlawlessVictory]

again the problem is that SR didnt brake records. it was nto a smash hit.
thats the problem. i understand if it would make IM or TF numbers. then i would understand that kind of contract. but here?

Yea, but if you recall WB signed him in October of 2006 after WB had a chance to gauge SR's BO performance. They saw the BO numbers and still signed him. Why? Why not wait before signing him? And why to a contract that if he gets "fired" he still gets paid? Singer had no leverage with this franchise at that point.

[Showtime]

It's all a tad askew. Maybe when this is all said and done we'll hear the entire story.

[Mostpowerful]

again the problem is that SR didnt brake records. it was nto a smash hit.
thats the problem. i understand if it would make IM or TF numbers. then i would understand that kind of contract. but here?

Like I said in another post, Singer has proven to know how to make great sequels that do better in every way. That could be a good reason. Also, SR got very good/solid reviews in general, at least much better than TF.

[I Am The Knight]

And why would Singer do this? I mean, after the performance of SR, which I think was solid, why would he want to risk it all? :huh:



:csad:

LOL, take it easy. I'm sure doing SR was an exhausting experience for everyone, especially him, with his penchant for multi-tasking on several projects at the same time. He wanted to do something "small scale" in comparison...

[Ultimate_Superman]

Yea, but if you recall WB signed him in October of 2006 after WB had a chance to gauge SR's BO performance. They saw the BO numbers and still signed him. Why? Why not wait before signing him? And why to a contract that if he gets "fired" he still gets paid? Singer had no leverage with this franchise at that point.Because at the moment the WB did want a sequel to Superman Returns. They just wanted it right away. The plain if I am not mistaken was to have The Dark Knight and Man of Steel come out around the same time or have a trailer for MOS attached to TDK.

[Mostpowerful]

Well, that's reassuring. I was starting to worry that my taste in movies was going or something . . . .

Nah, I think your taste in movies is great. :cwink:



But wasn't he kinda sorta working on it? I mean, there were those pitches, the ones that got shot down, weren't there?

Haha, my thoughts exactly. So, what's the truth?

[Mostpowerful]

LOL, take it easy. I'm sure doing SR was an exhausting experience for everyone, especially him, with his penchant for multi-tasking on several projects at the same time. He wanted to do something "small scale" in comparison...

But you would think that with the SR performance, he would really want to prove/show all the things he could do with Superman in a sequel, no? You know, to "wrath of khan it"..

[Showtime]

The truth must be that Superman Returns blew everybody away so they decided to release a revamp about 6 years later...

[FlawlessVictory]

Like I said in another post, Singer has proven to know how to make great sequels that do better in every way. That could be a good reason. Also, SR got very good/solid reviews in general, at least much better than TF.

How many sequels has Singer done? :huh:

[FlawlessVictory]

The truth must be that Superman Returns blew everybody away so they decided to release a revamp about 6 years later...

:hehe:

[Showtime]

But you would think that with the SR performance, he would really want to prove/show all the things he could do with Superman in a sequel, no? You know, to do "wrath of khan it"..

Nolan took on the Prestige between Batman flicks. I think Bryan was planning on coming back and jumping on the sequel. Problem is during the down time WB started scheduling meetings with screenwriters, comicbook writers, and directors. In these meetings they discussed possible sequels and reboot ideas.

[Mostpowerful]

Well, it seems that they weren't so blown away by BB either since they wanted to introduce another batman actor in the JLM movie.

[Showtime]

Well, it seems that they weren't so blown away by BB either since they wanted to introduce another batman actor in the JLM movie.

I don't understand how that is relevant. Nolan didn't want them anywhere near his version of Batman while he was working on Dark Knight. Seems like that turned out pretty good for WB.

[FlawlessVictory]

Well, it seems that they weren't so blown away by BB either since they wanted to introduce another batman actor in the JLM movie.

But they had at least greenlit a sequel to BB by that time.

[I Am The Knight]

But you would think that with the SR performance, he would really want to prove/show all the things he could do with Superman in a sequel, no? You know, to "wrath of khan it"..

Yeah, I think he wanted to, but he also wanted to do a smaller film first. It's simple, really. Nolan did the same thing. But we don't know exactly what happened between him and WB, and the fact that the studio was not entirely happy with SR, I'm afraid to say.

[FlawlessVictory]

Yeah, I think he wanted to, but he also wanted to do a smaller film first. It's simple, really. Nolan did the same thing. But we don't know exactly what happened between him and WB, and the fact that the studio was not entirely happy with SR, I'm afraid to say.

And Nolan is a more efficient director. He got "The Prestige" done right on time with no hiccups. Look at Singer with "Valkyrie" and the delays that project has been through. Does WB really want Singer to handle Superman again after what happened with "Valkyrie"?

[Showtime]

I really think the decision has been made either way. It doesn't matter if Valkryie is the second coming or if it is the worst film ever.

[I Am The Knight]

And Nolan is a more efficient director. He got "The Prestige" done right on time with no hiccups. Look at Singer with "Valkyrie" and the delays that project has been through. Does WB really want Singer to handle Superman again after what happened with "Valkyrie"?

Right. It wouldn't make much sense at all.

[Nixon]

Nah, I think your taste in movies is great. :cwink:


Well, thank you. :grin:




Haha, my thoughts exactly. So, what's the truth?

I have no idea.

About the only thing I feel certain of is that, when all is said and done, that guy will have enough material to write another one of those Superman vs. Hollywood books.

[Mostpowerful]

And Nolan is a more efficient director. He got "The Prestige" done right on time with no hiccups. Look at Singer with "Valkyrie" and the delays that project has been through. Does WB really want Singer to handle Superman again after what happened with "Valkyrie"?

Singer can be a very efficient director as well as far as I understand. Didn't he shoot the Xmen movies in a short time and under a very tight budget? Or maybe I heard wrong.

[Mostpowerful]

Well, thank you. :grin:






I have no idea.

About the only thing I feel certain of is that, when all is said and done, that guy will have enough material to write another one of those Superman vs. Hollywood books.

..."The truth is out there" :woot:


And yeah, there is always something to talk about regarding Superman.

[FlawlessVictory]

Singer can be a very efficient director as well as far as I understand. Didn't he shoot the Xmen movies in a short time and under a very tight budget? Or maybe I heard wrong.

Yea, when someone else is holding the leash tight. Nolan doesn't need that. And Singer is fiscally irresponsible when left to his own devices.

[NeoRanger]

Singer can be a very efficient director as well as far as I understand. Didn't he shoot the Xmen movies in a short time and under a very tight budget? Or maybe I heard wrong.
^^On the flip-side, he shot a ridiculously expensive scene for SR that he never included in the film or the DVDs. Maybe he *can* be an efficient director, but he doesn't seem to be thriving as one.

[Ultimate_Superman]

To be fair to Singer though if not for the writers strike Valkyrie was suppose to finsh on time as well.

[Mostpowerful]

I really think the decision has been made either way. It doesn't matter if Valkryie is the second coming or if it is the worst film ever.

You reminded me of this post from the Anne Thompson Variety blog on our BRB campaign,

"As a man who's lived long enough to appreciate Superman from George Reeves to Brandon Routh, I can honestly say that I enjoyed Mr. Routh in the role. The movie, itself, was well made and enthralling on a heart-filled level, yet perhaps needed a touch more excitement for the younger viewers to marvel over. Though, I don't think I'll be joining this campaign in full, I will lend my support in this message.

On a personal note, I can't really see why the two sides are fighting each other over this? If Warner Brothers was to restart the franchise with Mr. Routh, but add a new storyline, even director, would that not be a fair compromise? Back in February when I was still paying attention to all the debating, I heard very few complaints about Brandon's performance from the fans, mostly only praise. I believe the reason now I'm hearing so much bitterness is simply because that crowd may be afraid the studios may change their minds. I doubt you have much to worry about, folks."




I don't know why, but I found it really interesting.

[The Kid]

I really think the decision has been made either way. It doesn't matter if Valkryie is the second coming or if it is the worst film ever.

I have to concede to the fact that yeah a Returns sequel's very unlikely now. Even if Valkyrie blows the roof off the box office...

[FlawlessVictory]

You reminded me of this post from the Anne Thompson Variety blog on our BRB campaign,

"As a man who's lived long enough to appreciate Superman from George Reeves to Brandon Routh, I can honestly say that I enjoyed Mr. Routh in the role. The movie, itself, was well made and enthralling on a heart-filled level, yet perhaps needed a touch more excitement for the younger viewers to marvel over. Though, I don't think I'll be joining this campaign in full, I will lend my support in this message.

On a personal note, I can't really see why the two sides are fighting each other over this? If Warner Brothers was to restart the franchise with Mr. Routh, but add a new storyline, even director, would that not be a fair compromise? Back in February when I was still paying attention to all the debating, I heard very few complaints about Brandon's performance from the fans, mostly only praise. I believe the reason now I'm hearing so much bitterness is simply because that crowd may be afraid the studios may change their minds. I doubt you have much to worry about, folks."




I don't know why, but I found it really interesting.

That is really interesting. And she wrote that before the news broke of Routh meeting with Levitz confirming that Routh was involved in some manner even with Robinov's declaration of "reintroduction".

I do feel that would be a suitable compromise. A revamp in some manner with Routh although I just worry about how confusing it will be trying to market this film to the GA.

[Ultimate_Superman]

That is really interesting. And she wrote that before the news broke of Routh meeting with Levitz confirming that Routh was involved in some manner even with Robinov's declaration of "reintroduction".

I do feel that would be a suitable compromise. A revamp in some manner with Routh although I just worry about how confusing it will be trying to market this film to the GA.Agreed

[Double Down]

That is really interesting. And she wrote that before the news broke of Routh meeting with Levitz confirming that Routh was involved in some manner even with Robinov's declaration of "reintroduction".

I do feel that would be a suitable compromise. A revamp in some manner with Routh although I just worry about how confusing it will be trying to market this film to the GA.

I agree. When the reboot vs. sequel talk was at its peak (pre-Wall Street Journal story) I honestly think that if you asked most people who truly care about this if they would be willing to compromise with a "requel" starring Routh that did not have Singer directing and was not a direct sequel and had no Jason, then I think a big majority would have agreed to that.
But because it appears that a sequel won't be happening, the reboot supporters are saying it can't work with Routh.
However, had the studio come out and said Routh was definitely returning, the reboot supporters would be saying that a reboot would still work, even with Routh, and that it wouldn't be necessary to do a direct sequel. And the sequel supporters would say that a reboot wouldn't work with Routh, blah, blah, blah.
The fact of the matter is that a "requel" or "Routhboot" (whichever way you prefer) may be the best way to make the most people happy.

[mego joe]

I agree. When the reboot vs. sequel talk was at its peak (pre-Wall Street Journal story) I honestly think that if you asked most people who truly care about this if they would be willing to compromise with a "requel" starring Routh that did not have Singer directing and was not a direct sequel and had no Jason, then I think a big majority would have agreed to that.
But because it appears that a sequel won't be happening, the reboot supporters are saying it can't work with Routh.
However, had the studio come out and said Routh was definitely returning, the reboot supporters would be saying that a reboot would still work, even with Routh, and that it wouldn't be necessary to do a direct sequel. And the sequel supporters would say that a reboot wouldn't work with Routh, blah, blah, blah.
The fact of the matter is that a "requel" or "Routhboot" (whichever way you prefer) may be the best way to make the most people happy.

But if you look at it from the standpoint of making the best film possible- uprading by recasting Superman is the smartest move. Keeping Routh in a reboot is just another 'safe' move. I don't think making the best film possible includes keeping Routh around, nor does casting Welling. It's a new beginning- restart everything and make the best Superman film possible.

[dark_b]

Yea, but if you recall WB signed him in October of 2006 after WB had a chance to gauge SR's BO performance. They saw the BO numbers and still signed him. Why? Why not wait before signing him? And why to a contract that if he gets "fired" he still gets paid? Singer had no leverage with this franchise at that point.
the question this is............padawan :huh:

[Mostpowerful]

I do feel that would be a suitable compromise. A revamp in some manner with Routh although I just worry about how confusing it will be trying to market this film to the GA.

I don't, at all. They will just say that it is in a reboot as a new beginning or "reintroduction" or whatever they are going to do. The bottom line is that most audiences just want to be entertained, and most audiences, including fans and critics liked and embraced Brandon in the role. He is Superman to them now. He is to me and many fans for sure, as well to my friends and family.



I agree. When the reboot vs. sequel talk was at its peak (pre-Wall Street Journal story) I honestly think that if you asked most people who truly care about this if they would be willing to compromise with a "requel" starring Routh that did not have Singer directing and was not a direct sequel and had no Jason, then I think a big majority would have agreed to that.
But because it appears that a sequel won't be happening, the reboot supporters are saying it can't work with Routh.
However, had the studio come out and said Routh was definitely returning, the reboot supporters would be saying that a reboot would still work, even with Routh, and that it wouldn't be necessary to do a direct sequel. And the sequel supporters would say that a reboot wouldn't work with Routh, blah, blah, blah.
The fact of the matter is that a "requel" or "Routhboot" (whichever way you prefer) may be the best way to make the most people happy.

Exaaaaaactly. And WB knows it. I think they don't want to alienate all the SR/Brandon supporters, and we are a lot, including critics.




But if you look at it from the standpoint of making the best film possible- uprading by recasting Superman is the smartest move. Keeping Routh in a reboot is just another 'safe' move. I don't think making the best film possible includes keeping Routh around, nor does casting Welling. It's a new beginning- restart everything and make the best Superman film possible.

And to a lot of people this means to keep Routh as Superman.

[RachelDawes]

The fact of the matter is that a "requel" or "Routhboot" (whichever way you prefer) may be the best way to make the most people happy.

I agree. Initially I was all in favor of a total recast, but now I'm thinking that since WB has a Superman that most of the GA seems to like maybe they should just stick with him. I'm terrified that we'll get a great reboot with an awesome script, action, villain, supporting cast, and storyline, but the guy playing Superman will be all wrong. *Groans at thought*

[FlawlessVictory]

I don't, at all. They will just say that it is in a reboot as a new beginning or "reintroduction" or whatever they are going to do.

And where exactly do they say that? On the posters? "This is a reboot/reintroduction". During the trailers and commercials? How exactly do you say it without coming off cheesy? Us fans may know it's a reintroduction because we will be reading the press release WB issues for the next Superman film but how do you convey that message to the GA with the same exact Superman. It won't be easy. But one thing is certain, they MUST recast everyone else.

[NeoRanger]

including critics
Good god... One day, you'll have to find me professional critics that indicated they would be unhappy if Routh didn't return in the next Superman movie.

No, really, what's your conviction with sticking "critics" and "reviews" in each of your arguments? Trying to give them credibility? Is Routh's own fanclub not enough for you? I honestly don't understand.

Aaaaanyway. When we say "most people", I would assume Internet people like us. I can't see how the GA will give a rat's ass whether Routh does or does not return.

[dark_b]

my friends first didnt know that hulk was a reboot. 4 minutes to exaplin it to them. but they thought that it was a fun movie. but without the explanation i guess they would be a little confused.

[Showtime]

If this is indeed a complete reboot, I really don't understand keeping Routh. It isn't that I didn't like Routh in the role, he wasn't bad. I see him and I think Superman, although I thought his Clark was much better then his Superman. Is that a product of Routh's acting? Mike and Dan's writing? Singer's directing? All of the above?

The thing is, movies are kind of blurring the line between reboot, prequels, sequels, remakes and so on. Look at what is happening with Friday the 13th and Star Trek. This is a gray area, and the new Superman could fall into this new shade of gray. I think FilmNerdJamie touched upon this is one of his recent posts.

You could see a Superman movie come out with Routh as Superman, Singer with a story and producing credit and Bad Hat Harry is one of the production companies but have nothing storywise to connect it with Superman Returns.

[batman44]

I can't speak for the GA, but I really doubt they would care that much if Routh returned as Superman or not.

Personally, I have no huge problems with him returning, though I would prefer someone else.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The GA probably won't mind as much as I want them too but I sure will mind a whole lot.

[Double Down]

my friends first didnt know that hulk was a reboot. 4 minutes to exaplin it to them. but they thought that it was a fun movie. but without the explanation i guess they would be a little confused.

I finally got around to seeing The Incredible Hulk the other night with a group of six people. I was the only one going in who knew it was a reboot. After the movie, I was still the only one who knew. One person said it seemed like they had changed some stuff from the "first movie," but he didn't mind (and he wasn't talking about the actors).
They watched it and didn't obsess about how it matched up or differentiated from the "first one." They had fun watching it and then moved on with their lives. The only real complaint was that the big fight at the end seemed inconsequential, because it had all the weight of two cartoon characters fighting in a live action movie. But no one took any time to dissect what didn't match up between the movies. And had Eric Bana played Bruce Banner again, the reactions would have been exactly the same.
:bh:

[Showtime]

If WB is indeed keeping Routh, I think it is more of a situation that the WB Brass liked him in the role and they don't want to go through a search like they did for years previously. Sure Singer hired Routh after not much of a search, but WB gave Singer the foootage on their previous top candidates and Routh was there.

I think if Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, and Flash are going forward, then getting an actor in place for Superman might be a big priority for WB.

[DavidTyler]

I finally got around to seeing The Incredible Hulk the other night with a group of six people. I was the only one going in who knew it was a reboot. After the movie, I was still the only one who knew. One person said it seemed like they had changed some stuff from the "first movie," but he didn't mind (and he wasn't talking about the actors).
They watched it and didn't obsess about how it matched up or differentiated from the "first one." They had fun watching it and then moved on with their lives. The only real complaint was that the big fight at the end seemed inconsequential, because it had all the weight of two cartoon characters fighting in a live action movie. But no one took any time to dissect what didn't match up between the movies. And had Eric Bana played Bruce Banner again, the reactions would have been exactly the same.
:bh:

And you have just illustrated why they need to take the reboot of the Superman franchise all the way back to Krypton - so that the General Audience can see in no uncertain terms that this IS a reboot with no ties to anything before it.

[Ultimate_Superman]

I finally got around to seeing The Incredible Hulk the other night with a group of six people. I was the only one going in who knew it was a reboot. After the movie, I was still the only one who knew. One person said it seemed like they had changed some stuff from the "first movie," but he didn't mind (and he wasn't talking about the actors).
They watched it and didn't obsess about how it matched up or differentiated from the "first one." They had fun watching it and then moved on with their lives. The only real complaint was that the big fight at the end seemed inconsequential, because it had all the weight of two cartoon characters fighting in a live action movie. But no one took any time to dissect what didn't match up between the movies. And had Eric Bana played Bruce Banner again, the reactions would have been exactly the same.
:bh:Correct because is the same thing with me I just watch the Hulk recently and had I not known it was a reboot I would not have cared if it was a sequel or not. It pretty much links up with the first movie if you miss the opening credits. Which is how I think people will view another Superman movie be it with Routh or without. They won't care as long as it is a good movie. The only people who will care are the ones who want to know what happens with Jason.

[NeoRanger]

And you have just illustrated why they need to take the reboot of the Superman franchise all the way back to Krypton - so that the General Audience can see in no uncertain terms that this IS a reboot with no ties to anything before it.

You talking showing the origin, or emphasize on a completely different Krypton? Because, as things stand now, I don't see them doing anything too drastic. I'm in favor of a complete reboot; story, cast, sets, style, music, everything. But the GA remains their target audience and if they don't care enough to make the differences between movies, they might choose to make the next movie semi-familiar, at least visually.

Of course, that's only what I can understand from the few things we know now; who knows what happens in the next couple of years that will mark the direction of the movie?

[FlawlessVictory]

Correct because is the same thing with me I just watch the Hulk recently and had I not known it was a reboot I would not have cared if it was a sequel or not. It pretty much links up with the first movie if you miss the opening credits. Which is how I think people will view another Superman movie be it with Routh or without. They won't care as long as it is a good movie. The only people who will care are the ones who want to know what happens with Jason.

The problem is, when this movie was first written it was intended to be a quasi-sequel, not necessarily discounting anything previously but just moving forward and picking up where the last movie left off. However, once Norton came on board he made it completely clear that this movie must have no ties to the first one and it is a reboot. It doesn't help though that they kept the movie opening up with Banner in South America thus misleading people to believe it can still be a sequel.

This next Superman film must do a better job of severing ties to the previous film. Although it will be easier in that the kid will never be acknowledged and there will be no Richard, the relationship between Superman and Lois will be different than in SR etc...

[FlawlessVictory]

I think if Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, and Flash are going forward, then getting an actor in place for Superman might

Might? Might what?! Don't leave us hanging Show! Did a WB :ninja: just kidnap you? :hehe::woot:

[mego joe]

I don't, at all. They will just say that it is in a reboot as a new beginning or "reintroduction" or whatever they are going to do. The bottom line is that most audiences just want to be entertained, and most audiences, including fans and critics liked and embraced Brandon in the role. He is Superman to them now. He is to me and many fans for sure, as well to my friends and family.





Exaaaaaactly. And WB knows it. I think they don't want to alienate all the SR/Brandon supporters, and we are a lot, including critics.






And to a lot of people this means to keep Routh as Superman.

But to make the best film possible he would be holding the production back. Just because some people liked him and some more a lot, and I get that you love him and he IS SUperman to you- it doesn't mean he is the only person or the best person for a SUperman film. He was acceptable in the role, nothing more. If WB want to make the best Superman film possible, they have to relinquish all ties with previous films and do a real reboot of the franchise. Just like BB started Batman over this new film must do the same if WB wants a new Superman franchise to be successful for them. It's a no brainer. Anything else is just limiting the production.

[Showtime]

HA! I didn't even realize I didn't finish.

[mego joe]

HA! I didn't even realize I didn't finish.

...still hanging....

[solidsnake86]

I liked SR but now after debating and talking about the possibilities of a reboot I would rather see that than a sequel, that when all is said and done, will probably have Routh return and the rest recasted. I think we are probably on the verge of an announcement very soon with bits of info leaking here and there. First the Grant Morrison comment, now the rumblings of wonder woman looking for a director, and routh still being in the mix.

[Mostpowerful]

But to make the best film possible he would be holding the production back. Just because some people liked him and some more a lot, and I get that you love him and he IS SUperman to you- it doesn't mean he is the only person or the best person for a SUperman film. He was acceptable in the role, nothing more. If WB want to make the best Superman film possible, they have to relinquish all ties with previous films and do a real reboot of the franchise. Just like BB started Batman over this new film must do the same if WB wants a new Superman franchise to be successful for them. It's a no brainer. Anything else is just limiting the production.

NO, he was very well received and liked in the role by most people. And yes, I LOVE him in the role, everybody knows it by now. :o

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=239376

http://www.empireonline.com/awards/malenewcomer.asp

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/review-of-the-year-and-total-film-readers-awards


Plus at Bluetights, supermanhomepage (he was the favorite choice for Superman to be in the next Superman movie in a very recent poll taking more than 400 votes) and other places, he is the favorite choice.

[Showtime]

I liked SR but now after debating and talking about the possibilities of a reboot I would rather see that than a sequel, that when all is said and done, will probably have Routh return and the rest recasted. I think we are probably on the verge of an announcement very soon with bits of info leaking here and there. First the Grant Morrison comment, now the rumblings of wonder woman looking for a director, and routh still being in the mix.

Exactly. Green Lantern Casting Rumors. Routh Rumors. Flash Rumors. Wonder Woman Rumors. Could be leading up to something, at least I hope it is.

[I Am The Knight]

Don't forget Cher rumors.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Don't forget Cher rumors.

Oh, if I could turn back time...

[I Am The Knight]

:hehe:

[FlawlessVictory]

NO, he was very well received and liked in the role by most people. And yes, I LOVE him in the role, everybody knows it by now. :o

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=239376

http://www.empireonline.com/awards/malenewcomer.asp

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/review-of-the-year-and-total-film-readers-awards


Plus at Bluetights, supermanhomepage (he was the favorite choice for Superman to be in the next Superman movie in a very recent poll taking more than 400 votes) and other places, he is the favorite choice.

Geez, not this again. Are you Routh's personal assistant or a relative? Your obsession is a bit much.

[solidsnake86]

Well they did make it sound like they wanted everything to be announced at the same time, I'm surprised they've been able to keep everything under wraps this much. Out of all the properties though superman seems like its had the least leaks with really only the Routh rumour. No one has said anything on WB looking at scripts or directors, unless even the webmasters are keeping quiet. Were getting closer to the release date of the dark knight on dvd, maybe something will come out around that time or shortly after.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Well they did make it sound like they wanted everything to be announced at the same time,

One must remember Jeff Robinov's Wall-Street Journal interview where he flat-out said as much. The problem is he claimed we'd be getting official announcments within a month...

...and we're still waiting for said announcments months later.

[Showtime]

In these situations some of these websites know much more then they are letting on.

[Mostpowerful]

Geez, not this again. Are you Routh's personal assistant or a relative? Your obsession is a bit much.

Haha, no, I'm just a huge fan, that's all. And if I do that, it's because it pisses me off that some people want to make others believe that Brandon was not well received in the role, or that most people thought he was awful in it. I just show them proof of the contrary, and I see nothing wrong with it. Why don't you say something to those who constantly bash the movie or/and Brandon? Why is it just me? I see a lot of bias here.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Oh, if I could turn back time...Zing.

My favorite post of the day folks. Read it and laugh.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Ahh, 80s pop-culture references...how I love you...

...then again, I've been laughing all day thinking about Billy Beer - a 70s pop-culture reference...

[Double Down]

If this is indeed a complete reboot, I really don't understand keeping Routh. It isn't that I didn't like Routh in the role, he wasn't bad. I see him and I think Superman, although I thought his Clark was much better then his Superman. Is that a product of Routh's acting? Mike and Dan's writing? Singer's directing? All of the above?

The thing is, movies are kind of blurring the line between reboot, prequels, sequels, remakes and so on. Look at what is happening with Friday the 13th and Star Trek. This is a gray area, and the new Superman could fall into this new shade of gray. I think FilmNerdJamie touched upon this is one of his recent posts.

You could see a Superman movie come out with Routh as Superman, Singer with a story and producing credit and Bad Hat Harry is one of the production companies but have nothing storywise to connect it with Superman Returns.

That has been going on forever to an extent in Hollywood.
* In the "Road to ..." movies, Bob Hope and Bing Crosby played their respective characters the exact same way in all seven movies; yet, in each of them, they were actually playing different characters who had different names.
* Jaws: The Revenge ignored Jaws 3-D like it never happened.
* The first four Batman movies recast the lead and completely shifted tone in movies three and four, but usually retained the supporting characters (sometimes they did: Alfred, Commissioner Gordon; or sometimes they didn't: Harvey Dent).
* Instead of eliminating a supporting character, the roles were re-cast for sequels to Iron Man, X-Men and Batman (amongst many others to do that throughout time). Or more important cast members were recast with fairly little fanfare (such as Dumbledore or Evelyn O'Connell, in the Mummy movies).
* The Bond movies switched the lead often, but maintained the same supporting cast and made them sequels. Or they brought back the lead (Never Say Never Again), but they did not bring back the supporting cast and it was not a sequel. Or they switched the lead, brought back one member of the supporting cast and it was not a sequel.
* Hannibal Lector was played by Brian Cox in Manhunter (a movie version of the book Red Dragon) with a name change to Hannibal Lecktor, for unknown reasons. Five years later, Anthony Hopkins played Hannibal Lector, under his actual name, in the Silence of the Lambs (a book that is the sequel to Red Dragon). Some considered Silence of the Lambs a quasi-sequel to Manhunter. An actual sequel to Silence came out 10 years later in the form of Hannibal, with Hopkins returning, while the Clarice Starling role was recast. And the next year, a prequel came out, called Red Dragon, starring Hopkins. This made sure to erase Manhunter from the timeline of the other movies. Five years later, another movie came out that was a prequel to the prequel. This did not star Anthony Hopkins.

There are countless other examples of this kind of stuff, including Showtime's examples above. With that in mind, does anyone think it would be all that mystifying to add the following?:
* Superman came out with a semi-sequel to the first four movies, with an all-new cast. In the next movie, only the lead actor was retained, while a completely new storyline began.

Does that seem out of line with what Hollywood has done for decades upon decades? And I didn't even mention all of the recasts and retcons in on TV. I'm pretty sure the audience would survive. They always have.

[solidsnake86]

I know when was that statement released, around the end of august. If they are actually waiting for Nolan thats pretty incredible that there superhero slate is dependent on his signing, although I'm not surprised. Also depends what they want to announce for each film. With Green Lantern I could see them wanting to get Hal cast. With wonder woman and the flash probably a director and writer for both films.

[batman44]

Maybe Wb will announce everything as Christmas present:yay:

[FilmNerdJamie]

I think this dude said it best...

To be fair, the idea of a "reboot" is increasingly being pushed to new limits from its original meaning.

Batman Begins was the pure definition of the term - a completely brand new intrepretation of the character, myth, etc.

Casino Royale did that...to a point. The Broccolis opted to keep the 007 theme (albeit a more "modernized" riff by composer David Arnold), the tradition of the opening title sequence and song and Judy Dench as M.

And next summer's Star Trek is going to push it even further. The reboot comes about because various characters (the villain Nero & his crew as well as Nimoy's Spock) alter the time-line...resulting in a new continuity.

So the idea that the "Routhboot" could never work in fear of confusing audiences isn't as strong an argument as it previously was imo. Although it's still an argument to said and heard!

[Showtime]

Zing.

My favorite post of the day folks. Read it and laugh.

Don't encourage him, he might actually think he is funny.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Don't encourage him, he might actually think he is funny.

Don't make me post Cher pictures! I don't wanna cause permanent eye-damage to those who never saw her in that body thong she was wearing in the video!

[Showtime]

I'll just delete them and infract you for spamming.

I win.

[FilmNerdJamie]

I'll just delete them and infract you for spamming.

I win.


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1248/1460429965_cfee3847d5.jpg?v=0

I'LL DO IT, MAN! ! ! DON'T TRY TO BE A HERO AND WE CAN ALL WALK AWAY FROM THIS! ! !

[mego joe]

Haha, no, I'm just a huge fan, that's all. And if I do that, it's because it pisses me off that some people want to make others believe that Brandon was not well received in the role, or that most people thought he was awful in it. I just show them proof of the contrary, and I see nothing wrong with it. Why don't you say something to those who constantly bash the movie or/and Brandon? Why is it just me? I see a lot of bias here.

Perhaps Brandon is not liked as well as you perceive him to be liked. Or perhaps you're confusing his performance in SR with his ability/ potential to play a different Superman. Plus, I think it's b/c you're 1 of a small minority who believes that ONLY Brandon should be SUperman in the next film. It's as if he's more important to the franchise than the character of Superman or the story. We know you love him, but there's always someone as competent or better out there. Look at Daniel Craig as Bond. It's a new take on the character, yet he seems to be the best Bond ever, and y'know what? I never thought I say I liked anyone more than Connery in the role.

We all get that you love Routh in the role of Superman, but to think that he's the ONLY one for the next film is somewhat illogical- especially since we are discussing reboot/restart. Why do anything to hinder a director and/or screenwriter in a new film by saddling the production with a lead actor instead of picking the actor that fits best based on the script and director's vision of the movie.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Don't encourage him, he might actually think he is funny.

Don't make me post Cher pictures! I don't wanna cause permanent eye-damage to those who never saw her in that body thong she was wearing in the video!

I'll just delete them and infract you for spamming.

I win.Cat er Dog fight!

[Showtime]

If you really want to look at this situation without bias then the answer is that the general public isn’t going to really care either way. If Brandon is still Superman in a sequel or a reboot, then they’ll accept him as Superman. If Routh is replaced by a new actor then they will accept this new actor as Superman. It is the people on the forums across the internet that are creating this split, not the general public.

[mego joe]

If you really want to look at this situation without bias then the answer is that the general public isn’t going to really care either way. If Brandon is still Superman in a sequel or a reboot, then they’ll accept him as Superman. If Routh is replaced by a new actor then they will accept this new actor as Superman. It is the people on the forums across the internet that are creating this split, not the general public.

You are right Showtime. The bigger issue is the quality of the story and the filmmaking. Some people will always be taking sides, but it's not so much the actor as the quality of the film, story and actual performances. LIke with TDK, it wasn's that it was Heath Ledger, it was his performance as the Joker and the overall exceptional quality of the story and storytelling.

[Mostpowerful]

Perhaps Brandon is not liked as well as you perceive him to be liked. Or perhaps you're confusing his performance in SR with his ability/ potential to play a different Superman. Plus, I think it's b/c you're 1 of a small minority who believes that ONLY Brandon should be SUperman in the next film. It's as if he's more important to the franchise than the character of Superman or the story. .

I'm not confusing anything, so please don't treat me like a child, I know what I like and why. I get you don't care for him or SR, we all know it soo well. And I never said he was the only person who could play the character. I said he is the Best for me, my favorite, and the only actor I want to see in the role for a long time. And I'm not alone on this. And I care for both the character and him equally. He Is Superman.

[Mostpowerful]

If Routh is replaced by a new actor then they will accept this new actor as Superman. It is the people on the forums across the internet that are creating this split, not the general public.

Not necessarily. What if the new guy is not better than Routh as Superman? You don't know it for sure. For instance, my family members and relatives as well as some of my friends who know about this situation are really upset and won't watch the new movie if Brandon is not back as Superman.

[Hunter Rider]

Characters like Superman are much bigger than any one actor, I am a huge fan of Bale but if he quit tomorrow i wouldn't throw a tantrum and not watch the next Batman movie b/c of it, I am to much of a fan of Batman for that attitude.

[batman44]

^Exactly.

[Mostpowerful]

Characters like Superman are much bigger than any one actor, I am a huge fan of Bale but if he quit tomorrow i wouldn't throw a tantrum and not watch the next Batman movie b/c of it, I am to much of a fan of Batman for that attitude.

I wouldn't really care either to be honest; I was never impressed with Bale's Batman. In fact, I'm not really a Batman fan. I think he is ok.

[Hunter Rider]

I wouldn't really care either to be honest; I was never impressed with Bale's Batman. In fact, I'm not really a Batman fan. I think he is ok.

That wasn't my point though, my point was that I am as impressed with Bale as Bruce/Batman as you clearly are with Routh as Clark/Superman, but him leaving the franchise wouldn't stop me from seeing the next one with a new Batman.

[Showtime]

You are right Showtime. The bigger issue is the quality of the story and the filmmaking. Some people will always be taking sides, but it's not so much the actor as the quality of the film, story and actual performances. LIke with TDK, it wasn's that it was Heath Ledger, it was his performance as the Joker and the overall exceptional quality of the story and storytelling.

Exactly. This is why all this back and forth is pointless, sure it makes for an entertaining forum and I know it will continue, but it really doesn't matter.

Not necessarily. What if the new guy is not better than Routh as Superman? You don't know it for sure. For instance, my family members and relatives as well as some of my friends who know about this situation are really upset and won't watch the new movie if Brandon is not back as Superman.

Honestly, that small sampling doesn't really matter in the bigger scope of things and frankly studios don't really care. They want to make a solid film that entertains and brings in money. You really think the general public is going to be up in arms if Routh is let go or cheering in the streets if it is announced that he still has the role? Let's be realistic here. Try to put your fandemonium to the side and think like WB has to think for one minute.

[Showtime]

Characters like Superman are much bigger than any one actor, I am a huge fan of Bale but if he quit tomorrow i wouldn't throw a tantrum and not watch the next Batman movie b/c of it, I am to much of a fan of Batman for that attitude.

Bryan Singer himself said that Superman is bigger then him and will go on with or without him. If he gets it, hopefully his fans can as well.

[FlawlessVictory]

Not necessarily. What if the new guy is not better than Routh as Superman? You don't know it for sure. For instance, my family members and relatives as well as some of my friends who know about this situation are really upset and won't watch the new movie if Brandon is not back as Superman.

:rolleyes: You have got to be kidding me, you are being so overly dramatic. And guess what, what if that new guy is better than Routh? It is possible you know, very possible I would say.

[FlawlessVictory]

I wouldn't really care either to be honest; I was never impressed with Bale's Batman. In fact, I'm not really a Batman fan. I think he is ok.

Maybe I should bring up all the awards Bale has won and the ratings and reviews BB and TDK has since you are not impressed with him to prove just how great he is. You know how like you to do when someone is "not impressed" with Routh. And there are people who were never impressed with Routh's Superman but way to completely miss his point.

[I Am The Knight]

Characters like Superman are much bigger than any one actor, I am a huge fan of Bale but if he quit tomorrow i wouldn't throw a tantrum and not watch the next Batman movie b/c of it, I am to much of a fan of Batman for that attitude.

Same here (Although that would really suck).

[Hunter Rider]

Maybe I should bring up all the awards Bale has won and the ratings and reviews BB and TDK has since you are not impressed with him to prove just how great he is. You know how like you to do when someone is "not impressed" with Routh. And there are people who were never impressed with Routh's Superman but way to completely miss his point.

Let's not take this into a Routh vs Bale direction, If he didn't like Bale as Batman then that is personal opinion, anything beyond that becomes a world class actor who is highly respected vs a guy that only has one role of any note under his belt, and thus becomes heated and pointless.

[FlawlessVictory]

Let's not take this into a Routh vs Bale direction, If he didn't like Bale as Batman then that is personal opinion, anything beyond that becomes a world class actor who is highly respected vs a guy that only has one role of any note under his belt, and thus becomes heated and pointless.

I hear ya and I'm not trying to turn this into a Bale vs Routh debate. I actually have no problem with Routh. But MP's obsession with Routh is just getting nauseating to read at this point.

[I Am The Knight]

There's no debate, really. There's fact and there's preference.

[Mostpowerful]

That wasn't my point though, my point was that I am as impressed with Bale as Bruce/Batman as you clearly are with Routh as Clark/Superman, but him leaving the franchise wouldn't stop me from seeing the next one with a new Batman.

Ok, well, everybody is different.

And I never said I didn't like Bale's Batman. I do. And I'm fan of him. I just didn't like his version of bats much.



I hear ya and I'm not trying to turn this into a Bale vs Routh debate. I actually have no problem with Routh. But MP's obsession with Routh is just getting nauseating to read at this point.

LOL, but yeah, I know exactly what you mean. I feel the same way sometimes with all the hate for SR/The kid/Singer etc. etc. that I read in Internet forums.:o

Oh, and with the suit as well. Wow, so much obsession over that.

[Showtime]

LOL, but yeah, I know exactly what you mean. I feel the same thing sometimes with all the hate for SR/The kid/Singer etc. etc.:o

So then you know how it feels? :csad:

[Mostpowerful]

So then you know how it feels? :csad:

Yes. :csad:

[Showtime]

Yes. :csad:

I really feel like you don't get it though, it is more of a case where you can't see the other side of the fence or understand how others might feel. Nor does it seem you can look at Superman Returns and realize it does have its flaws nor can you accept that others feel it does. Yet, you don't like it when others don't accept your view or what you believe. It is like a study in internet psychology.

[Hunter Rider]

Ok, well, everybody is different.


Oh, and with the suit as well. Wow, so much obsession over that.

Ive never known being a fan of a character to be overshadowed by being a fan of an actor.

The suit thing just wouldn't die, it's like right now, the Trekkies picking over EVERY detail of the new Enterprise. :(

[Lighthouse]

Ive never known being a fan of a character to be overshadowed by being a fan of an actor.

The suit thing just wouldn't die, it's like right now, the Trekkies picking over EVERY detail of the new Enterprise. :(

There is a difference though. There are fans who nitpick over every aspect of every little thing, and there are those that just thought, as a whole, that the costume looked very awkward. I consider myself to be part of the latter category.

[The Kid]

The suit thing just wouldn't die, it's like right now, the Trekkies picking over EVERY detail of the new Enterprise. :(

Precisely why I'm limiting myself on forums these days. The fact is that we all love comics, scifi, superheros, religiously or we wouldn't be here... and in that respect people will always go too far, since we're human and we're dumb sometimes. I find it healthy to keep a clear perspective on what to prioritize, but if someone criticizes Jason... :cmad: well you get my point. It's hard to keep a clear head when talking about this stuff.

[SatEL]

:rolleyes: You have got to be kidding me, you are being so overly dramatic. And guess what, what if that new guy is better than Routh? It is possible you know, very possible I would say.

Its more than possible, its not like Routh droped an Oscar performance.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Honestly if you put a gun to my head and forced me to guess what will probably happen, I'd say the next Superman film/"Routhboot" will be a stand-alone effort with the characters already established (i.e. like the pre-Casino Royale Bond films and Burton's Batman!)

My guess is that we get the evil billionaire Luthor and a supervillain of some sorts - probably Brainiac. If not him, then they'll heavily set him up for a sequel (i.e. think the Leader in The Incredible Hulk!)

And if the origin story is covered, it'd be handled in the same way the Hulk reboot did (i.e. during the opening credits!)

[mego joe]

Honestly if you put a gun to my head and forced me to guess what will probably happen, I'd say the next Superman film/"Routhboot" will be a stand-alone effort with the characters already established (i.e. like the pre-Casino Royale Bond films and Burton's Batman!)

My guess is that we get the evil billionaire Luthor and a supervillain of some sorts - probably Brainiac. If not him, then they'll heavily set him up for a sequel (i.e. think the Leader in The Incredible Hulk!)

And if the origin story is covered, it'd be handled in the same way the Hulk reboot did (i.e. during the opening credits!)

The gun's still at your temple:

Routh or new actor?

[FilmNerdJamie]

The gun's still at your temple:

Routh or new actor?

http://reelsuave.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/the_proposition.jpg

You must have missed the "Routhboot" remark...

[mego joe]

http://reelsuave.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/the_proposition.jpg

You must have missed the "Routhboot" remark...

Well you had slashed it next to "Superman film" which to me indicated you hadn't quite decided between just a "Superman film (complete recast) and the "Routhboot."

PS- Don't let Guy Piecre shoot me. :)

[Mostpowerful]

Maybe I should bring up all the awards Bale has won and the ratings and reviews BB and TDK has since you are not impressed with him to prove just how great he is. You know how like you to do when someone is "not impressed" with Routh. And there are people who were never impressed with Routh's Superman but way to completely miss his point.

Go back and read my post, please; I never said I was not impressed with 'him'. I was talking about his version of Batman, which is very different. In general, I love Bale's work. I think he is a really good actor. I'm a fan. And please, don't be so overly dramatic yourself as well. :cwink: :woot:





I really feel like you don't get it though, it is more of a case where you can't see the other side of the fence or understand how others might feel. Nor does it seem you can look at Superman Returns and realize it does have its flaws nor can you accept that others feel it does. Yet, you don't like it when others don't accept your view or what you believe. It is like a study in internet psychology.

Your partially right. I don't understand all the hate for SR, its story and its actors. At all. I truly love the movie, and I think Singer did a really good job with it, though there is room for improvement. The movie just works for me in a lot of levels. And NO, I don't think it's perfect, no movie is, not even the highly praised TDK, imo.





The suit thing just wouldn't die, it's like right now, the Trekkies picking over EVERY detail of the new Enterprise. :(

Yep. This is the internet for ya. I'm pretty new to these places myself, and it's shocking sometimes.




Precisely why I'm limiting myself on forums these days. The fact is that we all love comics, scifi, superheros, religiously or we wouldn't be here... and in that respect people will always go too far, since we're human and we're dumb sometimes. I find it healthy to keep a clear perspective on what to prioritize, but if someone criticizes Jason... :cmad: well you get my point. It's hard to keep a clear head when talking about this stuff.

Good for you. I should do the same. Internet forums are both a blessing and a curse.

[Dark Knight]

Anyone think that Danny Boyle may be considered to direct the next Supes flick?

WB's were supposedly considering him for the JL film that Miller was going to direct.

[regwec]

Didn't I recommend him months ago?

I ask because I cannot remember.

[The Kid]

Good for you. I should do the same. Internet forums are both a blessing and a curse.

Definitely. And that's coming from experience. Too many people live online these days imo. Temperance is the key.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Boys and girls, take note...

EXCLUSIVE: Emma Thompson Chooses 'Nanny McPhee' Sequel Over Harry Potter
Published by Larry Carroll on Tuesday, November 11, 2008 at 1:47 pm.

If you’re a fantasy film fan, or if you simply have any children in your life, you might want to brace yourself for some good news and some bad news: Emma Thompson has been forced to choose between the “Harry Potter” and “Nanny McPhee” franchises. And in her mind, the choice was always obvious.

“No, no, no,” the Oscar winner insisted when we asked whether she’d be returning as Professor Sybil Trelawney in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”. “I’m making my own ‘Nanny McPhee’ next year. They mean much more to me.”

The final “Potter” films are due to begin shooting early next year – roughly the same time when Thompson has the green light to make a sequel to the beloved 2005 film she wrote and starred in.

“The working title is ‘Nanny McPhee and The Big Bang’,” she revealed to us. “It’s not a sequel, actually, it’s a new story.”

The original film had Thompson’s wart-heavy governess employing magic to help a father tame his wild kids. “[The second film] is set one hundred years later; the only thing that is the same is Nanny McPhee,” she explained. “It’s about two families: A family of country children, and a family of town children, [both] during the war. So it’s about evacuees, and the father is away at war. So this time, the lone parent is the mother. That’s what it’s about: The big war, and a war between these two sets of extremely different children.”

The actress, who will soon be seen in the awards-worthy drama “Last Chance Harvey” alongside Dustin Hoffman, once again helped to write the second McPhee film. Thompson explained that while she knows it will once again be a lot of work, she can’t wait to begin – even though her Potter involvement is the collateral damage.

“The Harry Potters are great big franchises that are something I’m not emotionally attached to or necessarily particularly creatively attached to,” Thompson explained. “That’s more like doing a turn, whereas the Nanny McPhees are something I’ve written. The art is in those films, they’re very handmade, they’re something that’s very close to me. Those are the ones I really care about.”

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/11/11/exclusive-emma-thompson-chooses-nanny-mcphee-sequel-over-harry-potter/

Fill in 'Brandon Routh' in place of 'Emma Thompson' and 'Superman' for 'Nanny McPhee.'

You now have examples of the kind of remarks people like the WB heads, Routh, etc. will say about the "Routhboot."

[DavidTyler]

You talking showing the origin, or emphasize on a completely different Krypton? Because, as things stand now, I don't see them doing anything too drastic. I'm in favor of a complete reboot; story, cast, sets, style, music, everything. But the GA remains their target audience and if they don't care enough to make the differences between movies, they might choose to make the next movie semi-familiar, at least visually.

Of course, that's only what I can understand from the few things we know now; who knows what happens in the next couple of years that will mark the direction of the movie?

I want a completely different Krypton. I absolutely hate and am completely bothered by Donner's 'Ice' Crystal Krypton. I really can't stand it. That and the glowing white suits.

My first choice would be Byrne and Wolfman's Krypton. My second would be something akin to what Timm and Dini did on the animated series. Singer/Donner's Krypton isn't even on the map for me. It's illogical and ridiculous.

[mego joe]

Boys and girls, take note...



Fill in 'Brandon Routh' in place of 'Emma Thompson' and 'Superman' for 'Nanny McPhee.'

You now have examples of the kind of remarks people like the WB heads, Routh, etc. will say about the "Routhboot."


I don't think it's quite the same. I think Routhbooting will limit what WB is able to do with the next Superman film. Remember the whole reason they are (re/Routh) booting is b/c they want to distance themselves from the Singerverse. Nanny McPhee is a character that can operate in different time periods and it just doesn't matter. They aren't (Re/ EmmaThompson) booting Nanny McPhee b/c they want to distance the new film from the previous film.

I think a Routhboot is a whole new situation altogether. I don't think there's any accurate comparison. Of course I'm assuming that Routhboot means everything else will be different- fortress, Metropolis, KRypton etc....

[Nixon]

Boys and girls, take note...



Fill in 'Brandon Routh' in place of 'Emma Thompson' and 'Superman' for 'Nanny McPhee.'

You now have examples of the kind of remarks people like the WB heads, Routh, etc. will say about the "Routhboot."


I just want a press release calling it a "Routhboot". Maybe several press releases.

[hippie_hunter]

I want a completely different Krypton. I absolutely hate and am completely bothered by Donner's 'Ice' Crystal Krypton. I really can't stand it. That and the glowing white suits.

My first choice would be Byrne and Wolfman's Krypton. My second would be something akin to what Timm and Dini did on the animated series. Singer/Donner's Krypton isn't even on the map for me. It's illogical and ridiculous.

I prefer Johns' Krypton which was a combination of the Donner Krypton and the traditional Silver Age Krypton.

[Matt]

I don't think it's quite the same. I think Routhbooting will limit what WB is able to do with the next Superman film. Remember the whole reason they are (re/Routh) booting is b/c they want to distance themselves from the Singerverse. Nanny McPhee is a character that can operate in different time periods and it just doesn't matter. They aren't (Re/ EmmaThompson) booting Nanny McPhee b/c they want to distance the new film from the previous film.

I think a Routhboot is a whole new situation altogether. I don't think there's any accurate comparison. Of course I'm assuming that Routhboot means everything else will be different- fortress, Metropolis, KRypton etc....

Yeah, I agree. You're kinda reaching there Jamie. You're comparing apples and oranges. Especially since even though they are jumping ahead, Nanny McPhee is still the same character within the same continuity as the original. A reboot is a different character in a different continuity completely seperate from the Singer movie. I'd even go along with your comparrison if Warners were doing some totally out there reboot such as Red Son where it does not matter if the same actor is used as the differences are substantial enough to et the audience know it is a different story. That is not the case. We are getting a regular Superman story. Routh would only add to the confusion. Not to say Warners won't do it, but you are really reaching by using the Nanny McPhee example.

[solidsnake86]

you know mego joe just because you dislike everything SR did doesnt mean that the movie didnt have fans, although it didnt make what everyone was hoping for it did make money. They are trying to find a balance to keep both sides happy from what I'm understanding. One way is to maybe keep Routh and your kidding yourself if you think its going to limit what WB is trying to do. The choice of superman right now is fanboy preferance at this point. Remember Robinov said "reintroduction."

[Superman-Prime]

Still no news about this?! Wow... -_-

[Lighthouse]

Boys and girls, take note...



Fill in 'Brandon Routh' in place of 'Emma Thompson' and 'Superman' for 'Nanny McPhee.'

You now have examples of the kind of remarks people like the WB heads, Routh, etc. will say about the "Routhboot."

This is quite a stretch in terms of comparison.

[SatEL]

Boys and girls, take note...



Fill in 'Brandon Routh' in place of 'Emma Thompson' and 'Superman' for 'Nanny McPhee.'

You now have examples of the kind of remarks people like the WB heads, Routh, etc. will say about the "Routhboot."


Doesnt matter what they say the general public is still going to see it as a sequel. It has the name 'Nanny McPhee' hence all they need for it to be classed as a sequel.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Just giving an example, folks. Like it or lump it. :cwink:

[I Am The Knight]

Lump it :o

[Showtime]

I think you guys kind of missed the point, this is HOW WB will most likely approach selling it if they indeed do go with Routh as Superman. So the similarity in how WB might try to market it seems pretty spot on to what Emma Thompson is discussing above, the reaction to the approach is a different point.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Lump it :o

:waa:

[I Am The Knight]

:waa:

:indy:

[FilmNerdJamie]

:indy:

"I hate you! I wish I was never born!"

*Cries and runs to room!*

[Showtime]

Just a quick edit...

“The working title is ‘Superman: Man of Steel,” Routh revealed to us. “However it’s not a sequel, actually, it’s a new story.”

Superman Returns had a heart heavy Superman struggling to balance saving the world with being a father. “This movie is set in a different universe; the only thing that is the same is Superman,” he explained. “It’s about two men who believe they are doing the right thing for humanity, Lex Luthor and Superman, and how their differing views cause a physical and emotinal clash. So it’s about the path of two men with different backgrounds believing they are doing the right thing, both with the same goal. I can't really say much more.”

[bootspark]

Showtime, where is that quote from?

[Ultimate_Superman]

Showtime, where is that quote from?
It's from nowhere he is just making an example of how Jamie's quote could turn out when people failed to see the logic behind his post.

[bootspark]

Good, I was about to have a heart attack if Routh really said all that. WB would be stupid to keep Routh and reboot the franchise.

[Ultimate_Superman]

Although that's not too far off from what we may be hearing if things keep going the way they are.

[Showtime]

Showtime, where is that quote from?

What he said, I was just giving an example of how WB might try to spin a reboot if Routh was still involved. This is by no means a real quote at all, nor does it mean Routh is Superman or anything like that. So no heart attacks.

[larryfilmmaker]

Superman is NOT a dark, brooding, depressing character. Just as Batman is NOT a light, campy, goofy character ( cough....Batman and Robin....cough )....

You're right. Superman is not a dark, brooding character. But to say Batman is not a light, campy, goofy character isn't exactly true. There are MANY incarnations of Batman, each just as influential and important as the next. Like it or not, the comics didn't "get it wrong" when Batman was goofy. The 60's TV show didn't "get it wrong" and the cartoon "The Brave and the Bold" isn't "getting it all wrong" by going campy. They are just choosing which Batman to use. Mark Hamill said it best. Fans today thinkt he only true Batman is a dark, gothic, brooding character who rarely talks... but what they don't realize is that that is just one of MANY Batman versions. To say it's the only true version is sort of elitist.

[larryfilmmaker]

Singer/Donner's Krypton isn't even on the map for me. It's illogical and ridiculous.

It's an entirely other planet, man. Is it supposed to be, seem, or feel "logical" to us?

[The Batman]

You're right. Superman is not a dark, brooding character. But to say Batman is not a light, campy, goofy character isn't exactly true. There are MANY incarnations of Batman, each just as influential and important as the next. Like it or not, the comics didn't "get it wrong" when Batman was goofy. The 60's TV show didn't "get it wrong" and the cartoon "The Brave and the Bold" isn't "getting it all wrong" by going campy. They are just choosing which Batman to use. Mark Hamill said it best. Fans today thinkt he only true Batman is a dark, gothic, brooding character who rarely talks... but what they don't realize is that that is just one of MANY Batman versions. To say it's the only true version is sort of elitist.

with a name like "TDK4ever" I'm not surprised he dosent realize that...then again, these boards are rampant with batman posers...

[The Batman]

It's an entirely other planet, man. Is it supposed to be, seem, or feel "logical" to us?

I wish he wouldve left it at "I just prefer my post crisis kryptons"

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm sticking to my guns, I'll be tremendously disappointed if WB decides to keep Routh.

I'm postive that most of the audience doesn't care about recasting and the like as much as fanboys do but I do think that it's going to have a confusing effect on some audience members if Routh is in a Superman movie that isn't a sequel to SR.

Hell, I heard a perfect stranger say that they didn't understand Superman Returns.

Anywho, I just don't like the idea at all, mainly because I don't want any ties to SR, even cosmetic ones and I still haven't seen proof that Brandon Routh can act. So everytime I read about it I sigh and groan and piss and moan.

[Matt]

I'm sticking to my guns, I'll be tremendously disappointed if WB decides to keep Routh.

I'm postive that most of the audience doesn't care about recasting and the like as much as fanboys do but I do think that it's going to have a confusing effect on some audience members if Routh is in a Superman movie that isn't a sequel to SR.

Hell, I heard a perfect stranger say that they didn't understand Superman Returns.

Anywho, I just don't like the idea at all, mainly because I don't want any ties to SR, even cosmetic ones and I still haven't seen proof that Brandon Routh can act. So everytime I read about it I sigh and groan and piss and moan.


But...but...you weren't there when he ran over the blind child's dog and called me an *******! You could really feel the warmth of him! And in Zach and Miri! Sure, he played a porn star whose only role was to stand there and look awkward as Elizabeth Banks ranted, but you could really feel the essence of Superman in him! :cwink:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

But...but...you weren't there when he ran over the blind child's dog and called me an *******! You could really feel the warmth of him! And in Zach and Miri! Sure, he played a porn star whose only role was to stand there and look awkward as Elizabeth Banks ranted, but you could really feel the essence of Superman in him! :cwink:lol. I wish that your post was a joke.:o

[Showtime]

It is no secret that the WB/DC & Legendary brass like Routh, but in the end it doesn't necessarily mean he will be Superman. He might be right now, he might not. If anything is finalized, nobody is talking about it. In regards to his acting, not much to go on, but what we have to go on...not the greatest. I really thought he did a good job with Clark. That being Dylan Dog and that Samuel L. Jackson flick should be coming down the pipeline. Either way the guy will get some roles.

[FlawlessVictory]

with a name like "TDK4ever" I'm not surprised he dosent realize that...then again, these boards are rampant with batman posers...

Sorry he is not a "true" Batman fan like you. :rolleyes:

I love it when posters determine how real a fan other posters are.

[dark_b]

its a disaster that the new superman movie didnt have any dialoge between superman and lex there we could have see if he can act with a villain.

[RogueDK]

its a disaster that the new superman movie didnt have any dialoge between superman and lex there we could have see if he can act with a villain.
You mean besides the muffled & emasculated screaming that Routh did in the beatdown? :woot:

[BATZARRO WWD]

"The Plan Is Just To Reintroduce Superman"

Not WonderWoman, not Aquaman, and sure as hell not Batman. So stay on topic here guys.

Thought sincerely I feel that you might as well. I betcha they haven't begun writting a screenplay at this point...

[I SEE SPIDEY]

It is no secret that the WB/DC & Legendary brass like Routh, but in the end it doesn't necessarily mean he will be Superman. He might be right now, he might not. If anything is finalized, nobody is talking about it. In regards to his acting, not much to go on, but what we have to go on...not the greatest. I really thought he did a good job with Clark. That being Dylan Dog and that Samuel L. Jackson flick should be coming down the pipeline. Either way the guy will get some roles.Dude, I'll be sooo interested to see what his abilities are in the acting arena. It's almost an obsession with me, because I for the life of me can't understand why a director wouldn't give his newbie star some stand out moment in a 2 and a half hour film.

Sorry he is not a "true" Batman fan like you. :rolleyes:

I love it when posters determine how real a fan other posters are.Exactly. What a foolish and arrogant thing to say.

[The Kid]

Hell, I heard a perfect stranger say that they didn't understand Superman Returns.


And that's why we're in this mess. :waa:

It's a sequel that's not a sequel but seems like a sequel. Essentially what we got was like I said before, Batman Forever.

I love Batman Forever and I'm sure many here at one point in their lives before getting trapped in this forum for the rest of their life loved it too... :huh:

But we know how that series ended. WB will reboot. We will have more superman wars. So on and so Routh...

[I SEE SPIDEY]

And that's why we're in this mess. :waa:

It's a sequel that's not a sequel but seems like a sequel. Essentially what we got was like I said before, Batman Forever.

I love Batman Forever and I'm sure many here at one point in their lives before getting trapped in this forum for the rest of their life loved it too... :huh:

But we know how that series ended. WB will reboot. We will have more superman wars. So on and so Routh...Batman Forever aint exactly a good movie to me but I think that it gets entirely too much flack. If the comedy was toned down just a lil bit it would have been a good movie but as it is, it is still and interesting and fun one. I still love the "Kiss from a Rose" song and still think that it is a far better movie than Batman Returns, which for my money, was terrible.

[Ultimate_Superman]

Batman Forever aint exactly a good movie to me but I think that it gets entirely too much flack. If the comedy was toned down just a lil bit it would have been a good movie but as it is, it is still and interesting and fun one. I still love the "Kiss from a Rose" song and still think that it is a far better movie than Batman Returns, which for my money, was terrible.Batman Forever is like Superman Returns to me both are great on script but when brought to the screen it just was missing something.

[The Kid]

Batman Forever aint exactly a good movie to me but I think that it gets entirely too much flack. If the comedy was toned down just a lil bit it would have been a good movie but as it is, it is still and interesting and fun one. I still love the "Kiss from a Rose" song and still think that it is a far better movie than Batman Returns, which for my money, was terrible.
:lips:Nevah.

Oh well, at least someone appreciates some of the old school batman movies these days. And that's my point, this has happened before with batman, although it was actually trying to be a real sequel, I guess. While Singer was trying to make a sequel that's like a choose your own adventure book. Because of smallville I bet. Can't really do an origin movie when people have a weekly dose of it... Maybe when smallville's done we'll get this complete reboot thing going.

[solidsnake86]

The only thing I liked from forever, was how grayson was older and how they introduced him. The rest of that movie got everything wrong as far as I'm concerned. From Carrey's riddler, to jones' joker... I mean two-face. It tried to be a deep movie with the whole journal thing but it was overshadowed by everything else.

As for superman, to me I couldnt care less whether Routh returns because frankly I can see them getting someone with the same acting ability if they do recast. For instance, lets say Welling signs, your just pleasing the smallville people as opposed to the Routh people. Now if they Routhboot, I think some posters here are underestimating the GA. All they have to say is this takes place before sr and people wont be confused. Its really that simple. Recasting happens and people wont be shocked if bosworth is gone. The only reason I can see them keeping routh is because of a JLA movie and introducing him in Green Lantern.

[mego joe]

you know mego joe just because you dislike everything SR did doesnt mean that the movie didnt have fans, although it didnt make what everyone was hoping for it did make money. They are trying to find a balance to keep both sides happy from what I'm understanding. One way is to maybe keep Routh and your kidding yourself if you think its going to limit what WB is trying to do. The choice of superman right now is fanboy preferance at this point. Remember Robinov said "reintroduction."

It has less to do with my dislike of SR than the logic behind rebooting a franchise that WB is not happy with. If you saddle a new director and screenwriter with someone else's lead actor cast for a different version of Superman you are limiting the production. It would be the same thing if Nolan had rebooted Batman with Keaton or Kilmer or Clooney. Routh was hired for SInger's film and potential franchise- there isn't going to be a SInger Superman franchise. That ship has sailed.

In order to make the best film possible, you have to cast the actors best suited for the roles. I would not expect Superman/Clark in a reboot to be another "Reeve Impersonation." Why would you cast Routh who was hired to do the "Reeve Impersonation" for SR. If WB intends to do the "Reeve Impersonation" again then they have learned nothing from the whole experience of SR.

Simply keeping Routh b/c some people liked him in SR is not the smart thing to do if you are starting over. It limits the production. If the new director decides after auditions that Routh is the best actor for the role, then that's fine, but WB can't shoehorn him into that position and expect his casting not to limit the production in some way.

[Showtime]

I honestly don’t agree with keeping Routh if you are truly “rebooting” a franchise. I do however understand some of the reasons why WB might keep Routh.

Part of it is the search for another Superman, as we have seen in the past the search for an actor to play Superman can be long and at the end a big ball of misery. See the development hell that was Superman. WB might not want to go through that again because the search for Superman helped to derail a lot of these movies that were in development before Superman Returns.

Also I think the Routh being a “nice guy” plays into this. He established relationships with WB, Legendary, and DC Comics. As I said years ago, the one thing WB was 100% happy with was how Routh “carried” himself as Superman both on and off the set. They believe he understood what it was to play the character. So he obviously has the brass on his side for the most part.

Another point of interest is other films that DC is trying to develop, there might be a need to have your Superman in place well before a new Superman movie goes into production because of possible cameos in movies like Flash, Wonder Woman, and as Snake pointed to…Green Lantern.

In regards to Routh being Singer’s choice, yes and no. The studio presented Bryan with video footage of their top candidates from previous directors. Routh was part of this footage. So another director or directors had interest in Routh at one point, and for the life of me I can’t remember who.

This doesn’t mean that Routh is playing Superman and the deal is sealed, but it means they’ve talked to him and like him in the role. I can see it happening, and I understand the reasons, but if it was me it wouldn’t be.

[solidsnake86]

We all know who the choices for superman more or less will be, and the only person that I can see people being releatively happy with is cavil. As show pointed out they've obviously done major casting calls so really who else are they actually going to get which isnt going to split up fans into more groups because not everyone will like this new person. With Routh they have a general idea that not everyone hated him and people will just have to suck it up. Honestly the only people that will be complaining are the Welling fans and the people who absolutely despised SR, which at the end of the day is a minority. If they are indeed doing a reboot from the beginning of course it makes sense to get rid of routh. They obviously have other plans and something tells me a Routh cameo, at relatively low cost, in various movies is where they might be headed.

[dark_b]

Also I think the Routh being a “nice guy” plays into this. He established relationships with WB, Legendary, and DC Comics. As I said years ago, the one thing WB was 100% happy with was how Routh “carried” himself as Superman both on and off the set. They believe he understood what it was to play the character. So he obviously has the brass on his side for the most part.


yeah he was really a nice guy. i can not belive that he said sorry to the people. they are payed to help him around on the set.
from 2:50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qACGRbAoE

its also nice to see brandon in the suit walking on the set. he is so relaxed. somtimes superman in the movie is looking to ''super''. relax dude :)

[dark_b]

We all know who the choices for superman more or less will be, and the only person that I can see people being releatively happy with is cavil. As show pointed out they've obviously done major casting calls so really who else are they actually going to get which isnt going to split up fans into more groups because not everyone will like this new person. With Routh they have a general idea that not everyone hated him and people will just have to suck it up. Honestly the only people that will be complaining are the Welling fans and the people who absolutely despised SR, which at the end of the day is a minority. If they are indeed doing a reboot from the beginning of course it makes sense to get rid of routh. They obviously have other plans and something tells me a Routh cameo, at relatively low cost, in various movies is where they might be headed.the qqustion is who will hate routh after the routhboot?

for example I SEE SPIDEY. i think if routh will show good acting and if she likes the story she will nto have a problem with him. the same for other people.

so who will hate him no matter what? the smallville fans and the ones who have a 100% problem witht him right now. so not a lot of people IMO :bow:

[FilmNerdJamie]

Another (potential) reason for them deciding to keep Routh lies in the fact that WB and DC are clearly aiming to have one-big cinematic universe - like Marvel Films.

And they need a "spokeman" - for lack of a better term. Marvel has Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man/Tony Stark as theirs, and we know how well that's working out.

I'd bet $$$ that WB would love to have Bale's Batman be that for them. The problem is Christopher Nolan has made it crystal-clear that their Batman won't be apart of any spin-off or team-up films. Plus, as been widely reported if Nolan walks, Bale will follow him out the door.

Considering how well-supported and liked he is within the studio, Routh could be that person...

[solidsnake86]

Very true, I dont blame Nolan not wanting his character to tie into any other films at this point because its not really need within a batman film. I still think given a good script and a lot of money bale would be up for a JLA film mostly because his role would be smaller and after the third batman film Nolan will be done. I don't see bale making cameo's though, and thats something Routh would probably do so I totally agree with you jamie.

[Double Down]

Another (potential) reason for them deciding to keep Routh lies in the fact that WB and DC are clearly aiming to have one-big cinematic universe - like Marvel Films.

And they need a "spokeman" - for lack of a better term. Marvel has Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man/Tony Stark as theirs, and we know how well that's working out.

I'd bet $$$ that WB would love to have Bale's Batman be that for them. The problem is Christopher Nolan has made it crystal-clear that their Batman won't be apart of any spin-off or team-up films. Plus, as been widely reported if Nolan walks, Bale will follow him out the door.

Considering how well-supported and liked he is within the studio, Routh could be that person...

And as it is Tony Stark, not Iron Man, who made the cameo, Clark Kent as a newspaper man can fill that role in a way that makes sense, while not seeming like a total copy of what Marvel is doing.

[MAN O STEEL]

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/9581/superpicv2jm7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/superpicv2jm7.jpg/1/w600.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img530/superpicv2jm7.jpg/1/)

[Antonello Blueberry]

In regards to Routh being Singer’s choice, yes and no. The studio presented Bryan with video footage of their top candidates from previous directors. Routh was part of this footage. So another director or directors had interest in Routh at one point, and for the life of me I can’t remember who.

He was one of the final six candidates in the McG period.

[Showtime]

He was one of the final six candidates in the McG period.

Ahhh thank you. I figured it would be you, Retroman, or Maze that would bring me the right answer. McG.

[hippie_hunter]

Very true, I dont blame Nolan not wanting his character to tie into any other films at this point because its not really need within a batman film. I still think given a good script and a lot of money bale would be up for a JLA film mostly because his role would be smaller and after the third batman film Nolan will be done. I don't see bale making cameo's though, and thats something Routh would probably do so I totally agree with you jamie.

I'm all for what Nolan does with the Batman films, because well...what the man has done is perfection.

But it certainly isn't his character. It's Warner Bros.' and they can do whatever the hell they want with it. Of course sometimes it does end up in awful situations (Batman & Robin).

However, Bale's Batman really isn't the type of character that should be going outside of Gotham City and appearing in other movies like what Downey's Iron Man is doing.

The only time I would like to see Bale's Batman appear outside of a Batman film is in a Justice League movie AFTER Nolan is done with what he's doing.

[Showtime]

I'm all for what Nolan does with the Batman films, because well...what the man has done is perfection.

But it certainly isn't his character. It's Warner Bros.' and they can do whatever the hell they want with it. Of course sometimes it does end up in awful situations (Batman & Robin).

However, Bale's Batman really isn't the type of character that should be going outside of Gotham City and appearing in other movies like what Downey's Iron Man is doing.

The only time I would like to see Bale's Batman appear outside of a Batman film is in a Justice League movie AFTER Nolan is done with what he's doing.

You're right, they will do whatever they want with Nolan's Batman because it isn't really Nolans, it is theirs. After Batman drops in 2011 they will most likely already have JL on the map and gearing up.

For the reason you meantioned above, Nolan's Batman doesn't belong in cameos outside Gotham, at least not yet. So that is why I think they are trying to gear up Routh's Superman for that role.

[hippie_hunter]

You're right, they will do whatever they want with Nolan's Batman because it isn't really Nolans, it is theirs. After Batman drops in 2011 they will most likely already have JL on the map and gearing up.
Bale has come out and said that he'd have no problem with Justice League if it was done after what Nolan was doing with the Batman mythos and with the Justice League Mortal project in particular he didn't want it conflicting with what they were doing.

But I wonder if they'll convince him to reprise Batman for a fourth time (Marvel has managed to get Downey to sign onto four films). And he has come out in the past being receptive to the idea of being next to Superman unlike Nolan as well.

[solidsnake86]

Personally I think its more of this fan mentality that says bale wont do it, the guy did reign of fire and we all saw how that turned out. Given he can do whatever he chooses now its still not out of the realm of possibility. Plus he stands to make a lot of cash and he probably wouldnt even have to be in the suit if he didnt want too, they have stunt doubles. Hippie your absolutely right, once nolan is done, he's done, they can do whatever they want with batman. If its a good script I think he will do it.

Just some interesting news, I was in the green lantern thread and keyser cited latino review who said gosling passed on the role. Judging by the lack of announcement within that month timeline that robinov said it looks as if they are running into a lot of roadblocks.

[Dark Knight]

Bale has come out and said that he'd have no problem with Justice League if it was done after what Nolan was doing with the Batman mythos and with the Justice League Mortal project in particular he didn't want it conflicting with what they were doing.

But I wonder if they'll convince him to reprise Batman for a fourth time (Marvel has managed to get Downey to sign onto four films). And he has come out in the past being receptive to the idea of being next to Superman unlike Nolan as well.



Whether or not Bale would be in a JL film after Nolans third Batman film will come down to one main thing IMO.

1. The story and how Batman is written. If they ground him and make him more of the detective that will do most of the ground and street work...then I think Bale would do it. If they write Batman cheesy, and have him relying to much on gadgets, Bat planes, Bat boats, have him be carried around by Superman or Green Lantern, saying cheesy one liners, have him be teleported up and down from the Watchtower and silly things like this, then Bale will most likely say no. I don't believe that Bales Batman can't exist in a JL film....it depends on how he is written of course.

[hippie_hunter]

Whether or not Bale would be in a JL film after Nolans third Batman film will come down to one main thing IMO.

1. The story and how Batman is written. If they ground him and make him more of the detective that will do most of the ground and street work...then I think Bale would do it. If they write Batman cheesy, and have him relying to much on gadgets, Bat planes, Bat boats, have him be carried around by Superman or Green Lantern, saying cheesy one liners, have him be teleported up and down from the Watchtower and silly things like this, then Bale will most likely say no. I don't believe that Bales Batman can't exist in a JL film....it depends on how he is written of course.

I believe that Bale's Batman can exist in a broader DC film universe it's just that the other heroes have to be grounded in the reality of what Nolan presents (which can be easy and doable if done right) and Batman is limited in what he can do.

You can't go off having Batman fighting people he obviously cannot beat (like Doomsday and Darkseid, I'm looking at you Loeb :cmad:). You can't have him survive things that normal people cannot survive. And you can't have him figure out something that is humanly impossible or pull a Reed Richards out of his ass.

[Antonello Blueberry]

There was a preview screening for Valkyrie here in Italy and the review says it's very good.
So the Oscars may be a strong possibility for Singer and the movie.

[Ultimate_Superman]

I honestly don’t agree with keeping Routh if you are truly “rebooting” a franchise. I do however understand some of the reasons why WB might keep Routh.

Part of it is the search for another Superman, as we have seen in the past the search for an actor to play Superman can be long and at the end a big ball of misery. See the development hell that was Superman. WB might not want to go through that again because the search for Superman helped to derail a lot of these movies that were in development before Superman Returns.

Also I think the Routh being a “nice guy” plays into this. He established relationships with WB, Legendary, and DC Comics. As I said years ago, the one thing WB was 100% happy with was how Routh “carried” himself as Superman both on and off the set. They believe he understood what it was to play the character. So he obviously has the brass on his side for the most part.

Another point of interest is other films that DC is trying to develop, there might be a need to have your Superman in place well before a new Superman movie goes into production because of possible cameos in movies like Flash, Wonder Woman, and as Snake pointed to…Green Lantern.

In regards to Routh being Singer’s choice, yes and no. The studio presented Bryan with video footage of their top candidates from previous directors. Routh was part of this footage. So another director or directors had interest in Routh at one point, and for the life of me I can’t remember who.

This doesn’t mean that Routh is playing Superman and the deal is sealed, but it means they’ve talked to him and like him in the role. I can see it happening, and I understand the reasons, but if it was me it wouldn’t be.

Another (potential) reason for them deciding to keep Routh lies in the fact that WB and DC are clearly aiming to have one-big cinematic universe - like Marvel Films.

And they need a "spokeman" - for lack of a better term. Marvel has Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man/Tony Stark as theirs, and we know how well that's working out.

I'd bet $$$ that WB would love to have Bale's Batman be that for them. The problem is Christopher Nolan has made it crystal-clear that their Batman won't be apart of any spin-off or team-up films. Plus, as been widely reported if Nolan walks, Bale will follow him out the door.

Considering how well-supported and liked he is within the studio, Routh could be that person...I have to agree with these two post. What people have to remember is alot of people did not like Superman Returns but in turn they loved Routh and thought he would be a great Superman just in another movie. As said before the only people who you will find that really dislike Routh is the people who want Welling as Superman (which is if you look at things a very small group now). Routh as Showtime and Jamie pointed out is well liked among the WB/DC (who since the summit has been on the same page about DC movies) and Legendary which is also a big plus for him. Another huge plus for Routh among the fans and studio is that Routh has no problem doing comic expos and Superman events or just being at events when the WB would ask him to which is why he is also well liked among the fans and studio. Something they had a problem with among other actors. Plus as said before the cast search will already be a long drawn out process and I guess they are thinking why recast a Superman that the majority of the people already like and see as Superman. I personally like Showtime even though I enjoyed Routh think that for a restart they should recast but I can also see why they are willing to keep him if they do because he is a good actor and pretty much on screen and off carries himself like how Superman would.

Also on a side note if people think Nolans Batman will not link up with the other heroes are just fooling themselves because as soon as Nolan is done with the thrid Batman movie (if he does it) you can be sure they will be working hard to link him up with them in fact I am sure they are already working on that.

[RogueDK]

You can't go off having Batman fighting people he obviously cannot beat (like Doomsday and Darkseid, I'm looking at you Loeb :cmad:).
:funny::funny::funny:

[Ultimate_Superman]

I believe that Bale's Batman can exist in a broader DC film universe it's just that the other heroes have to be grounded in the reality of what Nolan presents (which can be easy and doable if done right) and Batman is limited in what he can do.

You can't go off having Batman fighting people he obviously cannot beat (like Doomsday and Darkseid, I'm looking at you Loeb :cmad:). You can't have him survive things that normal people cannot survive. And you can't have him figure out something that is humanly impossible or pull a Reed Richards out of his ass.I agree with whats in bold but I do have to admit it worked great in JLU.

[SatEL]

I agree with whats in bold but I do have to admit it worked great in JLU.

No it didnt, at one point didnt Batman move Darkseid, thats like a human moving a tank.

[Matt]

Another (potential) reason for them deciding to keep Routh lies in the fact that WB and DC are clearly aiming to have one-big cinematic universe - like Marvel Films.

And they need a "spokeman" - for lack of a better term. Marvel has Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man/Tony Stark as theirs, and we know how well that's working out.

I'd bet $$$ that WB would love to have Bale's Batman be that for them. The problem is Christopher Nolan has made it crystal-clear that their Batman won't be apart of any spin-off or team-up films. Plus, as been widely reported if Nolan walks, Bale will follow him out the door.

Considering how well-supported and liked he is within the studio, Routh could be that person...

But at the end of the day, isn't this all just speculation?

My guess is, all of this will not come down to what the studio wants, but what the director wants. If Warners finds a talented director and a good script that they believe can make them money, they will get behind it. And if that director does not want Routh, Routh'll be out...no matter how much the brass at Warners likes him. They are all about making money, and if they find a director who they believe can make a film that makes them a profit, they will let him pick his cast.

[Ultimate_Superman]

But at the end of the day, isn't this all just speculation?

My guess is, all of this will not come down to what the studio wants, but what the director wants. If Warners finds a talented director and a good script that they believe can make them money, they will get behind it. And if that director does not want Routh, Routh'll be out...no matter how much the brass at Warners likes him. They are all about making money, and if they find a director who they believe can make a film that makes them a profit, they will let him pick his cast.Not really you got to remember the same happened with James Bond and that is working out well.

[I Am The Knight]

Bale has come out and said that he'd have no problem with Justice League if it was done after what Nolan was doing with the Batman mythos and with the Justice League Mortal project in particular he didn't want it conflicting with what they were doing.

But I wonder if they'll convince him to reprise Batman for a fourth time (Marvel has managed to get Downey to sign onto four films). And he has come out in the past being receptive to the idea of being next to Superman unlike Nolan as well.

The only Bale quote about him being in JLA that I recall at the moment had him saying that "he wouldn't knock it" because "You never know what you're gonna be doing when you're 50" or something along those lines. That's hardly enthusiasm for the project. As far as I can tell, he's not even that big a Batman fan, more of a Nolan fan :cwink: but he does love the character. After the Terminator trilogy, he certainly won't need the money.

Are there any other quotes that mention his possible involvement in JLA?

[Showtime]

But at the end of the day, isn't this all just speculation?

I think that is why we were using words like "potential" and "might". It is based of logic and what I've heard in my case.

My guess is, all of this will not come down to what the studio wants, but what the director wants. If Warners finds a talented director and a good script that they believe can make them money, they will get behind it. And if that director does not want Routh, Routh'll be out...no matter how much the brass at Warners likes him. They are all about making money, and if they find a director who they believe can make a film that makes them a profit, they will let him pick his cast.

You honestly think that WB is going to bring in a director with that much sway? I don't. They've already been through Burton, McG, Ratner, and then Singer. They signed terrible deals with both Burton and Singer. On top of that directors like Bay, Snyder and Verbinski passed on the chance to do a sequel or reboot.

This is a business and they are all about making money, but why does handing over the ship to a big name director which equals guaranteed contracts move towards profit in this case. They've been bitten more then once, they aren't going to let that happen again. You're looking at a studio director who isn't as big as some of the names that have been thrust about.

In regards to Routh, whether he ends up being Superman or not it is far from unusual to have an actor attached to a project before a director comes in. If WB really wanted Routh, then Routh is Superman. It seems that they are interested in Routh coming back, at least at this point. If they aren't really attached to Routh as Superman and a director comes in, then sure they have the option.

[TheBatman1979]

I think that is why we were using words like "potential" and "might". It is based of logic and what I've heard in my case.



You honestly think that WB is going to bring in a director with that much sway? I don't. They've already been through Burton, McG, Ratner, and then Singer. They signed terrible deals with both Burton and Singer. On top of that directors like Bay, Snyder and Verbinski passed on the chance to do a sequel or reboot.

This is a business and they are all about making money, but why does handing over the ship to a big name director which equals guaranteed contracts move towards profit in this case. They've been bitten more then once, they aren't going to let that happen again. You're looking at a studio director who isn't as big as some of the names that have been thrust about.

In regards to Routh, whether he ends up being Superman or not it is far from unusual to have an actor attached to a project before a director comes in. If WB really wanted Routh, then Routh is Superman. It seems that they are interested in Routh coming back, at least at this point. If they aren't really attached to Routh as Superman and a director comes in, then sure they have the option.

I don't know, I don't see the WB learning from past mistakes. Take the McG Wonder Woman rumor. They should have quashed it from the the get go but they let it stand. So even if it isn't true it makes them look like fools for having his name mentioned with involvement to one of their properties again. I think you're using more logic than they tend to. If they had truely learned anything from TDK and all the Fan based hype Green lantern has been getting since the script review they'd have fast tracked all these films and made announcements for at least scripting.

I don't mind them being cautious but at least get the script on these movies rolling. To mee it looks like we're going to have GL and Batman 3 and that's it.

[hippie_hunter]

The only Bale quote about him being in JLA that I recall at the moment had him saying that "he wouldn't knock it" because "You never know what you're gonna be doing when you're 50" or something along those lines. That's hardly enthusiasm for the project. As far as I can tell, he's not even that big a Batman fan, more of a Nolan fan :cwink: but he does love the character. After the Terminator trilogy, he certainly won't need the money.

Are there any other quotes that mention his possible involvement in JLA?
He once mentioned the original plan of when he signed that they were going to make separate Batman and Superman films and then have them meet up in the Batman vs. Superman movie. Obviously that plan got scrapped.

There was another time he was at some sort of panel to promote the movie and they were asked whether or not they'd have Batman fight Superman. Nolan obviously no. I think Goyer said yes. Bale simply smile and nodded his head with the fans going crazy.

And there was another quote of his where he said that he wasn't opposed to the Justice League movie being made, he just didn't want it contradicting what he and Nolan were doing and he would have rather have it made after they were done doing what they were doing.

[FaT_tONle]

Whether or not Bale would be in a JL film after Nolans third Batman film will come down to one main thing IMO.

1. The story and how Batman is written. If they ground him and make him more of the detective that will do most of the ground and street work...then I think Bale would do it. If they write Batman cheesy, and have him relying to much on gadgets, Bat planes, Bat boats, have him be carried around by Superman or Green Lantern, saying cheesy one liners, have him be teleported up and down from the Watchtower and silly things like this, then Bale will most likely say no. I don't believe that Bales Batman can't exist in a JL film....it depends on how he is written of course.

I agree... no way Bale's Batman will coincide with a JLA universe unless they ground it on every level... but if you do that I don't think it will feel like a real JLA movie. Time will tell... a recast would not be a killer though. You could live with it.

[TheBatman1979]

I agree... no way Bale's Batman will coincide with a JLA universe unless they ground it on every level... but if you do that I don't think it will feel like a real JLA movie. Time will tell... a recast would not be a killer though. You could live with it.

I don't know if I could live with it at this point.....I like Bale as Batman/Bruce Wayne. A recast would be...disappointing.

[FaT_tONle]

Yeah but we don't know how good BB3 will be... may very well be the weakest of the series. Then people sort of lose interest in Batman and you replace Bale another three years later... people would move on by that point.

[TheBatman1979]

Yeah but we don't know how good BB3 will be... may very well be the weakest of the series. Then people sort of lose interest in Batman and you replace Bale another three years later... people would move on by that point.

Even if it was weaker than the first two I don't see it being as weak as the other Batman Franchises films or even any other comic based adptions weakest films. i think the weakest film this bunch could produce would still be a good film, maybe not as great as the past two but still good.

I even agree with the rumor that the WB isn't replacing Routh, but that's for a different set of reasons.

[FaT_tONle]

Even if it was weaker than the first two I don't see it being as weak as the other Batman Franchises films or even any other comic based adptions weakest films. i think the weakest film this bunch could produce would still be a good film, maybe not as great as the past two but still good.

I even agree with the rumor that the WB isn't replacing Routh, but that's for a different set of reasons.

I think people are still wrapped up in having Bale/Routh in a film together... I think it's too early to proclaim that Routh will be back regardless of what we have been hearing... that is if the movie is still slated for 2012... it's way too early to have your lead casted. And while TDK is still fresh in our memories... recasting Batman six years from now... even with BB3 in between... is not a killer. WB has done it before with Batman Forever... and they won't hesitate to do it again. If they were making a Batman vs Superman movie then the movie would probably flop without Bale/Routh... or whoever the new Superman is... but Justice League is a different animal and I don't think keeping Bale will be top priority.

[solidsnake86]

No ones proclaiming Routh will be back though, everyones simply looking at the reasons why he would come back. Availability and money spring to mind, also a willingness to do it. Obviously batman can be recasted, but do you know how much more hype the movie would have if bale was in it, you can't deny its an important factor. If it came down to a few more million dollars WB would probably dish it out to have him, than to replace him with a no name since he also happens to be a good actor. Marvel felt downey was worth the money for the avengers, I'm thinking WB would think they could use bale because we saw what happend when they casted the CW network for the JLA movie already.

[dark_b]

i think if the options are open it means that WB still doesnt know what to do. and if they dont know what to do then this means that the waiting could be very long.

[RogueDK]

i think if the options are open it means that WB still doesnt know what to do. and if they dont know what to do then this means that the waiting could be very long.
I'm still holding out for an announcement no later than mid-09; I believe we'll hear something good/bad by then. I feel like Warner won't waffle around with this.

I know...wishful thinking.

[mego joe]

the qqustion is who will hate routh after the routhboot?

for example I SEE SPIDEY. i think if routh will show good acting and if she likes the story she will nto have a problem with him. the same for other people.

so who will hate him no matter what? the smallville fans and the ones who have a 100% problem witht him right now. so not a lot of people IMO :bow:

I despise SR, but would not hate a Routhboot automatically. I would be extremely disappointed and my hopes for the newboot would start off very low. It would really depend on the rest of the cast, the story and the characterizations. The fact that Routh really hasn't doen anything but SR doesn't allow us to get a better idea of what his acting abilities are. Most importantly, how will Superman/ Clark be portrayed in a 'Routhboot,' if it's the same Christopher Reeve impersonation then I think WB is really wasting it's time.

[The Kid]

i think if the options are open it means that WB still doesnt know what to do. and if they dont know what to do then this means that the waiting could be very long.

No. Someone said it was all about money, Matt? Well it's true. After batman doing what it did, WB sees nothing but green in a reboot of superman. What they're stuck on is finding someone like Nolan who can tackle a beast such as superman without relying too much on past movies. Returns was a good experiment, now we need someone who can find a way to stabilize the superman franchise after it's been through hell and back again... tall order.

[dark_b]

I despise SR, but would not hate a Routhboot automatically. I would be extremely disappointed and my hopes for the newboot would start off very low. It would really depend on the rest of the cast, the story and the characterizations. The fact that Routh really hasn't doen anything but SR doesn't allow us to get a better idea of what his acting abilities are. Most importantly, how will Superman/ Clark be portrayed in a 'Routhboot,' if it's the same Christopher Reeve impersonation then I think WB is really wasting it's time.this is not true. and you know it

[hippie_hunter]

I don't know, I don't see the WB learning from past mistakes. Take the McG Wonder Woman rumor. They should have quashed it from the the get go but they let it stand. So even if it isn't true it makes them look like fools for having his name mentioned with involvement to one of their properties again.
McG being the director of Wonder Woman really isn't that big of a problem.

He's the type of director that will do what the producers want and when you have producers wanting good things and a script written by Jonathan Nolan and Paul Haggis, like we're seeing with Terminator Salvation, it's not that big of a deal. The problem is when you have McG directing a movie with that awful Abrams script and producers like Jon Peters.

Isn't there also a rumor of George Miller taking over Wonder Woman with Megan Gale starring?

[FilmNerdJamie]

Isn't there also a rumor of George Miller taking over Wonder Woman with Megan Gale starring?

"Steve" started that. Nuff said.

[mego joe]

this is not true. and you know it

Name it.

[FlawlessVictory]

i think if the options are open it means that WB still doesnt know what to do. and if they dont know what to do then this means that the waiting could be very long.

Purely a guess here, but I'm thinking the next Superman movie will be released in 2012. Next year will be GL and 2011 will BB3. That means a press release in 2010 (director and cast included in this release) announcing the next Superman. Just guessing though.

[SatEL]

Purely a guess here, but I'm thinking the next Superman movie will be released in 2012. Next year will be GL and 2011 will BB3. That means a press release in 2010 (director and cast included in this release) announcing the next Superman. Just guessing though.

We should have been getting a sequel to an awesome restart of the entire franchise but thanks to good ole Bryan thats not the case.:indy:

[Dark Knight]

I think that is why we were using words like "potential" and "might". It is based of logic and what I've heard in my case.



You honestly think that WB is going to bring in a director with that much sway? I don't. They've already been through Burton, McG, Ratner, and then Singer. They signed terrible deals with both Burton and Singer. On top of that directors like Bay, Snyder and Verbinski passed on the chance to do a sequel or reboot.

This is a business and they are all about making money, but why does handing over the ship to a big name director which equals guaranteed contracts move towards profit in this case. They've been bitten more then once, they aren't going to let that happen again. You're looking at a studio director who isn't as big as some of the names that have been thrust about.

In regards to Routh, whether he ends up being Superman or not it is far from unusual to have an actor attached to a project before a director comes in. If WB really wanted Routh, then Routh is Superman. It seems that they are interested in Routh coming back, at least at this point. If they aren't really attached to Routh as Superman and a director comes in, then sure they have the option.



Well what about JJ Abrams or Danny Boyle, those two may be good choices to direct.

[hippie_hunter]

"Steve" started that. Nuff said.

Never mind then :o

[hippie_hunter]

Well what about JJ Abrams

After his horrid script for Superman: Flyby, absolutely not.

[Crook]

Abrams would be a fine director for this type of movie. Just don't give him script reigns.

[hippie_hunter]

Name it.

Fling
Zack and Miri Make a Porno
Unthinkable
Dead of Night
Table for Three
Miss Nobody
Life is Hot in Cracktown
Stuntmen
Kambakkht Ishq

[solidsnake86]

Whatever director they get I'm sure they will be more under the studio control, thats why I think the script is the most important part. As a side note, Smallville is actually showing doomsday (not CG an actual costume). This might be the first time any of supermans villains has been translated to screen besides luthor. It airs next thursday and I'm interested to see how it looks.

[TheBatman1979]

Fling
Zack and Miri Make a Porno
Unthinkable
Dead of Night
Table for Three
Miss Nobody
Life is Hot in Cracktown
Stuntmen
Kambakkht Ishq

Glad to have that run down....I' haven't seen a damn one of those.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Abrams won't be involved - already had his shot a few years back. And before anyone pipes in with "Well, they changed all the crazy stuff from his first draft," the fact that he had that to begin with proved (to us nerds aware of the situation and the studio) that he doesn't "get" Superman.

Not to mention, he's got some kind of deal working exclusively with Paramount correct me if I'm wrong.

And...I seriously doubt he's going to want to do another franchise film after Star Trek - God only knows if he'll wind up helming any Trek sequels for that matter...

[Showtime]

Well what about JJ Abrams or Danny Boyle, those two may be good choices to direct.

JJ Abrams would want way to much control, and for even wanting to give Superman a suit in a can he should be deleted from contention.

Danny Boyle would be more on the right track.

[NeoRanger]

that he doesn't "get" Superman.
Weren't the Superman moments in the script, the ones that didn't call for ridiculous deviations from the mythos, supposed to be pretty spot on? That's what the AICN review led me to believe.

[Showtime]

Does the awfulness of the suit in a can and other such stupidity cancel out such moments though?

[NeoRanger]

Absolutely, I'm not defending the script. It's the one of the three canceled Superman projects before SR that I couldn't even sit through reading. I just think that "getting" Superman and writing a good Superman movie are two different things.

[Showtime]

Absolutely, I'm not defending the script. It's the one of the three canceled Superman projects before SR that I couldn't even sit through reading. I just think that "getting" Superman and writing a good Superman movie are two different things.

I think it goes hand in hand. You didn't like Superman Returns from what I have gathered and looking at your complaints it seems to stem from the fact that Bryan Singer didn't get Superman.

[DavidTyler]

It's an entirely other planet, man. Is it supposed to be, seem, or feel "logical" to us?


Let's see ....

Hmmmmm.....

Crystaline planet.

What kind of life form could evolve there? I would have to assume crystaline based. And what's the likelihood that they would evolve to look and feel just like us? We're carbon based. They couldn't possibly look like us. They wouldn't even have flexible skin. They'd be more akin to looking like insects.

But, for arguments sake, let's employ suspension of disbelief -

Let's say they aren't crystaline and look just like us... what do they eat? Donner's crystaline world doesn't show any signs of plant life or other animals. Are the kryptonians cannibals? I'm totally suspending my disbelief that they couldn't actually have evolved into humanoids - let alone evolved into any kind of life form we would recognize - just to entertain this discussion.

It's NOT about forcing a concept to fit our terran forms of logic... being an alien world has NOTHING to do with it. There are certain constants in reality. A life form has to evolve from something. It has to have an environment that would allow it to evolve. It has to have some form of sustainment to survive and grow (albiet either photosynthesis combined with nutrient absorbtion or just plain absorbtion thru consuming nutrients). That means there has to be something on the planet that has those nutrients that the evolving life form can use. I didn't even see water on Donner's Krypton.

In short.. logic is not a thing specific to our Earthly laws.... again being an alien planet is not an excuse for concepts that are completely impossible. Donner's Krypton is just an out and out fantasy akin to Snow White and the Seven Dwarves .... or Dumbo the Flying Elephant.

I didn't buy it when I was a little kid and I expect better now.

[I Am The Knight]

Does the awfulness of the suit in a can and other such stupidity cancel out such moments though?

I would say no. Then again I never read that legendary script, so I can't comment on those Superman moments.

[NeoRanger]

I think it goes hand in hand. You didn't like Superman Returns from what I have gathered and looking at your complaints it seems to stem from the fact that Bryan Singer didn't get Superman.

Not exactly. It stems mostly from Singer restricting the character to his childhood memories of movie Superman. And then going to lengths to make that movie again and disregarding other possibilities and turning in a quite underwhelming result. Truth be told, I don't know if and to what extend Singer understands Superman. His movie never got around to making that clear.

BTW, there was a typo in my previous post; there should be a "not" after "absolutely". Just for clarification's sake.

[Matt]

Let's see ....

Hmmmmm.....

Crystaline planet.

What kind of life form could evolve there? I would have to assume crystaline based. And what's the likelihood that they would evolve to look and feel just like us? We're carbon based. They couldn't possibly look like us. They wouldn't even have flexible skin. They'd be more akin to looking like insects.

But, for arguments sake, let's employ suspension of disbelief -

Let's say they aren't crystaline and look just like us... what do they eat? Donner's crystaline world doesn't show any signs of plant life or other animals. Are the kryptonians cannibals? I'm totally suspending my disbelief that they couldn't actually have evolved into humanoids - let alone evolved into any kind of life form we would recognize - just to entertain this discussion.

It's NOT about forcing a concept to fit our terran forms of logic... being an alien world has NOTHING to do with it. There are certain constants in reality. A life form has to evolve from something. It has to have an environment that would allow it to evolve. It has to have some form of sustainment to survive and grow (albiet either photosynthesis combined with nutrient absorbtion or just plain absorbtion thru consuming nutrients). That means there has to be something on the planet that has those nutrients that the evolving life form can use. I didn't even see water on Donner's Krypton.

In short.. logic is not a thing specific to our Earthly laws.... again being an alien planet is not an excuse for concepts that are completely impossible. Donner's Krypton is just an out and out fantasy akin to Snow White and the Seven Dwarves .... or Dumbo the Flying Elephant.

I didn't buy it when I was a little kid and I expect better now.


Well, with all due respect...you're talking about a movie about an alien who comes to Earth, is raised by hillbillies, puts on blue tights, and then flies around the earth so fast that time reverses? And you're complaining about what a planet that was barely shown looks like?

[Showtime]

Not exactly. It stems mostly from Singer restricting the character to his childhood memories of movie Superman. And then going to lengths to make that movie again and disregarding other possibilities and turning in a quite underwhelming result. Truth be told, I don't know if and to what extend Singer understands Superman. His movie never got around to making that clear.

BTW, there was a typo in my previous post; there should be a "not" after "absolutely". Just for clarification's sake.

Understood but I feel like that is almost the same thing thought. If Singer had "got Superman" he would have realized there is more to him then just the Donner films. That is just my take on it though.

[Anubis]

Let's see ....

Hmmmmm.....

Crystaline planet.

What kind of life form could evolve there? I would have to assume crystaline based. And what's the likelihood that they would evolve to look and feel just like us? We're carbon based. They couldn't possibly look like us. They wouldn't even have flexible skin. They'd be more akin to looking like insects.

But, for arguments sake, let's employ suspension of disbelief -

Let's say they aren't crystaline and look just like us... what do they eat? Donner's crystaline world doesn't show any signs of plant life or other animals. Are the kryptonians cannibals? I'm totally suspending my disbelief that they couldn't actually have evolved into humanoids - let alone evolved into any kind of life form we would recognize - just to entertain this discussion.

It's NOT about forcing a concept to fit our terran forms of logic... being an alien world has NOTHING to do with it. There are certain constants in reality. A life form has to evolve from something. It has to have an environment that would allow it to evolve. It has to have some form of sustainment to survive and grow (albiet either photosynthesis combined with nutrient absorbtion or just plain absorbtion thru consuming nutrients). That means there has to be something on the planet that has those nutrients that the evolving life form can use. I didn't even see water on Donner's Krypton.

In short.. logic is not a thing specific to our Earthly laws.... again being an alien planet is not an excuse for concepts that are completely impossible. Donner's Krypton is just an out and out fantasy akin to Snow White and the Seven Dwarves .... or Dumbo the Flying Elephant.

I didn't buy it when I was a little kid and I expect better now.

Wow. Never thought about it like that. I just didn't like it cuz I thought the crystal stuff looked stupid.

[El Payaso]

Well, with all due respect...you're talking about a movie about an alien who comes to Earth, is raised by hillbillies, puts on blue tights, and then flies around the earth so fast that time reverses? And you're complaining about what a planet that was barely shown looks like?

More than complaining he's doing a brilliant analysis with a solid base. That's how you improve things.

[Nixon]

Why are we just assuming that Donner's Krypton was always the way it was when we saw it? Why are we just assuming that the Kryptonians didn't alter their planet using their crystal based technology at some point? Why are we just assuming that such advanced technology can't provide for the material necessities of the Kryptonians?


Also, if we're going to be so logical, no matter what Krypton you're talking about - Silver Age, Donner, Byrne, Unexploded Abrams version - suspension of disbelief is out the door the second we see Kryptonians that look exactly like humans.

[Antonello Blueberry]

Let's see ....

Hmmmmm.....

Crystaline planet.

....

In short.. logic is not a thing specific to our Earthly laws.... again being an alien planet is not an excuse for concepts that are completely impossible. Donner's Krypton is just an out and out fantasy akin to Snow White and the Seven Dwarves .... or Dumbo the Flying Elephant.

I didn't buy it when I was a little kid and I expect better now.
Funny how people can carry on their theories to the point of thinking they're really intelligent, when they're really not.
Let's say an alien saw a movie set in New York. Do you think he'll start making theories how carbon based life can't be possible in a planet of concrete and steel?
And again, diamond is the crystalline form of what? Carbon?