Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion

[Nixon]

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?



Or get upset that the planet in the movie wasn't at all like the planet he's from and yet those aliens looked exactly like him, ignoring the fact that even in the planets were very similar the changes of that happening are so small as to be impossible.

[mego joe]

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

The only one of those films to have actually been released is Zack and Miri and that just came out a month ago. And we know that's a small cameo role, right? He had not had a film come out since Superman Returns. It was a two year gap- so no, he hasn't done anything in which we could gauge his acting ability beyond what was seen in SR.

[mego joe]

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

Because the only one that's acutally been released is Zack and Miri.

[Antonello Blueberry]

The only one of those films to have actually been released is Zack and Miri and that just came out a month ago. And we know that's a small cameo role, right? He had not had a film come out since Superman Returns. It was a two year gap- so no, he hasn't done anything in which we could gauge his acting ability beyond what was seen in SR.
He was the star of the Fear itself episode Community and that one was aired.

[mego joe]

He was the star of the Fear itself episode Community and that one was aired.

That's right- anybody see it? So we have 2 opportunities post SR to see Brandon showcase his acting ability.

If anyone saw those appearances- Fear Itself and Zack and Miri- could they chime in on his acting ?

It's still been a two year gap since SR.

[FlawlessVictory]

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.

Agreed.

[I Am The Knight]

That's right- anybody see it? So we have 2 opportunities post SR to see Brandon showcase his acting ability.

If anyone saw those appearances- Fear Itself and Zack and Miri- could they chime in on his acting ?

It's still been a two year gap since SR.

I didn't see it (forgot about it) but from what I can recall his work on Comunity was serviceable. He seems to have fared better on Smith's movie, so maybe he has niche in comedy (At least he has said that's what he likes best...Comedy. I'm sure MP can provide a quote or correct me.)

[Antonello Blueberry]

That's right- anybody see it? So we have 2 opportunities post SR to see Brandon showcase his acting ability.

If anyone saw those appearances- Fear Itself and Zack and Miri- could they chime in on his acting ?

It's still been a two year gap since SR.
Well, you know, it's not like movies get released the day after you shoot them.
Anyway "Lie to me (Fling)" was in several festivals and should be in some theaters these days.

[I Am The Knight]

Unthinkable just started shooting. After SR, that will be his second high(er) profile movie...

[Double Down]

That's right- anybody see it? So we have 2 opportunities post SR to see Brandon showcase his acting ability.

If anyone saw those appearances- Fear Itself and Zack and Miri- could they chime in on his acting ?

It's still been a two year gap since SR.

I saw "Fear Itself" and I thought he did just fine, but what I kept thinking was that he was Superman. It was the same thing I thought when I saw Christopher Reeve in his other movies and Dean Cain in his other movies.
And while Routh has done plenty of work since "Superman Returns," the fact that he plays Superman comes into play when he goes for other roles. Every actor who has played Superman has had difficulty finding roles in other projects due to typecasting. That is a fact. When he walks into an audition, the producers see Superman. That will affect whether they will hire him.
Anyway, in the nine years between Superman: The Movie and Superman IV: The Quest For Peace, Reeve did a total of nine movies (including the Superman sequels) and an episode of a TV show. By the end of next year, Routh is set to have done nine movies and an episode of a TV show following Superman Returns. Neither actor had a movie released the year after their debut as Superman.
Those who say Routh can't get work aren't being honest about the situation.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Looks like mego joe has an agenda against Brandon for some reason :o

[hippie_hunter]

The only one of those films to have actually been released is Zack and Miri and that just came out a month ago. And we know that's a small cameo role, right? He had not had a film come out since Superman Returns. It was a two year gap- so no, he hasn't done anything in which we could gauge his acting ability beyond what was seen in SR.

Actually Fling has also been shot and a lot of them are in the process of shooting or are about to shoot.

[I Am The Knight]

I saw "Fear Itself" and I thought he did just fine, but what I kept thinking was that he was Superman. It was the same thing I thought when I saw Christopher Reeve in his other movies and Dean Cain in his other movies.
And while Routh has done plenty of work since "Superman Returns," the fact that he plays Superman comes into play when he goes for other roles. Every actor who has played Superman has had difficulty finding roles in other projects due to typecasting. That is a fact. When he walks into an audition, the producers see Superman. That will affect whether they will hire him.

The people who see Routh in other roles and think "Superman" have problems. Or spend too much time thinking about SR. Same goes for Cain. Especially Cain, since he was awful (:hehe:)

Why does playing Superman affect chances of people hiring you for other roles? I'm really curious. Not trying to be a prick (Although I am one).

[Double Down]

The people who see Routh in other roles and think "Superman" have problems. Or spend too much time thinking about SR. Same goes for Cain. Especially Cain, since he was awful (:hehe:)

Why does playing Superman affect chances of people hiring you for other roles? I'm really curious. Not trying to be a prick (Although I am one).

People who don't understand the simple concept of typecasting have a problem, so I will do for you what your failed education should have done for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typecasting_(acting)

Reeves [was typecast] to such an extent that his large role in From Here to Eternity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Here_to_Eternity) was practically removed from the film after test audiences shouted "There's Superman!" whenever he appeared.

Tom Welling has said he is hesitant to play Superman (in costume) for fear of being typecast.
In Christopher Reeve's obit, it said: "Reeve spent years trying to avoid being typecast in the film industry."
Kirk Alyn played Superman in two Serials in the early 1940s and couldn't get any other work afterwards, because of his Superman connection.

[Double Down]

From CBS News:


Hardship And Typecasting Have Plagued Actors Associated With The Man Of Steel

(CBS) There must be some part of Brandon Routh that has to be completely terrified about the debut of his new movie, "Superman Returns."

For one, the movie has an estimated price tag of more than $200 million — the most expensive film on record — and much of its success is riding on his red cape.
But then there's the curse — the urban legend that actors involved in or starring as the superhero in "Superman" films or its TV shows are cursed by death, hardship, or typecasting.
We all know the tragic story of Christopher Reeve, who played the Man of Steel in the previous generation of "Superman" movies. He battled typecasting, then had to fight a tougher opponent after he was paralyzed in a riding accident in 1995. He died nine years later.
Reeve's Lois Lane, played by actress Margot Kidder, became tabloid fodder when she faced psychological troubles in the 1990's. Multiple sclerosis plagued comedian Richard Pryor, who played Gus Gorman in "Superman III." Marlon Brando, who portrayed Superman's father, Jor-El, had his fair share of health problems.
Going back even further, actor George Reeves, who played Superman in several films and in the TV series that ran from 1952-1958, fought typecasting throughout his career and died of an apparent suicide in 1959.
Playing Superman failed to sufficiently launch the careers of many actors, including Kirk Alyn, a Superman in two post-war movie serials, and actors John Haymes Newton and his successor Gerard Christopher of the "Superboy" TV series.
Dean Cain, who starred with Teri Hatcher in the successful "Lois & Clark" television series, appears frequently in so-so TV movies nowadays. Tom Welling still has his Superman series "Smallville," thanks to the new network The CW — but his celeb wattage is only moderately bright.
Just like Reeve, Routh was a virtual unknown when he was cast as Clark Kent in this much-anticipated project. The lead role was notoriously difficult to cast.
Perhaps the curse crossed Routh's mind before he signed on the dotted line?

[I Am The Knight]

People who don't understand the simple concept of typecasting have a problem, so I will do for you what your failed education should have done for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typecasting_(acting)

Reeves [was typecast] to such an extent that his large role in From Here to Eternity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Here_to_Eternity) was practically removed from the film after test audiences shouted "There's Superman!" whenever he appeared.

Tom Welling has said he is hesitant to play Superman (in costume) for fear of being typecast.
In Christopher Reeve's obit, it said: "Reeve spent years trying to avoid being typecast in the film industry."
Kirk Alyn played Superman in two Serials in the early 1940s and couldn't get any other work afterwards, because of his Superman connection.

I'm well aware of the typecasting issue. My point was that it shouldn't be an issue, as I'd like to think intelligent people would be able to separate the man from the actor, but I guess general audiences (and you) cannot process such requests.

[Double Down]

You asked: "Why does playing Superman affect chances of people hiring you for other roles?"

I answered your question. If you actually understood the concept of typecasting, you wouldn't ask the question.
People want unknowns to play certain roles, such as Superman. When you see a Superman movie, you want to see Superman, not Nicholas Cage in a Superman costume, for example. It stands to reason that if you watch a Superman movie, starring an unknown, then you see Superman. But when that same actor goes to another movie, but still looks the same, you will still see Superman. This isn't a difficult concept for anyone but you.
It has happened to hundreds of actors, such as Lou Ferrigno, Lynda Carter, Adam West, etc.
It isn't a matter of intelligence for me and the general audience, it is a matter of association.

[I Am The Knight]

You asked: "Why does playing Superman affect chances of people hiring you for other roles?"

I answered your question. If you actually understood the concept of typecasting, you wouldn't ask the question.
People want unknowns to play certain roles, such as Superman. When you see a Superman movie, you want to see Superman, not Nicholas Cage in a Superman costume, for example. It stands to reason that if you watch a Superman movie, starring an unknown, then you see Superman. But when that same actor goes to another movie, but still looks the same, you will still see Superman. This isn't a difficult concept for anyone but you.
It has happened to hundreds of actors, such as Lou Ferrigno, Lynda Carter, Adam West, etc.
It isn't a matter of intelligence for me and the general audience, it is a matter of association.

Again, my point stands. It shouldn't be an issue because people should be able to see the actor (if there's more to the actor than one note performances) not just the character he played. I am not talking about what is, but what should be.

[Double Down]

Again, my point stands. It shouldn't be an issue because people should be able to see the actor (if there's more to the actor than one note performances) not just the character he played. I am not talking about what is, but what should be.

Well, sure. Yoda has been typecast, too.

[I Am The Knight]

Well, sure. Yoda has been typecast, too.

Please, keep Yoda out of this.

[hippie_hunter]

Again, my point stands. It shouldn't be an issue because people should be able to see the actor (if there's more to the actor than one note performances) not just the character he played. I am not talking about what is, but what should be.

It shouldn't be an issue but in reality it is. Every Superman actor has been typecasted so it really isn't a surprise that Routh will be as well.

At least Bale managed to not get typecasted.

[Antonello Blueberry]

It shouldn't be an issue but in reality it is. Every Superman actor has been typecasted so it really isn't a surprise that Routh will be as well.

At least Bale managed to not get typecasted.
Bale has been acting in so many different roles since he was 12. Difficult for him to be typecast.

[Double Down]

It shouldn't be an issue but in reality it is. Every Superman actor has been typecasted so it really isn't a surprise that Routh will be as well.

At least Bale managed to not get typecasted.

Keaton, Kilmer and Clooney avoided it as well. The theory is that Batman's cowl helps, whereas Superman has no mask.

[I Am The Knight]

Keaton, Kilmer and Clooney avoided it as well. The theory is that Batman's cowl helps, whereas Superman has no mask.

I would say it does help.

[The Batman]

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

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

I'm glad you do...and when did i say i was a true batfan?

[The Guard]

If anything, playing Superman made Routh more marketable than he would ever have been before. This isn't a man who was going to get noticed for his sheer talent or unique appearance in Hollywood.

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.

Donner/Singer's Krypton is not neccessarily a crystalline planet, I don't think. The crystals are the technology and building method that the Kryptonians developed to use to make it appear as such, with their cities, buildings, etc. But yes, it's a fantasy world.

Maybe they grew and ate rock candy.

Mmm...

[Lighthouse]

The key to not getting typecast is keep doing mainstream movies, and doing good performances in them, even if they suck. Look at Hugh Jackman, he appeared in crap like Someone Like You and Swordfish, but he kept working outside his Wolverine role in mainstream films, so that the audience would get used to him just as Hugh Jackman. Daniel Craig worries about typecasting, but I don't think it'll be a problem for him either, because he keeps working with big directors in mainstream roles. Brandon Routh did Superman, and then did nothing of real consequence afterwards, so he's kind of stuck with that Superman title. George Reeves and Tom Welling had/will have it worse because they're TV actors, and not only do they appear in the same role week after week, but busy TV shooting will keep them from doing other roles.

[mego joe]

Looks like mego joe has an agenda against Brandon for some reason :o

The only agenda is that I would prefer a total break with a reboot as opposed to a Routhboot and pointing out that there has not been much work by which to judge Routh's abilities beyond SR. It's certainly nothing against Routh personally, I just don't see him as iconic in the role or irreplacable. I see him as servicable at best and I believe another actor could easily do a better job, especially if they aren't going to use the Reeve Impersonation as the characterization for the next Superman film.

[DavidTyler]

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?

Ever been to NYC? There are trees, lower animals, and deli's. I seriously doubt an alien visiting Earth during the filming of a movie in NYC would have any confusion over our ability to survive ... or thinking that it's all concrete and steel.

...and you're little insult was noted and not appreciated. I don't call anyone else here 'stupid' and I expect an apology from you.

[DavidTyler]

..........................



Donner/Singer's Krypton is not neccessarily a crystalline planet, I don't think. The crystals are the technology and building method that the Kryptonians developed to use to make it appear as such, with their cities, buildings, etc. But yes, it's a fantasy world.

Maybe they grew and ate rock candy.

Mmm...


LOL. So I guess dentists were the highest form of life on Krypton?

Seriously though, we saw the planet from space and it was consistantly that pale bluish-white. When we zoomed in for a close-up, there were no signs of anything but that icy looking landscape. If there had been places on Krypton that constituted something other than crystaline landscapes, I'm thinking we would have seen hints of it as we zoomed in from space.

As to the point someone else raised about the Kryptonians altering (read here 'terraforming') their homeworld to be crystaline I can only raise an eyebrow and some more questions:

Why would they destroy a landscape that provided their biological needs?

This was a concept I entertained for a few moments while watching the Kryptonian scenes from the first film. I arrived at the same conclusion then that I do now. It's not feasable to the point of being a Disney fantasy.

I really want the film makers of the next film to revisit and make more intelligent decisions when defining Superman's universe.

Yes, I know that Superman being able to fly and do all those fantastic things is basically .. yes ... fantasy... but we can ground enough of it in reality to make it believable. That's really all Nolan did with the Batman franchise. There are a lot of implausable ideas in his take on that character and his world but he did his best to add enough realism (or hyper-realism) to sell this less believable ideas.

[DavidTyler]

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?

If we had seen patches of green on the planet, I might have bought it. They could even have had beautiful crystaline structures that were obviously not a thing of nature and I would have bought that the Kryptonians had terraformed their world (of course, they would still have needed to show what their food source was).We didn't. All we saw was a consistant landscape of that icy white crystaline material. The Kryptonians even built their homes in carved out holes in the sides of crystaline cliffs.

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.

Actually, maybe not.

I read a book by James Blish a long time ago called 'The Seedling Stars'. It was about a race of beings who took it upon themselves to sow the beginnings of intelligent life throughout the galaxy. They took bits of genetic material and adapted it to whatever environment they were to leave the new race of being in. The genetic code of that material would define how they develop. In the book, most of the life forms were fairly similar humanoid forms.

The same thing could have happened in the DC universe to explain why there are so many humanoids races throughout the stars.

[Nixon]

So, you don't see a bit of a double standard in what you just did there?

[DavidTyler]

So, you don't see a bit of a double standard in what you just did there?

Not really. Could you help me to see that?

[wellsy]

LOL. So I guess dentists were the highest form of life on Krypton?

Seriously though, we saw the planet from space and it was consistantly that pale bluish-white. When we zoomed in for a close-up, there were no signs of anything but that icy looking landscape. If there had been places on Krypton that constituted something other than crystaline landscapes, I'm thinking we would have seen hints of it as we zoomed in from space.

As to the point someone else raised about the Kryptonians altering (read here 'terraforming') their homeworld to be crystaline I can only raise an eyebrow and some more questions:

Why would they destroy a landscape that provided their biological needs?

This was a concept I entertained for a few moments while watching the Kryptonian scenes from the first film. I arrived at the same conclusion then that I do now. It's not feasable to the point of being a Disney fantasy.

I really want the film makers of the next film to revisit and make more intelligent decisions when defining Superman's universe.

Yes, I know that Superman being able to fly and do all those fantastic things is basically .. yes ... fantasy... but we can ground enough of it in reality to make it believable. That's really all Nolan did with the Batman franchise. There are a lot of implausable ideas in his take on that character and his world but he did his best to add enough realism (or hyper-realism) to sell this less believable ideas.
As far as I can see, there isn't too much of a problem with Krypton being the way it is in the Donner films. There's this little planet called Coruscant in the Star Wars universe. I think a few people live there.

Oh, and they concreted the whole planet.

So, what's to stop the Kryptonians from doing something similar to Krypton. Who's to say it always looked like that.

OR

What if the Kryptonians are the descendents of colonists?

If you give it thought, it can be made to work. Frankly, I don't really care much either way, since it hardly has any impact on the story.

[Lighthouse]

Its really about special effects. I think the crystalized Krypton envisioned in the Donner universe could be fine, but at the end of the day, it looks like a lifeless model. Modern day effects would make it look much better.

[Nixon]

Not really. Could you help me to see that?

If you were willing to put about half as much energy into explaining how crystal Krypton works as you were into explaining how come Kryptonians and Terrans look exactly the same you'd probably have been able to arrive at a pretty good explanation.

Why did they alter a planet that was already providing for them? Well, why do we do it? Why would anybody? Likely because they arrogantly assumed that what they could build would be better than what nature provided.

Where does their food come from? Well, assuming they don't just use some matter/energy/matter replicator system (and there's no reason to think they couldn't) or just get energy enough to survive from the red sun (does Superman need to eat?), how about a hydroponic vertical farm (http://www.verticalfarm.com/)? If we can grow food in our cities, why can't the Kryptonians with all their vast technologies grow it in theirs?

[darthlaney]

They aren't going to change how Krypton looks - its established in both the movies and the comics now.

Long live the Donnerverse!!

[The Guard]

Something akin to rock candy makes perfect sense. But seriously, just because we can't see their food, doesn't mean they don't have it. It's probably just grown in climate-controlled indoor farms that we didn't get to see. It's not like we saw inside all those crystalline structures.

I've always liked the idea of "seeding" to explain how Kryptonians and humans look the same. You can do a lot with that, and the religous themes inherent in the Superman mythology.

[The Guard]

Something akin to rock candy, with a bit more nutriontial value, makes perfect sense. But seriously, just because we can't see their food, doesn't mean they don't have it. It's probably just grown in climate-controlled indoor farms that we didn't get to see. It's not like we saw inside all those crystalline structures.

I've always liked the idea of "seeding" to explain how Kryptonians and humans look the same. You can do a lot with that, and the religous themes inherent in the Superman mythology.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Lex Luthor explained in SR that Kryptonian technology is based on crystals, so it makes sense that crystals would be everywere on the planet just like human technology is everywere on ours.

[DavidTyler]

If you were willing to put about half as much energy into explaining how crystal Krypton works as you were into explaining how come Kryptonians and Terrans look exactly the same you'd probably have been able to arrive at a pretty good explanation.

Because I can see the organic logic of life forms being molded to fit an environment that could possibly sustain them. There is no logic, however, to a life form similar to ours evolving on a barren rock ... which is basically what a crystaline planet is.

Donner made his choice of a crystaline planet as an artistic choice ... not from any standpoint of feasability.

Why did they alter a planet that was already providing for them? Well, why do we do it?

'Cuz we really don't alter the planet in a way that makes it uninhabitable. We screw it up, sure, but we haven't damaged the planet to the point of annihilation. That's why there are so many people who raise the red flag and stop us.

Why would anybody? Likely because they arrogantly assumed that what they could build would be better than what nature provided.

You make a very interesting argument here. I can see them being very arrogant in how they terraform their world. It wouldn't, however, be possible for them to change their world that drastically without seriously impairing the ability of the people to sustain themselves. In essence, the Kryptonian race would have been extinct before the world itself ever blew up.

Where does their food come from? Well, assuming they don't just use some matter/energy/matter replicator system (and there's no reason to think they couldn't) or just get energy enough to survive from the red sun (does Superman need to eat?), how about a hydroponic vertical farm (http://www.verticalfarm.com/)? If we can grow food in our cities, why can't the Kryptonians with all their vast technologies grow it in theirs?[/QUOTE]


This isn't a bad concept but how did they evolve to the point where they Could create hydroponic gardens without food to sustain them until?


Although I can kind of see where you're going.

Correct me if I'm wrong - You're suggesting that the Kryptonians evolved on a world full of living food sources such as plants and lower species animals until reaching maturity as a species themselves. At that time, they began terraforming their world and developing alternate food sources - to the point where the lower animals and plants were no longer needed.

[DavidTyler]

Something akin to rock candy makes perfect sense. But seriously, just because we can't see their food, doesn't mean they don't have it. It's probably just grown in climate-controlled indoor farms that we didn't get to see. It's not like we saw inside all those crystalline structures.

I've always liked the idea of "seeding" to explain how Kryptonians and humans look the same. You can do a lot with that, and the religous themes inherent in the Superman mythology.

Something akin to rock candy, with a bit more nutriontial value, makes perfect sense. But seriously, just because we can't see their food, doesn't mean they don't have it. It's probably just grown in climate-controlled indoor farms that we didn't get to see. It's not like we saw inside all those crystalline structures.

I've always liked the idea of "seeding" to explain how Kryptonians and humans look the same. You can do a lot with that, and the religous themes inherent in the Superman mythology.

One more time... with feeling....

(You're love is like Bad Medicine..... oh, sorry. Got carried away.

[mego joe]

They aren't going to change how Krypton looks - its established in both the movies and the comics now.

Long live the Donnerverse!!

Not necessarily. IIRC, the Krypton in the comics today utilizes looks from many different versions of KRypton.

[Superark]

I cannot believe there is an argument over the realism and logic of Donner's Krypton or any version Krypton for that matter.

It's a comic book movie people! A movie about an alien with super powers from a fictitous planet.

I'm mean c'mon if you don't like the way Krypton looks then fine, that's understandable. But arguing whether or not it makes sense, get real...

[El Payaso]

edit

[Crook]

I cannot believe there is an argument over the realism and logic of Donner's Krypton or any version Krypton for that matter.

It's a comic book movie people! A movie about an alien with super powers from a fictitous planet.

I'm mean c'mon if you don't like the way Krypton looks then fine, that's understandable. But arguing whether or not it makes sense, get real...
This isn't strictly a reference to the aforementioned crystal planet, but regardless of whether you're dealing in a fantasy genre, there is a difference between suspending disbelief and completely throwing logic out the window.

Making up a lame excuse of "oh, it's not real so ANYTHING's possible" lacks creative thought.

[I Am The Knight]

Something akin to rock candy, with a bit more nutriontial value, makes perfect sense.

Hah :woot:

[Nixon]

This isn't a bad concept but how did they evolve to the point where they Could create hydroponic gardens without food to sustain them until?


Although I can kind of see where you're going.

Correct me if I'm wrong - You're suggesting that the Kryptonians evolved on a world full of living food sources such as plants and lower species animals until reaching maturity as a species themselves. At that time, they began terraforming their world and developing alternate food sources - to the point where the lower animals and plants were no longer needed.


Sort of.

I mean, that they decided to use all their science to transform their world into something they deemed better, its natural state be damned, is certainly one possibility. It'd be along the same lines as what Bryne's Kryptonians did with their genetic engineering technology only on a planetary scale.

Another possibility is that Krypton was once a very different, much greener, wetter planet until the same forces that eventually caused it to blow up also altered its climate and geography and transformed it into the barren world we got a glimpse of before its destruction. What we saw of the Kryptonians - their sealed off crystal cities, indoor climate controled farms, etc - was simply how their society evolved over a millenia or two to deal with the planet's altered climate.

What I was really getting at though wasn't either of those explanations, but rather, the idea that if we were to apply the same creativity to the problem of how Kryptonians lived on Donner's Krypton that we did to the problem of why Terrans and Kryptonians look alike we could find a way to have it "make sense."

[Mostpowerful]

As far as I can see, there isn't too much of a problem with Krypton being the way it is in the Donner films. There's this little planet called Coruscant in the Star Wars universe. I think a few people live there.

Oh, and they concreted the whole planet.

So, what's to stop the Kryptonians from doing something similar to Krypton. Who's to say it always looked like that.

OR

What if the Kryptonians are the descendents of colonists?

If you give it thought, it can be made to work. Frankly, I don't really care much either way, since it hardly has any impact on the story.

Bingo. :cwink:



If you were willing to put about half as much energy into explaining how crystal Krypton works as you were into explaining how come Kryptonians and Terrans look exactly the same you'd probably have been able to arrive at a pretty good explanation.

Why did they alter a planet that was already providing for them? Well, why do we do it? Why would anybody? Likely because they arrogantly assumed that what they could build would be better than what nature provided.

Where does their food come from? Well, assuming they don't just use some matter/energy/matter replicator system (and there's no reason to think they couldn't) or just get energy enough to survive from the red sun (does Superman need to eat?), how about a hydroponic vertical farm (http://www.verticalfarm.com/)? If we can grow food in our cities, why can't the Kryptonians with all their vast technologies grow it in theirs?

They aren't going to change how Krypton looks - its established in both the movies and the comics now.

Long live the Donnerverse!! [quote]

YES! And I so hope you're right. IMO, Superman's crystal technology is iconic and a very recognizable part of the character's mythology now.






[quote=AVEITWITHJAMON;15981785]^Lex Luthor explained in SR that Kryptonian technology is based on crystals, so it makes sense that crystals would be everywere on the planet just like human technology is everywere on ours.

Sort of.

I mean, that they decided to use all their science to transform their world into something they deemed better, its natural state be damned, is certainly one possibility. It'd be along the same lines as what Bryne's Kryptonians did with their genetic engineering technology only on a planetary scale.

Another possibility is that Krypton was once a very different, much greener, wetter planet until the same forces that eventually caused it to blow up also altered its climate and geography and transformed it into the barren world we got a glimpse of before its destruction. What we saw of the Kryptonians - their sealed off crystal cities, indoor climate controled farms, etc - was simply how their society evolved over a millenia or two to deal with the planet's altered climate.

What I was really getting at though wasn't either of those explanations, but rather, the idea that if we were to apply the same creativity to the problem of how Kryptonians lived on Donner's Krypton that we did to the problem of why Terrans and Kryptonians look alike we could find a way to have it "make sense."

VERY interesting stuff, guys!

[Superark]

This isn't strictly a reference to the aforementioned crystal planet, but regardless of whether you're dealing in a fantasy genre, there is a difference between suspending disbelief and completely throwing logic out the window.

Making up a lame excuse of "oh, it's not real so ANYTHING's possible" lacks creative thought.


I'm not saying all logic should be thrown out the window, merely stating that some folks on this board are over analyzing this stuff a tad much and taking it little too seriously.

[NeoRanger]

Excuse me, does it matter one bit how much sense crystal Krypton does or does not make? It's not like the audiences will give a crap about the science behind an alien planet that's merely a few minutes of the film (if at all). If people bought Parker climbing walls just because his hands get all "hairy and sticky", they'll buy weird-looking alien worlds.

Having said that, crystals and the Donnerverse is a dangerous precedent that has haunted Superman for a bit too long (and, thanks to much involved idiocy in DC, still does to an extend). And that's why we have to move away from it. It's sad, depressing for a Superman fan, to believe that all they can do with the character and his world is that one thing that guy -however talented- did 30 years ago. That should be enough reason to discard the Donnerverse in the next movie, whatever that is; reboot, routhboot, quasi-reboot.

[Meus]

Superman, to me, is probably the most difficult project to take to critical acclaim or box office success. I hope it happens, but I don't have any expectations.

[DavidTyler]

I don't think it's that hard at all. The problem is that the studios and the film makers absolutely refuse to think of him as a science fiction character and to explore that angle.

They insist on thinking of him as the iconic superhero without understanding that's only the beginning.

Take Superman into a ID4/Star Wars type film and you have it. You can pull in Darkseid. You can do a Brainiac story. You can even do more terrestrial stories with things like Intergang.

Once you let go of the ongoing 'Lex Luthor' stories where he's this mad scientist plotting land grabs, you can engage the audience with new (to them - not us long time comix fans) adversaries and plot-lines.

But first and foremost - retreading the Donnerverse will only lead to more yawns from the general public and poor Box Office.

[I Am The Knight]

Excuse me, does it matter one bit how much sense crystal Krypton does or does not make? It's not like the audiences will give a crap about the science behind an alien planet that's merely a few minutes of the film (if at all). If people bought Parker climbing walls just because his hands get all "hairy and sticky", they'll buy weird-looking alien worlds.

THANK you. It was purely an aesthetic decision, I'm sure. In a sci-fi scenario in the 70's.

[SatEL]

Superman, to me, is probably the most difficult project to take to critical acclaim or box office success. I hope it happens, but I don't have any expectations.


No not really and thats the painful part WB is acting like this is rocket science when its in fact extremly simple. Superman has all the elements movie goers crave its just about implimentation. There is action, romance,conflict and development in a Superman story as well as much more. Dam it they should let me handle a Superman movie I gurantee when I am done fanboys and general movie goers alike will cream their pants.

[regwec]

It is probably more difficult to market than to make a good Superman film, because there you have to overcome the most powerful of all human emotions- cynicism.

[Showtime]

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55950


Factor 5 president Julian Eggebrecht is holding his head high about his studio in the wake of the collapse of publisher Brash Entertainment.

"We are working on several projects, both multi-platform as well as single-platform titles for the Wii which you will hear a lot more about very soon," Eggebrecht told MTV Multiplayer.

As for the unannounced Superman game in the works at Factor 5, Eggebrecht all but confirmed the game's existence. "One of our large-scale multi-platform projects was started with Brash because it is a dream property for us, hasn't been given its dues in gaming since the Atari 2600, and has a huge universe to draw from," said the executive, referring to the 1979 Superman game for Atari's console.

Brash was started in March 2007 with the purpose of cranking out movie tie-in games, described by co-founder Burt Ellis as "the safest, most lucrative way to sell a video game." Much of the firm's start-up $400 million investment "dried up" in the current credit crisis.

Adding to the publisher's troubles, quality concerns inspired a spate of high-profile departures after games licensed on Alvin and the Chipmunks and the Fox movie Jumper both flopped at retail and garnered poor ratings.

"Things are obviously in flux and we hope that the game proves to be as indestructible as our hero," hinted Eggebrecht.

[SatEL]

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55950

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm Superman 64, Man of Steel on the Xbox, Superman the animated series on the ps2, and Superman Returns multi platform....................what do all these games have in common?

[FilmNerdJamie]

They sucked?

[NeoRanger]

I've heard "Shadow of Apokolips" is decent. But yeah, the rest sucked. Actually, the 2600 game sucked too. The only Superman game I've remotely enjoyed was the old arcade.

[I Am The Knight]

Will it overcome the "Superman Curse"? :hehe:

[solidsnake86]

Wow, were almost three months past that original announcement and there is still zero news. Captain america, for a movie thats three years away, has announced a director and now writers. Given that movie is a very large piece to the even larger puzzle that is avengers. I would say its very early for them to be announcing that stuff, or they're just trying to get everything before TDK comes back into the spotlight with the dvd. I'm honestly baffled at how well wb is keeping everything pretty tight. Either that or they are really doing nothing new.

[Dark Knight]

I don't think it's that hard at all. The problem is that the studios and the film makers absolutely refuse to think of him as a science fiction character and to explore that angle.

They insist on thinking of him as the iconic superhero without understanding that's only the beginning.

Take Superman into a ID4/Star Wars type film and you have it. You can pull in Darkseid. You can do a Brainiac story. You can even do more terrestrial stories with things like Intergang.

Once you let go of the ongoing 'Lex Luthor' stories where he's this mad scientist plotting land grabs, you can engage the audience with new (to them - not us long time comix fans) adversaries and plot-lines.

But first and foremost - retreading the Donnerverse will only lead to more yawns from the general public and poor Box Office.



Agreed!

[SatEL]

They sucked?

Yep.

[TheBatman1979]

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55950

They should just give the next Superman game to Eidos Interactive like they did with Batman. That game looks fantastic. Think of what they could do with Superman.

[RachelDawes]

It is probably more difficult to market than to make a good Superman film, because there you have to overcome the most powerful of all human emotions- cynicism.

The studio should dial down its expectations for the reboot or preboot or whatever they make. If the first movie is sufficiently good then it'll sell the sequel. Nevertheless, I think they'll have to resign themselves to the fact that no Superman movie is likely going to make TDK numbers.

[Retroman]

Writer Dennis Hopeless and Artist Kevin Mellon of the Graphic Novel Gearhead talk about the proposed darker Superman.

November 23rd, 2008

RS - This one is a bit off the subject,.. WB is trying to make another SUPERMAN Movie but with a much “darker” tone… What is your guys’ take on that??

K - I loved Superman Returns. I thought it was a perfect Superman movie. If they make the next one darker? Fine with me as long as Bryan Singer is still doing it.

D - The important thing is that they make a good movie. I liked RETURNS because it did exactly what it was trying to do and it did that really well. I can imagine liking a Superman movie with a different tone just as much. So long as it’s done well. I have a hard time discounting any idea without seeing it executed.Source:http://www.ramasscreen.com/2008/11/23/interview-gearhead-comic-writer-dennis-hopeless-and-artist-kevin-mellon/

[I SEE SPIDEY]

They lost me after they said that the "loved" Superman Returns.

[Double Down]

I really like Mellon's art, so that's cool to hear, Retroman.

[Sawyer]

They lost me after they said that the "loved" Superman Returns.

Yeah, anyone who thinks SR is a perfect Superman movie is clearly out of their damn mind.

[NeoRanger]

They lost me after they said that the "loved" Superman Returns.

You should've kept reading. It gets worse:

Fine with me as long as Bryan Singer is still doing it.

I assume he won't go anywhere near the next movie if Singer isn't doing it?

[Superark]

Yeah, anyone who thinks SR is a perfect Superman movie is clearly out of their damn mind.

I guess I'm out of my darn mind then...:wow:

[Sawyer]

I guess I'm out of my darn mind then...:wow:

If you think Superman Returns was the perfect Superman movie, then yes, you are.

If you want to say you like it, fine.
If you want to say it's a great film, alright.
But the perfect Superman movie? Really?

[Showtime]

If you think Superman Returns was the perfect Superman movie, then yes, you are.

If you want to say you like it, fine.
If you want to say it's a great film, alright.
But the perfect Superman movie? Really?

Actually it is a matter of opinion. That's like saying somebody is out of their darn mind if they hated it. Same difference.

[Sawyer]

Actually it is a matter of opinion. That's like saying somebody is out of their darn mind if they hated it. Same difference.

Yeah, but come on, its Superman flippin' Returns! Bryan Singer turned that thing into a damn soap opera! Kate Bosworth was a terrible Lois! Routh probably got the part for the fact that he looks and sounds just like Reeve, instead of acting prowress! And dont even get me started on Jason...

[I Am The Knight]

I guess I'm out of my darn mind then...:wow:

I don't think it's the perfect Superman movie, seeing as how that movie has yet to be made, but I sure as hell love it.

[Superark]

If you think Superman Returns was the perfect Superman movie, then yes, you are.

If you want to say you like it, fine.
If you want to say it's a great film, alright.
But the perfect Superman movie? Really?

Actually it is a matter of opinion. That's like saying somebody is out of their darn mind if they hated it. Same difference.


I was kidding around LSM. But I do think SR is a great, near perfect movie. I actually don't think any superhero movie has been perfect.

Well said Showtime! To each their own.

[Showtime]

Yeah, but come on, its Superman flippin' Returns! Bryan Singer turned that thing into a damn soap opera! Kate Bosworth was a terrible Lois! Routh probably got the part for the fact that he looks and sounds just like Reeve, instead of acting prowress! And dont even get me started on Jason...

No problem to feel that way, but it still can never be fact.

[Sawyer]

No problem to feel that way, but it still can never be fact.

Yeah, alright....

Either way, I'll still never forgive Bryan Singer for getting my hopes up.

[I Am The Knight]

Yeah, alright....

Either way, I'll still never forgive myself for getting my hopes up.

There.

[Sawyer]

Huh? :huh:

EDIT: Oh, never mind, I see what you did.

But, no... Bryan Singer tricked me into thinking this would be a Superman epic, but he gave me a Superman soap opera. I'm not going to say i'm completely innocent in getting my hopes up, after all it was only a teaser. But it was mostly him.

[SuperDaniel]

The perfect superhero has been made already and it is called Dark Knight. It is as perfect as a Batman movie as you'll get.

Now to those who put SR in the same league is just not only out of their mind but it is hilarious because it is such a bad taste in movies.

[I Am The Knight]

Huh? :huh:

EDIT: Oh, never mind, I see what you did.

But, no... Bryan Singer tricked me into thinking this would be a Superman epic, but he gave me a Superman soap opera. I'm not going to say i'm completely innocent in getting my hopes up, after all it was only a teaser. But it was mostly him.

OK :hehe: I know what you mean. Tim Story "tricked me" I suppose, into believing FF2 would be a good movie :oldrazz:

[Ultimate_Superman]

OK :hehe: I know what you mean. Tim Story "tricked me" I suppose, into believing FF2 would be a good movie :oldrazz:Well that's your own fault you should have known better after they said GINO was going to be a cloud. I pity no man or woman who spent money on that movie.

[I Am The Knight]

Well that's your own fault you should have known better after they said GINO was going to be a cloud. I pity no man or woman who spent money on that movie.

Yes - I brought the "it's your own fault" point myself just a few posts above, thank you :whatever: I thought FF2 might be good by seeing the first teaser depicting The Human Torch chasing The Silver Surfer, as silly as that was in retrospect. I knew next to nothing about the movie at that point.

[Ultimate_Superman]

As far as them saying Superman Returns was a good movie. IMO it was a great movie was it perfect? Far from it but it was a good Superman movie if you are following the Donner movies. I mean I was not disappointed and I do think given a lower budget like it originally had it would have done well at the box office and I think a sequel could work given that they fix the problems of Returns. I however think Singer pinned himself in a corner with Jason and no matter how you look at it the outcome wouldn't be to good which is the only reason why I want a reboot. Had Jason not been in the movie I would have loved to see a sequel because everything in the first movie could have been fixed with Lois breaking off her engagement, the government letting Lex out of jail to help them take down whatever the next super villain is and in turn starting up Lexcorp (for the people who wanted to see that), The effects of New Krypton could have been dealt with in the sequel. See Superman Returns had so many possibilities had it no been for Jason IMO.

[Ultimate_Superman]

Yes - I brought the "it's your own fault" point myself just a few posts above, thank you :whatever: I thought FF2 might be good by seeing the first teaser depicting The Human Torch chasing The Silver Surfer, as silly as that was in retrospect. I knew next to nothing about the movie at that point.I almost feel for that trick then I read more about the movie and my eyes were open.

[Dark Knight]

The perfect superhero has been made already and it is called Dark Knight. It is as perfect as a Batman movie as you'll get.




:applaud :batman:

[Dark Knight]

I knew next to nothing about the movie at that point.



Same here! :o

[Mostpowerful]

I really like Mellon's art, so that's cool to hear, Retroman.

Yes, thanks for that, Retro! And what type of art does this guy Mellon does? Is he well-known? And what about Dennis Hopeless, is he a famous writer or something? I really want to know, so if anybody here knows more about them, please tell! lol

I was kidding around LSM. But I do think SR is a great, near perfect movie. I actually don't think any superhero movie has been perfect.

Well said Showtime! To each their own.

AGREED 100%. My rating to SR is 9.5 out of 10. I like it that much, there is very little I'd do differently to improve it.

Really, very few movies, if any, could be considered as 'perfect'.

[Nightwing1977]

They lost me after they said that the "loved" Superman Returns.

Hey!! :p

Thought I has no problem with them loving SR, but I disagree that they think it should be darker. I want it lighter...with Singer. :D :D

Yeah, anyone who thinks SR is a perfect Superman movie is clearly out of their damn mind.

What wrong with people who have different opinion on what they think it is perfect & what isn't? You're not going to find everyone who think differently. It just how it is.

The perfect superhero has been made already and it is called Dark Knight. It is as perfect as a Batman movie as you'll get.

That I can agree with. I love TDK & think it one of the best comic book movie ever made so far.

Now to those who put SR in the same league is just not only out of their mind but it is hilarious because it is such a bad taste in movies.

It's their opinions. Ever heard of "agree to disagree"? You can disagree & respect it without thinking people are out of their mind or it's hilarious because your opinion is different than their. Just be respectful, ok?

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^I see things never change around here then, why cant people who didnt like SR JUST ACCEPT that a lot of people, including myself, loved the movie and thought it was a great Superman movie. For ****s sake just get over it.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

You know I think that people have a right to like what film they like and I respect their opinions.

I have a hard time understanding how anybody could like say.... Hellboy 2 but...I respect that opinion.;)

[Showtime]

^I see things never change around here then, why cant people who didnt like SR JUST ACCEPT that a lot of people, including myself, loved the movie and thought it was a great Superman movie. For ****s sake just get over it.

Probably the same time that people accept that people didn't like it or hated it. Which means...never. Things will never change unfortunately. Thats life on any forum for you.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

You know I think that people have a right to like what film they like and I respect their opinions.

I have a hard time understanding how anybody could like say.... Hellboy 2 but...I respect that opinion.;)

Ha ha, you mean, that movie that has a 88% Fresh rating on RT and was loved by the majority of fans? In fact the only person that I know who didnt like the movie was.......................you!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :cwink: :woot:.

Probably the same time that people accept that people didn't like it or hated it. Which means...never. Things will never change unfortunately. Thats life on any forum for you.

Its just so frustrating coming here to discuss things and then ending up having to defend or justify your opinion. And it seems to primarily be the Superman boards. Sr has very little to do with the next movie it seems, so why keep bringing it up? I dont envy the job you moderators do on here Show

[Superark]

You know I think that people have a right to like what film they like and I respect their opinions.

I have a hard time understanding how anybody could like say.... Hellboy 2 but...I respect that opinion.;)

Ha ha, you mean, that movie that has a 88% Fresh rating on RT and was loved by the majority of fans? In fact the only person that I know who didnt like the movie was.......................you!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :cwink: :woot:.



Its just so frustrating coming here to discuss things and then ending up having to defend or justify your opinion. And it seems to primarily be the Superman boards. Sr has very little to do with the next movie it seems, so why keep bringing it up? I dont envy the job you moderators do on here Show


You're not alone Spidey, I couldn't stand Hellboy 2 either! :yay:

That was very disappointing for me since I thought the first movie was one of the better comic book films.

[Superman Prime]

^I see things never change around here then, why cant people who didnt like SR JUST ACCEPT that a lot of people, including myself, loved the movie and thought it was a great Superman movie. For ****s sake just get over it.

What Showtime said.

SR truly did split the fanbase. If only the film had reached an almost objective level of "good" like TDK. The fanbase for that movie is universal, with people who dislike it being a tiny fringe group.

I hope the next Superman film can do that. That's what the franchise needs.

[RachelDawes]

What Showtime said.

SR truly did split the fanbase. If only the film had reached an almost objective level of "good" like TDK. The fanbase for that movie is universal, with people who dislike it being a tiny fringe group.

I hope the next Superman film can do that. That's what the franchise needs.

A split fanbase is the worst of all possible worlds. Even if SR had been reviled at least everyone would be on the same page in regards to a reboot. As it is, SR lovers and haters and Routh and Welling fans are constantly at one another's throats. It's depressing.

[solidsnake86]

The thing with the batman series right now is this, if you really disliked TDK that much than you have to ask yourself if you like the batman character. I mean sure, there are the minor gripes of being permawhite and taking the gothic out, but they nailed characterization.

Superman is a tad different, theres smallville fans who love smallville and thats it, there are STM fans who swear buy it, and than there are the comic fans. You also have a mix of people who like aspects from each, but the point im getting at here is that there are so many types of fans.

I guarantee you though, if they had just done an origin to begin with, they even couldve copied the whole first 45 mintues of STM and updated it, made lex serious and threw in a hench men supervillain, we wouldnt be having this discussion because it wouldve been loved by the majority.

[RachelDawes]

The thing with the batman series right now is this, if you really disliked TDK that much than you have to ask yourself if you like the batman character. I mean sure, there are the minor gripes of being permawhite and taking the gothic out, but they nailed characterization.

Superman is a tad different, theres smallville fans who love smallville and thats it, there are STM fans who swear buy it, and than there are the comic fans. You also have a mix of people who like aspects from each, but the point im getting at here is that there are so many types of fans.

I guarantee you though, if they had just done an origin to begin with, they even couldve copied the whole first 45 mintues of STM and updated it, made lex serious and threw in a hench men supervillain, we wouldnt be having this discussion because it wouldve been loved by the majority.

I agree, basically, if making Lex serious also means getting rid of the land scheme. I think WB overthinks Superman, or underthinks him. Whatever.

[solidsnake86]

^ for sure, all they had to do was make him coporate lex. Even if SR had superman return and find lex well liked by the public, having established a company that had a great public front, all the while developing metallo or parasite, taken out the kid, and made lois move on with someone who we didnt like we wouldnt be having this discussion.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Yes it is quite simple. I'm sure Singer was aware of that approach but unfortunately tried to make it into more of a challenge. He should have kept with Nolan's simple approach really (begin with origin).

1. Destruction of Krypton - maybe setup TAS style Brainiac
2. Becoming the hero-Meet the earth parents and Clark then... Meet Superman folks! Cue the shirt rip, save Lois. Big story.
3. Establish Lex as a corporate leader interested in technology
4. Superman stops one of Lex's dangerous business endeavors, and not to mention he's jealous of the headlines. Brainiac contacts him.
5. Villain created through Kryptonian technology. Metallo.
6. Fights with Metallo/Brainiac/save the world

blah blah

Easy to us fans on how to make a movie that both the general public and diehards would enjoy.

*sigh*

Typed this in 26 seconds (no joke)

[solidsnake86]

^thats why its really frustrating because its simple, but i really think you need to begin with the origin to do it right, another reintroduction instead of a reboot will receive the same reception and people will ask more questions like, why is the kid gone. They just need to get over there fear of STM fans and do it.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

You're not alone Spidey, I couldn't stand Hellboy 2 either! :yay:

That was very disappointing for me since I thought the first movie was one of the better comic book films.

Are you a fan of the Hellboy character Superark?

What Showtime said.

SR truly did split the fanbase. If only the film had reached an almost objective level of "good" like TDK. The fanbase for that movie is universal, with people who dislike it being a tiny fringe group.

I hope the next Superman film can do that. That's what the franchise needs.

I have said before, I think if SR had made another $100 million WB wouldnt have given a **** that it split the fanbase and would be moving forward with a sequel right now.

I hope the next Superman film is a very good movie that is also successful financially, but primarily I want a good movie.

[Ultimate_Superman]

Are you a fan of the Hellboy character Superark?



I have said before, I think if SR had made another $100 million WB wouldnt have given a **** that it split the fanbase and would be moving forward with a sequel right now.

I hope the next Superman film is a very good movie that is also successful financially, but primarily I want a good movie.If SR had made another 25 to 50 million they would have went forward with a sequel. Hell I believe had SR not had Jason we would have still seen a sequel. IMO the main reason why we don't have a sequel to that movie is Jason. I think the WB doesn't want to deal with the aftermath of him.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

If SR had made another 25 to 50 million they would have went forward with a sequel. Hell I believe had SR not had Jason we would have still seen a sequel. IMO the main reason why we don't have a sequel to that movie is Jason. I think the WB doesn't want to deal with the aftermath of him.

I dont think anything story wise is stopping them making a sequel to SR, it is simply a financial decision that they are not IMO.

[VenomsMom]

Well well well.......this thing is still in limbo....what a surprise.

[mego joe]

I dont think anything story wise is stopping them making a sequel to SR, it is simply a financial decision that they are not IMO.

I'm really trying not to continue the same old arguments but I have to ask one question with complete sincerity and decency. And I'm concerned your opinion of me as a person has changed.

If it's a financial reason they are rebooting- then something is flawed with SR that they believe a sequel to SR won't perform financially. What is it then they are changing with a reboot?

It doesn't seem to be Routh, but rather the story and plotlines leftover from SR. If that wasn't the problem there wouldn't really be a reason to reboot. You say it's a financial reason, but there has to be an underlying reason that they believe the sequel won't perform if they are rebooting. They seem to be keeping Routh, so it has to be the story doesn't it? What other reason could it be? Isn't everything else changeable in a sequel except continuing the story elements from SR like Jason?

[Venom'sDad]

I agree with mega joe here…. I don’t see it being financial except for Singer’s financial irresponsibility and cost over-runs. IMO, there would have to be an underlining reason to reboot a franchise for financial reasons, compared to doing a simple sequel with all the cost elements already there(cast, set pieces, crew, equipment, etc). Add to the fact that rights will be reverting back to the families in less than 5 years; I would think now is the time to propagate sequels to soar up greater profits, before profit sharing ensue.

I have yet to see what that underlining financial reason would be for rebooting. IMHO, it would have to be because of the direction the franchise wish to go; story/character wise, if it is a complete reboot.

[FlawlessVictory]

With the new footage of Terminator:Salvation showing up today and looking real good, I wonder if WB will give another shot at McG to direct the new Superman. If McG delivers a hit for them, I can't help but think they would consider him to direct a superhero film.

[ZIPBAGS]

I wish they would announce something...Anything!

[Superark]

Are you a fan of the Hellboy character Superark?



I have said before, I think if SR had made another $100 million WB wouldnt have given a **** that it split the fanbase and would be moving forward with a sequel right now.

I hope the next Superman film is a very good movie that is also successful financially, but primarily I want a good movie.


I'm not a follower of the Hellboy comics. I think I may have read maybe one Hellboy comic in my life. So if you mean am a fan in the "I read the comic books" way, no I'm not. Basically my extent of knowledge of the character is what I gathered from the first film and read about him on Wiki.

I saw the first Hellboy movie, and really really had fun watching it. So the movie turned me into a fan of the character. But I felt the sequel was too cheesy and seemed more like a kids film. I think they tried to hamm it up and make it too funny.

[Showtime]

There are many reasons why WB is looking to revamp, reboot, and/or reintroduce Superman. One of the reasons involves money. WB projected this movie to make a certain amount of money at the box office, on DVD, merchandise...so on and so forth. Whatever their projected profits came out to be, were not met, were not even close. Sure the film turned a profit and they flipped the bill along with Legendary, but with a more action packed story involving a villian and no kid, the film most likely would have done better. Everything is connected, SR's story and performance are releated to business ie money. So sure, they are rebooting for financial reasons as above and also because by making another Superman movie they are throwing one of the most well known characters back into the arena during this superhero boom.

[solidsnake86]

The kid is a problem and if singer isn't going to direct I don't think many directors want to take that on. I also wouldnt want them to because the last thing I want to see is him flying around, or killing him off so we can watch a depressive 2 hour film. Had the kid not been in it, making a sequel would have been a heck of a lot easier. Even if they hadnt done the piano scene to show he had powers it would be different.

[FlawlessVictory]

There are many reasons why WB is looking to revamp, reboot, and/or reintroduce Superman. One of the reasons involves money. WB projected this movie to make a certain amount of money at the box office, on DVD, merchandise...so on and so forth. Whatever their projected profits came out to be, were not met, were not even close. Sure the film turned a profit and they flipped the bill along with Legendary, but with a more action packed story involving a villian and no kid, the film most likely would have done better. Everything is connected, SR's story and performance are releated to business ie money. So sure, they are rebooting for financial reasons as above and also because by making another Superman movie they are throwing one of the most well known characters back into the arena during this superhero boom.

Are you hearing a year that they are targeting? 2012 perhaps?

[Ultimate_Superman]

The kid is a problem and if singer isn't going to direct I don't think many directors want to take that on. I also wouldnt want them to because the last thing I want to see is him flying around, or killing him off so we can watch a depressive 2 hour film. Had the kid not been in it, making a sequel would have been a heck of a lot easier. Even if they hadnt done the piano scene to show he had powers it would be different.True because you could have just passed him off as Richards kid from his late wife or ex-girlfriend but giving him powers just killed that.

[X-Maniac]

Well, at least more people are now acknowledging that the superkid is a problematic story point. Back when the film was released, I posted a thread on here about how the film locked itself in a corner with several problems - the kid, Lois being with Richard, Lex not being corporate, the Fortress being compromised. I don't recall many people supporting my arguments at the time.


**** Regarding Hellboy, the problem is that although there is visual craft, the films are indulgent and lack relatable themes. The second movie was better, I thought, but failed to develop themes such as the environmental premise depicted by the beanstalk creature and by the fact that the elvee, once in the forests, had to go beneath the cities because mankind had cut down most of the trees. The films felt entertaining, visually lavish....but ultimately pointless.

[Tonicky]

Yeah, that's what I had in mind. Clark interviewing some Superman obsessed cult leader for a story would make for a really interesting scene.

it would be funny and dumb if the Cult leader wore a cape but It would be a cool moment (without the Cape):applaud

[mego joe]

True because you could have just passed him off as Richards kid from his late wife or ex-girlfriend but giving him powers just killed that.

As long as the kid was not Superman's biological son, then you really wouldn't have the problem.

BTW- Nice sig!

[Showtime]

The kid is a problem and if singer isn't going to direct I don't think many directors want to take that on. I also wouldnt want them to because the last thing I want to see is him flying around, or killing him off so we can watch a depressive 2 hour film. Had the kid not been in it, making a sequel would have been a heck of a lot easier. Even if they hadnt done the piano scene to show he had powers it would be different.

This is why they had such a hard time getting somebody else to take over for a sequel.

Are you hearing a year that they are targeting? 2012 perhaps?

The original intent was to get it out 2011. This is what I heard from WB after the Robinov announcement. There are a number of scenarios that you might be looking at now though.

Superman Winter 2011, Batman Summer 2011
Superman Summer 2011, Batman Summer 2012
Superman Summer 2012, and Batman Summer 2011

These are just some of the possible drop dates I have heard mentioned.

[RachelDawes]

True because you could have just passed him off as Richards kid from his late wife or ex-girlfriend but giving him powers just killed that.

Didn't Jimmy specifically refer to Lois as Jason's mom in the movie though? I think Jason called Lois "mommy" a couple times, too. Maybe a future director would've tried to pass her off as Jason's "stepmom."

[Showtime]

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7013253959


Anne Lu - Celebrity News Service News Writer

Los Angeles, CA (CNS) - Hollywood producer Jon Peters is being sued by a co-producer on his upcoming film "Superman: Man of Steel" for sexual harassment last week.

According to the papers filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, co-producer Brian Quintana alleges that Peters subjected him to "continuous and pervasive sexual harassment."

Quintana claimed in the suit obtained by NY Post that there were "multiple instances where he was physically, sexually harassed by Peters, including being groped by male individuals at Peters' behest." Peters would also "wrestle and rough up [Quintana] in a sexual manner... fondle himself in front of [Quintana]... often place his hand on [his] leg in a sexual manner."

Peters also demanded Quintana to "drive male individuals onto the set for the purposes of granting sexual favors for members of the cast and crew [and] cover up allegations that... Peters engaged in sexually inappropriate acts in front of children."

In addition, Peters threatened to "break his legs" and fired him after he refused to sign documents falsely claiming that Peters completed community service for a 2006 DUI conviction.

Peters is also facing two separate sexual harassment suits filed by former female employees and he is allegedly in trouble for violating his parole in relation to the DUI arrest. He is scheduled to return to court on January 16 to address the said parole violation.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

What a loser.

[FilmNerdJamie]

A photo taken from the scene of said crime...

http://www.kpebiz.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/slap.jpg

[Jon1]

One of the major problems with the son in the story is that its a story that should told about an older Superman. Singer wanted to tell this story based after Donners films and thus it should be a much older cast of characters, Singer used really actors.
If they had all been older i think for one the story wouldve made much more sense. Instead it looked like 20somethings trying to play out this story involving, to me anyway, pretty adult themes. Superman talking to his son shouldve looked like a wise oldish guy but instead it looks like a guy whos only recently started shaving.

Had older actors been involved i think the story would have been much easier to carry on, but instead it just all feels quite 'off'.

Dnt get me wrong i liked Supeman Returns a lot but i also realise there were some fundamental flaws with the whole thing.
Reintroducing the character is really the best way to go in my opinion. I would also like to state that i dont really like origin stories (one of the best things about The Incredible Hulk was that there was no real origin) but i dnt see any other way out of the Superman **** pile.

[Nightwing1977]

How can Jon Peters still be connected to Superman? I thought he has no power over SR at all, since I know he was just producer in name only & was only paid by WB on just doing nothing. He really need to stay away from any Superman films at all.

[GreenKToo]

I think all that hair spray went to his head.

[Sawyer]

Jon Peters is retarded. And I mean that in the most offensive sense of the word.

[nintendo nerd]

A photo taken from the scene of said crime...

http://www.kpebiz.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/slap.jpg

LOL. ***** slap. :woot:

[nintendo nerd]

Watch out Brandon, behind you!!!!!! :wow:

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/01Xf9Gy18x5bd/610x.jpg

[Superark]

If the allegations against Peters is true, then he may soon be the one getting sexually harrassed, only it will be by a big fat hairy guy named Bubba Joe in an 8x10

[wellsy]

I think all that hair spray went to his head.
Well, where else would it go?

:shock On second thoughts, don't answer that.

[Double Down]

This story about Peters has been available for some time now. Quintana has a history of claiming harassment, and those claims have been proven to be false. I did not post anything about this issue when I heard about it because I didn't feel it had any bearing on the movie itself. In any event, there is an excellent chance that Peters is not guilty of the charges.



Feb 15, 2006

Court TV

QUINTANA'S LITIGIOUS PAST UNDER FIRE

PARIS HILTON is not the first celebrity BRIAN QUINTANA has accused of harassment, in the 1990s he hit HART TO HART star STEPHANIE POWERS with similar legal action - but he denies making a habit of lawsuits.
The celebrity socialite was slapped with a restraining order at Los Angeles Superior Court last week (07FEB06), after complaints from promoter Quintana that she'd branded him a "lazy Mexican" and was ruining his business.
In 1995, Quintana sought a similar judgement against Powers when he worked for a charity linked to the flame-haired actress, insisting she would get him drunk and force him to get into bed with her.
Just as Quintana claimed Hilton made threatening calls warning him to stay away from her boyfriend STAVROS NIARCHOS, the party organiser said he began to receive threats from Powers' entourage.
He told US tabloid the Globe in 1995, "The calls said, 'Watch your back.' He warned, 'You should be - you're a dead man. You sure messed with the wrong woman.'"
Quintana is adamant he takes no pleasure from filing lawsuits against celebrities.
He tells the New York Daily News, "That's ridiculous. It advances my business in no way, and it actually hurts it.
"Look at how litigious Paris is and how many criminal investigations there are involving her. You know, this is the MO (modus operandi) of numerous celebrities who think they're above the law and the little guys who should just go away."
Quintana's case against Powers was dropped when Powers submitted legal documents proving she was overseas for most of the period Quintana claimed the abuse took place.

[Mostpowerful]

^I see things never change around here then, why cant people who didnt like SR JUST ACCEPT that a lot of people, including myself, loved the movie and thought it was a great Superman movie. For ****s sake just get over it.

Word.

I posted my favorite superhero scenes in some thread some time ago, and these 'posters', who didn't like my choices, started with their juvenile remarks...shees. please, let us be.


This story about Peters has been available for some time now. Quintana has a history of claiming harassment, and those claims have been proven to be false. I did not post anything about this issue when I heard about it because I didn't feel it had any bearing on the movie itself. In any event, there is an excellent chance that Peters is not guilty of the charges.

Exactly.

[kalelkilla]

Hey guys, I was just wondering if you guys thought that a Geoff Johns/Richard Donner camp is in the making, trying to get the next Superman gig...they seem to be very complementary to each other. I think Donner worked with Johns on some Action comics (correct me if I'm wrong) and I know Donner is quoted as saying that he thinks Johns would be the best man to write the next Superman movie, and from the artwork from Johns' new story arc/origin of Superman, it looks like he and the artists use A LOT of STM for inspiration and foundation...I just think that the timing of Geoff Johns origin work on Superman in the comics world and with the relationship with Donner, I don't think it is too far fetched for the two of them to pitch their take on Superman to the WB execs...

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I hope not, I'd like to see a non Donner take this time around.

[Showtime]

I don't think Donner is going to be involved at all, but I can see Johns possibly.

[bunk]

TrekMovie: With all the talk about the Superman franchise, have they come to you and Alex yet?
Roberto Orci: Superman the sequel? No.
TrekMovie: Do you know if your brother-in-law is going to be in it? [Editor’s note: Brandon Routh is married to Bob’s sister]
Roberto Orci: I would imagine so. How are you going to find a better Superman?


http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/09/exclusive-interview-roberto-orci-on-all-the-latest-with-star-trek-and-more/

[Double Down]

Interesting.

[solidsnake86]

I wonder if they wrote a pitch for a reboot or something. It is interesting how they say " superman the sequel" and not say superman the reboot. But it could be just reading into it to much.

[Showtime]

I thought the same thing in regards to the wording.

[Double Down]

I can't tell if he doesn't know anything, or if he is being coy. It could go either way.

[Anita18]

Yes it is quite simple. I'm sure Singer was aware of that approach but unfortunately tried to make it into more of a challenge. He should have kept with Nolan's simple approach really (begin with origin).
From what I've read, Nolan's approach was, "Well, let's go into how Batman got started, because nothing like that's ever been done before, even in the comics." He was intrigued because there was so much possibility.

With that approach, they can't do Superman's origin over again because it's already been done before. They'd have to find something else to make the character new and interesting.

[solidsnake86]

I thought the same thing in regards to the wording.

Well originally they shot it down earlier this year because they were doing transformers and the writers strike didnt help. Then they hard star trek if I'm not mistaken. I could've sworn I remember them saying that was a dream job, couple that with the fact that there movies have made money and WB probably has interest. In the end though, after the summit happend I'm sure a lot of things changed in regards to approach.

[Dark Knight]

I wonder if they wrote a pitch for a reboot or something. It is interesting how they say " superman the sequel" and not say superman the reboot. But it could be just reading into it to much.



Yeah, I found the wording to be VERY interesting. Why would Orci say it in that way?

I have a feeling Orci and Kurtzman are writing the reimagination/reboot screenplay with some story consultation/credit going to Geoff Johns and of course Routh will be involved.

All the signs are pointing in that direction. The big question is which directors are being considered or looked at?

[FilmNerdJamie]

All the signs are pointing in that direction. The big question is who will be the director?

To quote an upcoming WB release - a "Yes" man imo.

[Dark Knight]

To quote an upcoming WB release - a "Yes" man imo.



Yeah, that's where all the signs are pointing to as well.

What do you think Jamie....someone like Francis Lawrence?

What other directors off the top your head are considered "studio friendly" directors except for Snyder and Nolan.

[Superark]

To quote an upcoming WB release - a "Yes" man imo.


Lol, gosh those commercials are getting tiresome!

Who are some of the guys, in your opinion, that are being considered?

Also, any idead when this gag order from WB is going to be up?

[I Am The Knight]

To quote an upcoming WB release - a "Yes" man imo.

A terrifying prospect.

[Double Down]

Peyton Reed? It would make sense, I suppose.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Peyton Reed? It would make sense, I suppose.

I wasn't referring to nor implying Reed. My point was it'll be a filmmaker the studio can control.

[Antonello Blueberry]

Peyton Reed? It would make sense, I suppose.
The guy who was fired as director of the Fantastic Four?

[I Am The Knight]

He does have "Bring It On" under his belt :hehe:

[FilmNerdJamie]

The guy who was fired as director of the Fantastic Four?

Considering what we ultimately got, I can only interpret that as a good thing for Reed...

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm not going to panic or get annoyed until WB officially releases a press release but if they are in anyway going to make a sequel I will wonder why they didn't bring Singer back???

[Superark]

I'm not going to panic or get annoyed until WB officially releases a press release but if they are in anyway going to make a sequel I will wonder why they didn't bring Singer back???


What makes you wonder if they're going to make a sequel?

I doubt WB will make one.

Although I can see something in the same concept as Batman Forever

[Man of Tomorrow]

http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/09/exclusive-interview-roberto-orci-on-all-the-latest-with-star-trek-and-more/

Zing!

[I SEE SPIDEY]

What makes you wonder if they're going to make a sequel?

I doubt WB will make one.

Although I can see something in the same concept as Batman ForeverI am commenting on this post.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/09/exclusive-interview-roberto-orci-on-all-the-latest-with-star-trek-and-more/As of right now I don't believe a sequel in the truest sense of the word is coming about but as you say I can see a BF situation accuring and I'm just saying that if that happens it would annoy me very much.

[Superark]

^Gotcha

[Kal-El Fan]

I thought the same thing in regards to the wording.
I agree. The wording immediately jumped out to me, as well. What have they written beside Transformers? Based on that film alone, I wouldn't want them anywhere near Superman. If not for Bay's direction, that movie would've been pretty bad, on the whole.

[Mostpowerful]

*comes out of hiding* So, it looks safe out there.. good. :woot:



http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/09/exclusive-interview-roberto-orci-on-all-the-latest-with-star-trek-and-more/

Quote:
TrekMovie: With all the talk about the Superman franchise, have they come to you and Alex yet?
Roberto Orci: Superman the sequel? No.
TrekMovie: Do you know if your brother-in-law is going to be in it? [Editor’s note: Brandon Routh is married to Bob’s sister]
Roberto Orci: I would imagine so. How are you going to find a better Superman?


Thanks for posting that! :yay:

[Double Down]

To clarify, I wasn't advocating for Reed (which I would think would be obvious with the statement, "Peyton Reed? It would make sense, I suppose."). I was saying that it would make sense based on what WB is looking for (ie: someone they can control). Reed also has said in the past that he is a Superman fan. Plus, the new movie he did, Yes Man, was for Warner Bros. And thus my guess when Jamie said, "To quote an upcoming WB release - a "Yes" man imo."

[Showtime]

A sequel? No.

[Ita-KalEl]

A sequel? No.

Bingo!
And Superman the reboot?

[Showtime]

There is no way that this will be a "direct" sequel.

[solidsnake86]

After all this time if there was going to be a sequel it would be in post production now ready for a 2009 release as was originally planned. I really hope at this point they go for the origin story and dont bother reintroducing him again because thats what SR was supposed to do and it didn't work as well as they wanted it too.

This waiting is really boring, I wonder if they're any close to casting someone for green lantern yet.

[Superark]

So I just read the interview with Bryan Singer on Aint it Cool News and there were some very interesting bits of info.

Singer is still being very keeping a tight lip, but I wonder if he is back on board as director? Is it possible he isn't saying anything because WB wants to make one huge announcement about their properties?

Maybe he won't do a direct sequel, but rather another story, ala Batman Forever?

The whole thing is really odd.

[I Am The Knight]

His answer seemed to indicate that he's not involved as a director, not exactly. Well, what he said...I'm not exactly sure what it meant, yeah.

[Showtime]

You need the Rosetta Stone to translate Bryan's interviews.

[Double Down]

Quint: So, I’ve heard that there might be some re-interest in SUPERMAN with Warner Bros. Is that true?

Bryan Singer: I couldn’t… you know.. I couldn’t tell you or talk about that at this point. I honestly… I’m just so… at least as far as my role in it is concerned I just need… I just have… this one because we had to drop and pick up on this has been a longer process so… yeah I wouldn’t be able to give you a clear… any clarity on that. (laughs)

Quint: Alright, alright, that’s fine. I think when we talked at COMIC-CON after SUPERMAN RETURNS had come out…you mentioned that you had talked to Stamp about Zod quite a bit… and I remember back when you were talking about that was kind of a fascinating, especially to hear your obvious enthusiasm for it because I’m a big SUPERMAN 2 geek, too. I love Zod and I think that’s one of the reasons why I’m really looking forward to seeing how you work with him in VALKYRIE.

Bryan Singer: Well yeah it’s a very different character…

Quint: I imagine! (laughs)

Bryan Singer: A more subdued ailing general, but if anything it was a lovely relationship and when we were doing ADR I almost asked him to give me a “Kneel before Zod!” on the recording and I said “Ok I’m not going to do it! I’m not going to be that guy!” but maybe there’ll be. We not only got along way back when but we actually had a great time working together so… that’s that. And I ended up doing three movies with Ian McKellan, so… and by the end of this movie I think I’ve worked with half of the National Theater.

Quint at the end: And interesting non-denial on the Superman rumor. Might be some interesting developments there. I wonder if Chris McQuarrie is still attached as he once was before Singer dropped out initially. I think it’d be great to see those two team up, especially if Singer still intends to do a Wrath of Khan-inspired follow-up. And his track record is good with superhero sequels.



OK, I just put the parts together and it seems like Quint is saying that Singer had dropped out of the project, but the rumor Quint is hearing is that Singer might be back on board (in whatever capacity that would be). What Singer is saying works with that and Quint pointed out that Singer did not deny it. Aint It Cool News historically has had high quality sources. I would like to see them follow up on this.

[Superark]

It's not that I found Singer's words that interesting, though they are, but more of what Quint wrote in his interview/article.

I think they are the first site to say anything about Singer possibly directing again. It's weird just b/c they(AICN) have reported about the possible reboot and other directors taking over. But now they are mentioning Singer making another one.

As Doubledown44 said, they have had good sources.

[Showtime]

Singer was indeed re-approached by WB as I said the other day in my very long post...

[I Am The Knight]

Was this re-approach a thing of the past or a recent event, Showy?

[Lighthouse]

This is the first I've heard of Singer being reapproached. Why would he want to direct anything but a sequel to his first film? And there is no such thing as a revamp sequel for this film.

[Superark]

Singer was indeed re-approached by WB as I said the other day in my very long post...


I don't remember you saying he was re-approached as a possibly directing again.

Maybe I missed that post?

[Double Down]

I'm going to give a scenario of what might and has happened with Superman and/or WB/DC's slate based on; what I've been told, my opinion, and simply putting two and two together.
Bryan Singer will not be directing this movie, I think the writing has been on the wall for a good while but; what I thought had happened previously looks like it has happened more recently. Slashfilm was more on the ball then even they might have known in regards to Singer's contract. Bryan did have "right to refusal" on whatever story that WB was going with. I had thought this already happened months and months ago, but it seems that this was on hold due to the everlasting Valkyrie production.
I believe that Bryan was presented with either a treatment, story, or script penned by an unknown writer and Bryan refused the story. Nothing new, Bryan was dragging his feet with WB for over a year. You could look at this as WB and Bryan simply going through the motions before they could officially move on. As I said, don't be suprised to see Bad Hat Harry or Bryan Singer's name flying through the opening credits in some capacity despite not being the man behind the lense.
I believe that there is some kind of story ie treatment that WB likes. Not sure who has written said treatment or outline, but they will bring in a professional screenwriting team to polish off and turn it into a full script. I still personally think that Orci and Kurtzman are strong candidates, but at this point I honestly have no idea who has been blessed or cursed with writing this thing.
I still don't feel 100% on this, but it seems that WB feels pretty confident that Routh is their man for Superman. Again, I still wouldn't come right out and say he has the gig, but it seems like he is the only candidate. By that token, if they do indeed keep Routh, don't be suprised if they keep Langella as Perry White and ride his Oscar nomination into the next film. It would be similar to Dench as M in the Bond series.
Bosworth was already out if there was a sequel being made anyway, obviously she wouldn't come back. As crazy as might sound to some that Brandon or even Langella could be coming back, it would be even crazier that Bosworth return. The rest of the cast and story would suffer a similar fate if this was indeed a "Routhboot" as Filmnerdjamie dubbed it.
This brings us to the director, WB seems to be looking for somebody who is a studio guy but not as high caliber as say a Bay or Rodriguez. They aren't going to be bringing in Spielberg or Cameron at this point. If they are still keeping Routh they are going to say to the directorial candidate, "Routh is our Superman, this is our story, do you want the gig?" Similar to what the Brocoli's did with Bond.
On to other WB/DC properties, there is every indication that Nolan is signed and secure and it seems like Green Lantern is on the verge or already has their lead actor. Everything is lined up, and an announcement seems to be pending. They are planning to blast Marvel off the front page with a big annoucement, the question is when?

I'm guessing this is the post to which Showtime is referring.

[Lighthouse]

I still don't see anything about being reapproached.

[Showtime]

Was this re-approach a thing of the past or a recent event, Showy?

As I said in my little opinion post, I thought it had happened a long while ago, but there is evidence he was approached more recently.

This is the first I've heard of Singer being reapproached. Why would he want to direct anything but a sequel to his first film? And there is no such thing as a revamp sequel for this film.

It's part of the contract that he would have to be approached first.

I don't remember you saying he was re-approached as a possibly directing again.

Maybe I missed that post?

...

Says it right there in black and white...

Bryan Singer will not be directing this movie, I think the writing has been on the wall for a good while but; what I thought had happened previously looks like it has happened more recently. Slashfilm was more on the ball then even they might have known in regards to Singer's contract. Bryan did have "right to refusal" on whatever story that WB was going with. I had thought this already happened months and months ago, but it seems that this was on hold due to the everlasting Valkyrie production.


I thought he was approached previously months and months ago, but it looks like he was approached more recently with a different story and given a chance to direct the film, but it seems like he said no. Whether this was just going through the motions on both sides just for contract sake, meaning both sides knew it wasn't happening, or a sincere exchange...I don't know. They apparently were waiting until after Valkyrie to approach him.

[Man of Tomorrow]

You know, if they ARE doing a Routhboot, I wonder if the Star Trek 'requel' concept could work.

A villian from the future in the Donner/SR universe (Brainiac perhaps) could travel back in time and alter history, creating a new revamped Superman origins and universe.



Basically what's happening in Trek is the villian (Nero) travels back from the TNG era to Kirk's time and destroys the USS Kelvin; altering history and creating a new revamped Trek universe.

[Double Down]

You know, if they ARE doing a Routhboot, I wonder if the Star Trek 'requel' concept could work.

A villian from the future in the Donner/SR universe (Brainiac perhaps) could travel back in time and alter history, creating a new revamped Superman origins and universe.

Basically what's happening in Trek is the villian (Nero) travels back from the TNG era to Kirk's time and destroys the USS Kelvin; altering history and creating a new revamped Trek universe.

Isn't an idea along these lines something that Jamie has suggested could happen? Am I remembering that correctly?

[biolumen]

Why would he want to direct anything but a sequel to his first film?

Exactly, which is why he likely said "no thanks" to the reboot(ish) story put before him.

[Man of Tomorrow]

Like here's an example:

Brainiac travels back in time to Krypton; he attacks and destroys the planet. Jor-El still manages to launch Kal-El to earth just in time.

Kal-El grows up in Smallville but there's no crystal in his ship from Jor-El this time ; no Fortress training.

So instead he travels the world for several years as a journalist (Birthright)..

And Luthor, driven to discover the mystery behind this guardian angel who saves people around the world, builds Lexcorp..

New revised history..

[Man of Tomorrow]

Better yet, Brainiac could download himself into Jor-El's crystal; and when Kal-El activates it...Brainiac is reborn on Earth.

I'm sure writers like Kurtzman and Orci would have fun with this concept.

[Compi716]

Hmn, this is all very interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about the "Routhboot," but it's certainly better than nothing. To be honest, I was very much looking forward to the next installment in the Singer franchise. Though SUPERMAN RETURNS took a couple wrong turns, Singer is an extremely capable filmmaker, and I would trust him to deliver.

Remember back in the day when he was making Wrath of Khan/Empire Strikes back comparisons about his sequel to X-MEN? Look how awesome that product turned out.

[Man of Tomorrow]

Honestly I think a 'requel' as mentioned above is probably the least confusing concept to general audiences.

A straight up reboot would be confusing as people would falsely assume it's tied to "Superman Returns." Especially with Brandon attached.


With a Requel, you are acknowledging the SR timeline and changing it onscreen; so it fits with the 06 film but it still reboots things.

[Lighthouse]

Hmn, this is all very interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about the "Routhboot," but it's certainly better than nothing. To be honest, I was very much looking forward to the next installment in the Singer franchise. Though SUPERMAN RETURNS took a couple wrong turns, Singer is an extremely capable filmmaker, and I would trust him to deliver.

Remember back in the day when he was making Wrath of Khan/Empire Strikes back comparisons about his sequel to X-MEN? Look how awesome that product turned out.

I've never bought the X2 argument. Just because Singer did really well on X2 does not give any indication that he will do better on MOS. I think Singer was much more suited for X-Men. X-Men one may not have been that great, but Singer had all the right ideas, and I put more blame on Fox for screwing him over. On Superman, I think he has all the wrong ideas.

Honestly I think a 'requel' as mentioned above is probably the least confusing concept to general audiences.

A straight up reboot would be confusing as people would falsely assume it's tied to "Superman Returns." Especially with Brandon attached.


With a Requel, you are acknowledging the SR timeline and changing it onscreen; so it fits with the 06 film but it still reboots things.

I've brought it up before, and I still have no understanding of how you can do a requel to Superman Returns. You can't. There was far too many loose threads from SR to do any kind of loose sequel. Its either a sequel, or it isn't.

[Superark]

Well the follow-up on this story will be interesting.

I'm still not expecting a sequel, but I wonder since WB went ahead an approached him again, if they'll allow Singer to bring in McQuarrie again for another draft treatment, if Valkyrie is a success that is.

[Man of Tomorrow]

I've brought it up before, and I still have no understanding of how you can do a requel to Superman Returns. You can't. There was far too many loose threads from SR to do any kind of loose sequel. Its either a sequel, or it isn't.

Read the post I made before that one, that's an idea.

It's what JJ Abrams is doing with the Trek universe.

[StorminNorman]

It works for Star Trek because it plays well into Star Trek's charm.

The idea of having Braniac alter the events of Superman: The Movie to make a whole new continuity is one of the worst reboot ideas ever.

Just ignore the Donner film and everything after. They aren't good enough to remember anyway.

[mego joe]

Read the post I made before that one, that's an idea.

It's what JJ Abrams is doing with the Trek universe.

At this point they just need to start over with the Superman film franchise. Take their time. Make a great first film of a new franchise that starts at the beginning. No time travel, no retconning, no "Routhboot." No connections to the past. Just do a contemporary story of the classic Superman origin and use corporate Luthor and Braniac as your villains- incorporate the best elements of Birthright, Man of Steel and the new origin coming up.

Start over. Period.

[dark_b]

going back in time and change the past ? you would need to be extreem obssesed with donners S:TM to do this after SR.

[Superman Prime]

^ How do you mean.

[Showtime]

I don't mind the Star Trek theory, but that isn't going to happen. They aren't going to copy the approach used by another flick. Whether Singer is directing this film or not, it isn't going to be a direct sequel. That is for sure. Even if Routh returns, it will not be a direct sequel. Actually, I don't understand how it could be connected at all besides Routh being Superman.

For the record Jamie didn't present that theory, he was simply using Star Trek as a reference point when talking about the inclusion of Routh in a new Superman movie.

[Maze]

He didn't yes, i did . :o :woot: :cwink:

[Mostpowerful]

To quote an upcoming WB release - a "Yes" man imo.

I just pray to God it is a capable Yes man. :csad:


A terrifying prospect.

Yup






[/size]OK, I just put the parts together and it seems like Quint is saying that Singer had dropped out of the project, but the rumor Quint is hearing is that Singer might be back on board (in whatever capacity that would be). What Singer is saying works with that and Quint pointed out that Singer did not deny it. Aint It Cool News historically has had high quality sources. I would like to see them follow up on this.

Thanks, that helped. And I still want Bryan Singer to direct. He is still my first choice. But the most important thing for me is that Brandon returns in the role.



You need the Rosetta Stone to translate Bryan's interviews.

yeah :huh: I'm so confused by all this...I wish we had official news really soon. :angry:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

*Sigh* I wish WB would just release some freakin news already! I don't know about ya'll but I can't understand s**t Singer is saying in that interview. He is horrible at interviews.

[Man of Tomorrow]

Yeah Showtime, youre right about them obviously unable to use a plot already done by Trek (which I'm hoping will be successful nevertheless)..

I'm still curious how they're going to pull off this "Routhboot"

Another question is...since Bosworth is the only one who got her walking papers.. would Spacey, Langella and Huntington still be attached?

[StorminNorman]

I still don't think Spacey will be brought back.

[Man of Tomorrow]

The biggest thing against Spacey is the fact he's quit film acting.

But despite that he keeps claiming he'd love to work with Bryan in more Superman films. If Bad Hat Harry is still producing this thing who knows..

If WB wants Langella because of the Oscar buzz, it's hard to believe they wouldnt want an Oscar winner like Spacey again..

[I SEE SPIDEY]

It seems like Spacey quit acting 5 K-Paxes ago.

[Showtime]

yeah I'm so confused by all this...I wish we had official news really soon.

As do I.

Yeah Showtime, youre right about them obviously unable to use a plot already done by Trek (which I'm hoping will be successful nevertheless)..

I'm still curious how they're going to pull off this "Routhboot"

Another question is...since Bosworth is the only one who got her walking papers.. would Spacey, Langella and Huntington still be attached?

I think it is an interesting idea, unfortuantely K&O thought of it first.

IF Routh is still involved, then I can see Langella.

I still don't think Spacey will be brought back.

Big longshot.

The biggest thing against Spacey is the fact he's quit film acting.

But despite that he keeps claiming he'd love to work with Bryan in more Superman films. If Bad Hat Harry is still producing this thing who knows..

If WB wants Langella because of the Oscar buzz, it's hard to believe they wouldnt want an Oscar winner like Spacey again..

Right on about Langella.

It seems like Spacey quit acting 5 K-Paxes ago.

:word:

[Dark Knight]

Yeah Showtime, youre right about them obviously unable to use a plot already done by Trek (which I'm hoping will be successful nevertheless)..

I'm still curious how they're going to pull off this "Routhboot"

Another question is...since Bosworth is the only one who got her walking papers.. would Spacey, Langella and Huntington still be attached?



I think this next Supes film will be much like how Star Trek: MOP and Wrath of Khan were done. One film was completely different in tone and direction from the other.

The curious thing is if they try and go with a type of semi-origin plot...where Braniac would cause changes to Supermans universe and possibly slightly alter his origin. Who knows...

[Superark]

I think fair to say we don't know what the heck is going on with Superman

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^Totally fair.

[Dark Knight]

You know, if they ARE doing a Routhboot, I wonder if the Star Trek 'requel' concept could work.

A villian from the future in the Donner/SR universe (Brainiac perhaps) could travel back in time and alter history, creating a new revamped Superman origins and universe.



Basically what's happening in Trek is the villian (Nero) travels back from the TNG era to Kirk's time and destroys the USS Kelvin; altering history and creating a new revamped Trek universe.



That is an interesting theory.

There are a great many things a nemesis like Braniac would able to do in a film.

[Christmas]

^ It could be kind of interesting but could be pretty lame too. It's not a good start if a screenwriter's main task is to create a plotline that morphs everything that was on screen previously through time travel just because SR was not completely successful to WB. (Although that's the conundrum that faces any new film I guess :huh:)

A better story is out there that puts the last film and Donner's films firmly in the past and starts anew, IMO.

Routh should be kept. He earned it. He was a pretty empathetic and charismatic lead, in terms of how the General Audience responded to him. He's not an unlikable person on screen and can grow and do even better. A half baked script for SR shouldn't torpedo any consideration for him coming back. He portrayed the better parts of his character well and kept a consistent presence throughout.

I hope:

either things swing back Singer's way. He has Chris McQuarrie write it, and continues his story with the necessary updates(new suit, new Lois, same Metropolis, same Lex but in Lexcorp, Brainiac, resolve love triangle/kid issues in a smart way, etc...)

or

A new and high quality team(Brad Bird is my personal pick) writes a new story that has an established Superman in Metropolis with Brainiac and humanitarian/corporate Lex. Lois is feisty and likable. The dynamic for Supes' secret identity should be re-looked at too (a woman doesn't have sex with a man, bear his child, and not recognize him face to face because of glasses) Routh stays but the film looks and feels brand new.

[Double Down]

I was reading on a message board elsewhere that Francis Lawrence could be WB's choice as the next director, but I have never seen any of his work. Does anyone have an opinion on him?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1349376/

[Hunter Rider]

I was reading on imdb that Francis Lawrence could be WB's choice as the next director, but I have never seen any of his work. Does anyone have an opinion on him?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1349376/

He's solid, great visual style.

[Double Down]

Constantine and I am Legend haven't received the greatest reviews, if I remember corrrectly. Is either one worth seeing?

[Hunter Rider]

I enjoyed both, Constantine was visually awesome and while not faithful to the book, as a movie i felt it worked well. I am Legend again wasn't faithful but as a movie I thought it was well made, the only thing was it had some wonky CGI.

[Double Down]

I enjoyed both, Constantine was visually awesome and while not faithful to the book, as a movie i felt it worked well. I am Legend again wasn't faithful but as a movie I thought it was well made, the only thing was it had some wonky CGI.

I haven't read the source material for either one, so that wouldn't affect me. I have seen the Constantine DVD for $2 or $3 used, but I never got it. I may have to check it out if this guy Lawrence is in contention.
With I Am Legend and I, Robot, I had sort of rolled them together into one Will Smith movie I didn't watch. But I recently saw I, Robot and it wasn't too bad.

[RachelDawes]

It works for Star Trek because it plays well into Star Trek's charm.

The idea of having Braniac alter the events of Superman: The Movie to make a whole new continuity is one of the worst reboot ideas ever.

Just ignore the Donner film and everything after. They aren't good enough to remember anyway.

I agree. The whole scheme sounds like a complicated cop-out that the GA would hate. If you're that desperate to alter continuity just start over.

[Showtime]

I was reading on a message board elsewhere that Francis Lawrence could be WB's choice as the next director, but I have never seen any of his work. Does anyone have an opinion on him?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1349376/

Sounds like somebody spends a lot of time browsing the Hype's very own Superman Forums.

[Double Down]

Has his Lawrence's come up before? I didn't recall hearing it.

[Showtime]

Yes.

[Double Down]

Do you have any idea whether he is realistically in the running for the job?

[Showtime]

He is the "type" of director that WB would be looking to.

[Crook]

Hopefully he doesn't get it. He has some moments in his films, but ultimately they're very bland.

[Superark]

Francis Lawrence could be interesting. I liked Constantine. I didn't like I Am Legend, but I also don't like Will Smith so that movie was fighting an uphill battle with me.

He's not someone I'd picture making Superman, but then again I wouldn't have pictured Jon Favreau or Sam Raimi making such good superhero movie either.

[batman44]

Do you think WB would look McG way again if TS is a hit.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Do you think WB would look McG way again if TS is a hit.

Doubt it. McG's time with doing Superman came and went. Not to mention, WB is already lining up a project called Dead Spy Running for him to helm as well as the possibility of another Terminator sequel.

[Lighthouse]

Ugh, I hope Francis Lawrence is too busy with I Am Legend: The Prequel to do the next Superman. I just feel like his work has no soul. I didn't care for I Am Legend because I felt it took everything that made the book great, threw it out, and turned it into an action flick. Lawrence is certainly the type of director who will bow to WB's wishes, as he shot a different ending when the studio didn't like the original. Lawrence's original ending wasn't nearly as good as the book's, but it was much better than the one released in theaters. The guy is a studio puppet.

Oh, and I Am Legend had some of not only the worst CGI I've ever seen, but also most unnecessary. I really hope Superman doesn't get that kind of treatment.

[Antonello Blueberry]

If Francis Lawrence gets on board will Akiva Goldsman follow?

[Superman Prime]

Ugh, I hope Francis Lawrence is too busy with I Am Legend: The Prequel to do the next Superman. I just feel like his work has no soul. I didn't care for I Am Legend because I felt it took everything that made the book great, threw it out, and turned it into an action flick. Lawrence is certainly the type of director who will bow to WB's wishes, as he shot a different ending when the studio didn't like the original. Lawrence's original ending wasn't nearly as good as the book's, but it was much better than the one released in theaters. The guy is a studio puppet.

Oh, and I Am Legend had some of not only the worst CGI I've ever seen, but also most unnecessary. I really hope Superman doesn't get that kind of treatment.

The CG is one of my few gripes about the film. The zombies were surprisingly bad; insomuch that it pulls you out of the viewing experience.

[I Am The Knight]

No to Lawrence.

[BH/HHH]

Nah dont want the I am legend guy that film was very boring and the CG was just awful.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I thought I Am Legend and Constatine were both far better than SR. So I say yes to him over Bryan Singer... but overall I'd like another director.

[Dark Knight]

Francis Lawrence could be interesting. I liked Constantine. I didn't like I Am Legend, but I also don't like Will Smith so that movie was fighting an uphill battle with me.

He's not someone I'd picture making Superman, but then again I wouldn't have pictured Jon Favreau or Sam Raimi making such good superhero movie either.



I liked Constantine as well and I am Legend could have been much better. I'm not a Will Smith fan either, so I'm sure that had a lot to do with my disappointment with Legend. The original film was far better.

[Dark Knight]

I was reading on a message board elsewhere that Francis Lawrence could be WB's choice as the next director, but I have never seen any of his work. Does anyone have an opinion on him?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1349376/



Francis Lawrence is a name I have been bringing up in here recently.

He would be the type of "studio" director/puppet WB's may be able to work with as Show has stated as well. I was surprised by what he did with Constantine and I would really like to see a sequel to that film.

The thing about Francis is that he has a good visual style and Legend had great potential to be a better overall film, but just failed in the end because it didn't use the source material to it's advantage. I don't think he has peaked yet as a director and I think he will continue to improve...but he has a ways a to go IMO.

However, is he a step up from Bryan Singer overall? Not so sure yet...

[Dark Knight]

Ugh, I hope Francis Lawrence is too busy with I Am Legend: The Prequel to do the next Superman. I just feel like his work has no soul. I didn't care for I Am Legend because I felt it took everything that made the book great, threw it out, and turned it into an action flick. Lawrence is certainly the type of director who will bow to WB's wishes, as he shot a different ending when the studio didn't like the original. Lawrence's original ending wasn't nearly as good as the book's, but it was much better than the one released in theaters. The guy is a studio puppet.

Oh, and I Am Legend had some of not only the worst CGI I've ever seen, but also most unnecessary. I really hope Superman doesn't get that kind of treatment.



Couldn't have said it better myself regarding Lawrence. I do think he will improve as a director....but he will bow to what WB's wants and I am Legend just didn't follow the path of the book. The original film with Charleton Heston wiped the floor with Smith and Lawrences version.

[FlawlessVictory]

I would imagine Francis Lawrence would fit exactly what WB is looking for in their next director for the next Superman film. He has already delivered a hit for the studio but he is not a big enough of a name to prevent the studio from "controlling" him. For me, the most important part is the script and story, the rest should, hopefully, fall into place. I had my doubts when Raimi and Favreau were first chosen to direct and they directed fantastic films. I'm willing to give Lawrence a shot.

[Dark Knight]

Nah dont want the I am legend guy that film was very boring and the CG was just awful.



Yeah, the CGI was really unbalanced in Legend....

[Dark Knight]

I would imagine Francis Lawrence would fit exactly what WB is looking for in their next director for the next Superman film. He has already delivered a hit for the studio but he is not a big enough of a name to prevent the studio from "controlling" him. For me, the most important part is the script and story, the rest should, hopefully, fall into place. I had my doubts when Raimi and Favreau were first chosen to direct and they directed fantastic films. I'm willing to give Lawrence a shot.


I agree. The most important aspect will be story and script.

If say they get a story from Geoff Johns with Orci and Kurtzman or maybe even Chris McQuarrie writing the screeplay, with Lawrence being the director....then the film has a chance to be good. The key though is getting a story writer that understands the Superman comics and mythos.

[Hulkfan2008!]

peter jackson for director.

[boog_spin]

peter jackson for director.

i don't want everyone looking like they are about to cry for no good reason....peter jackson is good, but little overrated IMO

the lord of the rings was good overall, but i don't remember the hobbits having tear duct issues in the books...also, he cast jack black...nothing against jack black in a comedy..but in king kong? for me it totally took me out of the movie and i just couldnt watch it..besides the trilogy i cant think of anything done by him that i would ever want to watch again...but then again, thats just me

i would like speilberg to take a shot at this, but he seems to want to add kids to his movies...and he either makes a great film, ie schindlers list, munich..or a 3/4 great movie undone by stupid endings (saving private ryan with that melodramatic "did i deserve it" ending which just tried toooooooooooooo hard to prove a point IMO or the war of the worlds wnding where the AWOL son somehow shows up alive at the end...)

i think someone like david fincher might be cool, but he might perhaps be a little too cynical for superman, but i think his visual style is quite interesting

[Double Down]

^ I just watched War of the Worlds for the first time yesterday. I'm glad I saw it before your little spoiler there.

[BH/HHH]

I think Spielberg would make Supeman EPIC but I still dont think hes right for it.

Peter Jackson is a good shout IMO.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I think Spielberg would make Supeman EPIC but I still dont think hes right for it.

Peter Jackson is a good shout IMO.

Spielberg would make an amazing Superman film. I have no doubt about that. I'm sure if there was any possibility he would do it, the WB would have signed him long ago (lol they could have had him in 78' but passed because they weren't sure how JAWS would do!). He would make an Indiana Jones sequel but not a Superman film :(

[dark_b]

spiblerg would IMO ocmbine the humor and adventure action in a superman movie. but he is so big that if he would wanted a pink suit the studio wouldnt have a problem with it.

[GreenKToo]

Ron Howard. The dude is an intense director.

[BlackLantern]

can we just have Superman hit something?? Metallo maybe, a kryptonite powered pogo stick, just have him hit something....

[X-Maniac]

I wonder if they wrote a pitch for a reboot or something. It is interesting how they say " superman the sequel" and not say superman the reboot. But it could be just reading into it to much.

I think that perhaps 'reboot' isn't an industry term, it's a fanboy term. They just meant the next Superman movie.

I also think they were approached about Superman at some point but passed on it. I doubt it got as far as pitches being made. Like Zack Snyder and a few others, they were asked and turned it down.

People know an alien in a red cape is a difficult sell to modern audiences, especially in the current 'dark' trend (as in Dark Knight, Quantum of Solace, Max Payne, Punisher)... but not all these 'dark' movies are succeeding (Payne and Punisher indicate being dark and violent is not enough on its own). There is possibly the factor that, in an economic slump like we have at present, people want some lighter and more escapist films too.

[dark_b]

iron man and transformers made a lot of money and they are bright.

maybe in this time dark movies can be complex but bright movies can not be. if this is true then just make a summer popcorn superman movie and make tons of money and we will also enjoy it.

[GreenKToo]

I think any S.H. movie thats good, be it dark or bright, will be successful.

A. hire a good director.
B. hire great writers and a composer.
C. hire a great cast.
D. Have Great Action scenes.

a great director+a good cast+a good story+plenty of action=$$$$
It's not exactly rocket science.

[DavidTyler]

iron man and transformers made a lot of money and they are bright.

maybe in this time dark movies can be complex but bright movies can not be. if this is true then just make a summer popcorn superman movie and make tons of money and we will also enjoy it.


And I think you make a very important observations here.

Iron Man was a semi-bright character set in a world that bordered on dark and flirted with being gritty.

The same can be done with Superman.

Supes doesn't need to be a dark, brooding character but he can question some of the world around him and have that world consist of all different levels of bright and dark. Obviously Lois is a complicated mix but Jimmy is very definitely a bright character and, at the other extreme, Lex is a very dark character. A director just needs to find that proper mix that doesn't destroy the decades of foundation already established.

[X-Maniac]

I think any S.H. movie thats good, be it dark or bright, will be successful.

A. hire a good director.
B. hire great writers and a composer.
C. hire a great cast.
D. Have Great Action scenes.

a great director+a good cast+a good story+plenty of action=$$$$
It's not exactly rocket science.

Interesting formula. But there wasn't any great musical composition going on in either Iron Man or Incredible Hulk or Quantum of Solace or Hellboy 2 or Hancock.

The Dark Knight's brilliantly brooding score does add to its cinematic power, though. For me it's the most memorable and stunning score since the music for X3.

[BlackLantern]

All those films mentioned have interesting use of music though....just because there isn't a big sweeping score doesn't impune the quality of the film....IMO Iron Man didn't need an epic score, the music used was fine with me.....

[dark_b]

I think any S.H. movie thats good, be it dark or bright, will be successful.

A. hire a good director.
B. hire great writers and a composer.
C. hire a great cast.
D. Have Great Action scenes.

a great director+a good cast+a good story+plenty of action=$$$$
It's not exactly rocket science.well you just said make a good movie. thats easie to say. the question is HOW. how to make a good story,have good actors and have at the same time enouogh money for some good action and make back the budget plus profit?

[Double Down]

I was watching the show Iconoclasts on the Sundance Channel the other day with Jon Favreau and Tony Hawk.
Favreau said making a superhero movie is "sort of a backward process."
When he made Swingers, the movie manifested itself naturally. He wrote it, got the funding, put together a cast, filmed it, cut it, sold it, then came up with a marketing strategy. "We came up with a poster, a release date and it went out. With a superhero movie, it's the opposite."
He said after the first one was successful, it was: "Iron Man 2. 2010. April 30. 'What's the movie about?' It's April 30. So now the clock's ticking. And the last thing you do is get the script right. And oftentimes, the clock runs out before that happens."
He said they have to do a lot of rewriting on the set.
Because of the lead time, he said, they basically have to come up with set pieces and almost weave the story around those, and "if you don't prioritize things properly, you end up doing just that."
He said he is scared because he only has two years to get it all done and he wants to make sure it's as good as possible because he cares so much about it.
At the end, he said "it's amazing [superhero] movies ever come out good."


So, if anything, it seems like WB is trying to not do that. It seems like they are aiming to get the stories right first, and then move on from there. At least that's what I hope. Nolan certainly seems to be doing that.

[GreenKToo]

well you just said make a good movie. thats easie to say. the question is HOW. how to make a good story,have good actors and have at the same time enouogh money for some good action and make back the budget plus profit?
You have to be lucky and get a director(s) such as rami, nolan, or fav.to start with.
Someone that won't look at just one aspect of Superman, but the whole entire spectrum. A director that will try and incorporate all of Superman into a film(s).
Superman is much more than just the comics or the Donner films. He's an idea. Get a director that understands that and will hire like minded writers, and you would/could have a recipe for success IMO.
But you must start with a good director.