Please, no "Superman Begins"

[myway]

This whole reboot thing is getting way out of hand. SR had its problems, but the last thing we need imo is another origin story; and a "dark" one at that. BB was good and necessary because we never really saw Batman's origins on the big screen. Superman's origins make up the first 40 min of S:TM so we'd really just be getting a remake with a full on reboot. At this point in the Superman franchise, his character is well established, as is Lois, Lex etc; he's primed for a showdown with a Supervillain. Don't supporters of a reboot realize that in order for the movie to be anything but a string of Superman money shots, a reboot is going to have to spend siginficant time reintroducing everything? Now that everybody's ga-ga over TDK, they think we need to give Superman a "Begins" movie of his own so that he can fight a supervillain; totally unnecessary. Of course the Mods will think that this has nothing to do with the reboot and will move it to a board which noone reads unless I spell everything out, so let me say this: is there anyway to salvage the backstory of previous Superman movies while appeasing people who were unhappy with SR?

[NeoRanger]

I've never seen Superman's origin. I wasn't alive in 1978.

[Crook]

I've never seen Superman's origin. I wasn't alive in 1978.
Yep. People need to get out of this fanboy mindset. YOU may know Superman's origin top-to-bottom perfectly. But there are plenty of people that at best, only have a vague sense of his actual genesis.

It's been a long while since mainstream has been exposed to such a story (and no, I don't count niche audiences like Smallville and STAS). A modern retelling, from the beginning is absolutely necessary to re-establish these characters for a new era.

[Brian Braddock]

I've never seen Superman's origin. I wasn't alive in 1978.

So people born in 1978 have a genetic disorder that stops them from purchasing or renting a DVD?

How is it possible, as a Superman fan, not to have seen Superman: the movie? :wow:

[NeoRanger]

^^ You kind of missed my point. I've seen the movie, I've seen the Adventures of Superman, I've seen L&C, Smallville, TAS and read a buttload of comic books from all three origin eras, plus stand-alones.

What I've never done is walk into a theater and watch a Superman film I can call my own. Watching Returns was like going to my dad's high school reunion in his place. What do I have to say with these old guys?

[kalelkilla]

I think they need to do the "Begins" treatment to be honest...they need to ground some things in reality as best they can. The comics arc of Birthright by Mark Millar and Superman for All Seasons by Jeph Loeb are great Origin stories that don't rehash what is established in '78...they just expand on it...They have to make Superman more relatable, and the best way to do that is to is to take the audience places that no one really knows about and show how Superman came about...showing us how human he really is and the things he emotionally struggles with...

[Brian Braddock]

Ah, now I've got what you mean, NR.

Although, I have to say, I didnt miss your point as you didnt make it in the 1st place. I took you on what you stated.

You only said that you'd never seen Superman's origin. You made no indication about that being confined to a theatrical format.

:oldrazz:

[dark_b]

just place superman in a real world. no flying pigs and no flying cars. a normal working city of tomorrow. and a flying man.

[FilmNerdJamie]

The planet Krypton explodes, but before so Jor-El (a kind and wise scientist) and his wife place their infant son in a spaceship where it escapes and crash lands on Earth. There the child is discovered by Jonathon Kent (a kind and wise farmer) and his wife, an older childless couple, who take the baby and raise him as their own where they bestoy upon him morals and values. Eventually, he grows up to discover his true heritage as Earth's protector and becomes Superman.

^That is the basics of Superman's origin. There's no need of re-treading that territory for 30-60 minutes (again) because it's common knowledge to us nerds and regular folks.

If anything, Superman (along with James Bond) is the only film franchise where the filmmakers could easily make each installment stand alone.

[matrix_ghost]

I kinda agree that the origin has been done. We all know Clark's/Superman origin.
At the same time i do feel that Donner's movie , while good as an origin movie , is very dated. Especially all the parts with Krypton just don't age well. Maybe updating certain parts with today's technology would be better ?

Or expand the origin in stuff we haven't seen.

[OwlBoy]

Or expand the origin in stuff we haven't seen.

What like having Starman coming from the future to tell Jor-El where Earth is?

Although I don't recall ever seeing Jor-El address the Science Council in live-action.

[Zephyr Alexian]

A reboot doesn't necessarily mean an origin tale. Studios say that to save face and attempt to verbally convince the public of the products' "newness" or improvement. It doesn't matter if it's the same thing told in an updated manner. Reboot means renew.

[dark_b]

people will one day just need to stop comparing it to batman begins. batma n had never an origin story. nto the movie. not the animated series. all flashback. and not in a tv series. superman had all of that. superman the movie. cartoons,tv series and again a new tv series that is devoted to hes origin.
again in ooo way the same. peopel around the world knwo how it all started.
of course a reboot needs a quick origin. but nto like batman begins IMO.

[Crook]

The planet Krypton explodes, but before so Jor-El (a kind and wise scientist) and his wife place their infant son in a spaceship where it escapes and crash lands on Earth. There the child is discovered by Jonathon Kent (a kind and wise farmer) and his wife, an older childless couple, who take the baby and raise him as their own where they bestoy upon him morals and values. Eventually, he grows up to discover his true heritage as Earth's protector and becomes Superman.

^That is the basics of Superman's origin. There's no need of re-treading that territory for 30-60 minutes (again) because it's common knowledge to us nerds and regular folks.
So? It's exactly what you said it is. Basic. You'll settle for basic? Again, the modern cinematic audience doesn't have their own Superman franchise to work with. You need a jumpoff point to establish the universe.

It would make little sense to jump in the middle of things, and assume everyone is on the same wavelength in terms of knowledge on the story and characters.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

This thread seems tad useless to me.

People also went ga-ga over Spider-Man and Iron Man. I think that the only people who hate orgin stories are comicbook nerds. I mean, they could start a Captain America movie when he's already Captain America but I'd perfer an orgin story.

I love orgin stories and believe that Superman needs to be re-orgined.

[FilmNerdJamie]

So? It's exactly what you said it is. Basic. You'll settle for basic? Again, the modern cinematic audience doesn't have their own Superman franchise to work with. You need a jumpoff point to establish the universe.

It would make little sense to jump in the middle of things, and assume everyone is on the same wavelength in terms of knowledge on the story and characters.

:whatever:

Actually it would make little sense to retread on territory people already know like the "basics" of Superman's origin story.

[Crook]

:whatever:

Actually it would make little sense to retread on territory people already know like the "basics" of Superman's origin story.
You can't retread based on basics. How is that even possible? You break down the narrative of every film, cartoon, and book ever created, into "simple basics", and you could probably get it down to like 20 different stories, tops. The key is the details to how those basics are told. From there, several branches cover new ground.

Was TDK a retread because it went over the Batman/Joker rivalry and genesis of their relationship....again? No, not even close. Because they took the basics, laid the groundwork to develop a NEW interpretation, and produced something that was fresh. Same principles apply for a Superman reboot. I don't get this notion that an origin story is somehow gonna be exactly the same as previous incarnations. That lacks imagination.

[FilmNerdJamie]

It actually lacks imagination to assume there has to be a retread of the origin instead of just doing a stand-alone Superman film where he fights a villain like Brainiac or the Parasite. Yet again...:whatever:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I think it's ridiculous to believe that we shouldn't ever see a Superman re-orgin. The first movie came out in 78, it's time to re-orgin this b**ch.

[Showtime]

I actually would prefer it if they just did a stand alone type film and not an origin story. If they do however go the origin route, which isn't clear at this point, then I wouldn't mind it.

[Crook]

It actually lacks imagination to assume there has to be a retread of the origin instead of just doing a stand-alone Superman film where he fights a villain like Brainiac or the Parasite. Yet again...:whatever:
Are you actually going to address any points I've made, or at least back up your statements? You keep rolling your eyes all you want, but you can't even civilly discuss a topic without being condescending.

It's like you wanna push the stereotype of a girl that covers her ears and goes "LALALALALALA" during an argument. :huh:

[Sam]

I think its going to be really funny when WB releases a movie with Superman origin. While i am a HUGE fan of 1978, i totally support retelling the origin.

This argument that everyone knows Superman origin is BS. Only thing that everyone knows is that he was sent from his home planet to Earth to be saved and raised by an old couple. THATS IT.

Superman origin is MUCH more than that. When ppl realise this, things will be much easier.

If u think about it, Batman, much more than Superman, didnt need an origin story. And everyone knows Batman origin either (parentes murdered and bruce became Batman to revenge them). But Batman Begins had so much more than that. Thats what Superman needs.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Are you actually going to address any points I've made, or at least back up your statements? You keep rolling your eyes all you want, but you can't even civilly discuss a topic without being condescending.

It's like you wanna push the stereotype of a girl that covers her ears and goes "LALALALALALA" during an argument. :huh:

You do realize that Superman Returns got alot of crap for being "a retread of Donner's film"

What would exactly would you call flat-out rebooting the series and re-doing the origin all over again? You'd get the exact same complaint from people. Yes, even when you tweak it around here and there (i.e. like having Clark & Lex being class-mates or having Ma & Pa Kent still alive and active in Superman's adult life!)

It's still the same basic origin story.

CHUDs Devin Faraci said it perfectly - "There are two origin stories that everyone knows: Jesus Christ and Superman!"

[Crook]

You do realize that Superman Returns got alot of crap for being "a retread of Donner's film"
Because it was. Point by point that's exactly what Singer's film is. No one is denying this.


What would exactly would you call flat-out rebooting the series and re-doing the origin all over again? You'd get the exact same complaint from people. Yes, even when you tweak it around here and there (i.e. like having Clark & Lex being class-mates or having Ma & Pa Kent still alive and active in Superman's adult life!)
So when Birthright came out this was the case? STAS? Smallville? L&C? No, I think not. They all garnered their own fanbase and there was next to zero backlash because of covering old territory.


It's still the same basic origin story.

And as I've noted, the "basics" cover so very little of the overall story presentation. Things only become a retread if you don't make it your own and copy someone else's work. The very fact that Superman's origin HAS been done so many times, and yet many are unique in their own way, should show that these "basics" matter little in the big picture.

CHUDs Devin Faraci said it perfectly - "There are two origin stories that everyone knows: Jesus Christ and Superman!"
And yet, there are hordes of films starring Jesus, with the same exact story. He's an even worse offender when it comes to retelling narratives.

[FilmNerdJamie]

So when Birthright came out this was the case? STAS? Smallville? L&C? No, I think not. They all garnered their own fanbase and there was next to zero backlash because of covering old territory.

And as I've noted, the "basics" cover so very little of the overall story presentation. Things only become a retread if you don't make it your own and copy someone else's work. The very fact that Superman's origin HAS been done so many times, and yet many are unique in their own way, should show that these "basics" matter little in the big picture.

Yeah comics and TV series (where the origins are changed often) are in the exact same ball-game as films. Great example! :whatever:

And yet, there are hordes of films starring Jesus, with the same exact story. He's an even worse offender when it comes to retelling narratives.

Oh yeah...The Passion had to absolutely retell the origin of Jesus so people could follow it.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[The Batman]

i find it funny that fanboys are the only ones that dont care for origin stories.

yeah...because the general audience will be sooo excited to wait an hour before superman starts smacking things around. the truth is, the only ones that give a damn period about an origin, whether they use it or not, are fanboys. the general audience will not care whether they use it or not.

IMO, this movie's already in danger of being formulaic...why make it worse by wasting time with the same origin format STM created in the first place?

[Zephyr Alexian]

I actually would prefer it if they just did a stand alone type film and not an origin story.

I also think that a stand alone film is the way to go. Closure is nice with each film.

Smallville handicaps a silver screen origin story in some ways. We've seen Eight seasons of Clark growing up for better and worse.

A new version may highlight that transition in a different way, but if it's not beneficial to the story, film's character arcs, or a major plot point, I'd prefer to focus on a different time in his life.

[Lighthouse]

I think the movie needs to be some kind of origin type. Maybe not all the flown from Krypton stuff, but I really think we need to see the beginning stages of Clarks relationships with other characters. Its not so much whats already known, its building a sense of chemistry between actors. Routh and Bosworth never felt real to me, because it never felt like they'd known each other that long. I think in the new movie, relationships need to be built from the ground up.

Funny thing is, I don't mind if they change the origin up a bit, but when JJ Abrams tried to do it, people threw a hissy fit. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing a differnent version of an origin, with fantastic new special effects.

[Crook]

Yeah comics and TV series (where the origins are changed often) are in the exact same ball-game as films. Great example! :whatever:
Umm, mind telling me how they're not comparable? A reboot film is starting off on a clean slate just like any of those series' at the point where they retold an origin. The medium has nothing to do with it.

Oh yeah...The Passion had to absolutely retell the origin of Jesus so people could follow it.
Naming a film or two are exceptions, not the rule. A great majority of films featuring Jesus do retell his genesis.

And one thing you conveniently don't consider, is that Jesus' story is an essential element of Christianity. Yes, the religion. The religion whose believers encompass a third of the world's population. These numbers don't exactly lessen because the religion is taught to kids and adults alike for a limitless time. It doesn't go away.

Compare that to Superman who has had "gaps" of relevance to an audience. Hence why you have entire generations who don't have much knowledge on the character.

Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Ok.

[The Guard]

There's nothing that says a Superman origin movie has to cover the same ground as Donner's SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, or that it needs to play out in a linear fashion.

[myway]

Maybe I'm just too old and set in my ways. I grew up watching S:TM and I assume that anyone's who's a fan has seen the movie already. You could make the argument that any new twist on the origin story is "new" but I'd much rather see Superman fight Brainiac or Darkseid than see Krypton explode again.

[Lighthouse]

There's nothing that says a Superman origin movie has to cover the same ground as Donner's SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, or that it needs to play out in a linear fashion.

Thank you. I'm surprised that people think an origin movie is gonna play out just like the Donner film.

[Sam]

Maybe I'm just too old and set in my ways. I grew up watching S:TM and I assume that anyone's who's a fan has seen the movie already. You could make the argument that any new twist on the origin story is "new" but I'd much rather see Superman fight Brainiac or Darkseid than see Krypton explode again.

You answer yourself: "I grew up watching S:TM and I assume that anyone's who's a fan has seen the movie already."

What makes u think that the movie will be made JUST for fans? Just for YOU? Or just for ME?

Do u know how many ppl buy Superman comics? Around 50k.

Movies are made to reach a much, much, MUCH, MUUUUCH bigger audience than fans. Get used to it.

[kalelkilla]

There are SO many aspects of Clark Kent's history that has not been on the big screen. Some people on these boards think that everyone watches the same Superman related media that they do...it's simply not true. Everyone knows that he came from another planet and was raised by the Kents and that he loves Lois Lane. But other than that I'm not sure the mass majority of people know much else...How was raising a super powered teenager? Where did Clark go to College? Why did he pick journalism? There is so much we don't know about his teens and 20s...(much like Jesus) most people just know that he crashed landed as an infant and when he turned 30 he went to Metropolis as Superman...well what about all those years in between? It's a good way to do an origin story without doing an origin story...if you get what I mean...Yes I know these things I'm bringing up have been addressed in the comics and in smallville...but lets get real people, most people don't read comics, and most people don't watch smallville.

[kalelkilla]

I don't understand how people take a CARTOON made for 5 year olds, and preach about it like it's Superman cannon...

[BATZARRO WWD]

Me no get it. Having a villain thread and an origin told are not mutually exclusive. Didn't you guys see Ironman, Daredevil, Batman Begins, Spider-man, etc.? All these HAD the origin story AND 1(or more) villain. In fact,playing Brainiac of the origin is a great way to have him be the villain.

I think we already saw what happens when you drop the character in the middle of the story last time. You can't fully connect to him and he becomes "a force" rather than someone you'd be. You see him in third person, rather than fourth.

Could they skip it? Yeah, if they play their cards right they could save the whole Krypton charade. But It'd be a more powerfull effect if the audience followed the hero from the cradle into the earth's most powerfull hero.

Do we know it? Sure. We also know beforehand he's gonna win and save the day, and that doesn't detriment from the enjoyment.

I don't understand how people take a CARTOON made for 5 year olds, and preach about it like it's Superman cannon..

Krypto the Superdog?

[NeoRanger]

An origin story doesn't have to play out like STM, as mentioned already. I'm already in favor of a Superman who's not aware of his origins and learns about them throughout the movie and presented to us through flashbacks. Others prefer it a different way, but regardless, nobody's saying it should go down the same way as in STM. The opposite, actually.

If you reboot, you need an origin to a bigger or lesser extend. It's a bad idea not to have one, even from a writing standpoint. You need to establish your character. Very few characters work with the here and now, without references to their past and these aren't designed for longevity. Superman isn't like Bond. Or Indy. He's like Batman. And Spider-Man. He's a comic book character. He'll come and go and then come again to appeal to a different crowd. You can't take an already established Superman, throw him in different context and expect him to make sense.

Overall, I find it absolutely ridiculous that the newer ones of us are essentially denied a brand-new Superman retelling, simply because STM exists.

[FCEEVIPER]

Make it as good as TDK, but not as dark.

[solidsnake86]

There's nothing that says a Superman origin movie has to cover the same ground as Donner's SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, or that it needs to play out in a linear fashion.

This is the most intelligent post in this thread. Origin doesn't necessarily mean it has to be straight from the beginning. If anything, like lighthouse said that first interaction with the characters is needed. How are they going to start a movie with a villain and not explain why he doesn't have a kid (Oh did everyone forget that SR came out in 2006). A non linear origin is the best option. Clark comes to the daily planet for the first time, we get to know the characters, intercut with some moments as a child and have a villain that allows for Kryptons story to be told.

[Hole Shot]

There's nothing that says a Superman origin movie has to cover the same ground as Donner's SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, or that it needs to play out in a linear fashion.

Took the words out of my mouth.

[DavidTyler]

The planet Krypton explodes, but before so Jor-El (a kind and wise scientist) and his wife place their infant son in a spaceship where it escapes and crash lands on Earth. There the child is discovered by Jonathon Kent (a kind and wise farmer) and his wife, an older childless couple, who take the baby and raise him as their own where they bestoy upon him morals and values. Eventually, he grows up to discover his true heritage as Earth's protector and becomes Superman.

^That is the basics of Superman's origin. There's no need of re-treading that territory for 30-60 minutes (again) because it's common knowledge to us nerds and regular folks.

If anything, Superman (along with James Bond) is the only film franchise where the filmmakers could easily make each installment stand alone.

And here in lies why there absolutely NEEDS to be an origin story.

It's just not that cut and dried.

Jor-els story is not as simple as what you've posted here. It's a story about a rebel who has to resort to drastic means to save the life of his son. It's a great story and a great bit of science fiction if it's done right. It could be epic in it's own right like one of the great science fiction films of the past - like Logan's Run.

[jmc]

Make it as good as TDK, but not as dark.

Easier said than done.

[dark_b]

And here in lies why there absolutely NEEDS to be an origin story.

It's just not that cut and dried.

Jor-els story is not as simple as what you've posted here. It's a story about a rebel who has to resort to drastic means to save the life of his son. It's a great story and a great bit of science fiction if it's done right. It could be epic in it's own right like one of the great science fiction films of the past - like Logan's Run.
well batmans origin is very much connected with who he is after that.

with superman are you gonna tell me that what joer-el is doing on krypton has any connection with superman saving people? its a nice backstory for superman.from where he came. but it has no conenction with lex luthor the villain and lois lane. superman saves people because of pa and ma kent.
just my opinion.

[dark_b]

This is the most intelligent post in this thread. Origin doesn't necessarily mean it has to be straight from the beginning. If anything, like lighthouse said that first interaction with the characters is needed. How are they going to start a movie with a villain and not explain why he doesn't have a kid (Oh did everyone forget that SR came out in 2006). A non linear origin is the best option. Clark comes to the daily planet for the first time, we get to know the characters, intercut with some moments as a child and have a villain that allows for Kryptons story to be told.i think a lot of people want every from the beginning. step by step. like i am a 3 yr old and need very slow scenes.


the origin needs to be interesting. it is what it is. if you want to spend 30 minutes with the origin it needs to be interesting. with BB the orign was about bruce. supermans origin is 20 minutes of joer-el,lara,krypton shots,earthquake,explosion. where is here superman? ohhh the baby.
make it interesting and let kal-el be a part of the origin and i am on your side.

[DavidTyler]

dark_b - it is VERY MUCH connected to who Clark is. It doesn't have to be connected to Luthor.

We need to see that Clark is not just an average guy even though he very much acts like one and would like to be one. We need to see the heroism of Jor-El (not joer-el) so we can see how that carried down the blood-line to Kal-El.

AND - it could be a very exciting story.

[dark_b]

i just donw want S:TM origin with updated effects and a different krypton. it needs to woow people.
i really dont want to bring BB in this thread but it is what it is. a lot of people just love the first hour of BB. a lot more then other origins. it is a little cliche and they use some cliche lines. but its more interesting then just to see a boy in the corner when some football players are getting all the girls. yeah i am watching at you donner and raimi.

[fabman]

You know. Batman Begins worked, but I don't think you should tell Superman's origins like that.

[Kahoot]

I've never seen Superman's origin. I wasn't alive in 1978.
Really? God dude, rent a DVD once in a while. Hell it's Superman, buy a DVD once in a while. We can even get Superman: The Movie on Blu-Ray, go buy that if you want. It might not be a cinema but it's Blu-Ray so it's Hi-Def.

I'm all for a rebot but they don't need to focus too much on the origin, it's superman and everyone knows the basics. All we need for an Origin is the opening from Smallville when Ma and Pa Kent find him, a 2 min montage showing him age and use powers, then maybethe opening of Lois and Clack when he first get his job and put the hand print in the front of the bus.

[NeoRanger]

Actually, part of Superman's origin as of the latter years has been traveling around the world to decide what he wants to do with his powers. It's probably a risky idea, seeing as how many people will probably think he's ripping Batman off, but Superman being lonely isn't the only aspect of his earlier years. They should eventually start touching on that too.

[Kahoot]

i find it funny that fanboys are the only ones that dont care for origin stories.

yeah...because the general audience will be sooo excited to wait an hour before superman starts smacking things around. the truth is, the only ones that give a damn period about an origin, whether they use it or not, are fanboys. the general audience will not care whether they use it or not.

IMO, this movie's already in danger of being formulaic...why make it worse by wasting time with the same origin format STM created in the first place?
I'm totaly not a Superman Fanboy, actually I find Superman to be the worst of all the Superheros coz's he's just too super. But I've had enough with all these origin storys this decade and we all know most of them but the different movie directors all have to put some spin on it to make people wanna see it again. Just do as short an origin as possible and go into the movie. Maybe do flashbacks showing things in the movie and it's sequels but don't get dragged down with another origin movie.

[Superman-Prime]

No reboot, please! They need to make a sequel of SR immediately!!

[November Rain]

is superman's origin integral to the character?

[Kahoot]

is superman's origin integral to the character?
Depends how you play it. If you say he's an Alien then you kind of need some sort of back story but if he's just a super powered orphan looking to find himself and save people then that's not so back story heavy.

[batman44]

I much prefer an origin movie, I also think it's the best way to move away from the Donner Universe.

[NotFadeAway]

An origin story is essential to the rebirth of the franchise. We must move away from Donnor.

Superman vs. Braniac in an origin flick centered around Superman's first appearence in the world and the trickle effects. Sounds different from Donnor already.

[Keyser Soze]

I can see the arguments for and against a reboot, and ultimately I'd understand if the filmmakers did go the "Superman Begins" route.

However, I personally think the best option would be to go for the "loose sequel" approach, as seen with "The Incredible Hulk" or the Bond films over the years.

For argument's sake, let's take something along the lines of the current Brainiac story from Action Comics as a template. You have a pre-credits sequence set during the last days of Krypton, retro-actively working in Brainiac as playing a role in the planet's destruction. Then perhaps an opening montage showing the Kents finding baby Kal-El and Clark's evolution into Superman.

From there, you reintroduce the recast Daily Planet ensemble, likely with certain issues (IE the whole deadbeat dad thing) quietly streamlined out of continuity. And whether you're going for respectable businessman Lex Luthor or supervillain mad-scientist Lex Luthor, you reintegrate him as a character in darker, less campy fashion.

And from there, you introduce the threat of Brainiac, and launch right into the epic action.

[Commodore Schmidlapp]

I can see the arguments for and against a reboot, and ultimately I'd understand if the filmmakers did go the "Superman Begins" route.

However, I personally think the best option would be to go for the "loose sequel" approach, as seen with "The Incredible Hulk" or the Bond films over the years.

For argument's sake, let's take something along the lines of the current Brainiac story from Action Comics as a template. You have a pre-credits sequence set during the last days of Krypton, retro-actively working in Brainiac as playing a role in the planet's destruction. Then perhaps an opening montage showing the Kents finding baby Kal-El and Clark's evolution into Superman.

From there, you reintroduce the recast Daily Planet ensemble, likely with certain issues (IE the whole deadbeat dad thing) quietly streamlined out of continuity. And whether you're going for respectable businessman Lex Luthor or supervillain mad-scientist Lex Luthor, you reintegrate him as a character in darker, less campy fashion.

And from there, you introduce the threat of Brainiac, and launch right into the epic action.
I like where you're going here, and I prefer the businessman Lex.

[I Am The Knight]

What a useless thread...And yes, I AM sorry I clicked on it, so save it.

[myway]

I can see the arguments for and against a reboot, and ultimately I'd understand if the filmmakers did go the "Superman Begins" route.

However, I personally think the best option would be to go for the "loose sequel" approach, as seen with "The Incredible Hulk" or the Bond films over the years.

For argument's sake, let's take something along the lines of the current Brainiac story from Action Comics as a template. You have a pre-credits sequence set during the last days of Krypton, retro-actively working in Brainiac as playing a role in the planet's destruction. Then perhaps an opening montage showing the Kents finding baby Kal-El and Clark's evolution into Superman.

From there, you reintroduce the recast Daily Planet ensemble, likely with certain issues (IE the whole deadbeat dad thing) quietly streamlined out of continuity. And whether you're going for respectable businessman Lex Luthor or supervillain mad-scientist Lex Luthor, you reintegrate him as a character in darker, less campy fashion.

And from there, you introduce the threat of Brainiac, and launch right into the epic action.

This guy has the right idea. For those that were unhappy with SR or previous Superman movies, this does the trick. For people like me who liked SR and the Donner movies, it still fits in with continuity. I think the latest Hulk movie did a great job of rebooting the franchise for those who didn't like Ang Lee's movie but if you liked Lee's movie, you could sort of fit TIH in continuity wise.

[Sam]

However, I personally think the best option would be to go for the "loose sequel" approach, as seen with "The Incredible Hulk" or the Bond films over the years.

Maybe i am the only one on this, but i think that Incredible Hulk failed.

While i enjoyed the movie, and i think its better than the first one, on marketing standpoint to put franchise on the right track was a HUGE flop.

Besides, Hulk origin was told 4 years ago. So, no point on redo his origin. Superman's was done 30 years ago. Big difference there.

And Superman Returns was exactly that: "loose sequel". Point is, there are stuffs done in SR that cant be missed an a "loose sequel", like Superman havind a kid.

[NeoRanger]

For those that were unhappy with SR or previous Superman movies, this does the trick.

It really doesn't. If I see yet another Krypton made out of crystals, I'll deliberately pop a blood vessel in my brain. And if you change the crystals, if you change Lex, if you change the music, you really just end up with a reboot that tells no origin.

SR was a loose sequel and it didn't work. The general idea of a loose sequel isn't necessarily a bad one, but at the moment, it's unwise.

[The Guard]

Jor-els story is not as simple as what you've posted here. It's a story about a rebel who has to resort to drastic means to save the life of his son. It's a great story and a great bit of science fiction if it's done right. It could be epic in it's own right like one of the great science fiction films of the past - like Logan's Run.

Jor-El's story could be epic, sure. But a Superman movie should be about Superman, and Jor-El's role in his mythology. Not about just Jor-El and his personal struggles. In Superman mythology, Jor-El is essentially responsible for saving Kal-El's life, and indirectly, for his Kryptonian heritage, and that's about it in terms of the big picture. Could you make him more relevant? Sure, and maybe you should, but you don't have to. Richard Donner actually tried to make Jor-El more relevant than he'd ever been to Superman's overall story by having Jor-El "train him" and provide him with his mission on Earth.

See, I don't neccessarily have to see Krypton explode, or Jor-El send Kal-El away, or Jor-El's struggles with the council in the first movie. I don't even neccessarily want to see Ma and Pa Kent finding him. I want to see the thematic relevance of all that. I want to see an element Superman movie, not one that merely ticks off the basics of the origin story.

STAS was fun, but I don't know that it's first few episodes should be used as the blueprint for the next Superman movie. Braniac being tied to Superman's origin could work, and is all well and good. But I say you make a movie that deals with the origin of Superman in the public eye, a movie that hints about where he came from, not a movie that is directly about where he came from. He need not even know he's FROM Krypton to start with. That creates conflict, drama, etc, and it gives you somewhere to go in a sequel that is dramatically satisfying. You start with Braniac, and his ties to Krypton right off the bat, and where do you go? Right to another alien threat? Zod? Darkseid? The Death of Superman?

[fabman]

Jor-El's story could be epic, sure. But a Superman movie should be about Superman, and Jor-El's role in his mythology. Not about just Jor-El and his personal struggles. In Superman mythology, Jor-El is essentially responsible for saving Kal-El's life, and indirectly, for his Kryptonian heritage, and that's about it in terms of the big picture. Could you make him more relevant? Sure, and maybe you should, but you don't have to. Richard Donner actually tried to make Jor-El more relevant than he'd ever been to Superman's overall story by having Jor-El "train him" and provide him with his mission on Earth.

See, I don't neccessarily have to see Krypton explode, or Jor-El send Kal-El away, or Jor-El's struggles with the council in the first movie. I don't even neccessarily want to see Ma and Pa Kent finding him. I want to see the thematic relevance of all that. I want to see an element Superman movie, not one that merely ticks off the basics of the origin story.

STAS was fun, but I don't know that it's first few episodes should be used as the blueprint for the next Superman movie. Braniac being tied to Superman's origin could work, and is all well and good. But I say you make a movie that deals with the origin of Superman in the public eye, a movie that hints about where he came from, not a movie that is directly about where he came from. He need not even know he's FROM Krypton to start with. That creates conflict, drama, etc, and it gives you somewhere to go in a sequel that is dramatically satisfying. You start with Braniac, and his ties to Krypton right off the bat, and where do you go? Right to another alien threat? Zod? Darkseid? The Death of Superman?

Couldn't agree more... So, who do you think should be the villain in the Superman reboot?

[The Guard]

Superman himself. Eh? Eh?

[fabman]

Yeah. :D

[SymbioteKal-El]

This whole reboot thing is getting way out of hand. SR had its problems, but the last thing we need imo is another origin story; and a "dark" one at that. BB was good and necessary because we never really saw Batman's origins on the big screen. Superman's origins make up the first 40 min of S:TM so we'd really just be getting a remake with a full on reboot. At this point in the Superman franchise, his character is well established, as is Lois, Lex etc; he's primed for a showdown with a Supervillain. Don't supporters of a reboot realize that in order for the movie to be anything but a string of Superman money shots, a reboot is going to have to spend siginficant time reintroducing everything? Now that everybody's ga-ga over TDK, they think we need to give Superman a "Begins" movie of his own so that he can fight a supervillain; totally unnecessary. Of course the Mods will think that this has nothing to do with the reboot and will move it to a board which noone reads unless I spell everything out, so let me say this: is there anyway to salvage the backstory of previous Superman movies while appeasing people who were unhappy with SR?

All along I have never believed that a Superman movie should be Superman Begins, combine S:TM and Smallville, and there are MORE than enough people out there who know Superman's origin, or at least the essentials, an origing would make less money than SR IMO.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think if WB are indeed going to re-boot, which it seems they are, then they need to tell an origin story, simply for the purposes of getting the story accross to the GA.

[fabman]

There's so much you can do with the story and the script - and the character - to don't just make a "generic origin movie." That's the least you should do with Superman. Because, let's face it - HE IS / CAN BE THE MOST GENERIC SUPERHERO (and that's why he doesn't appeal to everybody anymore), but if you write it right - then there's some interesting stuff to tell. I think Superman is the last comic book character who can be in a generic superhero. If Hulk's in a generic flick ('The Incredible Hulk'), it may turn out mediocre, but a generic Superman flick could be the most boring **** ever.

So, well thought-out, "non-generic" script - that's what I want!

[The Sage]

I think if WB are indeed going to re-boot, which it seems they are, then they need to tell an origin story, simply for the purposes of getting the story accross to the GA.

I agree.

Prior to SR, I would've said an origin isn't necessary. But in order to distinguish this series from SR and even Smallville, a new origin story should be done to avoid any confusion.

And really, now is the best time with the technology available. Superman has one of the best origin stories ever. Would be great to see it all on the big screen.

[millennium movies]

Man i can't wait for the next film, and i really hope Routh comes back, they'd be stupid not to cast him. Also now i guess we'll never get to see the return to Krypton scene, way to go Singer what a waste.

[I Am The Knight]

Man i can't wait for the next film, and i really hope Routh comes back, they'd be stupid not to cast him. Also now i guess we'll never get to see the return to Krypton scene, way to go Singer what a waste.

That kind of footafe always resurfaces...Sure, it might take them 20 years to release it, but, eventually, it should be made available...

[The Guard]

Yes, it always resurfaces...

If it ever existed to begin with...

Eh?

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I can't believe that someone suggested a loose sequel to SR. That kind of thinking is what got us in trouble the first time.

I will always be for a re-orgin because anything less will be confusing.

Pa Kent comes walking into the movie= audience confused.

Kid gone = audience confused.

It will end up just like TIH at the boxoffice...if it's lucky. Hopefully it's a good movie though, too bad it's the last one for a long while.

[El Payaso]

If they're REALLY making a different fresh approach to Superman's origin then I'm all for it. If they are actually going to explore his psyche and reasons and dilemmas and will not merely showing him in amazing CGI shots. Yes why not.

But if it's only same story with better effects then no.

[sdc10]

I really dont care what the hell they show in the movie whether it be origin or not just as long as they make a good movie

[Matt]

If they're REALLY making a different fresh approach to Superman's origin then I'm all for it. If they are actually going to explore his psyche and reasons and dilemmas and will not merely showing him in amazing CGI shots. Yes why not.

But if it's only same story with better effects then no.

I don't get why people seem to think it would be the same story with better effects. Yes, the essentials will be there, a scientist saves his son from a dying planet by putting him on a ship to Earth, but compare STAS' origin story to S:TM. Compare Lois and Clark's to the comics. Hell, even compare pre-crisis (which S:TM is based on) to post-crisis. There are tons of fresh ways to re-tell the origin. Just because the criminally overrated Richard Donner movie did it, doesn't mean its impossible for anyone to do it better.

The logic behind posters like Jamie baffles me. Should we shut down the NBA because the 95 Bulls were really good or should teams aspire to be better than them? Everyone knew Peter Parker was bit by a radioactive spider. Didn't stop Spider-Man from making a **** load of money and capturing the interest of the public. A creative, original, re-telling of the origin is definitely in order.

[Showtime]

It won't be the same story, it will be totally different. If they are going to do an origin flick, I would prefer it more in the vein of Batman Begins which some of you might have mentioned.

[bgshw44]

It won't be the same story, it will be totally different. If they are going to do an origin flick, I would prefer it more in the vein of Batman Begins which some of you might have mentioned.


Thats what I hope.I dont want the movie to start at the beginning etc..

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I agree.

Prior to SR, I would've said an origin isn't necessary. But in order to distinguish this series from SR and even Smallville, a new origin story should be done to avoid any confusion.

And really, now is the best time with the technology available. Superman has one of the best origin stories ever. Would be great to see it all on the big screen.

To be honest I dont particularly want to see his origin, but from a general audience stand-point, if they are re-booting, they need to tell it IMO.

[bunk]

I wouldn't be at all against seeing the origin again. I'd like to actually see Krypton the way it should be and a more interesting back story for the FOS. At the same time, I would like to see Superman throughout the entire movie starting with the first scene.

[The Sage]

To be honest I dont particularly want to see his origin, but from a general audience stand-point, if they are re-booting, they need to tell it IMO.

Almost the same. Plus, I've never been completely satisfied with all of the other takes on the origins. I'm hoping if the origin is done, it's done superbly.

[Brian Braddock]

So, if we are seeing the origin again - are we talking of a 'Flash Gordon/Mongo-esque' Krypton here? the 'Byrne' version of Krypton? A Krypton with cities styled like the comicbook Kandor or something completely fresh and new?

[SuperDaniel]

Hopefully a mix of all the above!!!

[Stringer]

I don't get why people seem to think it would be the same story with better effects. Yes, the essentials will be there, a scientist saves his son from a dying planet by putting him on a ship to Earth, but compare STAS' origin story to S:TM. Compare Lois and Clark's to the comics. Hell, even compare pre-crisis (which S:TM is based on) to post-crisis. There are tons of fresh ways to re-tell the origin. Just because the criminally overrated Richard Donner movie did it, doesn't mean its impossible for anyone to do it better.

The logic behind posters like Jamie baffles me. Should we shut down the NBA because the 95 Bulls were really good or should teams aspire to be better than them? Everyone knew Peter Parker was bit by a radioactive spider. Didn't stop Spider-Man from making a **** load of money and capturing the interest of the public. A creative, original, re-telling of the origin is definitely in order.
Agreed 100%

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Agreed 200%.

[solidsnake86]

^ fans who make sense.

[The Sage]

Am I in that group?

[Nirvana]

Please, yes "Superman Begins".

[solidsnake86]

I'm not gonna lie I thought superman returns was a good movie and gets really harsh criticism, but I think everyone realizes that its not getting a sequel. However, SR is a good measuring rod of what worked and what didn't, namely the donner movies. I mean people were salivating at the mouths when they heard of all the connections it would have to STM. You see where that got us, now people want to make the exact same mistakes as SR. In order to reintroduce these characters you need to start out at the beginning of their journey, not in the middle of it. Nobody says that has to be in smallville, but it has to be at the daily planet at the very least. Some posters here think that STM will explain everything in a new film series, guess what, they tried that, it didnt work, people were confused as hell. I think it comes off as arrogance to think that people actually care about STM anymore, thats why superman begins is necessary.

[8wid]

I think this is more about establishing an origin story for Superman, rather than having him already in existence. Origin stories just weaken the character because they long, excessive, and just drag on. Having the character already formed and firmly in place gives everyone the hero they want without needing to find out where he came from. The origin could always be told in the credit sequence before the actual film begins, such as the narrator announcing Superman's brief background. The old Superman serials and films did it, so can the new era media.

[millennium movies]

I think this is more about establishing an origin story for Superman, rather than having him already in existence. Origin stories just weaken the character because they long, excessive, and just drag on. Having the character already formed and firmly in place gives everyone the hero they want without needing to find out where he came from. The origin could always be told in the credit sequence before the actual film begins, such as the narrator announcing Superman's brief background. The old Superman serials and films did it, so can the new era media.

Exactly its been done time and again not to mention beaten over the head:

Fleisher Cartoons
George Reeves series
S:TM
STAS
Lois & Clark
Smallville
SR (refresh since Donnerverse)

Not to mention all the other material such as comics and other cartoons/books/mediums.
Also don't give me the "those series are old" speech as they were all refreshed and came out as box sets after Superman Returns. How about we just do it the Hulk way and get right into it without boring us with this origin bull thats been dragging the Superman character for the past 10 years plus now?

[dru-zod2501]

If they wanted to do a new origin now there are only two ways they should do it at this point if they wanted to.

1: Have a prequel movie of Krypton's last days before starting a new franchise
2: Make a new theme song for the next movie, and while it's playing on screen show the New Krypton and Clark's growing up in flashes (something like they did with the latest Incredible Hulk movie)

[dru-zod2501]

just place superman in a real world. no flying pigs and no flying cars. a normal working city of tomorrow. and a flying man.
I thought of that once. The problem with it is... In order to provide a real challenge for Superman, Earth technology has to be way beyond what it is in the real world. There's no real way to stop that kind of tech from spreading across the globe, especially not with people like Lex Luthor in the world, so it wouldn't take long at all for this "real" world to become a sci-fantasy-type world, killing your idea

[GreenKToo]

I don't mind the origin retold as long as it doesn't take 40 mins or longer before we get to see Superman for the first time.

[Reebee52]

If they wanted to do a new origin now there are only two ways they should do it at this point if they wanted to.

1: Have a prequel movie of Krypton's last days before starting a new franchise
2: Make a new theme song for the next movie, and while it's playing on screen show the New Krypton and Clark's growing up in flashes (something like they did with the latest Incredible Hulk movie)

I actually wouldn't mind a fall of Krypton prequel. If done right, that could transcend a minor comic book story and read like Shakespeare.

However when they don't do that, because they won't, I think the next Superman movie needs an origin. It doesn't have to be forty minutes, but it should be done. Most run-of-the mill moviegoers don't know squat about Superman. I've had more than enough people ask me "wait... If it's pieces of his home planet, why does it hurt him?" They don't know who Jor El is, they don't know his real name is Kal El. These are important part of the mythos that the general audience is oblivious to!
We can't assume people watch Smallville or read comics, because most don't. And most people today haven't seen Superman: The Movie. And even if they have, damn that movie has dated. I want to see a Superman for this generation, with a Krypton that isn't a popsicle and Clark's parents aren't ninety.
As someone said, Batman Begins was not really necessary. Batman's origins are far simpler than Superman's, in summary: his parents were shot by a mugger and that drove him to fight crime any way that he could. But that concept was made deeper and broadened and made fresh in Begins. Superman doesn't need that much origin, but it could be refreshed in such a way that people go nuts about it.

[NeoRanger]

Guys, the Superman origin isn't a factual event, or encyclopedic knowledge. It's not about anyone really knowing it. It's a story. It's about telling it and enjoying it. That's why it worked in Begins. What, Burton's Batman didn't have an origin? He did show how Batman came to be and the movie was set during his first appearances. Most of the Superman media that are blamed of showing the Superman origin more or less did the same thing. But there was a story, a bigger and beautiful story, to tell about Batman. And there is one about Superman, too.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Almost the same. Plus, I've never been completely satisfied with all of the other takes on the origins. I'm hoping if the origin is done, it's done superbly.

If they do it a certain way it could be very good, but will the GA responsd to it? Thats the essential question.

[El Payaso]

I don't get why people seem to think it would be the same story with better effects.

I don't even know. Maybe that little thing called Hollywood and the way they do things most of times?

Yes, the essentials will be there, a scientist saves his son from a dying planet by putting him on a ship to Earth, but compare STAS' origin story to S:TM. Compare Lois and Clark's to the comics. Hell, even compare pre-crisis (which S:TM is based on) to post-crisis. There are tons of fresh ways to re-tell the origin. Just because the criminally overrated Richard Donner movie did it, doesn't mean its impossible for anyone to do it better.

That's true. That's what I meant by "If they're REALLY making a different fresh approach to Superman's origin then I'm all for it."

Then again, after many years watching these movies I can't just assume they'll just do it the right way.

Donner has nothing to do with it.

The logic behind posters like Jamie baffles me.

The logic behind quoting me on this one baffles me.

Everyone knew Peter Parker was bit by a radioactive spider. Didn't stop Spider-Man from making a **** load of money and capturing the interest of the public. A creative, original, re-telling of the origin is definitely in order.

In fact the radioactive/genetically altered spider did nothing for Spiderman. It didn't change a thing nor it was a biug contribution nor even creative. Spiderman 1 got its audience for entirely different reasons that had to do more with an entertaining narrative than anything else. 90% or more of the GA didn't give crap about the little changes such as the radioactive spider.

[AnorexicBatman]

I would like to see something like in a comic I once read
Superman busts into a Cobra base and beats them up. After he does so, a news report comes on the television stating that Lana Lang, who was currently a religious leader of sorts in her homeland Nepal has just passed away. Superman cries and reminisces about he old days when he had first met her.

The comic shows him as a teenager traveling the world looking for purpose. The interesting part is this one panel where Lana and Clark are walking down the steps of a Buddhist temple in the Himalayas and there is this distinct "BAT" shaped shadow of a man walking up the stairs

Lana shudders and says something like, "That man gives off a rather dark aura? He scares me"
Clark smiles and says that there may be more to him that that...

After Batman Begins, I read the comic again and thought that a Bale cameo or even bat motif when and if Clark travels the world would be AWESOME!!

[I3atMan]

I've never seen Superman's origin. I wasn't alive in 1978.


I was alive in 78 but I still want to see an updated origin story told on the big screen.

I think there is so much that can be done with the Superman origin that has not been done yet. I'm positive that SM:TM isn't the end all be all of SUPERMAN!

[mjbull23]

I don't know what the grand plan is for the next Superman movie. One thing I do know is that this is a great time to be a Superman fanboy. Particularly here on the internet forums, where fear, rumors, lies and action are all about to collide in the coming months.

Some of you are apprehensive, others are downright stressed, maybe even panicking, as for me...I find it extremely entertaining.

I think a reboot would be fine, but If the origins are retold, Id rather that the movie only dedicate a 20-30 min max time allotment for that.

This next Supes flick has to come right out of the gate and imediately set the tone for the rest of the movie. So if your going to start at the beggining, then show me how volatile, and unstable the political and ecological climate on krypton was. What drove Jor El to such extreme measures that he felt he had to send his infant son into the vastness of space. What did he see that terrified him so much? That filled him with such foreboding doom certainty.

Lots of character conflict, and here's something else I rarely see mentioned, but howabout a fight sequence showing Jor El squaring off against one or two counsel members (Kryptonian fisticuffs).

Do they fight differently than humans do? How do they interact with each other as a society? Are their motivatons different than humans?...I want some insight into Kryptonian Civilizaion. But again....20-30 mns max. This next movie has a lot of ground to cover, and I don't want the entire first half of the film bogged down with a retelling of the origin.

[Nirvana]

I don't know what the grand plan is for the next Superman movie. One thing I do know is that this is a great time to be a Superman fanboy. Particularly here on the internet forums, where fear, rumors, lies and action are all about to collide in the coming months.

Some of you are apprehensive, others are downright stressed, maybe even panicking, as for me...I find it extremely entertaining.


QFT. :up:

[ClarkLuther55]

I completely disagree with the OP. A "Superman Begins" is absolutely necessary if Superman is to become beloved by a whole new generation. "Everyone already knows Superman's origin" is a common catchphrase, but I'm not so sure anymore. Fewer people under 20 nowadays have watched the Donner movies. Bruce Timm's animated series from the 1990s, seen as "recent" by people here, is before the time of a twelve year old today (the show ended and went off the air when that kid was 4).

For many people, especially the young demographic who a superhero movie should try to grab, Superman Returns was their FIRST exposure to the character. They didn't know anything about him, yet the movie started off by telling everyone that they already missed the character's greatest adventures, everything that made him Superman. That alienates newcomers right there. It alienated ME, and I'm familiar with the character. However I wanted to see a new big screen Superman for MY generation, reinterpreted to fit current styles but still remaining faithful to the source. Instead we got a sequel to the Donner movies, in a weirdo post-Superman story that came across more like a bookend to the series than a new beginning.

BB was a success because it reintroduced Batman right from the beginning and made him cool. People were brought on board for the journey. SR was a disappointment because it was made primarily to satisfy Singer's fanboy love for Donner's old movies. People just didn't connect to Brandon Routh's Superman as much as they did to Bale's Batman, because they were left on the outside.

[kalelkilla]

100% agree with CL55...they need to get back to the comics and away from Donner...Like BB they need to go back to the comics and fill in the blanks of Clark Kent's origin, just Like Nolan and Goyer did for Bruce Wayne. Waid's "Birthright" arc is a great place to start, as is Jeph Loeb's Superman for All Seasons. A mix of the two stories I think makes a great backbone for a terrific Superman movie...These are great "starting points" to grab new fans and to update Superman for the new generation...you sure as hell can't assume that "everyone knows Superman's origin," Cuz most people don't. Do you know how many times I was asked, "When did Superman bang Lois?" You have to start from the beginning.

[BULLITT]

I've never seen Superman's origin. I wasn't alive in 1978.

Reading helps. Reading + images = Comic(s) - 'Seeing'.

[NeoRanger]

LOL @ all the people who still quote my first -sarcastic- post, when two posts after that, I explain it.

[I Am The Knight]

So you were alive in 1978?

[NeoRanger]

No. But

I've seen the movie, I've seen the Adventures of Superman, I've seen L&C, Smallville, TAS and read a buttload of comic books from all three origin eras, plus stand-alones.

What I've never done is walk into a theater and watch a Superman film I can call my own. Watching Returns was like going to my dad's high school reunion in his place. What do I have to say with these old guys?

[DavidTyler]

100% agree with CL55...they need to get back to the comics and away from Donner...Like BB they need to go back to the comics and fill in the blanks of Clark Kent's origin, just Like Nolan and Goyer did for Bruce Wayne. Waid's "Birthright" arc is a great place to start, as is Jeph Loeb's Superman for All Seasons. A mix of the two stories I think makes a great backbone for a terrific Superman movie...These are great "starting points" to grab new fans and to update Superman for the new generation...you sure as hell can't assume that "everyone knows Superman's origin," Cuz most people don't. Do you know how many times I was asked, "When did Superman bang Lois?" You have to start from the beginning.


What I like from Birthright is Clark traveling the world trying to find his destiny. I don't like Waid's Krypton. I would like to see a film that bases Krypton on either Byrne/Wolfman's MAN OF STEEL, or the Timm/Dini animated Superman. Give me a blend of those and I'll be happy.

Oh, and I'd much rather see a blend of Dean Cain's and George Reeves' Clark.

As for Supes... maybe a blend of Chris Reeve and George Reeves.

BTW, I was watching a terrible movie last night that starred Josh Hartnett (August - the movie's title) and thought he has a great look for Superman.

[Reebee52]

What I like from Birthright is Clark traveling the world trying to find his destiny. I don't like Waid's Krypton. I would like to see a film that bases Krypton on either Byrne/Wolfman's MAN OF STEEL, or the Timm/Dini animated Superman. Give me a blend of those and I'll be happy.

Oh, and I'd much rather see a blend of Dean Cain's and George Reeves' Clark.

As for Supes... maybe a blend of Chris Reeve and George Reeves.

BTW, I was watching a terrible movie last night that starred Josh Hartnett (August - the movie's title) and thought he has a great look for Superman.

Birthright was the first Graphic Novel I read and is still one of the best. It captured Superman's character and origin really well, and would be a great place to start. Though what was wrong with his Krypton? I thought it was great, and was in-tone with Bruce Timm's (also great). I really loathe the icy planet that was in SM:TM and Smallville. It needs more character.
Krypton's problems could be a perfect trope for Earth's today, if done right. Politcal unrest globally, a dangerous environmental catastophe that is controversial... It's perfect, and should be shown.
And if I recall: wasn't Josh Hartnett once up for the role? In one of the canceled scripts like Superman Lives?

[DavidTyler]

Birthright was the first Graphic Novel I read and is still one of the best. It captured Superman's character and origin really well, and would be a great place to start. Though what was wrong with his Krypton? I thought it was great, and was in-tone with Bruce Timm's (also great). I really loathe the icy planet that was in SM:TM and Smallville. It needs more character.
Krypton's problems could be a perfect trope for Earth's today, if done right. Politcal unrest globally, a dangerous environmental catastophe that is controversial... It's perfect, and should be shown.
And if I recall: wasn't Josh Hartnett once up for the role? In one of the canceled scripts like Superman Lives?


Try to get your hands on a copy of Man Of Steel. It's quite a bit different from Waid's Krypton. In fact, it's different in look and tone from all of the other versions ... and I think it would be awesome on the big screen.

[Brian Braddock]

I agree.

I always felt Man of Steel literally screamed to be adapted cinematically.

[Double Down]

What I like from Birthright is Clark traveling the world trying to find his destiny. I don't like Waid's Krypton. I would like to see a film that bases Krypton on either Byrne/Wolfman's MAN OF STEEL, or the Timm/Dini animated Superman. Give me a blend of those and I'll be happy.

Oh, and I'd much rather see a blend of Dean Cain's and George Reeves' Clark.

As for Supes... maybe a blend of Chris Reeve and George Reeves.

BTW, I was watching a terrible movie last night that starred Josh Hartnett (August - the movie's title) and thought he has a great look for Superman.

Sure, if you like your Superman to have a unibrow and greasy hair.

http://www.poster.net/hartnett-josh/hartnett-josh-photo-josh-hartnett-6202642.jpg

[Brian Braddock]

Hartnett looks like a village idiot in that pic.

[OwlBoy]

What? How?

[Brian Braddock]

The mono-brow and 'I cut it myself' haircut.

Dude looks as simple as a person can get.

[Double Down]

I have never seen the appeal:

http://www.poster.net/hartnett-josh/hartnett-josh-photo-josh-hartnett-6224570.jpg

[kalelkilla]

Krypton is the least important aspect of the origin...and should be maybe 10 minutes of the movie...it is true that the parallels of Krypton and Earth can be made and should be shown like Reebee52 said, but what is more interesting is what a young adult Clark Kent did on EARTH between leaving Smallville and arriving to Metropolis as a journalist. That has never been shown on the big screen and should make Superman more "human," as we understand his motivations to becoming the world's savior...what DROVE him to be SUPERMAN?...what inspired him? This has to be shown. The traveling the world aspect as a freelance journalist is a good one that Waid establishes in Birthright...he is trying to fit in...trying to find his mission in life, much like Jesus wandering the desert...trying to figure out, "What the hell should I do with all this power!?"

[kalelkilla]

p.s. Hartnett is the worst choice for ANY role...

[Brian Braddock]

Even in a film where he's playing himself.

[Mostpowerful]

Sure, if you like your Superman to have a unibrow and greasy hair.

http://www.poster.net/hartnett-josh/hartnett-josh-photo-josh-hartnett-6202642.jpg

WTH?? That's no Superman. Even though I think he is cute, not here but in some movies. :woot:

[Mostpowerful]

I have never seen the appeal:

http://www.poster.net/hartnett-josh/hartnett-josh-photo-josh-hartnett-6224570.jpg

I can't see it either. :huh:

[DavidTyler]

Krypton is the least important aspect of the origin...and should be maybe 10 minutes of the movie...

And here we go again.


Yeah, it's the least important aspect of the origin if all you think it's about is Jor-el decides the planet is going to blow up and sends his baby off to Earth.

[kalelkilla]

Yeah well...that's pretty much what happens...there have been different versions, but in the end, they all have "Jor-El decides the planet is going to blow up and sends his baby to Earth" in common...the only reason to expand on Krypton scenes is to establish the origin of the possible villain...

[Sam]

I have never seen the appeal:

http://www.poster.net/hartnett-josh/hartnett-josh-photo-josh-hartnett-6224570.jpg

The role was offered to him before, wasnt it? He always said no. He even talk about this on interviews, saying he has no interest at all playing Superman.

[Double Down]

According to Superman vs. Hollywood, Hartnett did a screen test, then turned the role down four times. Ratner really wanted him for the role.

[Double Down]

That book is a serious must-own for Superman movie fans.

[[A]]

I've never seen Superman's origin. I wasn't alive in 1978.
Wow. Just.. wow.

[El Payaso]

I have never seen the appeal:

http://www.poster.net/hartnett-josh/hartnett-josh-photo-josh-hartnett-6224570.jpg

http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m387/mrbungle_08/basura/lloydchristmas.jpg

Separated at birth!

[Double Down]

:hehe:

[DavidTyler]

Yeah well...that's pretty much what happens...there have been different versions, but in the end, they all have "Jor-El decides the planet is going to blow up and sends his baby to Earth" in common...the only reason to expand on Krypton scenes is to establish the origin of the possible villain...

Before you and I continue this conversation, please pick up a copy of Man Of Steel and pay close attention to the Krypton part of the story.

I'm a little tired of explaining how the MOS version of the story is a great rebellion story featuring Jor-El as the young rebel and how, if it's done correctly, is a great science fiction story on the order of Logan's Run or Blade Runner.

[I Am The Knight]

Hartnett looks like a village idiot in that pic.

I agree. Thank god he "turned down" the role...

[TheBatman1979]

I still disagree with the "no origin" policy some of the fans take with this. If I take my 6 year old to see a Superman movie and he doesn't walks out not knowing how Superman came to be and I have to explain it doesn't it lose something?

You want Superman to be a film you can take your kids to and they get the full effect.

Yes I know Superman's origin, but a lot of people don't. Just because it's common comic book knowledge doesn't make common GP knowledge.

[Double Down]

Did your kids want to see the Joker's origins, too? Would that have improved The Dark Knight? I have never weighed in on the origin issue, but by no means is it essential.

[TheBatman1979]

Did your kids want to see the Joker's origins, too? Would that have improved The Dark Knight? I have never weighed in on the origin issue, but by no means is it essential.

The Joker's origin I wouldn't say is essential, being that although he is the villain/nemesis he isn't the main character and his origin isn't integral to the story. You don't need to know where The Joker came from, only that he's evil and must be stopped. And in no way is the Dark Knight meant to be a kid friendly movie.

I think as far as Superman is concerned, him being One of the "Big Three" it might be beneficial to have his origin on film for the current Generation, not just us old time geeks who happen to know it all. Especially since the last good Superman film came out before half of this generation was born.

[Sam]

Did your kids want to see the Joker's origins, too? Would that have improved The Dark Knight? I have never weighed in on the origin issue, but by no means is it essential.

Joker to Superman is a BIG difference. Superman is the main character, u are supposed to be connected with him. Relate to him.

Maybe they dont want Joker's origin, but they want to see Batman, Spiderman, X-Men, etc origins. Otherwise, u loose reference.

[Double Down]

Okay, then how about Han Solo? There are a million examples. We don't need to see "the origins" of every character. If you sit your kids down to watch Superman: The Movie, and start the movie when he gets to Metropolis, do you think they are going to complain? Will they say, "Now how did this happen? What were his oriogins?"
I have watched S:TM with kids and they get bored during the origin part.

[TheBatman1979]

Okay, then how about Han Solo? There are a million examples. We don't need to see "the origins" of every character. If you sit your kids down to watch Superman: The Movie, and start the movie when he gets to Metropolis, do you think they are going to complain? Will they say, "Now how did this happen? What were his oriogins?"
I have watched S:TM with kids and they get bored during the origin part.

My oldest(9) enjoyed it but my younger ones didn't, then again it's dated for them. Were it updated it could be better for them. They enjoyed Spider-mans origin and Batman's origin but they were bored with Iron Man's origin until he donned the suit.

I guess it depends, but I'm still a firm believer that Superman's origin should be done for this generation.

[Double Down]

And, again, I am not saying you can't have an origin, I'm just saying it isn't essential.

[Double Down]

My oldest(9) enjoyed it but my younger ones didn't, then again it's dated for them. Were it updated it could be better for them. They enjoyed Spider-mans origin and Batman's origin but they were bored with Iron Man's origin until he donned the suit.

I guess it depends, but I'm still a firm believer that Superman's origin should be done for this generation.

Didn't Smallville do that?

[Sam]

Okay, then how about Han Solo? There are a million examples. We don't need to see "the origins" of every character. If you sit your kids down to watch Superman: The Movie, and start the movie when he gets to Metropolis, do you think they are going to complain? Will they say, "Now how did this happen? What were his oriogins?"
I have watched S:TM with kids and they get bored during the origin part.

We are not talking about every characters. We are talking about THE MAIN character. U dont know origin of Han Solo, but U KNOW origin of Luke Skywalker.

Oh, really? kids got bored during origin part OF A MOVIE MADE 30 YEARS AGO? Big surprise. THATS EXACTLY WHY WE NEED NEW ORIGIN.

[TheBatman1979]

And, again, I am not saying you can't have an origin, I'm just saying it isn't essential.

Agreed, it isn't essential, but I think for a Superman movie to have the build of a tentpole that the WB wants an origin is the way to go.

[TheBatman1979]

Didn't Smallville do that?

You think my kids want to watch a show about Superman and they never actually get to see Superman?

[Double Down]

I'll be honest, they can do whatever they want, I just really want to see Routh return. If they need to redo the origin to set that up, then that's fine.

[Double Down]

You think my kids want to watch a show about Superman and they never actually get to see Superman?

I was sort of being sarcastic.

[TheBatman1979]

I was sort of being sarcastic.

Gotcha.:cwink:

I guess we'll find out after Nolan Signs and all the casting gets going on the "other" Dc projects.

[Double Down]

It's going to take forever. :sleepy:

[TheBatman1979]

It's going to take forever. :sleepy:

I honestly believe Nolan will be signed by the begining of next year. He'll make one small film and then start on the Batman movie for a Summer 2011 release.

[Double Down]

My hope is that they cast Routh as Clark Kent in the Green Lantern movie (as has been rumored) and then we can move on to discussing things other than casting, such as villains.

[TheBatman1979]

My hope is that they cast Routh as Clark Kent in the Green Lantern movie (as has been rumored) and then we can move on to discussing things other than casting, such as villains.

I think you're going to get your wish.

[Lucid]

Please, no "Superman Begins"

Great stories are worth retelling. That's why we have so many movie adaptations of classic literature over and over again. The Superman origin story is as wonderful as any in classic literature and is worthy of retelling to each new generation.

[SonikDeath]

Superman Begins seems to be the only thing Warners Brothers can do right now.

I think they should have just re-started Superman instead of making Superman Returns.

[DavidTyler]

Superman Begins seems to be the only thing Warners Brothers can do right now.

I think they should have just re-started Superman instead of making Superman Returns.


Agreed.

Problem is that the suits at the WB think they know more about what the fans want than what the fans want.

Bunch of moron in my opinion. Using Batman Begins and The Dark Knight as solid examples, Nolan gave us pretty much what the fans had been asking for - a mature story with the characters fairly faithful to the current comix and set in the semi-real world of today. No new characters that would screw up the franchise. No throwbacks to early live action attempts (and here I'm talking about the Burton/Schumacher/Dozier Batmans).

[The Guard]

Problem is that the suits at the WB think they know more about what the fans want than what the fans want.

I don't know about that. What makes you think the suits even care what fans want, as opposed to what the general public wants?

[Matt]

I completely disagree with the OP. A "Superman Begins" is absolutely necessary if Superman is to become beloved by a whole new generation. "Everyone already knows Superman's origin" is a common catchphrase, but I'm not so sure anymore. Fewer people under 20 nowadays have watched the Donner movies. Bruce Timm's animated series from the 1990s, seen as "recent" by people here, is before the time of a twelve year old today (the show ended and went off the air when that kid was 4).

For many people, especially the young demographic who a superhero movie should try to grab, Superman Returns was their FIRST exposure to the character. They didn't know anything about him, yet the movie started off by telling everyone that they already missed the character's greatest adventures, everything that made him Superman. That alienates newcomers right there. It alienated ME, and I'm familiar with the character. However I wanted to see a new big screen Superman for MY generation, reinterpreted to fit current styles but still remaining faithful to the source. Instead we got a sequel to the Donner movies, in a weirdo post-Superman story that came across more like a bookend to the series than a new beginning.

BB was a success because it reintroduced Batman right from the beginning and made him cool. People were brought on board for the journey. SR was a disappointment because it was made primarily to satisfy Singer's fanboy love for Donner's old movies. People just didn't connect to Brandon Routh's Superman as much as they did to Bale's Batman, because they were left on the outside.

That is like, the post of the year :up:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

It's a great post and it said what we were saying far better than we said it.

[Showtime]

A good post, post of the year, a bit of a stretch.

[Mostpowerful]

I don't know about that. What makes you think the suits even care what fans want, as opposed to what the general public wants?

Meh, all the suits care about is this: $$$$

LOTS OF IT. They don't care about these characters like we do. That's why Beverly Hills Chihuahua will probably get a sequel... lol!

[Showtime]

It's because it is making money, and the studios are running a business.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

It's because it is making money, and the studios are running a business.How dare you make sense! This post is why you are my least favorite poster.:cmad:

[RakuMon]

I completely disagree with the OP. A "Superman Begins" is absolutely necessary if Superman is to become beloved by a whole new generation. "Everyone already knows Superman's origin" is a common catchphrase, but I'm not so sure anymore. Fewer people under 20 nowadays have watched the Donner movies. Bruce Timm's animated series from the 1990s, seen as "recent" by people here, is before the time of a twelve year old today (the show ended and went off the air when that kid was 4).

For many people, especially the young demographic who a superhero movie should try to grab, Superman Returns was their FIRST exposure to the character. They didn't know anything about him, yet the movie started off by telling everyone that they already missed the character's greatest adventures, everything that made him Superman. That alienates newcomers right there. It alienated ME, and I'm familiar with the character. However I wanted to see a new big screen Superman for MY generation, reinterpreted to fit current styles but still remaining faithful to the source. Instead we got a sequel to the Donner movies, in a weirdo post-Superman story that came across more like a bookend to the series than a new beginning.

BB was a success because it reintroduced Batman right from the beginning and made him cool. People were brought on board for the journey. SR was a disappointment because it was made primarily to satisfy Singer's fanboy love for Donner's old movies. People just didn't connect to Brandon Routh's Superman as much as they did to Bale's Batman, because they were left on the outside.

Totally agree with the sentiment of this post! Though, I do have to point out that, like it or not, 'Smallville' is a lot of people's first exposure to Superman's origin. It is almost more recent than the Timmiverse and the Donnerverse. But I still agree with you that the notion that "everyone knows Superman's origins" doesn't mean you can't formulate a movie that incorporates at least parts of the origin story.

100% agree with CL55...they need to get back to the comics and away from Donner...Like BB they need to go back to the comics and fill in the blanks of Clark Kent's origin, just Like Nolan and Goyer did for Bruce Wayne. Waid's "Birthright" arc is a great place to start, as is Jeph Loeb's Superman for All Seasons. A mix of the two stories I think makes a great backbone for a terrific Superman movie...These are great "starting points" to grab new fans and to update Superman for the new generation...you sure as hell can't assume that "everyone knows Superman's origin," Cuz most people don't. Do you know how many times I was asked, "When did Superman bang Lois?" You have to start from the beginning.

And this is the best way to do it. A blend of "Birthright" and "For All Seasons" is the perfect way to reintroduce Superman to modern audiences! :up:

[Mostpowerful]

It's because it is making money, and the studios are running a business.

Yeah. And that's why we usually get the same generic, formulaic and cliched type of movies like Transformers among so many others. :csad:



Also, it's so funny how some people want the next Superman movie to go back to the comics and forget all about the Donnerverse behind, when the recent comics have been incorporating more Donnerverse elements into the continuity! Eh! :yay: Ironic.

[Showtime]

Yeah. And that's why we usually get the same generic, formulaic and cliched type of movies like Transformers among so many others. :csad:

Every movie follows a certain template or formula, believe it or not Superman Returns did as well, along with some cliches. That doesn't necessarily make the movie good or bad. Depending what you like, Titanic and Dark Knight both followed a formula and they didnt do half bad.

Also, it's so funny how some people want the next Superman movie to go back to the comics and forget all about the Donnerverse behind, when the recent comics have been incorporating more Donnerverse elements into the continuity! Eh! :yay: Ironic.

I assume you're refering to the Johns/Donner run in the comics, the reason it went back to the Donnerverse is because Donner was involved. When posters are refering to Superman going back to the comics for inspiration, they are refering to comic runs like All Star Superman, Birthright, and Superman For All Seasons among others.

[daywalker2007]

personally, i think batman has been really lucky having writers who understand the character and respect the mythologies, such as Nolan and David Goyer, and with Goyer they already had someone with bringing a comic book character faithfully to the big screen with some style and substance.

What I don't get is WB's thinking.

They greenlight Batman Begins in 2003 or 2004 was it?
the see the success of Batman Begins and then Superman is finally given a chance.

What baffles me is which bunch of Morons sat together and decided to go with the Returns story. it really baffles me.

There they had the perfect opportunity to start afresh for Superman, having Already seen what Batman begins had done for Batman.

Surely someone with even half a brain cell should have realised that Superman should have been completely rebooted there and then alongside Batman Begins, thus allowing them to be in the same timeline and universe.

In the past, we never had that luxury, Superman came out in the late 70s, while Batman came out in 1989. So there was never a chance to see Batman and Superman movies coming out one after the other.

In 2005 WB had that chance and they blew it.

We could easily have been sat here having seen TDK and having seen a great Superman Reboot movie, eagerly awaiting the new Superman Reboot Sequel in 2009.

But NO, WB had to flush that chance down the toilet, and leave us to suffer for another 6 years probably!!!

bastards!!!:cmad:

[Mostpowerful]

I assume you're refering to the Johns/Donner run in the comics, the reason it went back to the Donnerverse is because Donner was involved. When posters are refering to Superman going back to the comics for inspiration, they are refering to comic runs like All Star Superman, Birthright, and Superman For All Seasons among others.

All the titles have been incorporating elements from the Donnerverse in one way or the other, which I really like. Superman, Action, Superman/Batman, even All Star, where Pa Kent dies, Lex goes to jail, among others.

[The Sage]

I assume you're refering to the Johns/Donner run in the comics, the reason it went back to the Donnerverse is because Donner was involved. When posters are refering to Superman going back to the comics for inspiration, they are refering to comic runs like All Star Superman, Birthright, and Superman For All Seasons among others.

As well as Action Comics 775, Peace on Earth, Lex Luthor: Man of Steel.

All the titles have been incorporating elements from the Donnerverse in one way or the other, which I really like. Superman, Action, Superman/Batman, even All Star, where Pa Kent dies, Lex goes to jail, among others.

Yeah but those aren't really Donner elements, but from other eras of Superman.

[daywalker2007]

it looks like noone can escape Richard Donnor!

but Mel Gibson can! apparently he has done a runner and won't do a Lethal Weapon 5!

all this "reboot" and "reintroduction" stuff is really driving people nuts here!!

can't WB just put out a damn statement!?? or something!!

its not exactly hard is it?!

[I SEE SPIDEY]

personally, i think batman has been really lucky having writers who understand the character and respect the mythologies, such as Nolan and David Goyer, and with Goyer they already had someone with bringing a comic book character faithfully to the big screen with some style and substance.

What I don't get is WB's thinking.

They greenlight Batman Begins in 2003 or 2004 was it?
the see the success of Batman Begins and then Superman is finally given a chance.

What baffles me is which bunch of Morons sat together and decided to go with the Returns story. it really baffles me.

There they had the perfect opportunity to start afresh for Superman, having Already seen what Batman begins had done for Batman.

Surely someone with even half a brain cell should have realised that Superman should have been completely rebooted there and then alongside Batman Begins, thus allowing them to be in the same timeline and universe.

In the past, we never had that luxury, Superman came out in the late 70s, while Batman came out in 1989. So there was never a chance to see Batman and Superman movies coming out one after the other.

In 2005 WB had that chance and they blew it.

We could easily have been sat here having seen TDK and having seen a great Superman Reboot movie, eagerly awaiting the new Superman Reboot Sequel in 2009.

But NO, WB had to flush that chance down the toilet, and leave us to suffer for another 6 years probably!!!

bastards!!!:cmad:It's infuriating to me that they didn't just start from the begining in the first place. I understand your anger whole heartedly.

[Showtime]

All the titles have been incorporating elements from the Donnerverse in one way or the other, which I really like. Superman, Action, Superman/Batman, even All Star, where Pa Kent dies, Lex goes to jail, among others.

Well to be fair, Lex Luthor has gone to jail before and Pa Kent has died in other incarnations.

[daywalker2007]

its quite obvious some people at WB were blinded by nostalgia and maybe some of us too.
but they could have easily done a full reboot in 2006 AND kept the superman music, satisfying the older fans and allowing a new superman for the new generation.

instead we got the homage of all homages with Superman returns.

[dark_b]

its quite obvious some people at WB were blinded by nostalgia and maybe some of us too.
but they could have easily done a full reboot in 2006 AND kept the superman music, satisfying the older fans and allowing a new superman for the new generation.

instead we got the homage of all homages with Superman returns.to me its mroe obviosu that wehn some guy of WB was on a superman forum in 2005 he saw a big S:TM obsesion.

[daywalker2007]

maybe the new movie will be a homage to end all homages!

[The Sage]

maybe the new movie will be a homage to end all homages!

Except maybe it'll homage the comics instead of past movies.

[I Am The Knight]

to me its mroe obviosu that wehn some guy of WB was on a superman forum in 2005 he saw a big S:TM obsesion.

Dude, are you dyslexic? :huh:

[daywalker2007]

lol,
even a smaller character like Blade, managed to get 2 decent movies and a reasonable
3rd movie made in the space of 6 years!

while Superman, the daddy of all superheroes languishes year after year!
its been 2 years already and i think im officially going insane wondering when the hell the next superman movie is coming out!

[dark_b]

Dude, are you dyslexic? :huh:i dont care what i type. its a f... forum

[I Am The Knight]

i dont care what i type. its a f... forum

So is that a No? :hehe:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

So is that a No? :hehe:Stop being a little imp. You deserve a tap on the wrist for messing with him.

[I Am The Knight]

Stop being a little imp. You deserve a tap on the wrist for messing with him.

Ouch!

[dark_b]

Stop being a little imp. You deserve a tap on the wrist for messing with him.ku ku da da.
i donto understando :hehe:

[TheBatman1979]

It's infuriating to me that they didn't just start from the begining in the first place. I understand your anger whole heartedly.

Let go...Release your anger. Know the Power of the Dark Side.:boba:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Let go...Release your anger. Know the Power of the Dark Side.:boba:lol cute.

[Mostpowerful]

lol,
even a smaller character like Blade, managed to get 2 decent movies and a reasonable
3rd movie made in the space of 6 years!

while Superman, the daddy of all superheroes languishes year after year!
its been 2 years already and i think im officially going insane wondering when the hell the next superman movie is coming out!

Freaking Hellboy and F4 got a sequel!! :cmad:

LOL! I just think that WB expect way too much from a Superman movie, and they just don't get this character at all. Also, the situation with the economy right now and the Nolan situation is delaying this thing right now.

[Showtime]

Check the domestic box office against the budget of both Hellboy and Fantastic Four. You'll find your answer.

[I Am The Knight]

Ugh, FF...

Thank God BB owned it that summer, money and quality-wise.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Isn't that cute, some people actually think that studio's only make sequels to movies with good reviews.

[The Sage]

Freaking Hellboy and F4 got a sequel!! :cmad:

LOL! I just think that WB expect way too much from a Superman movie, and they just don't get this character at all. Also, the situation with the economy right now and the Nolan situation is delaying this thing right now.

Thank goodness WB seems to have higher standards than some studios.

[The Guard]

Freaking Hellboy and F4 got a sequel!!

That's because HELLBOY and FANTASTIC FOUR made a lot of money compared to their budgets, and didn't cost as much to make in the first place.

[dark_b]

Thank goodness WB seems to have higher standards than some studios.so WB has very high standars when it comes to superman and thats the reason why they made only one movie in the last 20 years?

or is that they just dont have any idea how to make a movie that would respect the source material and be for the masses at the same time?


200 milions for catching a plane,lifting a yacth and a krypto-island. ohohoho hight standards :hehe:
if this was not ''superman'' it would not make 400 WW IMO.

[dark_b]

That's because HELLBOY and FANTASTIC FOUR made a lot of money compared to their budgets, and didn't cost as much to make in the first place.
without del toro,pans labyrinth and 3 oscars hellboy wouldnt get a sequel. plus a different studio made the sequel .

superman might not get a sequel .but WB will spend money on getting a new movie. and even if its a reboot in 2012 thats still very fast for a reboot next to batman 3 movies.

[El Payaso]

lol,
even a smaller character like Blade, managed to get 2 decent movies and a reasonable
3rd movie made in the space of 6 years!

while Superman, the daddy of all superheroes languishes year after year!
its been 2 years already and i think im officially going insane wondering when the hell the next superman movie is coming out!

Many bad movies get sequels, that's nothing new. And then again SR was a risky bet; to show Superman's emotions and problems when it's known that most audiences go to the theatre bc of super-punches was a risk and it didn't do bad at all at the BO.

As I always say, I rather one good movie than 4 crappy seuqels.

[FlawlessVictory]

LOL! I just think that WB expect way too much from a Superman movie, and they just don't get this character at all. Also, the situation with the economy right now and the Nolan situation is delaying this thing right now.

Agreed, as evidenced by allowing Singer's SR to ever happen to begin with.

[myway]

Too often, a movie with one fatal flaw gets characterized as a trainwreck and accordingly, everything about the movie is considered to be wrong; SR is a prime example imo. SR didn't have any Supervillains to create a real sense of danger/drama; that's it!. Superman's the last survivor of a planet that existed thousands of years ago in a galaxy far away and people say it's antithetical to his character to have him feel lonely? He has to live a life hiding his true identity and people think he would never feel like an outsider? No significant amount of people would be saying this is Superman traded blows with Brainiac as opposed to fighting off another Lex Luthor Real Estate scheme (and a stupid one at that). I

[Steyin]

In all honesty, I'd be fine with a reintroduction of Supe's origins. It wouldn't take long, maybe 30 minutes max in a film, or could be done via scattered flashbacks. Besides, it could possibly help to set up Brainiac like the animated series, and I'm all for that. However, I don't care much for Brainiac and would rather see other villains, but I think it is time for a visual reintroduction that ties many things together for an arc of a couple of films.

[solidsnake86]

I dont even understand why people can't wait to see him in the costume, when nobody even likes the costume, lol. If it does come out in 2012 they need an origin.

[Chris B]

Personally, I think that if they're looking to reintroduce the character, going back to the beginning makes sense.

I think taking a nonlinear approach could really work, with the film starting during Clark's first day at the Daily Planet. Maybe have not know anything about his heritage beyond the fact that he is an alien. Which would be good way to tie-in Brainiac if he is the main villain.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Too often, a movie with one fatal flaw gets characterized as a trainwreck and accordingly, everything about the movie is considered to be wrong; SR is a prime example imo. SR didn't have any Supervillains to create a real sense of danger/drama; that's it!. Superman's the last survivor of a planet that existed thousands of years ago in a galaxy far away and people say it's antithetical to his character to have him feel lonely? He has to live a life hiding his true identity and people think he would never feel like an outsider? No significant amount of people would be saying this is Superman traded blows with Brainiac as opposed to fighting off another Lex Luthor Real Estate scheme (and a stupid one at that). IThe movie had more then one fatal flaw to me. I hated the characterzations and the fact that the movie was just plain boring more than I hated the lack of action or the kid.

[Mostpowerful]

Check the domestic box office against the budget of both Hellboy and Fantastic Four. You'll find your answer.

I did, and yeah, F4 did pretty well moneywise, but Hellboy? I tried to find its home video sales but couldn't.




Many bad movies get sequels, that's nothing new. And then again SR was a risky bet; to show Superman's emotions and problems when it's known that most audiences go to the theatre bc of super-punches was a risk and it didn't do bad at all at the BO.

As I always say, I rather one good movie than 4 crappy seuqels.

Agreed. At least SR wasn't another generic and formulaic blockbuster that tries to please the lowest denominator. It didn't please everybody, but it pleased a lot of people. Shame its budget was too large. Ugh!



Agreed, as evidenced by allowing Singer's SR to ever happen to begin with.

Actually I feel soo lucky that SR was made. I still can't believe it sometimes. A wonderful and heartfelt Superman film. And looking at the reviews at rottentomatoes, yahoo, Amazon.com, etc, and to its WW BO, it seems that a lot of people liked it. :cwink:

[I Am The Knight]

I think Hellboy did surprisingly well on DVD, and I guess they saw potential in Del Toro after Pan's Labyrinth's critical reception.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^That was it.

[kalelkilla]

If the New Superman movie isn't coming out till 2012, then they really need to do the origin story again. They really need to "Batman Begins" this new movie. Show what Clark did from leaving Smallville to going to Metropolis, when Clark was in his early 20's...that hasn't been shown on screen before...that way the fanboys won't be too bored with rehashed material, and it gives a chance to "humanize" Superman, and ground what you can in reality...I think the most interesting parts of superhero movies are the origins...the rest is just formulaic...

[Double Down]

If the New Superman movie isn't coming out till 2012, then they really need to do the origin story again. They really need to "Batman Begins" this new movie. Show what Clark did from leaving Smallville to going to Metropolis, when Clark was in his early 20's...that hasn't been shown on screen before...that way the fanboys won't be too bored with rehashed material, and it gives a chance to "humanize" Superman, and ground what you can in reality...I think the most interesting parts of superhero movies are the origins...the rest is just formulaic...

So The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 2 were formulaic?

[kalelkilla]

So The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 2 were formulaic?

No I meant the rest of the origin movie is more formulaic...not that the sequels are...what makes Spidey 2 and TDK so great is the foundation that is set by the origin movie...what they royally messed up in Superman Returns is that it was such an ambiguous sequel, that most of the audience was really confused...(i.e. had no idea Superman and Lois ever had sex). And Singer, despite claiming to have Donner's film held in such high regard, forgot the fact that in Superman 2 Superman kisses Lois and she supposedly forgets everything. In an interview I read, Singer admits that he "just assumed that she remembered." I mean did he even watch the movie? So in that case Lois new the kid was Superman's the whole time? Or was it a big shocker for her when the kid tossed the piano?

[Double Down]

Singer pitched the movie as a "loose sequel" to Superman II and that was ultimately the mistake, because comic book fans (including me) are notoriously nitpicky.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

No I meant the rest of the origin movie is more formulaic...not that the sequels are...what makes Spidey 2 and TDK so great is the foundation that is set by the origin movie...what they royally messed up in Superman Returns is that it was such an ambiguous sequel, that most of the audience was really confused...(i.e. had no idea Superman and Lois ever had sex). And Singer, despite claiming to have Donner's film held in such high regard, forgot the fact that in Superman 2 Superman kisses Lois and she supposedly forgets everything. In an interview I read, Singer admits that he "just assumed that she remembered." I mean did he even watch the movie? So in that case Lois new the kid was Superman's the whole time? Or was it a big shocker for her when the kid tossed the piano?

If you actually read the reviews, Singer stated many times that 90% of Superman 2 didnt happen in his continuity. Infact Singer basically has said that the ONLY part of Superman 2 that applies to SR is Lex visiting the fortress.

He especially made it clear he didnt stick to the love scene in the fortress or mindwipe kiss.

[kalelkilla]

If you actually read the reviews, Singer stated many times that 90% of Superman 2 didnt happen in his continuity. Infact Singer basically has said that the ONLY part of Superman 2 that applies to SR is Lex visiting the fortress.

He especially made it clear he didnt stick to the love scene in the fortress or mindwipe kiss.

Which of course added to the confusion, and the lackluster response to the movie, and Singer ultimately dropped the ball...bigtime...you're making my point for me. How can you just say that 90% of Superman 2 didn't happen and not make a reboot, but a sorta-kinda sequel...just a mistake on his part and everyone that agreed with it.

[Eros]

Returns just failed to restablish superman to this generation, It didn't do what it was suppose to do. It was a good movie, but it was not a movie for this generation, it was a movie for singars generation, it was a farewell to chris reeves. It was a nice thing, but its' 2008, and the world still could careless about a superman movie.

[kalelkilla]

Returns just failed to restablish superman to this generation, It didn't do what it was suppose to do. It was a good movie, but it was not a movie for this generation, it was a movie for singars generation, it was a farewell to chris reeves. It was a nice thing, but its' 2008, and the world still could careless about a superman movie.

true that, although I think people really do desire a great Superman film. They were wanting one last time. The excitement for Returns was very palpable, which makes the whole "eh" reaction to the movie was all the more heartbreaking. GOD Singer really dropped the ball...it still makes me angry after so many years...

[Double Down]

true that, although I think people really do desire a great Superman film. They were wanting one last time. The excitement for Returns was very palpable, which makes the whole "eh" reaction to the movie was all the more heartbreaking. GOD Singer really dropped the ball...it still makes me angry after so many years...

It's only been two years, dude.

[Captain Planet!]

I think you get to understand and fell for the characters more when you have an origin. Everyone has an origin, why should they skip Superman's? Because we've seen it before? Please. I know it's surprising, but not everyone in the world is a comic book nerd like we are.

[Keyser Soze]

I can definitely see valid points for both sides of the argument... but I just don't know about doing an origin movie. Like, so many people talk about how we're still waiting for an epic Superman movie for our times, that truly operates on a grand scale with Superman really going all out with his powers against one of his major-league enemies. "Superman Returns" struck out, it's up to the next film to raise the bar - possibly make or break. And then you want the next film to be another tried-and-true superhero origin film?

The likes of "Batman Begins"/"The Dark Knight", "X-Men"/"X2", "Spider-Man"/"Spider-Man 2" and yes, even "Superman"/"Superman 2" show us that with an origin film, a lot goes into character introduction and setting the stage, and often it's not until the sequel that the filmmakers can really go all out.

So when you say the next film should be a reboot, should you say that - in this "make or break" situation - with the next Superman film in, say, 2012, they should provide us with yet another teasing prelude for the balls-to-the-wall epic Superman film we all REALLY want....putting THAT back to, what, 2015/2016?

[Crook]

You're under the assumption that the film would have to follow the typical origin formula, and NOT have action until well into the second half of the story. Doesn't have to work out that way.

[Keyser Soze]

You're under the assumption that the film would have to follow the typical origin formula, and NOT have action until well into the second half of the story. Doesn't have to work out that way.

I think the best way to go about it would be to do something which appeals to both sides. I've suggested this before, but start your story with a fully-established Superman, and put him in a story that has some significance to his past. A good example would be something like the recent "Brainiac" story from Action Comics. This lets you structure the film around flashbacks to Superman's origins - where the filmmakers can streamline/retcon accordingly - while at the same time immediately throwing the viewer into an all-out action epic. Hitting the ground running, rather than more stalling.

[kalelkilla]

I think the best way to go about it would be to do something which appeals to both sides. I've suggested this before, but start your story with a fully-established Superman, and put him in a story that has some significance to his past. A good example would be something like the recent "Brainiac" story from Action Comics. This lets you structure the film around flashbacks to Superman's origins - where the filmmakers can streamline/retcon accordingly - while at the same time immediately throwing the viewer into an all-out action epic. Hitting the ground running, rather than more stalling.

I agree with what you are saying, both the orginal BATMAN and TIH took this route and they both "worked" well...for Superman however I feel there is confusion with the Superman mythos/origin among the mass movie audience (and some comic fans), and Singer's film, although he attempted this approach, but, it did not crystallize or clear up any of this confusion...instead he made a kinda-sorta sequel to a movie made nearly 30 years ago...I really think they need to to START OVER...not everyone reads comics, not everyone watches Smallville... not everyone really knows what makes Superman do what he does...why did he become a reporter? Why he decided to move to Metropolis? Why does he love Lois? Why he decided to make Clark Kent the disguise, rather than wear a mask as Superman? Where did he get the costume from? What inspired him to be a hero? He could be, literally, anything he wanted to be...maybe he was tempted to be a football player and make millions in the NFL... These are the interesting questions that the audience wants to know...this is what worked so well for Batman Begins. Everyone knows that Bruce Wayne's parent's were killed and that he became Batman, but everything in between is the interesting part (i.e. the training with the league of shadows, the discovery of the batcave, the inspiration of the bat...)Everyone knows that Kal-El was sent from Krypton to Earth, was raised by the Kents and became Superman, but everything in between those points is the REAL interesting stuff...even more interesting than the origin of Superman perhaps, would be the origin of Lex Luthor...please, I know all these questions I am presenting are answered in a comic somewhere, as I am a big fan, I am just taking the perspective of the average movie goer... to "BATMAN BEGINS" Superman is EXACTLY what he needs...but we can keep Routh if they love him so much...

[mojo-x]

If you actually read the reviews, Singer stated many times that 90% of Superman 2 didnt happen in his continuity. Infact Singer basically has said that the ONLY part of Superman 2 that applies to SR is Lex visiting the fortress.

He especially made it clear he didnt stick to the love scene in the fortress or mindwipe kiss.

Singer did not make anything clear expect he’s a hack that happened to have some luck with comic book adaptations however SR showed that his luck finally ran out. While I like reading interview form other directors on there films, it should not be something you need to do to understand the film. To me that is just lazy film making. The fact that Singer said he was going to base his sequel off of the plot form Star Treks TWOK only goes to prove my point. Wasn’t there enough WOK in X2 already?

[Double Down]

Singer did not make anything clear expect he’s a hack that happened to have some luck with comic book adaptations however SR showed that his luck finally ran out. While I like reading interview form other directors on there films, it should not be something you need to do to understand the film. To me that is just lazy film making. The fact that Singer said he was going to base his sequel off of the plot form Star Treks TWOK only goes to prove my point. Wasn’t there enough WOK in X2 already?

Singer said it was a loose sequel. He underestimated how much people would inspect any differences with a fine-tooth comb.
He did not say he was going to base the sequel off of the plot of The Wrath of Khan. The ways in which the sequel would amp the action in the sequel (a la the Star Trek movies) did not mean he was going to actually use the plot of the Star Trek movie.

[I Am The Knight]

Singer did not make anything clear expect he’s a hack that happened to have some luck with comic book adaptations however SR showed that his luck finally ran out. While I like reading interview form other directors on there films, it should not be something you need to do to understand the film. To me that is just lazy film making. The fact that Singer said he was going to base his sequel off of the plot form Star Treks TWOK only goes to prove my point. Wasn’t there enough WOK in X2 already?

How do you figure? Do you know what a hack is?

And, you don't need to read any interviews to understand SR? Everything you need to know is in the synopsis of the film, unless you were an anal retentive fanboy who must unite all the movies into one big continuity.

Oh wait...

[dark_b]

You're under the assumption that the film would have to follow the typical origin formula, and NOT have action until well into the second half of the story. Doesn't have to work out that way.i would like action at the beginning of the movie. and not at time 90

but it wont happen IMO.

[mojo-x]

Singer said it was a loose sequel. He underestimated how much people would inspect any differences with a fine-tooth comb.
He did not say he was going to base the sequel off of the plot of The Wrath of Khan. The ways in which the sequel would amp the action in the sequel (a la the Star Trek movies) did not mean he was going to actually use the plot of the Star Trek movie.

Singer never said he was going to use the same plot form STM for SR either, but he did mention that film a lot.

[BMM]

Singer did not make anything clear expect he’s a hack that happened to have some luck with comic book adaptations however SR showed that his luck finally ran out. While I like reading interview form other directors on there films, it should not be something you need to do to understand the film. To me that is just lazy film making. The fact that Singer said he was going to base his sequel off of the plot form Star Treks TWOK only goes to prove my point. Wasn’t there enough WOK in X2 already?

I think that's a fairly baseless statement. Anyone who is capable of building a successful superhero movie franchise from the ground up, and at a micro-managing studio like Fox no less, that proves to be both critically and financially successful among a notoriously fickle fanbase, does so by more than just happenstance.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Which of course added to the confusion, and the lackluster response to the movie, and Singer ultimately dropped the ball...bigtime...you're making my point for me. How can you just say that 90% of Superman 2 didn't happen and not make a reboot, but a sorta-kinda sequel...just a mistake on his part and everyone that agreed with it.

:huh:I didnt, Singer did, didnt say it didnt add to the confusion, but the answers were there if you wanted to find them.

Singer did not make anything clear expect he’s a hack that happened to have some luck with comic book adaptations however SR showed that his luck finally ran out. While I like reading interview form other directors on there films, it should not be something you need to do to understand the film. To me that is just lazy film making. The fact that Singer said he was going to base his sequel off of the plot form Star Treks TWOK only goes to prove my point. Wasn’t there enough WOK in X2 already?

You are joking arent you, look how many other director have produced crap for Fox because of pressure from the studio. Yet Singer got lucky making 2 EXCELLENT movies under difficult conditions? Dont be ridiculous.

Singer said it was a loose sequel. He underestimated how much people would inspect any differences with a fine-tooth comb.
He did not say he was going to base the sequel off of the plot of The Wrath of Khan. The ways in which the sequel would amp the action in the sequel (a la the Star Trek movies) did not mean he was going to actually use the plot of the Star Trek movie.

Exactly, it was OBVIOUS this is what he meant, not what Mojo-X was suggesting.

I think that's a fairly baseless statement. Anyone who is capable of building a successful superhero movie franchise from the ground up, and at a micro-managing studio like Fox no less, that proves to be both critically and financially successful among a notoriously fickle fanbase, does so by more than just happenstance.

Agreed, you dont make good movies under difficult conditions by luck, see how many ****e films Fox has released over the last 3 years as evidence of this. Not to mention The Usual Suspects.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I think the base has been moving more and more towards wanting an origin film. Of course, please don't make it too dark. WB shoots themself in the foot using that word in reference to the man in blue.

[Spider-Fan]

No I meant the rest of the origin movie is more formulaic...not that the sequels are...what makes Spidey 2 and TDK so great is the foundation that is set by the origin movie...what they royally messed up in Superman Returns is that it was such an ambiguous sequel, that most of the audience was really confused...(i.e. had no idea Superman and Lois ever had sex). And Singer, despite claiming to have Donner's film held in such high regard, forgot the fact that in Superman 2 Superman kisses Lois and she supposedly forgets everything. In an interview I read, Singer admits that he "just assumed that she remembered." I mean did he even watch the movie? So in that case Lois new the kid was Superman's the whole time? Or was it a big shocker for her when the kid tossed the piano?

:up: :up:

Filmmakers follow the S:TM model for all origin movies anymore, and it is formulaic. It is almost like the origin is an inoconveniance anymore, until they get to the sequel and do what they REALLY wanted to do.

[Keyser Soze]

Singer did not make anything clear expect he’s a hack that happened to have some luck with comic book adaptations however SR showed that his luck finally ran out.

Hmmmm.......what does the "failure" of "Superman Returns" (I don't think it was a turkey like some do, I'd probably file it under the good-not-great category, but for the purposes of the argument we'll call it a failure) realistically suggest to you about Bryan Singer?

Do you really think it means that Singer is a hack who "happened to have good luck" through a career of consistently strong films, including the classic that is "The Usual Suspects", until "Superman Returns" showed his true colors? If so, you're letting your resentment cloud your rationality.

The more likely scenario is that "Superman Returns" was the low point in what has otherwise been a strong directing career. Even good directors put out work that's below their usual standard.

[DavidTyler]

I don't think Singer is a total hack ... I love 'House' and I think some of his non-superhero based work is well done.

I just don't like him involved in comic book properties. I absolutely don't think he 'gets' it.

[Keyser Soze]

I don't think Singer is a total hack ... I love 'House' and I think some of his non-superhero based work is well done.

I just don't like him involved in comic book properties. I absolutely don't think he 'gets' it.

I thought the X-Men films were very well done, and took a noticeable dip in quality after he left.

[NotFadeAway]

I don't think Singer is a total hack ... I love 'House' and I think some of his non-superhero based work is well done.

I just don't like him involved in comic book properties. I absolutely don't think he 'gets' it.

Agreed. Singer is good when he does real life stuff.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I don't think Singer is a total hack ... I love 'House' and I think some of his non-superhero based work is well done.

I just don't like him involved in comic book properties. I absolutely don't think he 'gets' it.:up:

[NotFadeAway]

Please.....we need Superman Begins.

Or, how about this.....

Superman: Origin

[Superark]

I don't think Singer is a total hack ... I love 'House' and I think some of his non-superhero based work is well done.

I just don't like him involved in comic book properties. I absolutely don't think he 'gets' it.

:down

[The Sage]

Please.....we need Superman Begins.

Or, how about this.....

Superman: Origin

How about this for a title? Wait for it....

Wait for it...

Here it comes...


SUPERMAN. Ta da!

What do you think?

[NotFadeAway]

How about this for a title? Wait for it....

Wait for it...

Here it comes...


SUPERMAN. Ta da!

What do you think?

Actually, we are in complete agreement. If it were up to me, the title of the film would just be "Superman". No subtitles, nothing except Superman.

[Superark]

I think this is the funniest thing I've ever seen! Watch and enjoy....

The Dark Knight Meets Superman

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1884973


:supes:

[Double Down]

How about this for a title? Wait for it....

Wait for it...

Here it comes...


SUPERMAN. Ta da!

What do you think?



And the sequel can be Superman II...:whatever:

[not_a_victim]

I've never seen Superman's origin. I wasn't alive in 1978.

You never heard of these wonderful things called "televisions", "VHS tapes", or "DVDs"?

[I Am The Knight]

And the sequel can be Superman II...:whatever:

You can always use "2" instead of "II" you know...

Or simply call it "Superman: The Banging Of Lana Lang."

[NeoRanger]

^^ If that is based off a Smallville movie, I'd sign up for it. So long as the banging includes a baseball bat. And spikes. Dipped in poison.

[I Am The Knight]

Careful, she could kick ye arse!!!

http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/871/871651/street-fighter-the-legend-of-chun-li-20080505003838652_640w.jpg

:hehe::hehe::hehe:

[Double Down]

^ Her face does not look good in that pic.

[The Overlord]

Actually, we are in complete agreement. If it were up to me, the title of the film would just be "Superman". No subtitles, nothing except Superman.

Isn't that what the first movie is called?

[The Guard]

No, the first movie is called "SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE"

[Double Down]

But most of the population calls it Superman.

[The Sage]

And the sequel can be Superman II...:whatever:

Or...

Superman: Man of Steel

Superman: Man of Tomorrow

Superman: Last Son of Krypton

But most of the population calls it Superman.

There's been so much time since Superman the Movie, I doubt it would be a fuss.

[Double Down]

And you could just call the next Batman movie "Batman," since it is outside of the other series, but that doesn't mean you should. There are better names available for both series.

[The Sage]

And you could just call the next Batman movie "Batman," since it is outside of the other series, but that doesn't mean you should. There are better names available for both series.

It'd be kind of weird if the next movie was called "Batman" after "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight". Maybe if the series had started of with the title "Batman".

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Not the same thing as Batman. First of all Batman came out more recently than "Superman: The Movie" and was named only "Batman," "Superman: The Movie" is indeed named "Superman:The Movie" and not "Superman."

I'd like for it to just be named Superman. It's simple and awesome and none of his movies have ever been named that.

[Double Down]

But you still had Superman II, Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. So even if no movie was called just Superman, the first one might as well have been. It wasn't Superman: The Movie II.

That reminds me of:
First Blood
Rambo: First Blood Part II
Rambo III
Rambo

But they can call the movie whatever they want. They won't make one dollar more if it is "Superman: The Man of Steel" or "Superman" no matter how "awesome" it is.

[The Guard]

But most of the population calls it Superman.

True. And most of the population goes and says "Two for James Bond" when they're seeing a movie called CASINO ROYALE or QUANTUM OF SOLACE. The Donner Superman film was called SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE. :)

[Double Down]

True. And most of the population goes and says "Two for James Bond" when they're seeing a movie called CASINO ROYALE or QUANTUM OF SOLACE. The Donner Superman film was called SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE. :)

Ok...They also said two for Superman when they went to any of the Superman movies, two for Batman at The Dark Knight, two for Indiana Jones, etc.
So do you want the next James Bond movie to be called "James Bond"? Is that your point?