Will you interpret the next \S/ film as a reboot or prequel?

[Man of Tomorrow]

Even though the next film is bound to be visually/stylistically different to SR (given the new director) and most likely darker and grittier (given WB's TDK approach), I'm pretty sure it's going to have to be an origin tale; like Batman Begins. A modern take on Superman's "year one" in order to serve as a proper 'reintroduction' to the character.

With Brandon Routh on board, some audiences will see it as a reboot (fresh start, new beginning), while others will see it was a prequel to SR (the vague history).

Either way, everyone's happy, WB makes it's money. It was probably the smartest move to please everyone given the divided reaction to SR.

Question is, will you interpret a "Year One" Superman film for 2012 with a 32 year old Brandon Routh as a reboot or prequel?


PS: This whole approach reminds me of Byrne's 1986 revamp of Superman in the comics.

[daywalker2007]

i think a reboot with Routh can work,
but they will have to make Routh look much different as Superman than he was in Superman returns.

more accurate suit, better vibrant colours, and more muscles!
along with a great script, and better casting around him,

i think it should work.

But it really has to be visually exciting, maybe something we have never seen before.
Make it epic and perhaps takes some risks with it.

[Man of Tomorrow]

Agreed. Someone on BT said it perfectly:

With a different suit, different hair, and a different look as Clark, I seriously doubt anyone in the general audiences will go "wait, wasn't that the Superman from that other gloomy movie?"

[bunk]

Superman Returns already has a prequel in Superman: The Movie. It may be vague, but the connection exists. Brandon's character has an origin and is part of the Donnerverse. This prequel talk is completely ridiculous imo.

[Man of Tomorrow]

Nevertheless, depending on how the reboot is handled. Some audiences may believe this origin tale is a prequel to SR.

There were enough people out there who thought Batman Begins was a prequel to Batman 89'.

But obviously the fans know better than the general audience..

[dark_b]

Superman Returns already has a prequel in Superman: The Movie. It may be vague, but the connection exists. Brandon's character has an origin and is part of the Donnerverse. This prequel talk is completely ridiculous imo.hardcore fans searching for a way to have brandon back.

and i thought that some of the welling fans were crazy :hehe:

[Man of Tomorrow]

I guess Paul Levitz and WB are hardcore Brandon fans then. Makes sense.

[Superfreak]

Even though the next film is bound to be visually/stylistically different to SR (given the new director) and most likely darker and grittier (given WB's TDK approach), I'm pretty sure it's going to have to be an origin tale; like Batman Begins. A modern take on Superman's "year one" in order to serve as a proper 'reintroduction' to the character.

With Brandon Routh on board, some audiences will see it as a reboot (fresh start, new beginning), while others will see it was a prequel to SR (the vague history).

Either way, everyone's happy, WB makes it's money. It was probably the smartest move to please everyone given the divided reaction to SR.

Question is, will you interpret a "Year One" Superman film for 2012 with a 32 year old Brandon Routh as a reboot or prequel?


PS: This whole approach reminds me of Byrne's 1986 revamp of Superman in the comics.



wouldn't it simply be both? It is a prequel to SR, but also a reboot/origin that severs the tie with the so called 'vague history', which funked everything up in the first place IMO

[Man of Tomorrow]

I think it could be either.

Up to the audiences' interpretation, since there are some wanting a fresh reboot and others wanting something tied to SR.

Fans on both sides.

So this pleases everyone in a way.

[Superfreak]

I think it could be either.

Up to the audiences' interpretation, since there are some wanting a fresh reboot and others wanting something tied to SR.

Fans on both sides.

So this pleases everyone in a way.

if it's a prequel to SR, but a new origin, won't it be both a prequel and a reboot... a rebooting prequel

[Superman-Prime]

I'm going to pick reboot. I'm gonna support it for sure.

[bunk]

Nevertheless, depending on how the reboot is handled. Some audiences may believe this origin tale is a prequel to SR.

There were enough people out there who thought Batman Begins was a prequel to Batman 89'.

But obviously the fans know better than the general audience..

Can you imagine the confusion if Keaton had starred in Begins?

[Man of Tomorrow]

if it's a prequel to SR, but a new origin, won't it be both a prequel and a reboot... a rebooting prequel

lol

It could be either depending how you look at it. It's really all semantics, up to your own preferences and interpretation.

There will be fans wanting to connect it to SR as an origin for SR (since the 1978 Supes film doesnt connect with SR directly...only vaguely)

And there will be fans wanting to except it as a reboot (a fresh start not connected with SR at all)...kinda like the Byrne revamp compared to the precrisis.

[goh78]

Why not wait for an official announcement about what the film will actually be before making a poll on how we will interpret it?

[FaT_tONle]

I say reboot... **** it. WB should go crazy with it. Completely re-tell the origin. Make Clark meet Lois for the FIRST time. Start over. That's the only way you compeletly severe connections to the Donnerverse if they are in fact keeping Routh. WB's rationale should be... "okay we gave you guys Superman Returns as homage to the Donnerverse.... now time for the REAL Superman movie... and we got an actor who has established credibility with the role." That's the only way this works IMO... DO NOT sell this as a prequel. That would be a bigger disaster than SR itself.

[Man of Tomorrow]

They should be vague about it really..

And just say the film is the modern "year one" origins of Superman.

[I Am The Knight]

If this pans out, I would interpret it as a reboot. Different continuity, same character. Just like in the funny books.

[Man of Tomorrow]

Yeah, I think all us fans probably would, since we're pretty informed on the subject.

I guess it's really some of the general audience who could consider it part of SR canon..

But its really all moot to WB...

All they want is a successful film that makes the big bucks.

[Superfreak]

if the 'prequel' is a new origin, then I'd accept it as a rebooted origin, for the SR narrative line. Earlier on, when SR was in production, I was thinking about this concept. What I thought would be really nice:

SR - first movie in the franchise

Prequel to SR - re origin (I think this was an emergency plan if the 'vague history' thing didn't work out, which it didn't). This can work in many ways, especially if refering to the 'what should krypton look like?' thread. Some of us like the idea, that we don't actually see krypton, and that Superman's origin (other than crashing to earth in a ship) is actually the mystery of the film: this concept could actually align very well why Superman actually left prior to SR. Moreover, they can deal with Jason... and redefine him (hopefully as a clone of superman that Luthor implanted in Lois... like Nuclear man, but through a scientific 'rape'). And lastly, they can deal with Lex... by making him the evil capitalist we all want... but showing by the end of the origin, that Superman had caused his brain to crack... hence why we end up with 'crazy' Lex in SR.

Sequel to SR - we finally see what happened when Superman went to old Krypton... and deal finally with NK and subsequently Brainiac out of NK (and Kal Penn should be brainiac's initial humanoid host, before turning his sights on Jason). Resulting in the ultimate battle between Superman and Jainiac



through the prequel re-origin, I think a lot of the problems in SR could be righted, when their histories are flushed out properly.

[FlawlessVictory]

I say reboot... **** it. WB should go crazy with it. Completely re-tell the origin. Make Clark meet Lois for the FIRST time. Start over. That's the only way you compeletly severe connections to the Donnerverse if they are in fact keeping Routh. WB's rationale should be... "okay we gave you guys Superman Returns as homage to the Donnerverse.... now time for the REAL Superman movie... and we got an actor who has established credibility with the role." That's the only way this works IMO... DO NOT sell this as a prequel. That would be a bigger disaster than SR itself.

Agreed. A prequel to a movie(SR) that polarized the fanbase to begin with and made Robinov make the comments about needing to "reintroduce" the character? Makes no sense. You make a prequel to movies that have received universal love and acclaim, not to SR. Any connection to SR just defeats the idea of this "reintroduction".

[Man of Tomorrow]

But leaving up to the audience to interpret whether its a reboot or prequel is smart..

That way everyone gets what they want.

Since you obviously don't want it tied to SR canon, you'll see it as a reboot.

[FaT_tONle]

Agreed. A prequel to a movie(SR) that polarized the fanbase to begin with and made Robinov make the comments about needing to "reintroduce" the character? Makes no sense. You make a prequel to movies that have received universal love and acclaim, not to SR. Any connection to SR just defeats the idea of this "reintroduction".

Prequel is made up fan boy nonsense... can we give it a break people? But you don't want Routh back for my understanding... and I totally get that line of thinking... but I want them to keep Routh... so we really don't agree about the reboot.

[FlawlessVictory]

Prequel is made up fan boy nonsense... can we give it a break people? But you don't want Routh back for my understanding... and I totally get that line of thinking... but I want them to keep Routh... so we really don't agree about the reboot.

Honestly, I could live with Routh coming back if I was assured this has absolutely nothing to do with SR. Donnerverse gone, real estate Lex gone, etc... But I have a feeling once Routh comes back that there will be other semi/loose connections to SR which I have no interest in.

[FaT_tONle]

Honestly, I could live with Routh coming back if I was assured this has absolutely nothing to do with SR. Donnerverse gone, real estate Lex gone, etc... But I have a feeling once Routh comes back that there will be other semi/loose connections to SR which I have no interest in.

Well I don't feel those are valid assumptions... unless you are worried about the theme song... :cwink:. I think WB has made it clear they are going in another direction.

[lujho]

A reboot origin with Routh makes about as much sense as a Superman movie with Welling that completely ignores Smallville.

If you use routh you HAVE to keep SR in continuity... you either have to have it be a prequel or a sequel. Retconning SR out of existence, as much as I wish it had never been made, is just wrong from a storytelling point of view, and it's kind of insulting to Singer.

And making a prequel to SR with a Routh who is clearly older (and will be even more clearly older in any sequels set between the new film and SR) is just dumb.

And if you have Brandon suddenly look better in a prequel (better hair, bigger physique, better costume) then Brandon in SR is going to stand out even more as being sub-par.

I'm sorry but if you're going to have Routh you have to make it a sequel, even if you re-jig the feel and design of it. And if you want to get rid of Richard and the kid you have to fine a good way to do it and not just pretend they never existed.

Ugh, ANY way you look at it it's just messy, messy, messy if you keep Routh. I wish we could turn back time and have a decent first film with Routh that would allow him to go forward in to sequels without any continuity problems or crappy Donner homage but I think it's just too late for poor old Brandon Routh.

And BTW, all Levitz said was that he's in the mix, not that he's definitely in.

The just need to Hulkify this franchise with a new actor or find a really, REALLY elegant way to do a sequel and explain away the ridiculous inconsistencies of Superman returns - mostly surrounding the conception of Jason.

[Superfreak]

Honestly, I could live with Routh coming back if I was assured this has absolutely nothing to do with SR. Donnerverse gone, real estate Lex gone, etc... But I have a feeling once Routh comes back that there will be other semi/loose connections to SR which I have no interest in.

List the things in SR, that couldn't be righted by a good writer with a prequel. (assuming this prequel would throw the donnerverse out the window as vague history, in exchange for non-vague history of the prequel).

Connections with SR isn't the problem for me... it's the connection with STM and SII. Sever those ties and many of the so called SR mistakes, suddenly become free floating until the individual origins of these mistakes is redefined. Jason no longer has to be the love child, Lex no longer has to be 'crazy' (although could have been driven mad by superman pre-SR) etc etc.

[FaT_tONle]

If you use routh you HAVE to keep SR in continuity... you either have to have it be a prequel or a sequel. Retconning SR out of existence, as much as I wish it had never been made, is just wrong from a storytelling point of view, and it's kind of insulting to Singer.

I am not sure how relevant the lead actor for Superman really is. I mean we are talking about one guy here. To me I see it as SR was homage to Donner... it ended up being the Batman & Robin of the franchise (IMO)... they want to reboot... but they want to use the same actor because he is still young and they liked him. I really don't think it is anything more than that. How do you not make it a prequel? New version of Lex would help... I would seriously consider casting Luthor along the lines of the animated series. How on Earth do you sell that as a prequel? That's something definitive... connections to Donner completely severed...

Connections with SR isn't the problem for me... it's the connection with STM and SII. Sever those ties and many of the so called SR mistakes, suddenly become free floating until the individual origins of these mistakes is redefined. Jason no longer has to be the love child, Lex no longer has to be 'crazy' (although could have been driven mad by superman pre-SR) etc etc.

More complicated than theoretical physics... they'd be better off making a sequel.

[Man of Tomorrow]

And BTW, all Levitz said was that he's in the mix, not that he's definitely in.

Actually no...

SHH used the phrase "in the mix."

What Levitz said was "Brandon Routh has come around the offices in New York and Los Angeles as of late to talk about Superman and what we want to do."

And then he went on to talk about how the studio loves Brandon.


He never used the phrase "in the mix" to indicate other candidates in the running besides Brandon.

[Superark]

I say reboot... **** it. WB should go crazy with it. Completely re-tell the origin. Make Clark meet Lois for the FIRST time. Start over. That's the only way you compeletly severe connections to the Donnerverse if they are in fact keeping Routh. WB's rationale should be... "okay we gave you guys Superman Returns as homage to the Donnerverse.... now time for the REAL Superman movie... and we got an actor who has established credibility with the role." That's the only way this works IMO... DO NOT sell this as a prequel. That would be a bigger disaster than SR itself.

Saying something to that affect is a good idea and makes sense.

[batman44]

Actually no...

SHH used the phrase "in the mix."

What Levitz said was "Brandon Routh has come around the offices in New York and Los Angeles as of late to talk about Superman and what we want to do."

And then he went on to talk about how the studio loves Brandon.


He never used the phrase "in the mix" to indicate other candidates in the running besides Brandon.

Actually it was Latino Review who said Routh was "in the mix".

[lujho]

I am not sure how relevant the actor really is. I mean we are talking about one guy here. To me I see it as SR was homage to Donner... it ended up being the Batman & Robin of the franchise (IMO)... they reboot... but they want to use the same actor because he is still young and they liked him. I really don't think it is anything more than that. How do you not make it a prequel? New version of Lex would help... I would seriously consider casting Luthor along the lines of the animated series. How on Earth do you sell that as a prequel? That's something definitive... connections to Donner completely severed...


I'm just completely against having the same actor in two entirely different continuities/universes. When you use the same actor you're letting people know it's the same universe... if it isn't, then you're just causing unneccessary confusion, and betraying anyone who liked the previous version.

Using Routh in a complete reboot would be like Sean Connery remaking a Bond film he was already in... it just makes no sense - it's the same actor playing the same character and yet these two sets of events do not exist together in one timeline. Oh, wait they did that. :)

Different universe - different actor. That's just the way it should be. Anything else is just ugly.

[lujho]

Actually no...

SHH used the phrase "in the mix."

What Levitz said was "Brandon Routh has come around the offices in New York and Los Angeles as of late to talk about Superman and what we want to do."

And then he went on to talk about how the studio loves Brandon.


He never used the phrase "in the mix" to indicate other candidates in the running besides Brandon.

Quite right, my mistake. Still, doesn't mean he's definitely in, just that they're discussing it. Probably trying to figure out what to do just as much as we're trying to figure out what they're doing.

[Bester]

I'm guessing WB will go for a generic Superman movie, with no direct ties to the previous movies (apart from possible returning SR cast). I just hope they change that damn suit...

[lujho]

Saying something to that affect is a good idea and makes sense.

But people who didn't care for the dredged-up Donnerverse don't neccessarily want to be reminded of that movie AT ALL. Routh is a big glaring neon sign that will constantly do that.

[FaT_tONle]

Different universe - different actor. That's just the way it should be. Anything else is just ugly.

Anyone being objective can not argue with that... but you can't tell me rebooting with a new cast is always the best option. There is always a risk. TIH severely underperformed IMO. People don't always want change. Routh worked for audiences hence WB might keep him. That's all there is too it.

[Superfreak]

But people who didn't care for the dredged-up Donnerverse don't neccessarily want to be reminded of that movie AT ALL. Routh is a big glaring neon sign that will constantly do that.

this point become moot if this so called prequel is an origin

[Superfreak]

More complicated than theoretical physics... they'd be better off making a sequel.

It's not complicated at all, just fill in the blanks like madlibs

[lujho]

this point become moot if this so called prequel is an origin

Origin or not, Routh will remind people of SR, and if it contradicts the continuity of SR in any way or just ignores it forever, people are going to be confused that it doesn't match up with SR.

Ifthe keep Routh they HAVE to keep SR in some way or another (and possibly retroactively "fix" it's errors). It's just incredibly messy if they don't.

Maybe the next movie could be set after SR, BUT, have flashbacks in it. Teh first flashback could cover the first half-hour and re-cap Lois and Clark's first meeting etc, Jason's conception, and Superman leaving for Krypton.

Then back to the present for a while, then a flashback to what happened at Krypton (great way to use the deleted scene from SR). then back to the present for the rest of the movie, where Superman deals with some threat that's related to krypton, and Jason and Richard are dealt with... Richard probably has to die.

Question: When Jason was concieved, who do you think she slept with? Superman 2 continuity is out (original or Donner version - neither make sense). I always assume that she must has slept with Superman (without knowing he was really Clark) shortly before he left and she met Richard.

But what if she actually slept with Clark? In some moment of vulnerabillity (for both of them), Clark, desperately wanting to reveal his secret and/or say goodbye before leaving, and Lois starting to get a vague sense of actually having some feelings for Clark, have a one night stand or something? maybe Clark saying goodbye to her as Clark about to go on Holiday was the only way he could do it - he couldn't do it as Superman.

It's something you'd have to handle carefully to get it right, but seriously, the huge logic flaw in SR regarding this matter HAS to be dealt with if you keep Routh (and just as I believe that same actor MUST mean same universe, it has be be the same supporting cast too).

If Lois had slept with Clark, Jason pushing the piano would have been the reveal to her that Clark - Superman. That'd be an interesting way to do it.

So SR happens, Clark and Lois's feelings grow stronger, poor Richard buys the farm, leaving the way open for Clark and Lois to get together with their kid. Of course he's not going to just move in like a douchebag, they wouldn't even get together until the next film, but still.

Honestly this is the only way I can think of doing it that works best - you sever ties to the Reeve films, fix up the continuity errors, and get to subtly re-jig the universe a bit visually without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I still think a complete recast/reboot is the way to go, short of getting in a time machine and preventing Singer from making the mistakes he made on SR, but if we're stuck with SR then this is the best way to go about things.

Again - rebooting competely with Routh is ****ing stupid, inelegant and ugly.

[Bad Superman]

I don't see how WB says they're using Hulk's re-boot as an example for Superman to follow. If they have serious intentions on giving the Superman franchise a brand new fresh start, they have to completely ignore what has been done previously. Routh coming back and a rumored Spacey returning as Lex IS NOT the right way to re-start the franchise. People will be confused.

It's as if WB would've re-started the Batman franchise with George Clooney after the Batman and Robin debacle.

If they go through with those casting plans, I interprert the next film to be another clusterf#$k.

[Superark]

But people who didn't care for the dredged-up Donnerverse don't neccessarily want to be reminded of that movie AT ALL. Routh is a big glaring neon sign that will constantly do that.


It seems with Superman there is no pleasing everyone. No matter what they do there always going to be someone for or against WB's direction.

[Superark]

I don't see how WB says they're using Hulk's re-boot as an example for Superman to follow. If they have serious intentions on giving the Superman franchise a brand new fresh start, they have to completely ignore what has been done previously. Routh coming back and a rumored Spacey returning as Lex IS NOT the right way to re-start the franchise. People will be confused.

It's as if WB would've re-started the Batman franchise with George Clooney after the Batman and Robin debacle.

If they go through with those casting plans, I interprert the next film to be another clusterf#$k.


In all fairness to WB, they never used the words "reboot" and they certainly never said they were going to use the Hulk as an example to follow.

[lujho]

It's as if WB would've re-started the Batman franchise with George Clooney after the Batman and Robin debacle.

EXACTLY! The could have made a ****ing kickass Batman film with Clooney and completely ignored Batman and Robin and everything that came before... but it would still be stupid because Clooney would be in it yet none of the stuff in B&R ever happened to him. You just don't do that. It's silly.

If they go through with those casting plans, I interprert the next film to be another clusterf#$k.

Heh. Agreed. Full reboot with Routh starring is just boneheaded.

[lujho]

It seems with Superman there is no pleasing everyone. No matter what they do there always going to be someone for or against WB's direction.

Yes, but they'd stand a whole lot better chance of pleasing people if they didn't make huge silly, easily avoidable mistakes mistakes in their first film that have to fixed or ignored in the next one.

If the 2006 film had be a a complete reboot unconnected from the previous films with no silly continuity errors and logic holes a whole hell of a lot more people would have been pleased.

[Bad Superman]

In all fairness to WB, they never used the words "reboot" and they certainly never said they were going to use the Hulk as an example to follow.

They didn’t? :whatever:

http://www.superherohype.com/news/supermannews.php?id=7609

Warner Bros. Confirms Superman Reboot
Source:Steelsheen
August 22, 2008


Just a few days after this article was posted, Warner Bros. Pictures Group President Jeff Robinov has told The Wall Street Journal that the studio is going to be reintroducing Superman. We assume this will be similar to how Louis Leterrier's The Incredible Hulk was a reboot of Ang Lee's Hulk. Here is what the article says:

Warner Bros. also put on hold plans for another movie starring multiple superheroes -- known as "Batman vs. Superman" -- after the $215 million "Superman Returns," which had disappointing box-office returns, didn't please executives. "'Superman' didn't quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to," says Mr. Robinov. "It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned." "Had 'Superman' worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009," he adds. "But now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman without regard to a Batman and Superman movie at all."
The article also talks about Warner Bros. adapting other DC properties over the new few years. "By 2011, Mr. Robinov plans for DC Comics to supply the material for up to two of the six to eight tent-pole films he hopes Warner Bros. will have in the pipeline by then," it says. Those projects will likely be about single characters at first, and will be darker much like The Dark Knight:

With "Batman vs. Superman" and "Justice League" stalled, Warner Bros. has quietly adopted Marvel's model of releasing a single film for each character, and then using those movies and their sequels to build up to a multicharacter film. "Along those lines, we have been developing every DC character that we own," Mr. Robinov says.

Like the recent Batman sequel -- which has become the highest-grossing film of the year thus far -- Mr. Robinov wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as "The Dark Knight." Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.' DC properties. "We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," he says. That goes for the company's Superman franchise as well.

The studio is set to announce its plans for future DC movies in the next month. For now, though, it is focused on releasing four comic-book films in the next three years, including a third Batman film, a new film reintroducing Superman, and two movies focusing on other DC Comics characters. Movies featuring Green Lantern, Flash, Green Arrow, and Wonder Woman are all in active development.

We'll let you know as soon as the studio has announced its plans for future DC movies.

As for the Hulk's comparisson, you're right. It wasn't Hulk. It was Batman Begins.

[I Am The Knight]

They didn’t? :whatever:

http://www.superherohype.com/news/supermannews.php?id=7609

Reboot


That was ComingSoon's/Superhero Hype's "take" on the article. The R word never slipped from Robinov's mouth :hehe:

[dark_b]

so WB told SHH to use the word ''reboot'' in the title?

[Superark]

They didn’t? :whatever:

http://www.superherohype.com/news/supermannews.php?id=7609

Warner Bros. Confirms Superman Reboot
Source:Steelsheen
August 22, 2008


Just a few days after this article was posted, Warner Bros. Pictures Group President Jeff Robinov has told The Wall Street Journal that the studio is going to be reintroducing Superman. We assume this will be similar to how Louis Leterrier's The Incredible Hulk was a reboot of Ang Lee's Hulk. Here is what the article says:

Warner Bros. also put on hold plans for another movie starring multiple superheroes -- known as "Batman vs. Superman" -- after the $215 million "Superman Returns," which had disappointing box-office returns, didn't please executives. "'Superman' didn't quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to," says Mr. Robinov. "It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned." "Had 'Superman' worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009," he adds. "But now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman without regard to a Batman and Superman movie at all."
The article also talks about Warner Bros. adapting other DC properties over the new few years. "By 2011, Mr. Robinov plans for DC Comics to supply the material for up to two of the six to eight tent-pole films he hopes Warner Bros. will have in the pipeline by then," it says. Those projects will likely be about single characters at first, and will be darker much like The Dark Knight:

With "Batman vs. Superman" and "Justice League" stalled, Warner Bros. has quietly adopted Marvel's model of releasing a single film for each character, and then using those movies and their sequels to build up to a multicharacter film. "Along those lines, we have been developing every DC character that we own," Mr. Robinov says.

Like the recent Batman sequel -- which has become the highest-grossing film of the year thus far -- Mr. Robinov wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as "The Dark Knight." Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.' DC properties. "We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," he says. That goes for the company's Superman franchise as well.

The studio is set to announce its plans for future DC movies in the next month. For now, though, it is focused on releasing four comic-book films in the next three years, including a third Batman film, a new film reintroducing Superman, and two movies focusing on other DC Comics characters. Movies featuring Green Lantern, Flash, Green Arrow, and Wonder Woman are all in active development.

We'll let you know as soon as the studio has announced its plans for future DC movies.

As for the Hulk's comparisson, you're right. It wasn't Hulk. It was Batman Begins.


Again, where did Robinov say the word reboot? I saw the word "reintroduction". SHH put reboot in their title of the article. The word or headline of "reboot" isn't even on the actual page of where the article was orginally posted (Wall-street Journal)

[I Am The Knight]

so WB told SHH to use the word ''reboot'' in the title?

No, I don't think so. Here:

Just a few days after this article (http://www.superherohype.com/news/supermannews.php?id=7601) was posted, Warner Bros. Pictures Group President Jeff Robinov has told The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121936107614461929.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) that the studio is going to be reintroducing Superman. We assume this will be similar to how Louis Leterrier's The Incredible Hulk was a reboot of Ang Lee's Hulk. Here is what the article says:


Comingsoon/SHH "assumes" it means a reboot (As would most people) but the truth of the matter is that Robinov himself never said the actual word. Obviously I DO think they're gonna reboot, even if they keep Routh. I'm not saying anything here. Just sayin'. WB is kinda crazy.

[Bad Superman]

Sorry guys, I just realized you're low on thinking gas. Later.

[I Am The Knight]

I have been corrected. I must exit now.

Fixed :o

[Superark]

Sorry guys, I just realized you're low on thinking gas. Later.

:whatever:

[lujho]

I bet a godzillion moneys that any new Superman movie that stars Brandon Routh will NOT ignore SR. It'll simply be a sequel, or if it happens to be set before SR (unlikely, though going from first film to prequel to sequel isn't unprecedented I guess, Temple of Doom is set before Raiders) it'll leave room for the events of SR to exist.

For WB to actually do a full-on reboot starring Routh they'd have to be even dumber than they were to let Singer do what he did with SR.

[daywalker2007]

Origin or not, Routh will remind people of SR, and if it contradicts the continuity of SR in any way or just ignores it forever, people are going to be confused that it doesn't match up with SR.

Ifthe keep Routh they HAVE to keep SR in some way or another (and possibly retroactively "fix" it's errors). It's just incredibly messy if they don't.

Maybe the next movie could be set after SR, BUT, have flashbacks in it. Teh first flashback could cover the first half-hour and re-cap Lois and Clark's first meeting etc, Jason's conception, and Superman leaving for Krypton.

Then back to the present for a while, then a flashback to what happened at Krypton (great way to use the deleted scene from SR). then back to the present for the rest of the movie, where Superman deals with some threat that's related to krypton, and Jason and Richard are dealt with... Richard probably has to die.

Question: When Jason was concieved, who do you think she slept with? Superman 2 continuity is out (original or Donner version - neither make sense). I always assume that she must has slept with Superman (without knowing he was really Clark) shortly before he left and she met Richard.

But what if she actually slept with Clark? In some moment of vulnerabillity (for both of them), Clark, desperately wanting to reveal his secret and/or say goodbye before leaving, and Lois starting to get a vague sense of actually having some feelings for Clark, have a one night stand or something? maybe Clark saying goodbye to her as Clark about to go on Holiday was the only way he could do it - he couldn't do it as Superman.

It's something you'd have to handle carefully to get it right, but seriously, the huge logic flaw in SR regarding this matter HAS to be dealt with if you keep Routh (and just as I believe that same actor MUST mean same universe, it has be be the same supporting cast too).

If Lois had slept with Clark, Jason pushing the piano would have been the reveal to her that Clark - Superman. That'd be an interesting way to do it.

So SR happens, Clark and Lois's feelings grow stronger, poor Richard buys the farm, leaving the way open for Clark and Lois to get together with their kid. Of course he's not going to just move in like a douchebag, they wouldn't even get together until the next film, but still.

Honestly this is the only way I can think of doing it that works best - you sever ties to the Reeve films, fix up the continuity errors, and get to subtly re-jig the universe a bit visually without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I still think a complete recast/reboot is the way to go, short of getting in a time machine and preventing Singer from making the mistakes he made on SR, but if we're stuck with SR then this is the best way to go about things.

Again - rebooting competely with Routh is ****ing stupid, inelegant and ugly.

I think some of you lot are taking things way to seriously and in too much detail!

Technically, there is nothing to stop WB from doing a complete reboot and keeping only Routh as Superman, the rest being a completely new cast, and having a brand new origin story.

Its not impossible, nor is it a problem for the general audience.
There are still people today who think The Dark Knight is somehow tied to the previous franchise, yet these make up a small proportion of the overall audience.
The fact is, The Dark Knight raped the box office and even if some small minority was confused, it didn't matter, it made the money and thats all that WB care for.

The same thing with a new Superman movie.
Having a brand new restart in 2012 with Routh in the lead role is not at all impossible or difficult to comprehend.

Superman Returns in 2006 was not a bomb like Batman & Robin, so you can throw that argument out of the water. Superman Returns simply was lukewarm, and people watched it, but it didn't excite them like WB thought it would. Its WB own mistake that they greenlit the Superman Returns script, thinking Superman's name alone would guarentee big bucks, and obviously they discovered this was not true. These days, good action is more or less a prerequisite for any comic book movie. The Dark Knight just totally solidified this fact.

[Bad Superman]

Fixed :o

:whatever:


You've just proved my point.

[daywalker2007]

By the time 2012 comes along, I doubt many of the general audiences will even bother to remember Superman Returns, considering most of you lot here say it was boring, and also say that none of the general audience seems to care for that movie!

Indeed, that might be true and so that might help the new 2012 superman movie.



By then, people will have forgotten Superman Returns and will be ready for a full on epic action packed Superman Movie.



Its quite obvious in the new movie, Superman's whole look will be completely different.



You won't see any of the maroonish, dull washed out colors of Superman, and the ill fitting costume.



Instead, WB will most likely made the suit very vibrant, more accurate to the Comic Books, and have Routh bulk up significantly, give him a different hairstyle, and just basically make him look as different as possible from how Bryan Singer made him look.



Sure, we are thinking now, how will they pull that off?

But its definitely possible. Absolutely its possible.



its upto WB to find the team to pull it off.



That is if they really do want to keep Routh. Obviously, we are all jumping to conclusions through a small article, and we have no proof that Routh is even coming back.



People need to take a chill pill and calm down.

We have a full 4 years to wait now, so sit back and enjoy the ride of more crazy mayhem in the Superman movie world!



it took 19 years to superman back on the big screen, im sure we can wait another 4! lol!

[bgshw44]

i think a script written like the abrahms one where the movie starts at the end, then flashes back to the beginning to set up the villian is a great way to go.

FYI i am not endorsing the ridiculousness of that script

[The Sage]

I'll interpret it as "Why..." :confused::confused:

[Bad Superman]

i think a script written like the abrahms one where the movie starts at the end, then flashes back to the beginning to set up the villian is a great way to go.

FYI i am not endorsing the ridiculousness of that script

You mean structure wise. I agree, it doesn't have to be a linear story.

[myway]

Although I'm definitely part fanboy, I'm still hooked into the real world and I have friends outside of these boards whose opinions I also value and I guarantee that many of the criticisms of SR don't exist outside of these boards. Not enough action? Yes, heard it and it's a fair criticism. SR was too much a retread of S:TM? Yes, heard it and it's a fair criticism. Theses are the reasons why SR didn't do as well as WB expected (although it still beat BB but that's conveniently forgotten). Do I have any friends who feels it's grounds for completely scrapping and rebooting the entire franchise? No. Moreover, his hair length; the tint of red in the suit? Sometimes I can't believe people are for real.

[I Am The Knight]

You've just proved my point.

Which is?

[lujho]

i think a script written like the abrahms one where the movie starts at the end, then flashes back to the beginning to set up the villian is a great way to go.

FYI i am not endorsing the ridiculousness of that script

Yeah, that's kind of where I got the idea I outlined above about flashing back to the tripto Krypton's ruins - start the movie with him facing Brainiac or something then flash back to how Brainiac hitched a ride back with him.

Doesn't have to be Brainiac either... you COULD imply that Supes had an adventure or two on his journey and the villain could be Mongul or something. Something 4th World related even.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

This thread is too soon.

[lujho]

This thread is too soon.

True. We honestly have no idea what they have planned, if they've even GOT a concrete course of action yet. In fact Levitz basically said they don't have a concrete plan at least until they know what's going on with Batman.

I hope we don't have to wait til 2012 though. That's ages away. Xmas 2010 would be doable if the got off their arses now.

[Timstuff]

Routh is not on board.

[I Am The Knight]

Routh is not on board.

Who knows.

[Showtime]

He's said it in several threads, so it is true.

[Superark]

If Chuck Norris told him I might be inclined to agree

[bgshw44]

You mean structure wise. I agree, it doesn't have to be a linear story.

and this is great way to keep routh, it wont be a linear origion like S:TM so it doesnt tread over that, just shows different events, and doesnt tread over SR, as this movie could easily take place before. But you still get to see some "origion stuff" so no one is confused.

A seperate adventure that fits in between SII and SR

[Lobo]

He's said it in several threads, so it is true.

:hehe:

[Mikelus]

Origin or not, Routh will remind people of SR, and if it contradicts the continuity of SR in any way or just ignores it forever, people are going to be confused that it doesn't match up with SR.

Ifthe keep Routh they HAVE to keep SR in some way or another (and possibly retroactively "fix" it's errors). It's just incredibly messy if they don't.

Maybe the next movie could be set after SR, BUT, have flashbacks in it. Teh first flashback could cover the first half-hour and re-cap Lois and Clark's first meeting etc, Jason's conception, and Superman leaving for Krypton.

Then back to the present for a while, then a flashback to what happened at Krypton (great way to use the deleted scene from SR). then back to the present for the rest of the movie, where Superman deals with some threat that's related to krypton, and Jason and Richard are dealt with... Richard probably has to die.

Question: When Jason was concieved, who do you think she slept with? Superman 2 continuity is out (original or Donner version - neither make sense). I always assume that she must has slept with Superman (without knowing he was really Clark) shortly before he left and she met Richard.

But what if she actually slept with Clark? In some moment of vulnerabillity (for both of them), Clark, desperately wanting to reveal his secret and/or say goodbye before leaving, and Lois starting to get a vague sense of actually having some feelings for Clark, have a one night stand or something? maybe Clark saying goodbye to her as Clark about to go on Holiday was the only way he could do it - he couldn't do it as Superman.

It's something you'd have to handle carefully to get it right, but seriously, the huge logic flaw in SR regarding this matter HAS to be dealt with if you keep Routh (and just as I believe that same actor MUST mean same universe, it has be be the same supporting cast too).

If Lois had slept with Clark, Jason pushing the piano would have been the reveal to her that Clark - Superman. That'd be an interesting way to do it.

So SR happens, Clark and Lois's feelings grow stronger, poor Richard buys the farm, leaving the way open for Clark and Lois to get together with their kid. Of course he's not going to just move in like a douchebag, they wouldn't even get together until the next film, but still.

Honestly this is the only way I can think of doing it that works best - you sever ties to the Reeve films, fix up the continuity errors, and get to subtly re-jig the universe a bit visually without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I still think a complete recast/reboot is the way to go, short of getting in a time machine and preventing Singer from making the mistakes he made on SR, but if we're stuck with SR then this is the best way to go about things.

Again - rebooting competely with Routh is ****ing stupid, inelegant and ugly.

Well said, is just absurd to keep Routh if they do a reboot, if they keep him, then do the best sequel possible and hope is a huge success. Jason should die (genetic problem or disease), problem solved, then Richard and Lois go separate ways and Clark tells Lois the whole truth. Get Brainiac in there, he could use Lex to his advantage to make it more interesting (Lex alone is not going to cut it), is not that difficult to make a good sequel. But if WB prefers to reboot, then start all fresh, new Superman and cast. Is common sense, but WB doesn't have much of it unfortunately. :whatever:

[lujho]

I'm not sure about killing Jason. I wish he'd never been born, but killing him would leave a cloud of sadness forver on this version of Lois and Clark that I don't think sits well with what Superman should be. There would always be the ghost of a dead little boy hanging around, even when Superman's having a rip-roaring pulp sci-fi adventure.

The phrase "Superman's dead kid" shouldn't be one anyone should ever have to think about. It's not a concept that should exist.

[FaT_tONle]

I said it before... I'll say it again... cast an African American Lex Luthor... unless the GA is color blind they can distinguish black and white. Donnerverse gone... and while it does make sense to replace Superman while you are at it... if it ain't broke don't fix it.


http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/9/9e/Lex_Luthor_TV.jpg

Are people gonna think this movie is a prequel to SR and a younger version of Kevin Spacey...:huh: :huh: :huh:???

[batman44]

^That Lex is white also.

[FaT_tONle]

He sort of was a mix... I mean people still argue that Harvey Dent was black in Batman: TAS. Despite all that... it's a stark contrast. I think we need that for Lex Luthor in the new Superman film regardless of who plays Superman. If they just cast a younger Gene Hackman/Spacey look alike people will still think its a prequel.

[NeoRanger]

Lex is in better position than Superman himself. And it's one of the (few?) things we can thank Smallville for.

[batman44]

Well, if they go with LexCorp Lex and get away from the goofiness, I think it would be enough to distance itself from the Donnerverse Luthor. Although, I don't mind Luthor being played by a black guy.

[I Am The Knight]

I don't think Luthor should be black...There's no real reason for him to be black.

[batman44]

I don't think he should be black either, but if it happened I wouldn't be too upset. Then again, I can't think of any black guy off the top of my head that's right for Luthor.

[FaT_tONle]

I don't think he should be black either, but if it happened I wouldn't be too upset. Then again, I can't think of any black off the top of my head that's right for Luthor.

My first choice...

http://www.nairaland.com/attachments/25669_Chiwetel_Ejiofor_2_jpga842432124b33b9602cb22 e0906ccc9c

I just think... if you are going to reboot... why not embrace some changes? We aren't talking about Will Smith as Superman here... I just think people are tired of the same old Lex. No matter how corporate/post-crisis you make him... they won't see the differences.

[Superark]

There really is no reason to have a black Lex Luthor. It would make zero sense.

[FaT_tONle]

And bringing Routh back would make sense?

[I Am The Knight]

My first choice...

http://www.nairaland.com/attachments/25669_Chiwetel_Ejiofor_2_jpga842432124b33b9602cb22 e0906ccc9c

I just think... if you are going to reboot... why not embrace some changes? We aren't talking about Will Smith as Superman here... I just think people are tired of the same old Lex. No matter how corporate/post-crisis you make him... they won't see the differences.

No thanks...All the changes the franchise needs can be lifted from the comics. You don't need to make Luthor black or Lois an albino for that.

[Superark]

And bringing Routh back would make sense?


You cannot even make the comparison

[FaT_tONle]

When SLJ was announced as Nick Fury people were up in arms... even though there were comics based off of that version... it wasn't the mainstream. But it was still done despite the doubts of comic book readers. It's a change that works for cinema. I think it's a good idea because you completely wash your hands of Donner's Lex.

[I Am The Knight]

When SLJ was announced as Nick Fury people were up in arms... even though there were comics based off of that version... it wasn't the mainstream. But it was still done despite the doubts of comic book readers. It's a change that works for cinema. I think it's a good idea because you completely wash your hands of Donner's Lex.

The thing is that I find it just completely unnecessary. And I would have preferred Fury to be The Hoff BTW :hehe: or not black...I don't think people cared either way because to them, Nick Fury is a non character.

To distance Donner Luthor from the new Luthor, you only need to change his characterization a little bit. Show him to be a bit more ruthless. Introduce LexCorp if you will.

[Superark]

When SLJ was announced as Nick Fury people were up in arms... even though there were comics based off of that version... it wasn't the mainstream. But it was still done despite the doubts of comic book readers. It's a change that works for cinema. I think it's a good idea because you completely wash your hands of Donner's Lex.


I did not like that they did that with Nick Fury b/c again there was no reason to.

Now when Michael Clark Duncan was cast as Kingpin that made sense b/c he was the only actor who could physically inhabit the role in terms of size and physique.

Changing Lex's color is not the only way to "wash your hands" of the Donner version of Lex.

[FaT_tONle]

Again... all that stuff works if you are starting from scratch... but if they bring back Routh they will have an extra difficult time making the distinction. Now we can argue whether it's better to keep Routh or not, but I think the purpose of THIS thread... is if Routh is back... would you view it as a prequel or reboot? All I am doing is suggesting something that clearly makes this a reboot.

[Superark]

Again... all that stuff works if you are starting from scratch... but if they bring back Routh they will have an extra difficult time making the distinction. Now we can argue whether it's better to keep Routh or not, but I think the purpose of THIS thread... is if Routh is back... would you view it as a prequel or reboot? All I am doing is suggesting something that clearly makes this a reboot.


You're right, back onto the topic of the thread.

I think with Routh it will still be a reboot.

[I Am The Knight]

It could be like Batman Forever...If they had kept Keaton. But not like Batman Forever. You know what I mean...

[bgshw44]

whoever plays lex and the urrounding characters, they need to be BIG names

[Man of Tomorrow]

Edward Norton dammit.

[Nirvana]

I'll interpret it by the direction the Studio says they're taking.

[I Am The Knight]

Edward Norton dammit.

For Luthor? :wow:

[Man of Tomorrow]

Yes. Obviously.

He's done with Marvel and Hulk. :)

WB needs to snatch him over to our side.

[Spider-Fan83]

whoever plays lex and the urrounding characters, they need to be BIG names
idk, I kinda don't like when they go with a big name for the villain, when the hero is usually an unknown

it always seems like they trying to attach a big name just the sell the movie better

[Superman-Prime]

Yes. Obviously.

He's done with Marvel and Hulk. :)

WB needs to snatch him over to our side.

Not yeeeet...... remember "Avengers"?

[lukedoggwalker]

why do so many people want Brandon back yet hate it to be a prequel?? they can still give him a new look and everything.

[FaT_tONle]

Not yeeeet...... remember "Avengers"?

I doubt Norton will return due to the fact that his film underperformed... but I don't see Norton as Lex in any way shape or form regardless of his role in a previous Marvel film.

why do so many people want Brandon back yet hate it to be a prequel?? they can still give him a new look and everything.

You need to give this notion a rest... it is a worser idea than rebooting with Routh...

[Superark]

I doubt Norton will return do to the fact that his film underperformed... but I don't see Norton as Lex in any way shape or form regardless of his role in a previous Marvel film.



You need to give this notion a rest... it is a worser idea than rebooting with Routh...


That's not a word! :yay:

Seriously though, Norton will have nothing to do with this film!

[lukedoggwalker]

You need to give this notion a rest... it is a worser idea than rebooting with Routh...

the question im asking is WHY? so many people keep saying it's a "worser" idea but nobody has given me a good reason as to why it is.

[FaT_tONle]

My bad on the grammar... it's MORE WORSE because SR was a God awful movie and you don't make prequels to God awful/underperforming films... and SR definitely fits one of those bills. That's the simplest way one can put it. Add the fact that Donner's films were already prequels...

[I Am The Knight]

My bad on the grammar... it's MORE WORSE because SR was a God awful movie and you don't make prequels to God awful/underperforming films... and SR definitely fits one of those bills. That's the simplest way one can put it. Add the fact that Donner's films were already prequels...

Get away from the keyboard :yay: :hehe:

[Superman-Prime]

You need to give this notion a rest... it is a worser idea than rebooting with Routh...

No offend, but...

:hehe:

[8wid]

No matter who would play Superman it is a reboot anyway, since SR did not make any critical or commercial expectations. I doubt that a new Supes film will be by the same script style or reproduce any homage to the Donner vision.

[lukedoggwalker]

My bad on the grammar... it's MORE WORSE because SR was a God awful movie and you don't make prequels to God awful/underperforming films... and SR definitely fits one of those bills. That's the simplest way one can put it. Add the fact that Donner's films were already prequels...

godawful according to who? the average 17 yr old who cant sit still through a movie without an explosion every 5 minutes? correct me if im wrong but i remember the critic reviews for the movie were very good. and superman 3 and 4 were Donners sequels, you cant just ignore those movies and say SR came after 2. give SR it's own history, it was a deep and well put together movie, it'd be nice to see what happened before and Donnors films although nicely done for its time doesnt quite "fit the bill."

my idea is to make it a prequel/reboot, that way we dont just ignore yet ANOTHER superman film, it'd be dumb and confusing as hell (especially since they want Brandon back.) they already said they're making a reboot so why not make it a prequel as well, to not confuse the audience and add flavor to SR in the process.

[FaT_tONle]

Get away from the keyboard :yay: :hehe:

WORSE... yeah I admit that was pretty bad...

godawful according to who? the average 17 yr old who cant sit still through a movie without an explosion every 5 minutes? correct me if im wrong but i remember the critic reviews for the movie were very good. and superman 3 and 4 were Donners sequels, you cant just ignore those movies and say SR came after 2. give SR it's own history, it was a deep and well put together movie, it'd be nice to see what happened before and Donnors films although nicely done for its time doesnt quite "fit the bill."

Are we posting the same things in every thread now? More reason why to close your new thread... :whatever:

[lukedoggwalker]

Are we posting the same things in every thread now? More reason why to close your new thread... :whatever:


just trying to get an intelligent response out of you. :whatever:

[Superfreak]

just trying to get an intelligent response out of you. :whatever:

Don't bother, he's forgotten to attach a huge IMO behind all of his comments.

-a prequel origin, with Routh, that would re-conceptualize everything in SR could work very well. A prequel Origin would severe the ties with the Donner franchise instantly. Moreover, with the ability to rewrite every SR character's history, through the prequel, there are many interesting possibilities that could be changed. 1) I'd love for a prequel to redefine Jason as a Superclone that Lex implanted in Lois through a mad scientific rape, 2)if Superman does not know his true origin (other than a spaceship) in the prequel, his motivation to leave and find krypton would make a lot of sense, given some creative writing, 3) Lex could easily be dealt with. Perhaps Lex was the evil businessman we all know and love, but that before SR Superman's interference with his plots may have driven him a little MAD.


This works better than a straight reboot(the concept, not my examples), because although SR didn't work out as well as it should have, it would be a waste of money just to throw it in the trash and forget that it never happened. A HUGE WASTE OF MONEY.

Basically what I'm saying, is a good writer could take SR (a substandard movie) and frame it between a prequel origin which would severe the vague history BS, and a post SR sequel. Between the two frames, the outlook on SR could be vastly improved. It just takes someone intelligent to sit down, and write a pre SR origin, so that the Donner franchise no longer exists in the SR continuity (replaced by the prequel origin)

lastly, we shouldn't be afraid of prequels, just because some dumbass decide to prequelize his brilliant story, and ruin it in the process. This is not Star Wars, and it doesn't have to be. The prequel can work. It just has to be made by someone who cares about the story, rather than selling action figures and lego to 4 year olds.

[FaT_tONle]

So basically we are bringing back Bosworth despite the fact that she looked like she was 23 in SR... (oh yeah she was around that age) when in fact she was supposed to be playing an older woman in her mid thirties??? And now we are selling this as a prequel despite the fact that she is now in her mid-late twenties and is supposedly younger now than she was in SR? Yeah that makes a **** load of sense. Even if they recast it will just confuse people even more. And Spacey would have to be replaced as well because he's too old for a prequel. Plus the fact that we already know the outcome of the future because of a failed attempt at a decent Superman film... PLUS the fact that we are tied to the same old Donnerverse real estate Lex??? Because I don't see how Lex could have went from corporate Lex to whatever he was in SR... so yeah it makes zero sense. And I don't have to type IMO for anyone to see that logic.

[lukedoggwalker]

Don't bother, he's forgotten to attach a huge IMO behind all of his comments.

-a prequel origin, with Routh, that would re-conceptualize everything in SR could work very well. A prequel Origin would severe the ties with the Donner franchise instantly. Moreover, with the ability to rewrite every SR character's history, through the prequel, there are many interesting possibilities that could be changed. 1) I'd love for a prequel to redefine Jason as a Superclone that Lex implanted in Lois through a mad scientific rape, 2)if Superman does not know his true origin (other than a spaceship) in the prequel, his motivation to leave and find krypton would make a lot of sense, given some creative writing, 3) Lex could easily be dealt with. Perhaps Lex was the evil businessman we all know and love, but that before SR Superman's interference with his plots may have driven him a little MAD.


This works better than a straight reboot(the concept, not my examples), because although SR didn't work out as well as it should have, it would be a waste of money just to throw it in the trash and forget that it never happened. A HUGE WASTE OF MONEY.

Basically what I'm saying, is a good writer could take SR (a substandard movie) and frame it between a prequel origin which would severe the vague history BS, and a post SR sequel. Between the two frames, the outlook on SR could be vastly improved. It just takes someone intelligent to sit down, and write a pre SR origin, so that the Donner franchise no longer exists in the SR continuity (replaced by the prequel origin)

lastly, we shouldn't be afraid of prequels, just because some dumbass decide to prequelize his brilliant story, and ruin it in the process. This is not Star Wars, and it doesn't have to be. The prequel can work. It just has to be made by someone who cares about the story, rather than selling action figures and lego to 4 year olds.

thank you! finally somebody else agrees with me!

[I Am The Knight]

thank you! finally somebody else agrees with me!

LAWL :hehe:

N00bie realization at it's best.

[lukedoggwalker]

LAWL :hehe:

N00bie realization at it's best.

no, it's just good to know that im not the only person with some creativity around these boards. :oldrazz:

[bootspark]

I hope you Apologist realize that Superman is being REBOOTED. That means everything Singer and Routh did is being SCRAPPED.

Singer is OFF.
Routh is OFF.

Singerman is HISTORY.

[Superman-Prime]

I hope you Apologist realize that Superman is being REBOOTED. That means everything Singer and Routh did is being SCRAPPED.

Singer is OFF.
Routh is OFF.

Singerman is HISTORY.

Go back to SaveSuperman. You don't belong here.

[bootspark]

Thats kind of rude. What have I said that was wrong?

[Superman-Prime]

You called us (SR fans) "apologist".

I NEVER ever call that word to everyone who hates/lovers. I don't like this word.

[bootspark]

Im sorry. I would never try to offend anyone on purpose. Forgive me.

But...Im still right in saying that the franchise is being REBOOTED.

[GreenKToo]

I need more info first before deciding.
However, my first reaction upon reading the article was that it's a mistake to use him in a reboot. We shall see.

[Superfreak]

I hope you Apologist realize that Superman is being REBOOTED. That means everything Singer and Routh did is being SCRAPPED.

Singer is OFF.
Routh is OFF.

Singerman is HISTORY.

making claims is great n' all, but making claims that are unfounded as of yet, and stating them as fact is not cool. You are not right in saying that the franchise is being rebooted, because nothing has been stated definitively in either direction. So why not discuss the topic of the thread? rather than assuming a small bit of news ,that has neither been confirmed nor disproved, is true.

and a reboot origin prequel, is still a reboot. This reboot would just provide a way to eliminate the Dooner franchise from the current continuity.

[DavidTyler]

Isn't this thread kind of pointless since it's already anounced that they're doing a reboot?

[DavidTyler]

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

and a reboot origin prequel, is still a reboot. This reboot would just provide a way to eliminate the Dooner franchise from the current continuity.

True

[daywalker2007]

True

i still don't see how its possible for spacey's lex luthor to suddenly change from having hardons over real estate to becoming head of lexcorp in one movie.

if singer had made luthor different in returns,we wouldn't have this problem.

[lukedoggwalker]

i still don't see how its possible for spacey's lex luthor to suddenly change from having hardons over real estate to becoming head of lexcorp in one movie.

if singer had made luthor different in returns,we wouldn't have this problem.

it'd be him being the head of lexcorp changing to having hardons for real estate. easy explanation for this would be that he just simply lost his mind.

[BATZARRO WWD]

Well, first of all, it's speculation that Routh's even being considered, and if he's really being considered, then he's not nessesarilly chosen.

That said, if that's what they do, an origin with Routh, then it's not a Reboot, it's a prequel.

[Sam]

Question is, will you interpret a "Year One" Superman film for 2012 with a 32 year old Brandon Routh as a reboot or prequel?

Reboot, obviously. If they go for a "year one" (aka origin), that cant be prequel, since SR origin is Donner movie from 1978.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Conversations like this make me believe the execs see an origin as too much confusion to pull off sooner than later :(

[Timstuff]

Doing a reboot is pretty pointless if they're not going to get a new actor to play Superman.

[Webhead2006]

Well as of right now we dont even know what is ever going to come about with the next film and like folks have said if there isnt a film by 2013 and the wb president that likes routh leaves post, that pretty much kills routh's chances on returning even for a reboot. But then there is also the director who i would think would want to first look at other folks he thinks will suit his(studio's film) first before looking at him again.

[Zor-El]

A reboot origin with Routh makes about as much sense as a Superman movie with Welling that completely ignores Smallville.

If you use routh you HAVE to keep SR in continuity... you either have to have it be a prequel or a sequel.

I agree. I think a reboot would need to sever all ties. Heck, even when you DO sever all ties to previous films in a reboot-- people still get confused. I knew a bunch of people back in 2005 who thought Batman Begins was a prequel to Batman (1989).

I felt the same way all the way back when Ratner or McG (whoever was attached to the film at the time... it's all a blur :oldrazz:) suggested their film would be separate from the Reeve movies, but still occasionally reference the John Williams theme. Reboots are meant to take your mind off the previous franchise. Anything that brings you back to a different incarnation would just be counter-productive.

[Webhead2006]

I totally agree there zor-el

[nintendo nerd]

My bad on the grammar... it's MORE WORSE because SR was a God awful movie and you don't make prequels to God awful/underperforming films... and SR definitely fits one of those bills. That's the simplest way one can put it. Add the fact that Donner's films were already prequels...

I'm from Mexico and my English is awful. But your English is even worse than SR. Here you go:

http://www.arab-eng.org/vb/uploaded1/53639/1225294675.jpg

[RachelDawes]

^I'm not sure what you're talking about. Your English is excellent. :up:

I agree. I think a reboot would need to sever all ties. Heck, even when you DO sever all ties to previous films in a reboot-- people still get confused. I knew a bunch of people back in 2005 who thought Batman Begins was a prequel to Batman (1989).

I felt the same way all the way back when Ratner or McG (whoever was attached to the film at the time... it's all a blur :oldrazz:) suggested their film would be separate from the Reeve movies, but still occasionally reference the John Williams theme. Reboots are meant to take your mind off the previous franchise. Anything that brings you back to a different incarnation would just be counter-productive.

Doesn't that mean it wouldn't matter if we severed all ties? Routh could return. :grin:

[Webhead2006]

Well if they promote and show that the film is a total reboot the regular joe public would known its new and different.

[SuperDaniel]

As long as it is not a sequel to SR and they DO NOT use Donner's Luthor, i'll be fine.

[mojo-x]

He sort of was a mix... I mean people still argue that Harvey Dent was black in Batman: TAS. Despite all that... it's a stark contrast. I think we need that for Lex Luthor in the new Superman film regardless of who plays Superman. If they just cast a younger Gene Hackman/Spacey look alike people will still think its a prequel.
Harvey Dent was black in Batman also.

[BATZARRO WWD]

I don't think I should have to interpret a film's continuity. So...It'll be what it's said to be, unless it's not obvious enough.

[mojo-x]

godawful according to who? the average 17 yr old who cant sit still through a movie without an explosion every 5 minutes? correct me if im wrong but i remember the critic reviews for the movie were very good. and superman 3 and 4 were Donners sequels, you cant just ignore those movies and say SR came after 2. give SR it's own history, it was a deep and well put together movie, it'd be nice to see what happened before and Donnors films although nicely done for its time doesnt quite "fit the bill."

my idea is to make it a prequel/reboot, that way we dont just ignore yet ANOTHER superman film, it'd be dumb and confusing as hell (especially since they want Brandon back.) they already said they're making a reboot so why not make it a prequel as well, to not confuse the audience and add flavor to SR in the process.

So what you are saying is that making the next movie a prequel to a movie that was suppose to be a sequel to a 30 year old movie that already had 3 existing sequel is going be less confusing then to just reboot and start over?

[MAN O STEEL]

godawful according to who? the average 17 yr old who cant sit still through a movie without an explosion every 5 minutes?


Why do ppl always come to this conclusion if someone doesn't like something?. It's so clich'e & quite disrespectful IMO. I myself am almost 24 yrs old but I don't look down on someone who's 16-17 who likes Transformers, accusing them of being part of the weak minded MTV generation, co's it's simply not true. Some ppl just have different tastes & thier damn well entitled to it whether you like it or not. Transformers is not trash for an A.D.D generation who can't handle story, it's for ppl who love action, cool characters & the nostalgia of thier childhood. they should not be looked down upon for it. No one here is better than the next person. Fact is SR was a bad movie not because it had to much story & not enough action, it was god awefull because it executed the story very poorly. No character progression on anyone's part that seemed logical or justified, it was a bunch of scenes thrown together to look like a movie.






Steve

[Nightwing1983]

Even though the next film is bound to be visually/stylistically different to SR (given the new director) and most likely darker and grittier (given WB's TDK approach), I'm pretty sure it's going to have to be an origin tale; like Batman Begins. A modern take on Superman's "year one" in order to serve as a proper 'reintroduction' to the character.

With Brandon Routh on board, some audiences will see it as a reboot (fresh start, new beginning), while others will see it was a prequel to SR (the vague history).

Either way, everyone's happy, WB makes it's money. It was probably the smartest move to please everyone given the divided reaction to SR.

Question is, will you interpret a "Year One" Superman film for 2012 with a 32 year old Brandon Routh as a reboot or prequel?


PS: This whole approach reminds me of Byrne's 1986 revamp of Superman in the comics.

I think you're being a little presumptuous. To me, the whole reason I want a reboot is because I want to get away from the whole plot of Superman Returns with the son.

I'm also not sure how married WB is to any particular idea, including doing a new origin or having Routh in the role. These have been talked about, sure, but I don't see any movement being done.

[Zor-El]

^I'm not sure what you're talking about. Your English is excellent. :up:



Doesn't that mean it wouldn't matter if we severed all ties? Routh could return. :grin:

Hey, I like Routh as Superman a lot! And I really enjoyed Superman Returns, too. That's why I think the Superman franchise is a weird place right now...

To me, a total reboot means getting rid of ideas that didn't really work in Returns. Like Jason, Luthor's motivation, etc. But unfortunately "forgetting" some really great aspects of the movie as well... which, for me, means Brandon Routh, the Williams theme, etc.

[RachelDawes]

Hey, I like Routh as Superman a lot! And I really enjoyed Superman Returns, too. That's why I think the Superman franchise is a weird place right now...

To me, a total reboot means getting rid of ideas that didn't really work in Returns. Like Jason, Luthor's motivation, etc. But unfortunately "forgetting" some really great aspects of the movie as well... which, for me, means Brandon Routh, the Williams theme, etc.

That's probably what will happen, unfortunately for Routh fans. I can do without the Williams theme, no problem.

[Wally West]

I don't know how they could consider using Routh for a reboot, unless they planed on forcing Singer back only to give a short introduction to the film offering the audience an explanation, and an apology...it wouldn't have to be totally humiliating, they could allow him to remind the audience that he made films like the Usual Suspects, and Xmen2 and that everybody makes mistakes. Obviously I'm joking, but I really do think he owes Brandon an apology.

[Octoberist]

then bring out a Bryan Singer impersonator to come out and hug everyone in the audience!

[Fresh Prince]

Could Joseph Gordon-Levvitt play a good Clark Kent/Superman? He is a good actor. All he have to do is put on weight and he be set.

[Timstuff]

Heck no, he's tiny. The guy played friggin' Cobra Commander!

[Webhead2006]

i take him maybe for a jimmy but he is how old now?