Could a Superman 'Requel' Work?

[Man of Tomorrow]

There are many easy ways to do a 'Requel' for the next film.

Essentially this idea is a sequel, while also rebooting everything at the same time with a new origins. A great compromise for everyone.

For example:

- Have the film kick off in the future of the SR verse amidst an apocalyptic battle between Superman (in Kingdom Come attire) and Brainiac

- Brainiac then travels back in time to 1978 to murder baby Kal-El. The baby survives in his ship but Brainiac launches a devastating attack on Metropolis that changes everything.

- Clark now grows up in a very different world; where Lexcorp rebuilds Metropolis and controls the city, America is plunged into war etc and Clark must be the light to guide the world out of darkness.

- There could also be a terminator-esque story here with Superman driven to defeat Brainiac in the present, in order to prevent the apocalyptic dystopia we witness at the start of the film (in the future).

This scenario would allow for Brandon Routh to continue as Superman, Spacey as corperate Lex, Huntington as Jimmy Olsen and Frank Langella to play a gruffer Perry White closer to his Frost/Nixon potrayal.

[dark_b]

you mean like superman returns? SR was not a direct sequel.


whait a minute. isnt this similar to star trek? :)

[Ring Deacon]

You know that wouldn't be too bad of an idea. Then we would get rid of that kid from the movie mythos. IMO he was what ruined Superman Returns for me.

[dark_b]

There are many easy ways to do a 'Requel' for the next film.

Essentially this idea is a sequel, while also rebooting everything at the same time with a new origins. A great compromise for everyone.

wasnt this in 2006? a gream compromise for the old donner fans and the ones who want a reboot. they tryed to connect it with the old movies and start something fresh.

i liked Brandon Routh. but some people really can not let go hhhhhh :hehe:, i mean why not just reallly really reboot ?

why must the fans who want a reboot always get a compromise?

[dark_b]

you need to understand that time travling was always part of star trek. thats why it doesnt look strange in the new movie. thats why it is in the new movie.
really time traveling in a new superman movie? do we really have to complicate things so much?

i get a feeling that some fans insted of fiidng a great story are just searching for a way to make a sequel to SR for everyone.

[dark_b]

you need to understand that time travling was always part of star trek. thats why it doesnt look strange in the new movie. thats why it is in the new movie.
really time traveling in a new superman movie? do we really have to complicate things so much?

i get a feeling that some fans insted of fiidng a great story are just searching for a way to make a sequel to SR for everyone.

[Man of Tomorrow]

you need to understand that time travling was always part of star trek. thats why it doesnt look strange in the new movie. thats why it is in the new movie.
really time traveling in a new superman movie? do we really have to complicate things so much?

It's hardly complicated, the story just involves travelling back in time once.

Time travel has been a staple of Superman as well; every incarnation of Supes has utilized it to some extent. Heck, STM had Superman turning time back himself. Johns is utilizing time travel and the Legion in the new Superman origins as well.

[Man of Tomorrow]

i liked Brandon Routh. but some people really can not let go hhhhhh :hehe:, i mean why not just reallly really reboot ?

why must the fans who want a reboot always get a compromise?

Because that's what WB wants. They're keeping Routh and with the talks of Singer's camp still onboard, this may be the best way to satisfy everyone.

I'm just suggesting a scenario that works with what WB is currently doing.

[GreenKToo]

The only problem I would have with that would be folks would say its to similar to S:TM with the time travel.
It might work anyway tho. Not bad.

[Superfreak]

you mean like superman returns? SR was not a direct sequel.


whait a minute. isnt this similar to star trek? :)

Yes, it is Star Trek.


I've been working on this solution in my head, via a prequel and sequel, that would keep SR in current continuity, but reframe it, so that it makes more sense within the Superman Universe

Prequel:
goal: to cut all ties with the Donner franchise, except for Brando's Jor'el (a consequence of having Brando's Jor'el in SR). This is a problem with SR.


1)-movie starts same as SR, Krypton explodes, NO PROLOGUE on krypton
-Kal'el arrives, late 70s, early 80s.
-Lex Luthor is an astronaut at the time, part of Kal's ship breaks off, the important part with the Jor'el AI in it. This causes a disaster on Luthor's moon landing, he retrieves the bit of crystal, and become a hero for surviving the disaster
-ma and pa find Kal's ship crashed... it didn't land, it crashed.
-smallville, all he knows is vague memories about another planet, but no concrete explanation of who he is

2)-jump to the present, Spacey's Lex is a billionaire, weapons manufacturer, genius, hero... Tony Stark, crossed with Nicholas Cage in Lord of War: But EVIL
-Clark is in Kasnia, doing stories about the civil war there. (doing modest Jack Bauer work at an orphanage or something in the off time)
-witnesses a massacre, that escalates into a battle... new space aged weapons are being used agains the innocent rebels.... the escalation reachs a point, where a massive bomb is dropped, and Clark is the only one left alive, despite his efforts to save people. Clark collects evidence about the weapons, and their new power source: crystals

3)-Clark goes to metropolis seeking answers.
-gets job at the DP
-goes to meet new partner at weapons manufacturing show
-meets lois
-together they are introduced to Luthor, and Luthor introduces this new technology that 'he created'. Abundant energy source in the form of small chips of crystal (let us define here, that Lex will not know much about the crystal, only that he can chop it up, and use it as a battery, his later education in crystals would come in SR)
-there is mention of Luthor using illegal genetic modification on soldiers
-Superman TAS, Superman's first appearance.
-From here on the plot is similar to TAS Last Son Of Krypton. Regent John Corbin of Kasnia steals the technology, we find out later that Luthor allowed him to steal it, to escalate an arms race, of which he would supply both sides.
-Lois interviews Superman

4)-Luthor tests Superman
-Luthor expands his plan
-While Superman is running around saving the day
-Lois gets into trouble investigating Lex, and is caught
-we find out about Lex's gene modifying, and that he reasons out that Supermans genetics would be fun to play with, hence why he has been playing with and collecting superman's DNA
-Lois causes some havoc in the lab, as Lex monologues about the crystal he found on the moon, something happens to the crystal, and it awakens
-Superman begins hearing the whispers of Jor'el
-Lois is experimented on...


5)Superman saves the day by following the crystal's whispers
-Lois is rescued, but is she alright?
-Lois has the crystal
-Lex's plan to start a massive world war comes to a head, Lex becomes nervous and uncomfortable
-Corbin attacks the UN, in new Luthorcorp battlesuits: Think TAS ones, rather than the comic book Iron-manesque types. Like big "aliens' loaders
-Big fight

6)Lex exposed, his vanity destroying his mind, he goes crazy (explaining crazy town Lex luthor in SR)
-Superman takes the crystal, and goes to build the fortress of solitude, he enters to finally find out who he really is, the end: cliffhanger


in the post SR sequel:

-it would begin on Krypton, during superman's trip, we would find out what happened in the Fortress, and why he left for Krypton
-Brainiac is born out of NK
-Jason would be the result of Lex's experiment on Lois, Jason is not quite a bizarro, but the idea is there
-In the present, Superman and the world military would begin dealing with the brainiac invasion
-Superman would defeat brainiac temporarily
-Brainiac would seek out a body strong enough to challange Superman: there's only one other on the planet
-Jason is posessed Brainiac.
-Lex is plotting in the background, waiting to get his revenge.
-Superman defeats Jainiac
-Jason is badly hurt, he's dying.
-Lex comes in at that point and tries to kill Jason, Richard saves the day. Lex reveals the last crystal, stolen in SR.

-Superman flies Jason to the FOS, revives the FOS, and sends Jason to Kandor.


I know it's kind of vague, and could be fleshed out a little, but I think that could work... I just had to get that off my mind. Mind you, this is merely a way of dealing with the problems of SR, but I think it could work.

The time travel idea is stupid

They should either start over and ignore SR altogether, or try and work around SR, so that those displeasing things are transformed, when viewed from a larger frame of reference. I'm totally not down with the seudo, quasi, non sequels.

[Webhead2006]

nice idea though the easiest things to do really would either contiue SR's world with a stupid sequel already. Or jsut comitt already to a full on reboot so all donnor/singer elements are wiped away.

[NeoRanger]

Eh, it's more complicated than it should. The story itself is fairly simple (and hey, I even like it), but it's more trouble than the general audience would care to deal with. After all, the need to go so far as to make the compromise so extended and logical is a request from fans, who follow these things closely. Considering Superman isn't really established in the minds of the GA, going into an extensive explanation is riskier than it sounds.

[dark_b]

this time travel would not be for SR fans. and it would not be for GA. it would only be for people who didnt like SR.
GA doesnt care if someone goes back in time to change something that Singer did wrong to the superman fans.

make a simple story and voila.

[FlawlessVictory]

Admirable, Man of Tomorrow and Superfreak, but Webhead is right. Ultimately this next film has to be a straight up sequel or reboot to be most effective. It sucks because SR itself should served as the "Requel". But instead it was a quasi-sequel with more lame evil real estate plans. All they had to do was when Superman returned is have Lex already be head of LexCorp and Metallo could have been introduced in the process.

Now, for SR2, to get LexCorp we are really going to have to suspend A LOT of disbelief to get that part of the story done. Thanks Singer. :csad:

[Nixon]

Maybe, but not necessarily. It really comes down to what kind of Lexcorp you want and what you want corporate Lex to do. Is it just so that Lex can throw a Metallo or a Bizarro at Superman? Is it to set up a situation where the public loves Lex and only Superman knows the truth?

If it's the former, well those guys can come from places other than Lex Luthor. And if they can't, well then you simply have Lex parlay the Vanderworth fortune he inherited into shadow-control over a network of technology companies that could provide him with the resources necessary for his vendetta against the Man of Steel. He'd be like an anti-Bruce Wayne in a way.

If it's the latter, then all we need to do is have Luthor help Superman save Earth from Brainiac. All of a sudden Lex, to an unknowing public, is the hero of the day. A guy who has made mistakes and found redemption. A guy who has used his vast intellect to save the world and will now use it to serve the needs of the world through his new enterprise LEXCORP.

Hell, maybe he could even run for President one day.

[GreenKToo]

They could pull a ''Dallas'' lol.
at the beginning of the sequel, Superman wakes up inside his ship and realizes that Jason, Richard, and ''that'' Lex from S.R. were all just a bad dream, brought on by too much exposure to Kryptonite at the remains of Krypton.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I can't believe people are sooo hung up on the kid. I honestly felt that that was the least of the movie's problems

. The kid actually wasn't too annoying and the idea of a kid isn't a terrible one if it were introduced in the 3rd movie and not the first.

[FlawlessVictory]

I can't believe people are sooo hung up on the kid. I honestly felt that that was the least of the movie's problems

. The kid actually wasn't too annoying and the idea of a kid isn't a terrible one if it were introduced in the 3 movie and not the first.

The kid and the circumstances surrounding him symbolize one of the biggest problems of what was wrong with SR. It's not just the kid, but what he represents. Daytime soap opera antics that are taken to a level that I am not interested in seeing how it is resolved. I have no problem with Superman and Lois having a kid, but not like how it was presented to us. And yes, it should have been saved for the final film.

[Excel]

The kid worked fine in SR, but the problem is where do they go from there?

Re: a requel- it could work...ANYTHING could work, a requel would just depend on the team.

[dark_b]

They could pull a ''Dallas'' lol.
at the beginning of the sequel, Superman wakes up inside his ship and realizes that Jason, Richard, and ''that'' Lex from S.R. were all just a bad dream, brought on by too much exposure to Kryptonite at the remains of Krypton.isnt this a little cheesy?

[Cool Monty]

I can't believe people are sooo hung up on the kid. I honestly felt that that was the least of the movie's problems

. The kid actually wasn't too annoying and the idea of a kid isn't a terrible one if it were introduced in the 3 movie and not the first.

I agree. I can somewhat understand how people dislike giving their hero a child, but I think it could've turned out much worse. Jason was handled fairly well as a five year old character. Or at the very least I didn't want to punch him in the stomach like the annoying brats in The Mummy 2 & Zorro 2. :hehe:

[bgshw44]

I agree. I can somewhat understand how people dislike giving their hero a child, but I think it could've turned out much worse. Jason was handled fairly well as a five year old character. Or at the very least I didn't want to punch him in the stomach like the annoying brats in The Mummy 2 & Zorro 2. :hehe:

true that!

[dark_b]

but a lot of people who even liked SR dont know how to make a sequel to jason.
if singer doesnt do a sequel i hope we will in the future find out what he wanted to do with richard,lois and jason in the sequel.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

We've all toyed around with this idea at some point but I think most come to the conclusion it's a bit too "tv episodic" Meaning you could get away with that in a tv series but it probably wouldn't work out for a movie due to predictability.

[FlawlessVictory]

but a lot of people who even liked SR dont know how to make a sequel to jason.
if singer doesnt do a sequel i hope we will in the future find out what he wanted to do with richard,lois and jason in the sequel.

You are seriously wondering? You really don't think that in the end Superman, Lois and Jason will end up together? Richard will end up dying heroically somehow. Totally predictable.

[dark_b]

You are seriously wondering? You really don't think that in the end Superman, Lois and Jason will end up together? Richard will end up dying heroically somehow. Totally predictable.well obviously superman and lois would be together.
but i want to know HOW

[RachelDawes]

You are seriously wondering? You really don't think that in the end Superman, Lois and Jason will end up together? Richard will end up dying heroically somehow. Totally predictable.

That would make Superman look even worse.

[Superfreak]

They could pull a ''Dallas'' lol.
at the beginning of the sequel, Superman wakes up inside his ship and realizes that Jason, Richard, and ''that'' Lex from S.R. were all just a bad dream, brought on by too much exposure to Kryptonite at the remains of Krypton.

or brainiac grabbed him, cloned him, and sent a bizarro back in SR... and the real superman is still trapped on Krypton

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The kid and the circumstances surrounding him symbolize one of the biggest problems of what was wrong with SR. It's not just the kid, but what he represents. Daytime soap opera antics that are taken to a level that I am not interested in seeing how it is resolved. I have no problem with Superman and Lois having a kid, but not like how it was presented to us. And yes, it should have been saved for the final film.I think we are on the same page.

[Webhead2006]

Yea as many have said before the kid throws in alot of non needed problems for a sequel and other elements of SR that just didnt work out that well due to singer not getting it done better. That is one of the reasons i rather see a full on reboot so they can clean slate everything and start fresh and dont have to worry about the Reeve films stuff or SR stuff.

[mego joe]

...it always comes back to the kid doesn't it. If they waited for a 3rd film with a kid it should have been a fairly faithful adaptation of "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?"

No illegitimate children and deadbeat dads, please.

[Nixon]

There weren't any deadbeat dads in the movie. At least, not if you go by any definition of deadbeat dad that actually means something.

As soon as he found out that Jason was his, Superman was there for him.

And illegitimate children? Really? Did we lose a century while I was away or something?

If it's okay with everybody else, can we just not go back to labels that only serve to stigmatize people?

Jason's not an illegitimate child. He's a child. Period.

[Webhead2006]

actually he is an illegitimate child, if you want to go by the technical definition of the word:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illegitimate
illegitimate - 7 dictionary results
Sponsored LinksEnglish Dictionary
Looking for English Dictionary? Find exactly what you want today.
Yahoo.com
Weed Killer Super Store
Selective kill for Bitterweed Safe for most grasses. Buy online
InterstateProducts.com/Weed_Killer
Data Server
Find it here. Info & Resources. Data Server
boxed-gifts.com
il⋅le⋅git⋅i⋅mate
   /adj., n. ˌɪlɪˈdʒɪtəmɪt; v. ˌɪlɪˈdʒɪtəˌmeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [adj., n. il-i-jit-uh-mit; v. il-i-jit-uh-meyt] Show IPA adjective, noun, verb, -mat⋅ed, -mat⋅ing.
–adjective 1. born of parents who are not married to each other; born out of wedlock: an illegitimate child.
2. not legitimate; not sanctioned by law or custom.
3. unlawful; illegal: an illegitimate action.
4. irregular; not in good usage.
5. Logic. not in accordance with the principles of valid inference.
6. Obsolete. (formerly, in London) a. of or pertaining to stage plays in which musical numbers were inserted because of laws that gave only a few theaters the exclusive right to produce straight dramas.
b. acting in or producing such productions.


–noun 7. a person recognized or looked upon as illegitimate.

–verb (used with object) 8. to declare illegitimate.

[Nixon]

That's not the point. I've seen, first hand, the damage to self image and self esteem, that being called an "illegitimate child" can do to kids and I think it'd be nice if people could just stop doing it.

[I Am The Knight]

Did this need it's own thread? This question is only asked every 10 posts.

[Nightwing1977]

No illegitimate children and deadbeat dads, please.



I don't remeber there is a deadbeat dad in a Superman movie.

[mego joe]

That's not the point. I've seen, first hand, the damage to self image and self esteem, that being called an "illegitimate child" can do to kids and I think it'd be nice if people could just stop doing it.

My use of the word is not to stigmatize the child or take anything out on the child. It is about the irresponsiblity of the parents. If anything, my intent is to raise awareness so that children get what they need out of life instead of getting the short end of the stick b/c of irresponsible parents.

[mego joe]

I don't remeber there is a deadbeat dad in a Superman movie.

That's right, you don't have a problem with Superman exhibiting irresponsible sexual behavior.

[Nightwing1977]

That's right, you don't have a problem with Superman exhibiting irresponsible sexual behavior.

Not really. I'm pointing out the lie on your so-call truth on deadbeat dad. It's a fact Superman is not a deadbeat dad. Look at the meaning of "deadbeat dad" in a dictionary, 'cause nowhere does Supes ignore his son (time & time again, Supes didn't know he has a son until the end) & will not support him. If he was a "deadbeat dad", he wouldn't even visit him at the end of SR. :whatever:

[Cool Monty]

That's right, you don't have a problem with Superman exhibiting irresponsible sexual behavior.

Hold on, doesn't Superman have to have known he had the kid and then done nothing about it before he could be called a deadbeat dad?

[Nixon]

My use of the word is not to stigmatize the child or take anything out on the child. It is about the irresponsiblity of the parents. If anything, my intent is to raise awareness so that children get what they need out of life instead of getting the short end of the stick b/c of irresponsible parents.

So, attatching the label of "illegitimate" to the child accomplishes any of that how?

And no, I'd like to think that you're not using the term specifically to stigmatize kids, but it has that effect regardless everytime you use it.

[mego joe]

So, attatching the label of "illegitimate" to the child accomplishes any of that how?

And no, I'd like to think that you're not using the term specifically to stigmatize kids, but it has that effect regardless everytime you use it.

It means "This child needs some special attention b/c his parents are irresponsible. Be sensetive to what you say so you don't inadvertantly hurt his feelings."

Of course the term isn't really used conversationally. The situation would be described differently if we were talking about someone we knew. But in a format such as this it is easier to use a single word to describe the situation in the movie.

[mego joe]

Hold on, doesn't Superman have to have known he had the kid and then done nothing about it before he could be called a deadbeat dad?

Nope. Not in my book. When you engage in a sexual relationship, you better be prepared to fulfill your responsiblities, both moral and financial. With SR, I am more concerned about the moral responsiblities that Superman abandoned when he ditched Lois w/o a goodbye and explanation b/c of the cowardly 'it was too difficult.'

[Nixon]

Hold on, doesn't Superman have to have known he had the kid and then done nothing about it before he could be called a deadbeat dad?

Yup, he does. You can't willfully shirk a responsibility unless you know you have that responsibility in the first place.

Mego seems to be assuming that the only way a parent can be responsibile is if they're in a so-called "traditional" family structure.

[mego joe]

Yup, he does.

Mego seems to be assuming that the only way a parent can be responsibile is if they're in a so-called "traditional" family structure.

No you have to be present in that childs life AND you have to actually let your sexual partner know when you are leaving the planet so she knows what's up. Otherwise, you're pretty much an irresponsible dirtbag. It's all about what's best for the kids.

[hockeyboy89]

No you have to be present in that childs life AND you have to actually let your sexual partner know when you are leaving the planet so she knows what's up. Otherwise, you're pretty much an irresponsible dirtbag. It's all about what's best for the kids.

HE DIDN'T KNOW HE HAD A KID!!! If you look at the "Dead Beat Dads" displayed on the billboards I'm sure they have birth certificates, DNA, court rulings, etc to prove paternity. HE WASN'T HERE.

[Nixon]

No you have to be present in that childs life AND you have to actually let your sexual partner know when you are leaving the planet so she knows what's up. Otherwise, you're pretty much an irresponsible dirtbag. It's all about what's best for the kids.


And as soon as he found out about Jason, he went to him.


Also, I find your position odd. On the one hand you're fine with Superman tampering with Lois's mind without asking her permission, in effect treating her like a child or a pet rather than an adult, but you want to call him a dirtbag because he didn't check with her before going to find Krypton. At least the latter was a mistake acknowledged and apologized for.

It just seems like an unfair double standard.

[mego joe]

HE DIDN'T KNOW HE HAD A KID!!! If you look at the "Dead Beat Dads" displayed on the billboards I'm sure they have birth certificates, DNA, court rulings, etc to prove paternity. HE WASN'T HERE.

The point is that Superman was so irresponsible he didn't even tell Lois he wasn't going to be around. There was no possible way he could have ever known b/c he was too much of a coward to be honest with Lois. Just b/c he didn't know doesn't mean he's not responsible or doesn't have a responsiblity towards Lois. It means that he's even more irresponsible. Is sexual responsiblity really that hard to understand?

[hockeyboy89]

The point is that Superman was so irresponsible he didn't even tell Lois he wasn't going to be around. There was no possible way he could have ever known b/c he was too much of a coward to be honest with Lois. Just b/c he didn't know doesn't mean he's not responsible or doesn't have a responsiblity towards Lois. It means that he's even more irresponsible. Is sexual responsiblity really that hard to understand?

Not it's not, but following his heart and leaving not only her, but his friends and mother is one thing. He didn't get her drunk, pass on herpes, then go fly to Krypton with Miss October after she showed him her pregnancy test. That's sexual irresponsibility.

[mego joe]

And as soon as he found out about Jason, he went to him.


Also, I find your position odd. On the one hand you're fine with Superman tampering with Lois's mind without asking her permission, in effect treating her like a child or a pet rather than an adult, but you want to call him a dirtbag because he didn't check with her before going to find Krypton. At least the latter was a mistake acknowledged and apologized for.

It just seems like an unfair double standard.


The intent of the ending of Superman II is that Superman aleviates her pain and allows her to go on with life without the painful knowledge that she cannot be with Superman. Despite the fact that the amnesia kiss is stupid, the above is the intent. It's not about SUperman being selfish or cowardly or doing something he knows is wrong that hurts Lois.

In SR, he knows that leaving w/o the goodbye is the wrong thing to do and does it anyway. Plus he admits it's 'too difficult.' When was the last time Superman failed to do something b/c it was 'too difficult.' The intent here is that SUperman is a screw up and immature emotionally.

In Superman II he's not making a mistake by giving her the amnesia kiss, he's helping Lois. In SR, he's being immature and sexually irresponsible by not telling Lois goodbye.

[mego joe]

Not it's not, but following his heart and leaving not only her, but his friends and mother is one thing. He didn't get her drunk, pass on herpes, then go fly to Krypton with Miss October after she showed him her pregnancy test. That's sexual irresponsibility.

Not being around for the consequences of being in a sexual relationship is sexual irresponsiblity. The very fact that Jason was born not knowing who his father is shows that Superman was irresponsible. If he wasn't sexually irresponsible then he has nothing to be sorry for in the film. THe only reason leaving w/o a goodbye was wrong was because he and Lois were in a sexual relationship and presumably in a comitted romantic relationship as well. If you deny sexual irresponsiblity then you deny any wrongdoing on Superman's part. And the whole point of this aspect of the film is that he made a mistake. It just so happens that the mistake is one of sexual irresponsibility.

[Nixon]

The intent of the ending of Superman II is that Superman aleviates her pain and allows her to go on with life without the painful knowledge that she cannot be with Superman. Despite the fact that the amnesia kiss is stupid, the above is the intent. It's not about SUperman being selfish or cowardly or doing something he knows is wrong that hurts Lois.



In SR, he knows that leaving w/o the goodbye is the wrong thing to do and does it anyway. Plus he admits it's 'too difficult.' When was the last time Superman failed to do something b/c it was 'too difficult.' The intent here is that SUperman is a screw up and immature emotionally.



In Superman II he's not making a mistake by giving her the amnesia kiss, he's helping Lois. In SR, he's being immature and sexually irresponsible by not telling Lois goodbye.






So, when Justice Lords Superman kept Lois locked up in a tower, under constant guard, because it was for her own good, that was okay? Or if he decided to make himself Emperor of Earth, because it'd be in the everybody's best interests, that'd be okay too then?

After all, he intends to do good and that's what matters isn't it?

The problem with the mindwipe kiss, despite the best of intentions, is that it treats Lois like a child or a subordinate and not an adult capable of making her own decisions. It's the superpowered equivalent of Superman saying "Don't you worry your pretty little head about that Lois dear, I'll do all the thinking for both of us." It takes the power fantasy into a weird, kinda misogynisty place too. It also denies Lois any chance at personal growth. It's just like that old story that answers the question: Why doesn't Superman just solve all our problems for us? Because then we'd stay forever a child race. In taking away her memories, Superman's not only treating Lois like a child, he's making sure that she stays one.

And no, I don't think that's the message they were trying to send when they came up with that bit. I think they were just looking for a quick way to hit the reset button since the old turn-back-time trick had already been used. Nevertheless, the message was sent.

Superman leaving without saying goodbye was wrong. No doubt about that But it was a mistake apologized and atoned for, not simply wiped away.

But it wasn't movie-Superman's first mistake. When was the last time Superman didn't do something because it was too difficult you asked? When he didn't continue with his mission as Earth's protector in Superman II because the chance at a life with Lois was too difficult to resist.

[Oddzball]

you need to understand that time travling was always part of star trek. thats why it doesnt look strange in the new movie. thats why it is in the new movie.
really time traveling in a new superman movie? do we really have to complicate things so much?

i get a feeling that some fans insted of fiidng a great story are just searching for a way to make a sequel to SR for everyone.

Q: What did Superman's flying around and around and around the world do in the 1978 film?

Time travel is part of the Superman mythos.

[Nixon]

I'm watching Wrath of Khan right now and I can't help but wonder if people were complaining about Kirk being a deadbeat dad when we found out about his "illegitimate" kid?

Such a good movie.

"Of all the souls I've known, his was the most . . . . human." :csad:

[hockeyboy89]

I'm watching Wrath of Khan right now and I can't help but wonder if people were complaining about Kirk being a deadbeat dad when we found out about his "illegitimate" kid?

Such a good movie.

"Of all the souls I've known, his was the most . . . . human." :csad:

He was a deadbeat dad. Even though he agreed with Dr Marcus to stay away, he was sexually irresponsible. And they promoted him to admiral.......pffft

[mego joe]

So, when Justice Lords Superman kept Lois locked up in a tower, under constant guard, because it was for her own good, that was okay?


Can't comment on that, I haven't seen it.

Or if he decided to make himself Emperor of Earth, because it'd be in the everybody's best interests, that'd be okay too then?


After all, he intends to do good and that's what matters isn't it?


But there's a difference between what is really good and what is not really good for everyone, isn't there.

The problem with the mindwipe kiss, despite the best of intentions, is that it treats Lois like a child or a subordinate and not an adult capable of making her own decisions. It's the superpowered equivalent of Superman saying "Don't you worry your pretty little head about that Lois dear, I'll do all the thinking for both of us." It takes the power fantasy into a weird, kinda misogynisty place too. It also denies Lois any chance at personal growth.


It doesn't do that for me. At the time it seemed stupid, but not weird fantasy with mysogigy. No stranger than the turning back time reset. Additionally, that film came out at a much different time. WIth 21st century eyes you can't look at it the same way it came across in 1980 (81?). The world is a different place.

To me with what's given in the scene is Lois in such a state of disrray and distress that based on her not so well written dialogue is that her knowledge of the situation is too much to take. Clark tries to convince her otherwise and only as a last resort does he use the amnesia kiss to aleviate her pain and suffering.

Realistically, that whole interchange is something that should have taken place over months, but within the confines of a feature film, it is boiled down to the essentials in a few minutes. As for growth, she says it herself. "there is no getting over Superman." Or something like that.

It's just like that old story that answers the question: Why doesn't Superman just solve all our problems for us? Because then we'd stay forever a child race.


That's a great story called "Must There Be A Superman."

In taking away her memories, Superman's not only treating Lois like a child, he's making sure that she stays one.


No, he's only taking away the knowledge of their relationship. He's not taking away her ability to grow after this situation. He knows not to make this mistake again and he won't. He's righting a wrong, just like her death at the end of S:TM. When taken together, at the end of S:TM he chooses being human over being Kryptonian and at the end of SII he chooses his mission over a personal life. Those two films as originally intended were to show how we get the Superman we know.

But it's also a long running theme in Superman stories that Superman will always be there to save Lois from anything. That's kind of the point. He loves her, and they know they can't be togther, but it doesn't stop him from putting her first and protecting her from harm all the time anyway.

And no, I don't think that's the message they were trying to send when they came up with that bit. I think they were just looking for a quick way to hit the reset button since the old turn-back-time trick had already been used. Nevertheless, the message was sent.


Well, I don't think the message they were trying to send was that Superman by erasing Lois memory was being selfish and trying to control Lois.

Superman leaving without saying goodbye was wrong. No doubt about that But it was a mistake apologized and atoned for, not simply wiped away.


There is no atonement for what's Superman's done in SR. He can never make it right. The damage is done. Period. My problem is not in how it plays out once it happens, but rather that the mistake he makes is not in keeping with his character. I think a young Superman giving up his mission for Lois would be in keeping with his character, but a Superman in a sexual relationship with Lois would never leave w/o saying goodbye b/c it's 'too difficult.' I just don't buy that. It's a completely incorrect characterization of Superman. Superman II and S:TM show Superman struggling with being Superman- and that feels right. SR shows Superman struggling to be a good person, and that is completely wrong.

But it wasn't movie-Superman's first mistake. When was the last time Superman didn't do something because it was too difficult you asked? When he didn't continue with his mission as Earth's protector in Superman II because the chance at a life with Lois was too difficult to resist.

It wasn't b/c it was too difficult- he felt like it was all over for him as Superman once Lois discovered his secret. Once she knew, he couldn't continue to try and hide it from her and he didn't want to. As the mythos went at the time- it was either Superman w/o Lois or no Superman w/ Lois. He chose their relationship b/c he chose being human at the end of S:TM.

No matter how you spin SII, SR is completely different. He knowingly hurts Lois b/c it is too difficult to say goodbye, and that is just wrong- completely out of character.

[mego joe]

I'm watching Wrath of Khan right now and I can't help but wonder if people were complaining about Kirk being a deadbeat dad when we found out about his "illegitimate" kid?

Such a good movie.

"Of all the souls I've known, his was the most . . . . human." :csad:

I don't know, but certainly you're not comparing the characterization of Capt. James T. Kirk to Superman?

[NeoRanger]

What the deuce? Did I click on the same topic?

*checks title*

No, I didn't. Is this like chickenpox? Will other threads get it too, if they didn't have it already?

[Nixon]

Can't comment on that, I haven't seen it.


But there's a difference between what is really good and what is not really good for everyone, isn't there.

Yes there is. And mucking around with somebody's memories so they'll get over a relationship isn't what's really good.

I mean, I know I'd never want somebody else deciding what I should and shouldn't have in my head regardless of their intentions.

Not even Superman.



It doesn't do that for me. At the time it seemed stupid, but not weird fantasy with mysogigy. No stranger than the turning back time reset. Additionally, that film came out at a much different time. WIth 21st century eyes you can't look at it the same way it came across in 1980 (81?). The world is a different place.


It was still weird and overbearing, even then.


To me with what's given in the scene is Lois in such a state of disrray and distress that based on her not so well written dialogue is that her knowledge of the situation is too much to take. Clark tries to convince her otherwise and only as a last resort does he use the amnesia kiss to aleviate her pain and suffering.


Maybe he should've just waited a little bit. Lois is supposed to be strong, she might've surprised him with her ability to pull it together.


Realistically, that whole interchange is something that should have taken place over months, but within the confines of a feature film, it is boiled down to the essentials in a few minutes. As for growth, she says it herself. "there is no getting over Superman." Or something like that.


Growth takes time. Healing takes time. It's a long and difficult process, but usually people emerge stronger at the end of it.


That's a great story called "Must There Be A Superman."


It is.


No, he's only taking away the knowledge of their relationship. He's not taking away her ability to grow after this situation. He knows not to make this mistake again and he won't. He's righting a wrong, just like her death at the end of S:TM. When taken together, at the end of S:TM he chooses being human over being Kryptonian and at the end of SII he chooses his mission over a personal life. Those two films as originally intended were to show how we get the Superman we know.


But he's righting a wrong in the worst possible way because it really just creates a whole other set of problems.

What do you think Lois's response would be if she found out that Superman tampered with her mind so that she wouldn't be so upset?

Do you honestly think she'd be happy knowing that?



But it's also a long running theme in Superman stories that Superman will always be there to save Lois from anything. That's kind of the point. He loves her, and they know they can't be togther, but it doesn't stop him from putting her first and protecting her from harm all the time anyway.


Absolutely. But he doesn't really show that by treating her mind like an etch-a-sketch does he?

Well, I don't think the message they were trying to send was that Superman by erasing Lois memory was being selfish and trying to control Lois.

No, they were trying to hit the reset button for the next movie. Superman treating Lois like a child was the intended message, but it was a message nonetheless.


There is no atonement for what's Superman's done in SR. He can never make it right. The damage is done. Period. My problem is not in how it plays out once it happens, but rather that the mistake he makes is not in keeping with his character. I think a young Superman giving up his mission for Lois would be in keeping with his character, but a Superman in a sexual relationship with Lois would never leave w/o saying goodbye b/c it's 'too difficult.' I just don't buy that. It's a completely incorrect characterization of Superman. Superman II and S:TM show Superman struggling with being Superman- and that feels right. SR shows Superman struggling to be a good person, and that is completely wrong.

Superman Returns shows Superman struggling to belong, to find his place in the world, not to be a good person.

Good people make mistakes. Even Superman. They just make up for them.

You might not think that he did because he didn't mindwipe Lois or turn back time, but he did in a very human, very real way.


It wasn't b/c it was too difficult- he felt like it was all over for him as Superman once Lois discovered his secret. Once she knew, he couldn't continue to try and hide it from her and he didn't want to. As the mythos went at the time- it was either Superman w/o Lois or no Superman w/ Lois. He chose their relationship b/c he chose being human at the end of S:TM.

All he had to do was say, "No Lois, the world needs me too much. You understand of course."

But he didn't. He wanted to be with Lois so much that those words were just too difficult to say.

Just like he couldn't see Lois before he left for Krypton, because she would ask him to say and it would be too difficult for him to say no.


No matter how you spin SII, SR is completely different. He knowingly hurts Lois b/c it is too difficult to say goodbye, and that is just wrong- completely out of character.

Only if we assume movie-Superman is infalible. And he's so very clearly not. At least, not since he was willing to abandon the world and his Kryptonian heritage for Lois in Superman II. (In SR he's willing to abandon Lois and the world for his Kryptonian heritage. Turnabout is fairplay I guess.)

[Nixon]

What the deuce? Did I click on the same topic?

*checks title*

No, I didn't. Is this like chickenpox? Will other threads get it too, if they didn't have it already?


Yeah, sorry. This is my fault. I'll stop now.

[Man of Tomorrow]

Thread ruined!

Close it up Showtime.

[afan]

I'm watching Wrath of Khan right now and I can't help but wonder if people were complaining about Kirk being a deadbeat dad when we found out about his "illegitimate" kid?

Such a good movie.

"Of all the souls I've known, his was the most . . . . human." :csad:


"Listen, kiddo, Jim Kirk (http://www.definitions.net/definition/Kirk) was many things, but he was never a Boy Scout."

Bad comparison, Nixon, an illegitimate kid fits Jim Kirk, but not Superman.

However, you are spot on with your eval of Wrath of Kahn. A very good film.

[Nightwing1977]

Hold on, doesn't Superman have to have known he had the kid and then done nothing about it before he could be called a deadbeat dad?

Yep. Just look at the true meaning of it here. People who say otherwise don't know a damn thing about "deadbeat dad". Some who call him that like it's a fact are just following what others said like a tool. :oldrazz:



Deadbeat parent is a pejorative term referring to parents of either gender that have freely chosen not to be a financially supportive parent in their children's lives. Primarily used in the US and Canada, the gender-specific deadbeat dad and deadbeat mom are commonly used by the child support agency to refer to men and women who have fathered or mothered a child and willingly fail to pay child support ordered by a family law court or statutory agency such as the Child Support Agency. The real definition is an unrestricted parent treated equally who voluntarily chooses not to be a regular or supportive parent in his or her child or children's life or lives.



This is proof Supes is not a deadbeat dad, no matter how much some keep saying it is like it's a fact when the real meaning of it said Supes is not.

[Superfreak]

my solution removes the whole issue of superman dad. Taht way it's the son he always wanted, but not really his son, and eventually a weapon to be turned against the man of steel.

[X Knight]

what solution is that, Superfreak?

[Webhead2006]

yea superfreak what idea was yours?

[FlawlessVictory]

what solution is that, Superfreak?

yea superfreak what idea was yours?

:huh: You responded to his idea, he posted it on the first page of this thread.

[Webhead2006]

oh sorry i totally forgot what was posted on the first page.

[FlawlessVictory]

oh sorry i totally forgot what was posted on the first page.

No need to apologize. :yay:

[Webhead2006]

ok.

[Superfreak]

I just think the secret to a 'routh' superman franchise is to divorce it from the donner franchise, in order to remove the inconsistancies, and to re-explain those things that occur in SR in a different new frame, rather than using the Donner franchise as the framing for the events in SR.

it allows for one to:
-redefine Lex for the prequel... who would be mentally unstable after superman overthrows his plot in the prequel, infact they could play upon the vanity issue with Lex, and actually give him hair... that would be lost thanks to Superman's actions.
-redefine Jason as an experiment (to be revealed in an SR sequel), but still the product of a rape, but a scientific one by Lex.

-and I'd throw in, that'd I'd redefine clark a little. In my 'solution' I'd like the story to smell like 'The Quiet American', the Micheal Caine version. With Clark like Fowler, and Lex like Pyle.



again, I state that SR is not the greatest film in the world... but I also think it is quite salvagable. It's the frame through which SR is viewed that has the worst effect on the movie. I think by trashing the idea of vague continuity, in favor of a new 'background', would help to make SR appear a little better, although it won't be better.

I'd prefer that they do this, than just make an SR sequel, that is divorced from SR. This makes little sense to me. Yes it solves the immediate problems, but the grander multi film arc(s) will suffer terribly.

[AnorexicBatman]

Mommy! Mommy! Look what I did!
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=317123

In MY opinion that is good enough for a reboot...
Anyone agree?

It's unfinished and I soon hope to continue...

Oh and I stuff in a Batman cameo (Bruce Wayne in Tibet from Batman Begins)...
Clark goes to Tibet for a story and sees Wayne being arrested ...
There eyes meet for a moment.. the fans scream with joy... and the story continues..

Cheezy but effective...

[RachelDawes]

^The Batman cameo would be cool if Bale's in it.

[Mostpowerful]

I'm watching Wrath of Khan right now and I can't help but wonder if people were complaining about Kirk being a deadbeat dad when we found out about his "illegitimate" kid?

Such a good movie.

"Of all the souls I've known, his was the most . . . . human." :csad:

It is. And I just saw it on the big screen a couple of months ago. :grin: The audience was totally into it. Pure Trek geeks, like I. :woot: Of course, we all cheered and applauded at all the right places.


Yes there is. And mucking around with somebody's memories so they'll get over a relationship isn't what's really good.

I mean, I know I'd never want somebody else deciding what I should and shouldn't have in my head regardless of their intentions.

Not even Superman.




It was still weird and overbearing, even then.



Maybe he should've just waited a little bit. Lois is supposed to be strong, she might've surprised him with her ability to pull it together.



Growth takes time. Healing takes time. It's a long and difficult process, but usually people emerge stronger at the end of it.



It is.



But he's righting a wrong in the worst possible way because it really just creates a whole other set of problems.

What do you think Lois's response would be if she found out that Superman tampered with her mind so that she wouldn't be so upset?

Do you honestly think she'd be happy knowing that?




Absolutely. But he doesn't really show that by treating her mind like an etch-a-sketch does he?



No, they were trying to hit the reset button for the next movie. Superman treating Lois like a child was the intended message, but it was a message nonetheless.




Superman Returns shows Superman struggling to belong, to find his place in the world, not to be a good person.

Good people make mistakes. Even Superman. They just make up for them.

You might not think that he did because he didn't mindwipe Lois or turn back time, but he did in a very human, very real way.




All he had to do was say, "No Lois, the world needs me too much. You understand of course."

But he didn't. He wanted to be with Lois so much that those words were just too difficult to say.

Just like he couldn't see Lois before he left for Krypton, because she would ask him to say and it would be too difficult for him to say no.



Only if we assume movie-Superman is infalible. And he's so very clearly not. At least, not since he was willing to abandon the world and his Kryptonian heritage for Lois in Superman II. (In SR he's willing to abandon Lois and the world for his Kryptonian heritage. Turnabout is fairplay I guess.)

FANTASTIC POST. You are my hero. :up:

And I find it so funny and convinient how Mego finds all type of excuses to justify Superman's mistakes in STM and SII, but he can't do the same with Superman in SR.

IMO, the worst thing Superman ever did was to abandon the world forever just to sleep with a girl... oh, and the mind deleting stuff was just awful and very childish as well on so many levels.

[FlawlessVictory]

It is. And I just saw it on the big screen a couple of months ago. :grin: The audience was totally into it. Pure Trek geeks, like I. :woot: Of course, we all cheered and applauded at all the right places.




FANTASTIC POST. You are my hero. :up:

And I find it so funny and convinient how Mego finds all type of excuses to justify Superman's mistakes in STM and SII, but he can't do the same with Superman in SR.

IMO, the worst thing Superman ever did was to abandon the world forever just to sleep with a girl... oh, and the mind deleting stuff was just awful and very childish as well on so many levels.

Yup, plenty of lame scenes from S:TM, Superman 2 and SR. Which is why I want a complete break from this Donner Superman and I want something exciting onscreen that we haven't seen before from someone who bothers to open up a comic book.

[Oddzball]

Yup, plenty of lame scenes from S:TM, Superman 2 and SR. Which is why I want a complete break from this Donner Superman and I want something exciting onscreen that we haven't seen before from someone who bothers to open up a comic book.

NO Luthor. No Luthorish type guy as in S III. Complete and total Luthor not here story. There have been, counting Supergirl, 6 films in the Superman Franchise since 1978. Luthor was the main meance in 1, 3, 4 and SR. He was the secondary Menace in two and Vaugn and Dunaway played imitaion Luthors in 3 and Supergirl. Luthor and Luthorish get a TIME OUT.

It's time for WB to show they can do a Superman movie without Luthor. Either that or start making Luthor Franchises with Superman as guest star.

BRAINIAC is OVERDUE!!!

[Lighthouse]

I still don't understand how it can be anything but a sequel or a reboot in some fashion. Sure, Wrath of Khan and Batman Forever didn't have plot threads that needed to tie up from the previous movie. SR does.

[Astrodust]

There are many easy ways to do a 'Requel' for the next film.

Essentially this idea is a sequel, while also rebooting everything at the same time with a new origins. A great compromise for everyone.

For example:

- Have the film kick off in the future of the SR verse amidst an apocalyptic battle between Superman (in Kingdom Come attire) and Brainiac

- Brainiac then travels back in time to 1978 to murder baby Kal-El. The baby survives in his ship but Brainiac launches a devastating attack on Metropolis that changes everything.

- Clark now grows up in a very different world; where Lexcorp rebuilds Metropolis and controls the city, America is plunged into war etc and Clark must be the light to guide the world out of darkness.

- There could also be a terminator-esque story here with Superman driven to defeat Brainiac in the present, in order to prevent the apocalyptic dystopia we witness at the start of the film (in the future).

This scenario would allow for Brandon Routh to continue as Superman, Spacey as corperate Lex, Huntington as Jimmy Olsen and Frank Langella to play a gruffer Perry White closer to his Frost/Nixon potrayal.


So you are saying they should do a film that's a vague sequel to another film, which was a vague sequal to another film. I can't see how this can be confusing at all. Especially when the only thing that stood out in SR was that he had a kid, which now has magically vanished.

[Superfreak]

NO Luthor. No Luthorish type guy as in S III. Complete and total Luthor not here story. There have been, counting Supergirl, 6 films in the Superman Franchise since 1978. Luthor was the main meance in 1, 3, 4 and SR. He was the secondary Menace in two and Vaugn and Dunaway played imitaion Luthors in 3 and Supergirl. Luthor and Luthorish get a TIME OUT.

It's time for WB to show they can do a Superman movie without Luthor. Either that or start making Luthor Franchises with Superman as guest star.

BRAINIAC is OVERDUE!!!

Luthor should be in EVERY superman movie... it's pretty simple. Look at TAS, Luthor was in almost every single episode, although he was not always the primary villain... and sometimes he was even an allie. Know your superman formula

[mjbull23]

NO Luthor. No Luthorish type guy as in S III. Complete and total Luthor not here story. There have been, counting Supergirl, 6 films in the Superman Franchise since 1978. Luthor was the main meance in 1, 3, 4 and SR. He was the secondary Menace in two and Vaugn and Dunaway played imitaion Luthors in 3 and Supergirl. Luthor and Luthorish get a TIME OUT.

It's time for WB to show they can do a Superman movie without Luthor. Either that or start making Luthor Franchises with Superman as guest star.



Absolutely. :up: Completely in agreement.

[X Knight]

IMO...Luthor is too important to be left out of a Superman movie. He's more than a villain......he's just as important of a supporting cast member as Lois, Jimmy, and Perry.

Now....he SHOULD NOT be the main or sole villain in EVERY MOVIE, as that would get old very quickly. But, he should always have some kind of presence, whether it's working behind the scenes as a villain, working with another villain ( like Brainiac ), or in some cases, working with Supes against a villain ( also like Brainiac )......

A Superman movie without any presence of Luthor would be like a Superman movie without Lois.....

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^I disagree because a movie is different from a comicbook and a T.V show.

[Nightwing1977]

I agree that Lex should only have a small app. in the next film. Just make him the background character while focusing more on the other supervillian like Brainiac or whoever than Lex.

[Sam]

There are many easy ways to do a 'Requel' for the next film.

Essentially this idea is a sequel, while also rebooting everything at the same time with a new origins. A great compromise for everyone.

For example:

- Have the film kick off in the future of the SR verse amidst an apocalyptic battle between Superman (in Kingdom Come attire) and Brainiac

- Brainiac then travels back in time to 1978 to murder baby Kal-El. The baby survives in his ship but Brainiac launches a devastating attack on Metropolis that changes everything.

- Clark now grows up in a very different world; where Lexcorp rebuilds Metropolis and controls the city, America is plunged into war etc and Clark must be the light to guide the world out of darkness.

- There could also be a terminator-esque story here with Superman driven to defeat Brainiac in the present, in order to prevent the apocalyptic dystopia we witness at the start of the film (in the future).

This scenario would allow for Brandon Routh to continue as Superman, Spacey as corperate Lex, Huntington as Jimmy Olsen and Frank Langella to play a gruffer Perry White closer to his Frost/Nixon potrayal.

nice idea for a comic book story, but not for movie.

[Oddzball]

IMO...Luthor is too important to be left out of a Superman movie. He's more than a villain......he's just as important of a supporting cast member as Lois, Jimmy, and Perry.

Now....he SHOULD NOT be the main or sole villain in EVERY MOVIE, as that would get old very quickly. But, he should always have some kind of presence, whether it's working behind the scenes as a villain, working with another villain ( like Brainiac ), or in some cases, working with Supes against a villain ( also like Brainiac )......

A Superman movie without any presence of Luthor would be like a Superman movie without Lois.....

You can do a movie without Luthor. Hell, George Reeves did a long TV series without him.

I'd like to see Brainiac get driven off by Superman at the beginning of the film and going to plan B, which involves making a Superman oppoent. Bizarro. Two major villains no room for Luthor.

[Christmas]

I am convinced that Routh could come back with Singer or in a whole new production and most people wouldn't mind.

[GreenKToo]

I dunno. I would like for Routh to return but if Singer did as well, then my excitement level would drop, and drop big time.

[Christmas]

excuse my writing there. I was unclear.

Basically, if Routh came back, with a whole new cast and production team, (or in any other scenario) I don't think the GA would hold it against them.

[Superfreak]

^I disagree because a movie is different from a comicbook and a T.V show.

Idisagree with you.

Lex is a core member of any superman cast. He should be in every movie... but he should only be the primary villain in the opener. But in sequels he should be that man plotting in the background. All the while other villains are doing their thing with Superman. Infact, this is what made the TAS Lex so absolutely perfect. He was never the primary villain, but always the one pulling strings.


Even in a movie franchise, Superman's relationship with Lex is just as important as Clark's relationship with Lois. Lex is a core supporting role, after the intro movie (which has been done).

I feel that the Lex-Lois relationship could be interesting in a 'wrath of kahn' like reboot (ie. same players, but the universe is tweaked slightly). As someone pointed out, the difference is that SR has loose ends, while STTMP didn't.

I think the easiest way to do this, is have Jason and Richard go into hiding... because Lex knows, and is still at large... relegate them to the Kent farm, with Ma. Meanwhile, go on with a Brainiac invasion from NK. Pardon Lex, because of his knowledge of crystals. Have a huge Brainiac/supes/military brawl while Lex figures out where the son of superman is hidden, and tries to assasinate him. Superman uses the scraps from Brainiac to revive the fortress, and send Jason to kandor, where he can be cared for.

[GreenKToo]

excuse my writing there. I was unclear.

Basically, if Routh came back, with a whole new cast and production team, (or in any other scenario) I don't think the GA would hold it against them.
I gotcha. Yeah, Routh would be fine by me if he came back, but I have serious reservations about Singer.

[DChero]

I really think the best solution is to make a prequel to SR, but not directly lead to Superman leaving at the end.

For example, Superman's origin, enter villain, and wrap it up with Lois falling in love with him. It doesn't point to any exsistance with a kid, any casting choices are available, and we base it's sequel possibilities off of how it does. I don't think we need to blatantly risk a reboot yet, because if the reboot fails we run out of options. I mean, how many times can we continue to reboot the same character?

[project13]

you mean like superman returns? SR was not a direct sequel.


whait a minute. isnt this similar to star trek? :)

Yes, it is Star Trek...



So, what you guys are saying is that the "requel" would reboot Superman just like the upcoming Star Trek film?

[Webhead2006]

well star trek is a bit different untill the film is out and we see the whole film we dont really know how it really fits with the rest of trek's cannon or doesnt. Personally there i still in the feeling its just a standard prequel/sequel setting and more so with old spock and nero coming from the 24th century and all that jazz.

[SuperDaniel]

Why complicate things? Just do a reboot, origin and all.

[BATZARRO WWD]

Idisagree with you.

Lex is a core member of any superman cast. He should be in every movie... but he should only be the primary villain in the opener. But in sequels he should be that man plotting in the background. All the while other villains are doing their thing with Superman. Infact, this is what made the TAS Lex so absolutely perfect. He was never the primary villain, but always the one pulling strings.


Even in a movie franchise, Superman's relationship with Lex is just as important as Clark's relationship with Lois. Lex is a core supporting role, after the intro movie (which has been done).

I feel that the Lex-Lois relationship could be interesting in a 'wrath of kahn' like reboot (ie. same players, but the universe is tweaked slightly). As someone pointed out, the difference is that SR has loose ends, while STTMP didn't.

I think the easiest way to do this, is have Jason and Richard go into hiding... because Lex knows, and is still at large... relegate them to the Kent farm, with Ma. Meanwhile, go on with a Brainiac invasion from NK. Pardon Lex, because of his knowledge of crystals. Have a huge Brainiac/supes/military brawl while Lex figures out where the son of superman is hidden, and tries to assasinate him. Superman uses the scraps from Brainiac to revive the fortress, and send Jason to kandor, where he can be cared for.

Why is Superman abandoning his son again? There are already many jokes about Superman's role as a father in Returns. Do you think the reaction will be positive if he WILLFULLY leaves him?

[Superfreak]

Why is Superman abandoning his son again? There are already many jokes about Superman's role as a father in Returns. Do you think the reaction will be positive if he WILLFULLY leaves him?

I don't get what your saying?

I'm more in the direction that Superman can't be Jason's father... not in the way that Richard can be. Just like Kal'el was raised by a human, perhaps Jason should also.

Moreover, in the concept I'm outlining, Jason would be mortally wounded, and superman would be doing a father's duty (just like his father actually) by sending his son away to survive. He's not abandoning Jason, but ensuring that he survives whatever damage Luthor has done to him.

[Christmas]

I think the jason storyline dies with Singer being off of the project.

What director would jump at the chance of sorting thru that tangled situation?

[Superfreak]

I think the jason storyline dies with Singer being off of the project.

What director would jump at the chance of sorting thru that tangled situation?

I think a director would get more recognition for righting the problems, rather than ignoring them and treating them like they didn't happen.

[FlawlessVictory]

I think the jason storyline dies with Singer being off of the project.

What director would jump at the chance of sorting thru that tangled situation?

Agreed.

I think a director would get more recognition for righting the problems, rather than ignoring them and treating them like they didn't happen.

Recognition by who? The fanbase is pretty much split on whether they want to see Jason again. Most of the GA was indifferent towards that storyline so they could care less either way, if Jason was in the next film or the next film started with a "clean slate". The risk isn't worth the reward. There are not enough people clamoring to see what will happen next with Jason and Richard. So why bother? So long as the next director brings in Routh then most people will be happy, then he can "start over" with a Batman Forever type film if that's what the studio decides.

[Superfreak]

Agreed.



Recognition by who? The fanbase is pretty much split on whether they want to see Jason again. Most of the GA was indifferent towards that storyline so they could care less either way, if Jason was in the next film or the next film started with a "clean slate". The risk isn't worth the reward. There are not enough people clamoring to see what will happen next with Jason and Richard. So why bother? So long as the next director brings in Routh then most people will be happy, then he can "start over" with a Batman Forever type film if that's what the studio decides.

I'm all for a restart, if it excludes an extended explanation of what happens on krypton... ie. kal'el lands on earth in a rocket, and go from there. Get to Superman ASAP, and get on with a decent story. Leave the background as something to be explored over the course of the film and franchise, rather than being barfed out at the beginning.


that being said, I'm also hard on continuity. I'm tired of the start, restart, start, restart. I'm tired of simultaneous TV and movies that are unrelated. etc etc. I'd prefer to see a film that provides a solution to the fanbase's dislikes. That's why I keep theorizing on plotlines.

I think that a direct sequel, that minimizes Jason and Richard's involvement, by hiding them on the Kent farm as a sort of witness protection (for superman) is a simple way to do this. Have Luthor on the lam, but know Jason's secret. Lois would have nothing to do with hiding. Richard would be the responsible parent, and protect Jason on the farm. This would be a secondary plotline (not the central plotline of a film) that would help to wrap up those disliked narrative threads, while allowing for the franchise to continue without leaving loose ends.

As I proposed above, a Brainiac invasion from NK is a logical next step. Luthor getting a pardon, as well as government resources, with his knowledge about the Kryptonian crystal technology, lets him get closer to discovering where jason is hidden. This is the central plot line of the film.

by the end, Luthor discovers Jason's location and mortally wounds him. Allowing for either death, or some supermagic that spirits jason away to the old fortress where he can be saved, and be sent to another dimension as the price (or whatever)


I keep repeating it, because I'm thinking about it, and trying to reconceptualize it better. I just think the universe can be salvaged, and problems dealt with, and even removed with some careful writing. Again, I'm all for a restart, but I love continuity, and would prefer that someone take the lame mistakes of SR, and deal with them, rather than pretend they didn't happen.

[RachelDawes]

^Well, quite a few Superman fans don't want to see the kid storyline continued, and I don't think any future director will want to touch it. If you want to work SR into continuity, think of it as how the Superman saga ends. It can take place after the Donner films and any future Superman films we get.

[Webhead2006]

yea the whole kid thing is a big issue to try and fix if they did a sequel. And i would think some directors wouldnt want to get into that whole mess and would like to start on a clean slate and not have to worry what has happened in the past. So then they can do a film in the mannor they want and not get stuck using elements they dont want.

[Superfreak]

^Well, quite a few Superman fans don't want to see the kid storyline continued, and I don't think any future director will want to touch it. If you want to work SR into continuity, think of it as how the Superman saga ends. It can take place after the Donner films and any future Superman films we get.

nor do I, what I want to see is the kid plotline removed... but not ignored. Deal with it, get rid of the kid... franchise installment 3+ can be free of the mistake.

WebH, I understand the idea of a 'fresh start' but I also don't want to have to start over from the begining... (ie. with 1/2 the movie devoted to superman's back story, leaving only 45 minutes of the movie for the actual SUPERMAN cental narrative).

[Webhead2006]

Yea that is the one thing with a reboot/restart how do you want to go about his origins and since if they would want to be totally different i would want to see a new krypton/differences then past origins. But would it be better to start out start with origin or sprinkle it throughout the film like batman begins did and start off with superman/clark coming to metropolis for the first time.

[BuzzGrub]

I'm tired of the start, restart, start, restart.

I agree. I would love to see them continue on with the current timeline simply because I'm tired of the different continuities. At this point, if they wanted to take the Smallville cast to the big screen I would welcome that more than another reboot.

[FlawlessVictory]

that being said, I'm also hard on continuity. I'm tired of the start, restart, start, restart. I'm tired of simultaneous TV and movies that are unrelated. etc etc.

I don't get this. You're tired of the start, restart, start, restart? We have had one film series. Superman: The Movie, Superman 2, Superman 3 and Superman 4. All one continuity. Where is the start, restart there? THEN we have Superman Returns that fits into THAT continuity. No restart there either. If we were to get a restart now it would be the first time since 1978 that we would be getting one. So where are you pulling all this start, restart stuff. :huh:

And you're tired of simultaneous TV and movies that are unrelated? Huh? We have had Lois and Clark(one continuity), Superman: The Animated Series(one continuity) and now Smallville (one continuity) yet you want all these to have been related in some manner and related with the films on the big screen also? You really lost me. Why would they be related? As long as the continuity is followed within those shows, which they have, then what's the problem? It's not hard to follow.

You make it sound like Superman has gone through endless restarts, when in fact it hasn't. Simply that each program has had it's own start but so has every other superhero program. And Superman has YET to be restarted on the big screen. We are still in Donner continuity! If anything, we are in desperate need of a restart, because this is the first time we would TRULY be getting one on the big screen.

[SuperDaniel]

^Exactely.

[BuzzGrub]

I don't get this. You're tired of the start, restart, start, restart? We have had one film series. Superman: The Movie, Superman 2, Superman 3 and Superman 4. All one continuity. Where is the start, restart there?

I think it has to do with all of the reboots lately, Hulk, Bond, Star Trek etc. in film. All the different continuities on TV for Supes in the last twenty years.

[Showtime]

I think he is referring to the failed projects...

[FlawlessVictory]

I think it has to do with all of the reboots lately, Hulk, Bond, Star Trek etc. in film. All the different continuities on TV for Supes in the last twenty years.

What does TV have to do with film? :huh: So you want all Superman shows on TV and Superman films to share one continuity and be intertwined with each other? No superhero does this. Spider-Man hasn't, Batman hasn't, Wolverine/X-Men, why would someone expect this of Superman?

Yea, and um, look at what that restart did with Bond and look at what it will do with Star Trek. Hulk you can make a case for because Lee recently started a fresh continuity and then Leterrier came along and started another one shortly thereafter. But again folks, 1978!

I think he is referring to the failed projects...

Don't see what failed projects have to do with this though. Fact remains we haven't had a restart since 1978. Those failed projects never came to fruition so they are meaningless. Is someone really supposed to say, "Well a few years ago, we ALMOST had a Superman restart, so it would make no sense to do one now." That would hold no logic.

[RachelDawes]

nor do I, what I want to see is the kid plotline removed... but not ignored. Deal with it, get rid of the kid... franchise installment 3+ can be free of the mistake.

WebH, I understand the idea of a 'fresh start' but I also don't want to have to start over from the begining... (ie. with 1/2 the movie devoted to superman's back story, leaving only 45 minutes of the movie for the actual SUPERMAN cental narrative).

Someone once suggested that Superman's backstory could be a mystery spread out over a whole trilogy. It's a little risky because there's no guarantee three movies would even be made, but it's one way of avoiding a full-blown origin in the first movie.

Another, less ambitious, idea would be to tell Supes' history through flashbacks in the next movie. That way we could start with Superman and action but still be introduced to his past.

[Sub-Zero]

is this really a 5 page thread? wasn't superman returns a "requel?" it wasn't good. word of mouth more than box office hurt it. it's really easy to make a superman movie, but the powers that be keep thinking we need to see the same crap over and over again. there are villains other than luthor out there : parasite, metallo, brainiac, hell even darkseid could work in a movie. it's superman, an ALIEN that protects earth, why is everyone at wb so dumb to think that it has to be REALISTIC and DARK? ugh...

[Oddzball]

Idisagree with you.

Lex is a core member of any superman cast. He should be in every movie... but he should only be the primary villain in the opener. But in sequels he should be that man plotting in the background. All the while other villains are doing their thing with Superman. Infact, this is what made the TAS Lex so absolutely perfect. He was never the primary villain, but always the one pulling strings.


Even in a movie franchise, Superman's relationship with Lex is just as important as Clark's relationship with Lois. Lex is a core supporting role, after the intro movie (which has been done).

I feel that the Lex-Lois relationship could be interesting in a 'wrath of kahn' like reboot (ie. same players, but the universe is tweaked slightly). As someone pointed out, the difference is that SR has loose ends, while STTMP didn't.

I think the easiest way to do this, is have Jason and Richard go into hiding... because Lex knows, and is still at large... relegate them to the Kent farm, with Ma. Meanwhile, go on with a Brainiac invasion from NK. Pardon Lex, because of his knowledge of crystals. Have a huge Brainiac/supes/military brawl while Lex figures out where the son of superman is hidden, and tries to assasinate him. Superman uses the scraps from Brainiac to revive the fortress, and send Jason to kandor, where he can be cared for.


You're free to disagree all you want but the fact is six Spiderman vs the Green Goblin movies would be ruinous to the Franchise as would FF vs Doctor Doom, Batman vs joker, Red Skull in all Captain America movies and so forth.

Give luthor a break. Clancy Brown is not available to play him and frankly no one else is good enough to play Lex.

It's time for Brainiac or Bizarro or some combination of guys like Parasite and Mongul...

[Rorschach II]

Because that's what WB wants. They're keeping Routh and with the talks of Singer's camp still onboard, this may be the best way to satisfy everyone.

I'm just suggesting a scenario that works with what WB is currently doing.

They could also do one of those "because we said so" reboots, like The Incredible Hulk, and just keep Routh.

[Webhead2006]

if its a reboot i rather see a full on reboot so we can clean slate the whole thing. Its harder to try and reboot it and keep routh and all that.

[griffolyon12]

nor do I, what I want to see is the kid plotline removed... but not ignored. Deal with it, get rid of the kid... franchise installment 3+ can be free of the mistake.

WebH, I understand the idea of a 'fresh start' but I also don't want to have to start over from the begining... (ie. with 1/2 the movie devoted to superman's back story, leaving only 45 minutes of the movie for the actual SUPERMAN cental narrative).
I personally wouldn't mind if half of the film was devoted to his backstory as long as it was done in a different manner than how Donner did it. There is a whole new generation out there that the majority have never seen the Donner film. As a fan I can see how you do not want to see the origin told once more on film, since it was already done so well by Donner, but the fact of the matter is times are different now. Majority of the primary characters in the Superman universe have changed so much since the Donner film that I feel it is time to re-do the origin, but not retread what Donner did. The filmmakers need to think outside the box. Something in the vein of Superman: Birthright would be terrific. It'd feel familiar, but at the same time it would be something new that we haven't seen on film before.

[nintendo nerd]

They should just kill everybody and replace them with their younger brothers. Oh wait, Smallvill already did that.

[Nightwing1983]

There are many easy ways to do a 'Requel' for the next film.

Essentially this idea is a sequel, while also rebooting everything at the same time with a new origins. A great compromise for everyone.

For example:

- Have the film kick off in the future of the SR verse amidst an apocalyptic battle between Superman (in Kingdom Come attire) and Brainiac

- Brainiac then travels back in time to 1978 to murder baby Kal-El. The baby survives in his ship but Brainiac launches a devastating attack on Metropolis that changes everything.

- Clark now grows up in a very different world; where Lexcorp rebuilds Metropolis and controls the city, America is plunged into war etc and Clark must be the light to guide the world out of darkness.

- There could also be a terminator-esque story here with Superman driven to defeat Brainiac in the present, in order to prevent the apocalyptic dystopia we witness at the start of the film (in the future).

This scenario would allow for Brandon Routh to continue as Superman, Spacey as corperate Lex, Huntington as Jimmy Olsen and Frank Langella to play a gruffer Perry White closer to his Frost/Nixon potrayal.

The only thing is that it's technically "aborting" Jason, so I'd like whatever leads to Jason's not being born to be the "fault" of Brainiac. I know that's kind-of silly, but that's how I feel.

[DChero]

Well, I think the main focus should be on the story itself, then to worry about continuity. There may be a great prequel story that alters they way Superman Returns is primarily viewed. For example Jason may not be Superman's son. That's something I see working for some people against the character.

If the best story out there is a reboot, then I have no problem seeing it. The same goes for a sequel.

[Nightwing1983]

^Well, quite a few Superman fans don't want to see the kid storyline continued, and I don't think any future director will want to touch it. If you want to work SR into continuity, think of it as how the Superman saga ends. It can take place after the Donner films and any future Superman films we get.

Mixed feelings here. The kid saga is what turned me off of Superman Returns, but at the same time, I don't want the feeling that that's what it's building toward.

On the other hand, am I obligated to? When I watch Superman: the Movie, I'm not obligated to think, "Superman Returns is what happens next."

[Nightwing1983]

Again, what if the movie could--however loosely--follow the first two, just like Superman Returns did, but with a completely different (i.e.: good) story, production values and everything else? Would that be so horrible? Would that constitute a "requel?"

[RachelDawes]

Again, what if the movie could--however loosely--follow the first two, just like Superman Returns did, but with a completely different (i.e.: good) story, production values and everything else? Would that be so horrible? Would that constitute a "requel?"

It would probably confuse the audience to have the whole cast come back except the kid, and I personally am ready to leave the Donnerverse behind. I suppose it could work though I wouldn't like it.

[mego joe]

nor do I, what I want to see is the kid plotline removed... but not ignored. Deal with it, get rid of the kid... franchise installment 3+ can be free of the mistake.

WebH, I understand the idea of a 'fresh start' but I also don't want to have to start over from the begining... (ie. with 1/2 the movie devoted to superman's back story, leaving only 45 minutes of the movie for the actual SUPERMAN cental narrative).


IMO, better to have 1/2 the movie about Superman and his backstory than 1/2 the movie trying to eliminate the kid storyline. The first movie I'd see, the second I wouldn't. The just needs to go away and start over.

[mego joe]

^Well, quite a few Superman fans don't want to see the kid storyline continued, and I don't think any future director will want to touch it. If you want to work SR into continuity, think of it as how the Superman saga ends. It can take place after the Donner films and any future Superman films we get.

That would work perfectly if he had died at the end of Returns.

[Webhead2006]

The whole kid thing did put them in a big corner and any thing they would do about it will either pissed of folks who liked the kid or fans who didnt like him and all that. I still prefer to star fresh and make it totally clear to everyone this is not superman returns 2 or any connection to donnor/reeve elements. As for how to do the whole orgin deal there is may ways to go about it.

TIH ruote and show flashs of key origin pieces in opening credits, start film with clark/superman just arriving in the film and over the course of the film flash back to krypton/smallville days, or a full start from krypton-smallville-met way.

[Nightwing1983]

TIH ruote and show flashs of key origin pieces in opening credits, start film with clark/superman just arriving in the film and over the course of the film flash back to krypton/smallville days, or a full start from krypton-smallville-met way.

That's sort-of what I want, but I don't really want to have them fall over themselves flashing back to his past if the story doesn't call for it. I'd rather the key origin pieces but due to the specifics of the story I have in mind, I think it'd be better to have it end with the death of General Zod, and people can take it as a sequel to the first two or take it as its own thing. I just don't want them to think it's linked to Returns.

In other words, I try to be open-minded, so while I used to obsess over "oh, they have to do a post-Crisis-influenced origin," I think a loose sequel/soft reboot works better.

It's more fluid that way.

[Nightwing1983]

It would probably confuse the audience to have the whole cast come back except the kid, and I personally am ready to leave the Donnerverse behind. I suppose it could work though I wouldn't like it.

Well, I don't really look at it as "the Donnerverse," rather the "make of it what you will verse" but that's just how I see it. Actually, the only reason I'm so gung-ho about including those two in particular--aside from SR doing the same thing--is that they essentially take Superman to the point he was at circa late 1988, which the specific story I have in mind would follow.

But then, what are the odds that that would see the light of day?

I honestly think that what Warners would love to do is just give us a live-action version of Superman: Doomsday. In fact, I think that was just an animated version of what the wanted to do in the first place.

All-in-all, I almost wish they'd just stop.

[DChero]

I have to say that if they do come out with a new origin, which I'd love, I'd be extremely disappointed if they "Incredible Hulked" it. Using a quick montage is something that works when pointing to a previous movie. This is of course just my perspective, but I'd like to see an origin embraced, not rushed.

A story in which an alien is sent here as the sole survivor of a dead planet could be much more interesting than a 2 minute montage. I actually wouldn't mind seeing a movie that ends with him in the suit. I'm sure I'll get some people saying things like "I've already seen eight years of that" and such, but I don't see that as an excuse to skip out on a potentially interesting story.

Successful sequels make big money, so it wouldn't be out of the question to plan a saga.

[Webhead2006]

Yea with doing an all new origin there is as i pointed out many ways it could be done. Its all up to the director/writers on how they want to play it out. Who ever comes on board for the next project hopefully they can find the right balance.

[Nightwing1983]

Yea with doing an all new origin there is as i pointed out many ways it could be done. Its all up to the director/writers on how they want to play it out. Who ever comes on board for the next project hopefully they can find the right balance.

Sure, but as with any approach, it has its pros and cons. I also certainly don't think it's "the only way." Heck, the easiest thing would be to simply make a sequel to the last one. I just really, really hope they don't.

[DChero]

Well as much as I like Superman Returns, I was incredibly disappointed with the timeframe he was placed in with the "loose sequel." That's kind of what I mean by making a movie and simply rushing too much. We weren't given a specific origin or much detail about the characters in the first act. There was no direct prequel out for it so the whole series idea must not have been thought out too much.

I feel that Spider-man, Batman, and Iron Man are successful in part due to them explaining everything that should have been explained. They didn't exactly flash forward through the motivational cornerstones of their characters.

[Webhead2006]

Yes that is true hopefully who ever comes on board for the project weighs in all the pros and cons of doing an origin film and what way to to do and finds the best option to go.

[DChero]

Let's also hope that if the new movie is a hit, critically and financially, that the writing crew stay on for some time. I don't to see Superman in limbo anymore.

[GreenKToo]

The longer we go without a Superman film, the more likely it will be an origin tale when they finally do get around to it....all my opinion of course.

[Nightwing1983]

I've thought of something: I'm a fan of Superman in general. I mean, the only things I don't like are, well, the more recent ideas. The comics have him back on Krypton for some reason--though I haven't been keeping up, so I might be being unfair--TV Supes has been put in this convoluted teen-drama that I've lost interest in, and you know where I stand on the movies.

But my favorite is the Byrne years and that's part of why I've been throwing around this idea of a loose sequel to the first two. The film that inspired Man of Steel along with one that leads him into what he does at the end of The Supergirl Saga, which is the murder of General Zod. After all, I never really liked Superman II as it was. Tried to, but no. The Dick Donner recut was an improvement, but I still wasn't in love with it. Plus, I didn't like the idea of a Marvel-style trilogy to just give you his origin and all that, especially when the second ones are usually considered better. Why not just make the second one?

Since everyone's so gungho about Requels, I've been thinking: we'll probably never see a Crisis movie, but what about the Superman/Legion story where he finds himself in an alternate timeline with a version of Superboy? And what about the actual Supergirl Saga? Is there some way that these two sagas could at least serve as the seed of an idea whereby Superman's history could be retconned satisfactorily?

I don't have all the kinks ironed out, but could those two stories somehow serve as at least a guideline for how a requel could work in some vague--or not so vague--way?