WB Superman Reboot 3.0: Christopher Nolan Edition

[batman44]

A reboot....with Routh (I didn't have any problem with him)....without Bosworth....with Langella.....without the kid who played Jimmy....with Spacey (but Lex has to be the corporate one).....and without any references to the Reeve Superman movies (it's been done).

I'd be game for that.

[ZombieONE]

dude, just start over. mixing donner movies and singer ideas will eventually get confusing and mish-mashed. start with a clean slate, dont assume everyone going to the movie already knows the story of superman. its 2008 already, get back to the basics of superman. superman movies are bright, vivid, they are about saving the day. SR was lifeless. Superman movies need to have life.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Warner obviously hoped the movie would be big enough to recoup all the costs of getting Superman on screen again. That's fair enough. But it didn't happen.

You can see why they let the movie stay on release until it had at least earned its own costs back from domestic box office.

But the fact of the matter remains, to costs of efforts on previous projects by different creative people had NO bearing on SR or what Singer did with it, so the official budget is $204.

As for them keeping it on release, they arent the first studio to do it, i believe The Golden Compass is still on release now by New Line.

[Showtime]

What WB will be considering is that the $204m cost of Singer's SR only just scraped past the USA/domestic box office revenue of $200m. I understand that only the domestic (USA) box office is considered as a measure of success. WB obviously would have ideally wanted to recoup the costs of earlier attempts as well, but they didn't get their $270m back on the domestic front. It's now very obvious why WB left the movie out there until it made at least $200m, as they wanted at least the $204 budget back in ticket sales.

Showing the movie in IMAX (with some 3D scenes) brought in $22.8million according to The Numbers website but it doesn't say if this is considered part of the general box office take or if it is additional income.

I'd have liked to see SR in IMAX, I must admit. But I didn't. I've seen Beowulf in IMAX 3D - what a dreadful disappointment that movie is! A hollow visual spectacle that I never wish to see again.

I know that is what they will be considering, but the extra cost for aborted projects should have been gone with previous end of years, so it wouldn't actually be included in the Superman Returns bottomline.

The Imax cut was included in the 204million domestic take.

[markaudette]

Brandon Stays. He's Superman after all!

Kevin stays.

Bosworth definitely goes. See ya. Bye bye. Don't call us, we'll call you.

Langella has to bring his A-game this time and channel a little bit of Jackie Cooper's performance. I thought Langella wa a cold fish in SR.

And in my opinion, I think Byran has to make so many concessions and changes to his direction (too moody) and visual style (too cold) that it might as well be some other director altogether. Bryan has to switch gears and make a bright, shiny and happy movie for a change. Because Superman is about hope and not hopelessness (which SR tried to sell so hard).

[Krug3r]

Even if there is a reboot..do you think it should be an origin story again? or just a stand alone story like batman returns (just starts in the middle)?

And completly cut from the donner version or not? what elements would you guys like to keep?

[bgshw44]

Even if there is a reboot..do you think it should be an origin story again? or just a stand alone story like batman returns (just starts in the middle)?

And completly cut from the donner version or not? what elements would you guys like to keep?


i would not do an origion if they didnt do a sequel. i would start in the story and flash back to things that were not seen in STM to set up the villan. but definately dont go and do something like having pa kent alive or krypton not blowing up due to the red sun. whether it is a sequel or a solo movie, it needs to be bright and the action needs to be spectacular, not ground it in reality, make supermans powers look impressive.

[Mostpowerful]

That's how I feel, too. Very strongly. :up: I know not everyone liked him as much as I did or not at all but to me personally he embodies Superman in every way and he is now Superman of the present to me, just like Reeve was in my childhood. Very hard to imagine anyone else in the role when the guy you like is already perfect. :woot:

I'm thinking: "Why would we need another Superman? Routh's right there."

That's how I feel as well!!

No one can replace Brandon because he owned the role, IMO.

Brandon Routh Is Superman, he makes me feel just like Reeve did when I was a child. He has the presence and totally sells me the magic and wonder of Superman.

I won't pay to see another guy pretending to be Supes, the magic would be gone. I'd just be wishing Brandon was there instead.

[Mostpowerful]

One basic conclusion from this thread...

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5769157,00.jpg

FTW.

Yup. He has a great look for Supes that is undeniable. He even has the butt chin like in the comics! And very importantly, his voice is awesome as well!!

[Lightning54SC]

Yup. He has a great look for Supes that is undeniable. He even has the butt chin like in the comics! And very importantly, his voice is awesome as well!!

i beg to differ... id like to a see a few other of their choices before we even let routh have anotehr chance

[dark_b]

i like very much routh. but i woul never mention hes voice when trying to defend him. its not the worst. but in nooooo way teh best.
its a little weak iMO.
but this could have been fixed.

[DavidTyler]

If Routh were to get a second shot at the character - Right along with fixing the costume, I want them to NOT slick his hair back. The way Routh styles his own hair is much better for the character than that skull hugging, greasy mess they did to it for the film. And, speaking of hair.. no more frigging flop-mopped Clark. Clark's hair should be neatly combed and Supes should be free and looking like he's in action.

Think about it - Clark isn't flying around and doing all kinds of super stunts. He's just walking around and sitting in an office. It would be easy for Clark to keep his hair neat. In fact, I would like to see little bits in scenes where he's constantly pushing back the stubborn forelock that forms that famous spit curl. When he's in costume, he just let's it fall because he's too busy to think about it.

[DavidTyler]

I DEFINITELY want an origin story. I don't want to live with Donner's version any longer than I have to. I LOVE the Bryne interpretation of Krypton and the powers developing slowly. I REALLY LIKE the Timm/Dini version of Krypton from the animated series. I ABSOLUTELY HATE AND HAVE ALWAYS HATED Donner's version.

The friggin thing is an impossibility. How would life that looked like us possibly evolve on a planet made of crystal? What did they eat ... each other? There has to be plant life. There has to be lower orders of animals. I don't care if those animals are alien looking as they aren't crystaline. the Kryptonians look like us and would have to be carbon based just like us. Otherwise they'd look as crystaline as their world.

And I hate that the emblem has been reduced down to a family crest or some Kryptonian symbol. I can buy that Clark and Jonathan took a symbol they found on the star drive he arrived here in and modified it to be an 'S'. But I want it to be just Superman's emblem. I think that's plenty.

[The War Machine]

The hair adds to the disguise I thought

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/superman_returns/brandon_routh/supes11.jpg

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/2635525.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=B43C13524355E928173DDDABC4EDC840A55A1E4F32AD3138

[Krypton Girl]

A reboot....with Routh (I didn't have any problem with him)....without Bosworth....with Langella.....without the kid who played Jimmy....with Spacey (but Lex has to be the corporate one).....and without any references to the Reeve Superman movies (it's been done).

This is the best summation of my feelings for the next Superman film I've seen so far in this thread. With a performance like Margo Kidder's as Lois, they really needed to cast a much stronger female lead to even compete, and they came up disappointingly short on this one. Sam Huntington as Jimmy wasn't too bad, but he didn't stand out in the slightest.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I LOVE the Bryne interpretation of Krypton and the powers developing slowly. I REALLY LIKE the Timm/Dini version of Krypton from the animated series.

:up:

While I don't completely like the Donner universe I wouldn't say I HATE it though.

One thing I wish SR would have done different btw is go with a modernized FOS. Besides the TAS version we have been stuck with the same look in both SR and SV tv series that we saw with Donner already :down

[DavidTyler]

The hair adds to the disguise I thought

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/superman_returns/brandon_routh/supes11.jpg

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/2635525.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=B43C13524355E928173DDDABC4EDC840A55A1E4F32AD3138

using the pic of Chris to support the flop mop hair style changes nothing for me. I didn't like it then and I still don't. As far as adding to any disguise. What I'm looking for is the reverse of what the films have been doing. I want Clark's hair to be neat and Superman's to be looser.

What the films have been doing is greasing Superman's hair down and letting Clarks be loose. Now, I don't want Clark's hair greasy but I do think it can be styled neatly while he's not in Superman mode. And your argument about adding to the disguise would still be viable but in the reverse of what they're actually doing.

After all (and I said this previously) Clark just sits or stands around. His hair would pretty much stay combed. When he's Superman, he'd be flying all over the place and rushing around. His hair would easily flop down just due to all the activity. Hence the stubborn forelock that's so present when he's in costume and not when he's hiding behind the glasses.

[Nathan]

Yeah, I also was never a big fan of the whole neat hair with the S curl look for Superman. Whether it's a reboot or sequel, they need to change his hairdo. And like you said, if would make more sense for Clark to have nice combed hair, and as Superman to have slightly messy hair.

He should look something like this.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/5662/supermanok0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Angeloz]

I think people know without looking what I voted for. I must admit I never knew how much guys could obsess about hair nor muscles until I read Superman forums. His hair?!? And we females are meant to be the ones that talk about it. By the way I liked it in the film - not a big shock I'm sure. LOL (thanks). ;)

Angeloz

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think people know without looking what I voted for. I must admit I never knew how much guys could obsess about hair nor muscles until I read Superman forums. His hair?!? And we females are meant to be the ones that talk about it. By the way I liked it in the film - not a big shock I'm sure. LOL (thanks). ;)

Angeloz

I know Angeloz, it does get a bit ridiculous in here sometimes, on no other board have i heard complaints about hair on a superhero, and its very rare i hear about how muscular the leads are either (the only other board i have heard this is the Spiderman 3 boards).

Also, i'm pretty sure i voted for the same option as you!

[Angeloz]

I know Angeloz, it does get a bit ridiculous in here sometimes, on no other board have i heard complaints about hair on a superhero, and its very rare i hear about how muscular the leads are either (the only other board i have heard this is the Spiderman 3 boards).

Also, i'm pretty sure i voted for the same option as you!

Yep.

Though is it Tobey MacGuire's muscles that are discussed? 'Cos Spidey could be anyone under that suit. {Shrug.}

Angeloz

[DavidTyler]

I think people know without looking what I voted for. I must admit I never knew how much guys could obsess about hair nor muscles until I read Superman forums. His hair?!? And we females are meant to be the ones that talk about it. By the way I liked it in the film - not a big shock I'm sure. LOL (thanks). ;)

Angeloz

Well, it's not about attractiveness......

It's about something being goofy or not.

Superman with greased down hair is goofy. It's not logical. It makes no sense just as I stated in the other post.

Clark does nothing extraneous. He basically sits or stands all day. His hair can stay combed neatly all day. It's Superman who flies and does all the physical stuff. His hair should be a little wild. NOT saying Vince Neil 1980 wild... just not neat.



And the little things add up to the bigger picture.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Yep.

Though is it Tobey MacGuire's muscles that are discussed? 'Cos Spidey could be anyone under that suit. {Shrug.}

Angeloz

Yep, people were saying Tobey wasnt in good enough shape in 2 or 3, well he looked in good enough shape to me.

Well, it's not about attractiveness......

It's about something being goofy or not.

Superman with greased down hair is goofy. It's not logical. It makes no sense just as I stated in the other post.

Clark does nothing extraneous. He basically sits or stands all day. His hair can stay combed neatly all day. It's Superman who flies and does all the physical stuff. His hair should be a little wild. NOT saying Vince Neil 1980 wild... just not neat.


And the little things add up to the bigger picture.

And it is during various points of SR, especially in the 3rd act during the trials and tribulations he goes through.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

:up:

While I don't completely like the Donner universe I wouldn't say I HATE it though.

One thing I wish SR would have done different btw is go with a modernized FOS. Besides the TAS version we have been stuck with the same look in both SR and SV tv series that we saw with Donner already :down

It was like that in the comics until For Tomorrow when Superman and Wonder Woman destroyed it, saying that, he got another crystal one in the arctic later on in Up, Up And Away.

[aaron smith]

Whatever they choose to do with a sequel, just make it a good movie. While an intelligent reboot might be interesting, there's plenty of story that could be told in the timeline following SR without throwing it out the window. It might be easy for we fans to understand a reboot, but for the average trailer-watcher all this rebooting does get confusing. The only storyline they would really be obliged to follow up with if they continued after Singer's creation would be addressing Superman's relationship with his unexpected son. If they do something interesting there with the actual relationships and what that means and how it affects all of the characters (how would you like to learn that your supposed child is actually the bastard heir of Superman?) rather than just using him for shock value, there's nothing in the way of doing something completely different while still respecting what has already been done.

[mego joe]

Whatever they choose to do with a sequel, just make it a good movie. While an intelligent reboot might be interesting, there's plenty of story that could be told in the timeline following SR without throwing it out the window. It might be easy for we fans to understand a reboot, but for the average trailer-watcher all this rebooting does get confusing. The only storyline they would really be obliged to follow up with if they continued after Singer's creation would be addressing Superman's relationship with his unexpected son. If they do something interesting there with the actual relationships and what that means and how it affects all of the characters (how would you like to learn that your supposed child is actually the bastard heir of Superman?) rather than just using him for shock value, there's nothing in the way of doing something completely different while still respecting what has already been done.

I think the problem is that to continue that storyline would just move the film further and further away from the essence of Superman. It was a bad way to start a film franchise. And there are a significant number of fans who just have 0 interest in this particular storyline continuing. The problem is a sequel IS obliged to follow this storyline and continue to alienate that group of fans.

[Angeloz]

Well, it's not about attractiveness......

It's about something being goofy or not.

Superman with greased down hair is goofy. It's not logical. It makes no sense just as I stated in the other post.

Clark does nothing extraneous. He basically sits or stands all day. His hair can stay combed neatly all day. It's Superman who flies and does all the physical stuff. His hair should be a little wild. NOT saying Vince Neil 1980 wild... just not neat.



And the little things add up to the bigger picture.

Including his muscles (i.e. not about attractiveness)? OK you've sucked me in to this discussion. Because I don't mind silly discussions (and can laugh at myself). Points to what was said below.

Yep, people were saying Tobey wasnt in good enough shape in 2 or 3, well he looked in good enough shape to me.

I didn't have a problem with him but it didn't really interest me either.

And it is during various points of SR, especially in the 3rd act during the trials and tribulations he goes through.

See - what he said. During his flying (and falling) it was being blown around. It also got wet. I liked their decisions on his hair (yep I'm in the vortex now ;)). I thought Kal at home in Smallville was not overly stylised, Clark in Metropolis kind of nerdy and Superman more stylised and business like not to get in his way usually. All looked great. My speculation is he wears some sort of Kryptonian hair gel (I hope it doesn't run out ;) :D).

Angeloz

[Nathan]

Yeah, but everytime he wasn't flying around, his hair strangely reverted back to the greased back look with the S curl. His hair has like a mind of it's own.

[DavidTyler]

I think the problem is that to continue that storyline would just move the film further and further away from the essence of Superman. It was a bad way to start a film franchise. And there are a significant number of fans who just have 0 interest in this particular storyline continuing. The problem is a sequel IS obliged to follow this storyline and continue to alienate that group of fans.

I agree with the first part of what you posted and disagree strongly with the second.

I don't think a sequel IS obliged to follow.

I think a reboot would be in order but to do that you need to lose the current cast (or at least most of the them) and do an origin story to cement the break from SR.

[batman44]

Yeah, but everytime he wasn't flying around, his hair strangely reverted back to the greased back look with the S curl. His hair has like a mind of it's own.

That's Kryptonian hair for you:o

[mego joe]

I agree with the first part of what you posted and disagree strongly with the second.

I don't think a sequel IS obliged to follow.


If it doesn't follow that storylne though, it's really not a sequel is it? If it's igonred compeletely isn't it then just a reboot with the same cast? Or a preqel?

What were you suggesting?


I think a reboot would be in order but to do that you need to lose the current cast (or at least most of the them) and do an origin story to cement the break from SR.

I say dump the whole cast and start fresh.

[Angeloz]

Yeah, but everytime he wasn't flying around, his hair strangely reverted back to the greased back look with the S curl. His hair has like a mind of it's own.

That's Kryptonian hair for you:o

Or Kryptonian hair gel. ;)

I liked that too I'll admit. If you think about it shouldn't Peter Parker's hair also be messy and/or sweaty with him wearing the mask? But often it's not. Probably also Batman. So maybe it's superhero hair all round. ;)

Angeloz

[Angeloz]

If they do that I guess it'll be disaster all round. But it might unite the board in hatred of the new version. Because it'll probably be crap. I shudder at that thought.

Angeloz

[Superoldguy]

Routh was a terrible Clark but he did pretty good as Superman inspite of Singer and team. I vote for reboot.

[sdc10]

reboot! i believe the "donnerverse" is just to limited now to make sequels, especially adding the kid. i think reboot add a bad ass villain like brainiac or someone else weve never seen before and have a superman slugfest

[StylishHokie21]

I'd say go with a reboot.

[Venom'sDad]

Routh was a terrible Clark but he did pretty good as Superman inspite of Singer and team. I vote for reboot.

That's just the way they wrote the character.... what is he going to do.

[wellsy]

Lets not get ahead of ourselves Angeloz. However, the scenario you propose isn't hard to imagine, but there is no need to say its a foregone conclusion.

Wait and see; in cases like these, its usually the best approach.

[That'ssuper!]

I'm changing my mind that there needs to be a reboot. Routh can stand in his own franchise. God knows with a bit more muscle he looks like Reeve anyway. Though that shouldn't be the reason we cast him. There just needs to be a change of direction and modernization of the characters, but not their principals and ideal. I think that's why WB has such a hard time trying to adapt them to the present day.

[That'ssuper!]

I DEFINITELY want an origin story. I don't want to live with Donner's version any longer than I have to. I LOVE the Bryne interpretation of Krypton and the powers developing slowly. I REALLY LIKE the Timm/Dini version of Krypton from the animated series. I ABSOLUTELY HATE AND HAVE ALWAYS HATED Donner's version.


I think Superman is overwhelmingly established as a character in the modern world,especially his origin. Their doesn't need to be an origin retelling other than a flashback or two in the sequel. Although it would be a good idea to adapt a contemporary Krypton because there is such a limited exploration in any of the movies of the Donnerverse.

[Mostpowerful]

i like very much routh. but i woul never mention hes voice when trying to defend him. its not the worst. but in nooooo way teh best.
its a little weak iMO.
but this could have been fixed.

:word: His voice is my favorite from all the Supermen, easily, so I strongly disagree with you.
By the way, your avvy rocks!!:super:

[Angeloz]

Lets not get ahead of ourselves Angeloz. However, the scenario you propose isn't hard to imagine, but there is no need to say its a foregone conclusion.

Wait and see; in cases like these, its usually the best approach.

Believe me I will give most things a chance. But will admit unless it's 20 years from now and it isn't a "Superman Returns" sequel. Then that would be it's first strike against it. If they don't have Brandon Routh it would be it's second. By that logic they have one more strike and they'd be out for me. I still would give it a chance. But unless it's 20 years from now I would be comparing any new actor against Chris and Brandon (actually I will even then). Which means not anyone would be Superman/Kal-El/Clark Kent. That's not even talking about the story. As I said I would give it a chance but it wouldn't bode well for me (unless it's a sequel or enough time has passed). I'll just say "Superman IV" was enough to show me even with a perfect actor for the role I just won't accept anything. So all films have to convince me it's worth seeing. I won't just watch any ol' thing.

Angeloz

[DavidTyler]

I think Superman is overwhelmingly established as a character in the modern world,especially his origin. Their doesn't need to be an origin retelling other than a flashback or two in the sequel. Although it would be a good idea to adapt a contemporary Krypton because there is such a limited exploration in any of the movies of the Donnerverse.

I think my point is being missed.


I want to TOTALLY RIP AWAY the Donner version of Krypton. You can't do that with a few flashbacks. The general public will not understand that it's a different take.

And, if you haven't read Byrne and Wolfman's 'Man Of Steel', then you don't understand that it IS a different take. Krypton has more of an alien science fiction feel and the whole culture is different. Hell, Byrne's take on Krypton would make a good movie on it's own.

[Venom'sDad]

I think Superman is overwhelmingly established as a character in the modern world,especially his origin. Their doesn't need to be an origin retelling other than a flashback or two in the sequel. Although it would be a good idea to adapt a contemporary Krypton because there is such a limited exploration in any of the movies of the Donnerverse.

I could agree to that only if the flashback convey the reason why the villain does what he does and/or after Superman... that makes sense in the context of the story. :up:

Otherwise, I prefer a prequel in order to keep Routh, but start from the origin(with a modern take).

[X-Maniac]

I think my point is being missed.


I want to TOTALLY RIP AWAY the Donner version of Krypton. You can't do that with a few flashbacks. The general public will not understand that it's a different take.

And, if you haven't read Byrne and Wolfman's 'Man Of Steel', then you don't understand that it IS a different take. Krypton has more of an alien science fiction feel and the whole culture is different. Hell, Byrne's take on Krypton would make a good movie on it's own.

I think the answer is to go back to basics, and yet give some connection to the Donnerverse.

Donner's ice-planet (or crystal planet?) Krypton makes no sense astrophysically, let alone biologically/ecologically. A 'red giant' sun would superheat the planet's surface, creating a hot, dry, volcanic planet something like Venus. This will happen to earth in a few billion years as our own sun becomes a red giant. (which validates the elseworld comic story of Krypton being an Earth of the future, even though that's a bit too Planet of the Apes or Terminator-like for a movie scenario)

I think the next movie could show how a lush beautiful Krypton with weird and wonderful flora and fauna became a barren icy wasteland in a devastating war (with Darkseid's race?); and how Kryptonians managed to survive within domed cities on the surface and also inside the planet's surface. The doomed world would eventually meet its final end due to the sun's explosion.

But Darkseid would become aware of the existence of a surviving Kryptonian (Superman) and a hybrid child (Jason), possibly because of the New Krypton landmass thrown into space ending up near the Apokolips homeworld (near enough to be detected in any case, not conveniently near!). Its traces of kryptonite and its origin (assessed from its geology, its orbital path, the FoS crystals tossed by Kitty onto its surface) would lead Darkseid and his cohorts to Earth for a final extermination.

In such an epic conflict, Superman might need allies. This could mean Superman (eventually) getting Lex on his side, possibly. Or freeing someone from the Phantom Zone to assist. Chance for one or two other characters to appear.

That's how I'd do it. Step up the sci-fi and the epic scale, establish a sci-fi feel from the very beginning, it even links in to Jason. :woot:

Otherwise, just annoy Aveitwithjamon by getting Ratner as director! :hehe:

[buggs0268]

But the fact of the matter remains, to costs of efforts on previous projects by different creative people had NO bearing on SR or what Singer did with it, so the official budget is $204.

As for them keeping it on release, they arent the first studio to do it, i believe The Golden Compass is still on release now by New Line.
No. The official budget is not 204. The official budget is 209-213 mill after Ausie tax breaks. And non of that budget had anything to do with the previous efforts. Advertising budget was 100 mill, so SR's official budget is 309-313 with advertising.

[dark_b]

bug buggs noone mentions the money for advertisment.

when talking about TF they say 150 milions. and this is not advertismen.
spiderman 3........ 250
BB .......150 milions

[Showtime]

Whether it's 209 or 209-213 million, it certinaly isn't 270 million or 309-313 million.

As DB has already pointed out, when discussing the budget of any other movie, advertising is not included. Why should it be included in a Superman Returns discussion. Surely every other movie has an advertising as well. If we are going to include this with Returns, we must include this with every other movie. If so, that means Batman Begins didn't make back it's budget domestically either.

[Pickle-El]

Whether it's 209 or 209-213 million, it certinaly isn't 270 million or 309-313 million.

As DB has already pointed out, when discussing the budget of any other movie, advertising is not included. Why should it be included in a Superman Returns discussion. Surely every other movie has an advertising as well. If we are going to include this with Returns, we must include this with every other movie. If so, that means Batman Begins didn't make back it's budget domestically either.

Welcome back to 2006....:o

[Showtime]

Welcome back to 2006....:o

2006 called, they want their debates back.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

If they do that I guess it'll be disaster all round. But it might unite the board in hatred of the new version. Because it'll probably be crap. I shudder at that thought.

Angeloz

Believe me I will give most things a chance. But will admit unless it's 20 years from now and it isn't a "Superman Returns" sequel. Then that would be it's first strike against it. If they don't have Brandon Routh it would be it's second. By that logic they have one more strike and they'd be out for me. I still would give it a chance. But unless it's 20 years from now I would be comparing any new actor against Chris and Brandon (actually I will even then). Which means not anyone would be Superman/Kal-El/Clark Kent. That's not even talking about the story. As I said I would give it a chance but it wouldn't bode well for me (unless it's a sequel or enough time has passed). I'll just say "Superman IV" was enough to show me even with a perfect actor for the role I just won't accept anything. So all films have to convince me it's worth seeing. I won't just watch any ol' thing.

Angeloz

Agreed Angeloz, judging by the direction WB took with the now abandoned JL project, they would probably give us a poor Superman movie with a re-boot which NO ONE would like

No. The official budget is not 204. The official budget is 209-213 mill after Ausie tax breaks. And non of that budget had anything to do with the previous efforts. Advertising budget was 100 mill, so SR's official budget is 309-313 with advertising.

Bugg's, look at the posts below, and see some sense will you, Advertising is never included in a movie's budget, so why should SR be any different, numerous interviews and the report Showtime posted show the budget was $204 million.

bug buggs noone mentions the money for advertisment.

when talking about TF they say 150 milions. and this is not advertismen.
spiderman 3........ 250
BB .......150 milions

Whether it's 209 or 209-213 million, it certinaly isn't 270 million or 309-313 million.

As DB has already pointed out, when discussing the budget of any other movie, advertising is not included. Why should it be included in a Superman Returns discussion. Surely every other movie has an advertising as well. If we are going to include this with Returns, we must include this with every other movie. If so, that means Batman Begins didn't make back it's budget domestically either.

Well pointed out guys, and this is from two posters who neither loved nor hated SR, so they arent being biased.

[buggs0268]

Bugg's, look at the posts below, and see some sense will you, Advertising is never included in a movie's budget, so why should SR be any different, numerous interviews and the report Showtime posted show the budget was $204 million.
Wow. You absolutely know nothing about films. Yes the advertising budget is included in the final budget for the film.

But "Superman" was far more expensive than "Batman," whose sequel, "The Dark Knight," was just announced by Warners. Pricetag for "Superman" included a production budget of at least $223 million, offset by $20 million in Australian tax breaks. The P&A (advertising) budget was well north of $100 million.

There is an added $40 million in previous development costs for earlier aborted attempts to resurrect the superhero. The studio wrote off those costs in previous years.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117948368.html?categoryid=2429&cs=1

Here is the thread I posted the info in:
http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=13660413&postcount=86

However there was a article that had the studios official book keeping guy stating that it cost somewhere in the 249 range and got 30 mill back for shooting in Australia. It was in the old deleted box office thread.

Hollywood Reporter places it at 209 after tax breaks:

"The future of the studio's recent comic book adaptation, 2006's "Superman Returns," is somewhat more dubious. That film cost $209 million (even after various tax rebates) and marketing costs sent expenses upward of $300 million, but director Bryan Singer's Man of Steel picture made only $201 million domestically.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3if727c623f03c782b8ad564866c828796

Also, in the court papers for the Siegel lawsuit, The WB has the budget as higher than 209 after tax breaks. A guy on emi jaynes board named Delphi read the cour papers for the lawsuit and found this:

That page also linked to what they call "a nifty collection of papers pertaining to the finances of the Superman franchise."

http://trexfiles.com/siegel_bergmotcomplete.pdf

It is 213 pages long and I'm only on page 38 right now, but found this info:

On Superman Returns from Oct 2005 to June 30, 2006, had earned $32.6 Million in revenue. Through Aug. 31, 2006, they reported $153.5M in gross receipts. SR generated $14M in merchandising revenues and $7M in merchandising profits for 2nd Qtr 2006.

It is interesting to contrast the boxoffice numbers with Boxoffice Mojo:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=superman06.htm

Boxoffice Mojo puts SR gross at end of Aug at $195M, a difference of $42M from the legal docs. Did WB under-report to the court or was WB over-reporting to the public to save face? Or was that $42M the theater's cut?

pg 71 - asks for proof of WB's claim of 11% distribution fee for Superman Returns.

Lots of requests for documents, but I don't see any other numbers attached to SR or Smallville. But there are dollar figures attached to various other Superman properties, if you are curious.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5063936987078088610&postID=3069289143258270882

[Showtime]

When you are discussing whether a movie made more or less than its budget, whether it be me and you on a forum, or any box office site...none of them are including the advertising budget. So I am confused why it is included when you are talking about Superman Returns? I understand that the studio's bottomline has to include the advertising/marketing, but then again that would be the case for all films, so I really don't understand the inclusion of the advertising/marketing only for Returns.

[Excel]

From the people I have talked too...Warners doesnt mind budget talk. They didnt mind saying it cost 200 million bucks, ect. because that how much superman returns cost. It would be stupid and flatout incorrect to include the 70 million+ spent on previous projects in the budget, which iswhat that 270 million figure comes from.

[mojo-x]

I could agree to that only if the flashback convey the reason why the villain does what he does and/or after Superman... that makes sense in the context of the story. :up:

Otherwise, I prefer a prequel in order to keep Routh, but start from the origin(with a modern take).

So are you saying you want the next movie to be a prequel to a movie that was a vague sequel to a 20 year old movie that already had 3 sequels made?

[Timstuff]

The next Superman should be a franchise reboot w/ origin, period. That's what people wanted, and that's what Superman Returns WAS NOT.

Also, the new Superman needs to fight giant robots like in the Max Flescher cartoons. Heck, they should get the friggin' Sky Captain director to make it! (as long as he's not writing the script)

[buggs0268]

From the people I have talked too...Warners doesnt mind budget talk. They didnt mind saying it cost 200 million bucks, ect. because that how much superman returns cost. It would be stupid and flatout incorrect to include the 70 million+ spent on previous projects in the budget, which iswhat that 270 million figure comes from.
They spent 40 million on the previous attempts, and that was not included in the budget for SR. And no, the WB cares about the budget. They are partners with Legendary who, after SR was released, put a serious clamp on advertising spending for the films they go in on with the WB. Every studio cares about the budget unless a film makes 2X it's production cost domestic, or doesn't do so hot domestic, but does gangbusters WW. And we are talking like 500 mill or more WW. Before that happens, the studio really cares about the budget.

[buggs0268]

When you are discussing whether a movie made more or less than its budget, whether it be me and you on a forum, or any box office site...none of them are including the advertising budget. So I am confused why it is included when you are talking about Superman Returns? I understand that the studio's bottomline has to include the advertising/marketing, but then again that would be the case for all films, so I really don't understand the inclusion of the advertising/marketing only for Returns.
Because weather the studios want to talk about it or not, the film has to make that money back for the studio. It is the money to advertise that film. Where is the money going to come from?

[Showtime]

Because weather the studios want to talk about it or not, the film has to make that money back for the studio. It is the money to advertise that film. Where is the money going to come from?

I understand that, but it is like that for every film then. However, when we or the trades are talking about whether Returns or any other movie made back it's production budget, the advertising/marketing is not included. It's a seperate discussion, it may be the same on a studios bottomline, but not when an article or a poster is refering to the production budget. Again, that would mean Batman Begins didn't turn a profit related to production and marketing.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I didn't have a problem with him but it didn't really interest me either.

As long as he didnt look fat, he looked like he could be Spiderman, thats all that matters to me.

:word: His voice is my favorite from all the Supermen, easily, so I strongly disagree with you.
By the way, your avvy rocks!!:super:

I think his Superman voice was great, in fact, i just thought his performance was great, i look forward to seeing him as Superman again.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Exactly Showtime, the budget for TF and Batman Begins is listed as $150 million, and this is the PRODUCTION budget only, the advertising for BOTH movies, and all movies is the same, so why should SR have it included Buggs?

[buggs0268]

Exactly Showtime, the budget for TF and Batman Begins is listed as $150 million, and this is the PRODUCTION budget only, the advertising for BOTH movies, and all movies is the same, so why should SR have it included Buggs?
Because the WB spent a cr*pload advertising it. More then most films cost to make. That is why. And weather you want to hear it or not, a film does have to make back it's advertising budget. Most films advertising budget is 10 to 15 percent of what it costs to make. SR's was almost half after Ausie tax breaks. Transformers made it's money back with Tie-in's and toys. Superman Returns Toys and tie in's was a major flop so the movie made no money back ther
.

[gimmen64]

Because the WB spent a cr*pload advertising it. More then most films cost to make. That is why. And weather you want to hear it or not, a film does have to make back it's advertising budget. Most films advertising budget is 10 to 15 percent of what it costs to make. SR's was almost half after Ausie tax breaks. Transformers made it's money back with Tie-in's and toys. Superman Returns Toys and tie in's was a major flop so the movie made no money back ther
.

Yeah, they spent a huge load on money trying to advertise the film and failed and as with any product that is produced, all factors including marketing are included in the product. So then SR having a budget of 275 Million sounds correct and the companies that produced the products also lost out. It leaves a bad taste in one's mouth and taking a gamble the way they did makes investors wary. Its all about the almighty dollar and SR failed to produce it.

[Showtime]

The production budget talked about on all websites and all trades has nothing to do with the advertising/marketing. The only ones who should be concerned about the budget is WB anyway, and I am not sure what the budget has to do with the topic of this thread anymore.

We should be talking about whether or not Superman needs to be rebooted.

[gimmen64]

The production budget talked about on all websites and all trades has nothing to do with the advertising/marketing. The only ones who should be concerned about the budget is WB anyway, and I am not sure what the budget has to do with the topic of this thread anymore.

We should be talking about whether or not Superman needs to be rebooted.

I completely agree. I'm just afraid that WB may want to reboot Superman and all they care about is numbers. Superman Returns needs a sequel and let the world remember what makes him so special. There have been so many great pitches and I'm just sad to see that nothing is getting going on this project. Its like the rollercoaster ride from hell. I wouldn't be here if I didn't care about Superman.....

[Showtime]

Well I think that WB has to care about money, it is a business to them first and foremost. We really don't know what is going on behind the scenes on the Superman front. We can only put pieces together like a puzzle and hope they match.

[mojo-x]

If a movie dose not make back enough to cover the budget then a sequel is less likely to be made. Lets face it SR failed because Singer blow it.

[Timstuff]

Exactly. I do not think that the general public is interested in seeing the "Superman is a deadbeat dad who swoops in between Lois and Richard" story continued. People want to see Superman do larger than life heroics and fight larger than life villains using his physical strength and powers. That's what Warner Bros. should give people next time around, and WITHOUT the baggage of Singerman attached to it.

[Super Kal]

that's what happens when you subdue a character that was never meant to be subdued in the first place... you find failure

[VenomsMom]

Exactly. I do not think that the general public is interested in seeing the "Superman is a deadbeat dad who swoops in between Lois and Richard" story continued. People want to see Superman do larger than life heroics and fight larger than life villains using his physical strength and powers. That's what Warner Bros. should give people next time around, and WITHOUT the baggage of Singerman attached to it.
Well stated.

[Sub-Zero]

there should be an option for "reboot with routh." i honestly believe it can be done. luthor included but in a puppet-master role. metallo as the main villain, with hints/foreshadowing to brainiac and bizarro.

[Superman-Prime]

there should be an option for "reboot with routh."

I agree.

[Mostpowerful]

Yeah, but everytime he wasn't flying around, his hair strangely reverted back to the greased back look with the S curl. His hair has like a mind of it's own.

It's the kryptonian genes. :word:

I liked that in SR, it was funny and cool at the same time. Yeah, Superman is soo cool that even his hair shows it. :oldrazz:

His hair style reminds me to the comics from the 80's.

[Angeloz]

I'm not here for over a day and Showtime becomes a mod. Congratulations. Will there be a special pillow fight arranged as celebration? ;)

Angeloz

[Showtime]

Thanks Angel, me and you, the pillow fight is on.

[FCEEVIPER]

Don't doubt the ROUTH! :super:

[Angeloz]

Thanks Angel, me and you, the pillow fight is on.

Hehehe. ;) :D

Angeloz

[Antonello Blueberry]

Wow. You absolutely know nothing about films. Yes the advertising budget is included in the final budget for the film.

On Krypton maybe, but not in this world.
The advertising budget goes in another voice called Print & Advertising (P&A) that it's split between distributors and producer in shares defined by the distribution contract.
In Superman case, WB is also the distributor.

[Angeloz]

On Krypton maybe, but not in this world.
The advertising budget goes in another voice called Print & Advertising (P&A) that it's split between distributors and producer in shares defined by the distribution contract.
In Superman case, WB is also the distributor.

:wow: Krypton wasn't destroyed? Plus they have cinemas? ;)

I agree, every other film doesn't get their adverts counted. So why be different to one film? Hatred? Ridiculous. I don't even hate a film enough to care what it's budget is. I can love one enough to want a sequel though. :)

Angeloz

[DavidTyler]

If it doesn't follow that storylne though, it's really not a sequel is it? If it's igonred compeletely isn't it then just a reboot with the same cast? Or a preqel?

What were you suggesting?



I say dump the whole cast and start fresh.


My bad..

I just re read my reply and I must have been tired or something.

yes.. a sequel would have to follow the same insipid plot line that Stinker created. ... oops I meant Singer.

REBOOT!

[Showtime]

On Krypton maybe, but not in this world.The advertising budget goes in another voice called Print & Advertising (P&A) that it's split between distributors and producer in shares defined by the distribution contract. In Superman case, WB is also the distributor.

That is what my impression was, except I didn't know the details as you did. Thanks for posting that.

[DavidTyler]

The problem here and the reason this is even a discussion is that there are too many who just can't let go of the Donner film.

Had there never been a Donner film, we could probably get the movie most of us are longing for. However, we have people like Singer who's only real exposure to the character has been that movie and a little of the George Reeves series.

If S:TMP had never happened, Singer would have been forced to go back to the true source - the comix - and work from that. Or possibly from a Timm/Dini TAS version of the character.

Which makes me wonder why the WB hasn't figured out that Timm and Dini's success in interpreting DC's characters for the small screen would probably translate well to the big screen.

Mask of the Phantasm is proof enough of that.

Hell, if 'Superman: Doomsday' had been done as a live action, I'm sure it would have done much better than SR.

Again... Reboot... but with the added proviso that they consider Timm and Dini to helm the project ... or at least be executive consultants.

[Showtime]

If S:TMP had never happened, Singer would have been forced to go back to the true source - the comix - and work from that. Or possibly from a Timm/Dini TAS version of the character.

Which makes me wonder why the WB hasn't figured out that Timm and Dini's success in interpreting DC's characters for the small screen would probably translate well to the big screen.

Mask of the Phantasm is proof enough of that.

Hell, if 'Superman: Doomsday' had been done as a live action, I'm sure it would have done much better than SR.

Again... Reboot... but with the added proviso that they consider Timm and Dini to helm the project ... or at least be executive consultants.

For whatever reason WB likes to keep their animated crew sepearated from the live action film division. It's been mentioned in interviews, they like to keep their branches seperated.

[DavidTyler]

For whatever reason WB likes to keep their animated crew sepearated from the live action film division. It's been mentioned in interviews, they like to keep their brances seperated.


I know. It's just one more bit of evidence of the WB's lack of insight.

[The Guard]

Timm and Dini are ok. They understand the characters and their world. But based on what I've seen from them, especially recently, I don't think either one has the maturity/restraint as a filmmaker/artist to make a whole live movie about Batman or Superman work appropriately.

[mego joe]

As for Dini and Timm....

I would have to say that up until Batman Begins, Mask of the Phantasm was the best Batman film. Sub-Zero was good too, especially when viewed with the two Mr. Freeze Animated Series episodes.

Dini's Peace on Earth would be a fantastic starting point for a Superman film. I think they have something there to work with.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

http://www.popcornfor2.com/movies/images/superman/super_26.jpg

Reboot with Dean Cain :D

[batman44]

Gosh, did Cain ever stop folding his arms on that how? lol

[NotFadeAway]

Reboot this thing and finally bring a new, exciting, character driven Superman into the 21st century.

The sad thing is, I was all about doing an "Established/Stand Alone" Superman film before Returns. And by stand alone I mean with no connection to ANY previous Superman media. But anyway, that dream is dead. Now we need to reboot this thing and move past the Donnerverse and past all the other failed projects.

Brandon Routh, the guy wasn't horrible by any means. Wasn't great either. For an actor with basically no resume, who had to work with a crap script, I'll actually give him credit. BUT, like other folks said, you can't have him play two different Superman characters. Time to nab Henry Cavill.

[explode7]

To all these people who want a reboot with Routh. Why didn't they just do a reboot in the first place? They should have called it Superman: Birth Right and based it off of that comic.

[NotFadeAway]

Have I mentioned my new stubble beard?

[EagleVision]

Reboot Reboot Reboot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!

[Angeloz]

The problem here and the reason this is even a discussion is that there are too many who just can't let go of the Donner film.

Had there never been a Donner film, we could probably get the movie most of us are longing for. However, we have people like Singer who's only real exposure to the character has been that movie and a little of the George Reeves series.

If S:TMP had never happened, Singer would have been forced to go back to the true source - the comix - and work from that. Or possibly from a Timm/Dini TAS version of the character.

Which makes me wonder why the WB hasn't figured out that Timm and Dini's success in interpreting DC's characters for the small screen would probably translate well to the big screen.

Mask of the Phantasm is proof enough of that.

Hell, if 'Superman: Doomsday' had been done as a live action, I'm sure it would have done much better than SR.

Again... Reboot... but with the added proviso that they consider Timm and Dini to helm the project ... or at least be executive consultants.

Singer was partly responsible for the documentary about the history of Superman so he is aware of more than just the fifties series and Donner. Not that's there's anything wrong with loving some versions more than others. As for "Superman: Doomsday" the WB have such faith in it they refuse to release it in my country (Australia and probably the rest of the world).

Angeloz

[Jochimus]

The problem here and the reason this is even a discussion is that there are too many who just can't let go of the Donner film.

Had there never been a Donner film, we could probably get the movie most of us are longing for.

...OR we could have not had a superhero movie genre at all...

If S:TMP had never happened, Singer would have been forced to go back to the true source - the comix - and work from that.

Even more debatable, since going through the '80s, it was the higher-ups at Warner Bros. who vetoed all sequel scripts that heavily relied on comics lore. To the Salkinds' credit, if they had had their way, we'd have gotten Brainiac and Mxyzptlk in Superman III instead of Richard Pryor and a lame-ass generic super-computer-gone-haywire. I suppose you could argue that what happened in the '80s wouldn't mean jack in 2006, but then, of course, if there had been NO Superman movie up until 2006, it's doubtful WB's position on the matter would have changed much...

Which makes me wonder why the WB hasn't figured out that Timm and Dini's success in interpreting DC's characters for the small screen would probably translate well to the big screen.

Mask of the Phantasm is proof enough of that.

It's not proof of live-action success. With a cartoon you don't have the same constraints, financial or physical, as you do in live-action.

I look at the first two movies and I can easily see ways to fit pieces of comics continuity into that framework, whether they had been pre- OR post-Crisis aspects; in fact, I think Donner's two films would have easily accommodated anything post-Crisis. I can see STAR Labs or the SCU being formed in the aftermath of the fight with Zod's group, I can see Intergang rising up emboldened by the knowledge that Superman can actually get his clock cleaned with the right resources, I can see Brainiac or Mongul or Darkseid showing up from any of the 28 known galaxies Jor-El referred to, I can see ways Luthor could end up getting his hands on red Kryptonite or being responsible for the creation of a "proper" Bizarro...you name it.

Heck...I look at SR and can see easy means of squeezing in more comics stuff. In fact, I can see at least one way of getting the kid out of the picture - a means lifted from the comics - that doesn't resort to the cheap cop-outs of killing him off or turning him bad or having SR turn out to be a dream.

[Angeloz]

So that Bizarro doesn't include the "Superman IV" Nuclear Man version. First (deleted scenes) or second. 'Cos in theory it was great but not the execution. :(

Angeloz

[Jochimus]

So that Bizarro doesn't include the "Superman IV" Nuclear Man version. First (deleted scenes) or second. 'Cos in theory it was great but not the execution. :(

Well, he should have been like a fusion of Byrne's Bizarro and the clone in "Superman: Doomsday": have him start out as near-perfect replica of Superman, only his hostile impulses start taking over until he SLOWLY degenerates mentally and physically, causing his skin and costume to warp and discolor. Sort of like S:TAS.

I see the opportunity for a decent Bizarro every time I watch the medics pull the bloody chunks of Kryptonite out of Supes in SR. ;)

[Superman4ever]

The way I see it we superman fans got our 'batman forever' with SR and now with singer’s sequel we’re going to get our rendition of 'batman and robin' which will finally put the nail to the superman franchise. Then in the year 2020 someone from this very SHH board will rise and Nolanise Superman

Hopefully before 2020 (and hopefully we don't need the B&R version of Superman).

We NEED a reboot! No Singer (or at least with dumbed down power)!

[Mostpowerful]

...OR we could have not had a superhero movie genre at all...



Even more debatable, since going through the '80s, it was the higher-ups at Warner Bros. who vetoed all sequel scripts that heavily relied on comics lore. To the Salkinds' credit, if they had had their way, we'd have gotten Brainiac and Mxyzptlk in Superman III instead of Richard Pryor and a lame-ass generic super-computer-gone-haywire. I suppose you could argue that what happened in the '80s wouldn't mean jack in 2006, but then, of course, if there had been NO Superman movie up until 2006, it's doubtful WB's position on the matter would have changed much...



It's not proof of live-action success. With a cartoon you don't have the same constraints, financial or physical, as you do in live-action.

I look at the first two movies and I can easily see ways to fit pieces of comics continuity into that framework, whether they had been pre- OR post-Crisis aspects; in fact, I think Donner's two films would have easily accommodated anything post-Crisis. I can see STAR Labs or the SCU being formed in the aftermath of the fight with Zod's group, I can see Intergang rising up emboldened by the knowledge that Superman can actually get his clock cleaned with the right resources, I can see Brainiac or Mongul or Darkseid showing up from any of the 28 known galaxies Jor-El referred to, I can see ways Luthor could end up getting his hands on red Kryptonite or being responsible for the creation of a "proper" Bizarro...you name it.

Heck...I look at SR and can see easy means of squeezing in more comics stuff. In fact, I can see at least one way of getting the kid out of the picture - a means lifted from the comics - that doesn't resort to the cheap cop-outs of killing him off or turning him bad or having SR turn out to be a dream.

:word: Very well said!!!

Some people assume that the post-crisis Superman is automaticaly better.. why? I disagree.

The Byrne reboot took the magic out of Superman. He never needed a total reboot. A lot of fans like the pre-crisis Superman, and the very good sales of All-Star Superman comics support it.

Same with Superman Returns, which is based in the most popular version of the character: the Donner Superman. The mainstream has ZERO idea what this whole post and pre-crisis stuff is all about. They just want to be entertained. SR did respectably and without a supervillain or superfights, just add those elements, make it faster, leaner and meaner and you have a win.

Most people who saw the film liked it, and Brandon Routh was universally accepted, and the reviews and very good dvd sales say it clearly. The film deserves a sequel.

[The Joker_1000]

I want a sequel with Routh, he was great as Superman & he definitely has the potential to become even better in the role.

[DavidTyler]

...OR we could have not had a superhero movie genre at all...



Even more debatable, since going through the '80s, it was the higher-ups at Warner Bros. who vetoed all sequel scripts that heavily relied on comics lore. To the Salkinds' credit, if they had had their way, we'd have gotten Brainiac and Mxyzptlk in Superman III instead of Richard Pryor and a lame-ass generic super-computer-gone-haywire. I suppose you could argue that what happened in the '80s wouldn't mean jack in 2006, but then, of course, if there had been NO Superman movie up until 2006, it's doubtful WB's position on the matter would have changed much...



It's not proof of live-action success. With a cartoon you don't have the same constraints, financial or physical, as you do in live-action.

I look at the first two movies and I can easily see ways to fit pieces of comics continuity into that framework, whether they had been pre- OR post-Crisis aspects; in fact, I think Donner's two films would have easily accommodated anything post-Crisis. I can see STAR Labs or the SCU being formed in the aftermath of the fight with Zod's group, I can see Intergang rising up emboldened by the knowledge that Superman can actually get his clock cleaned with the right resources, I can see Brainiac or Mongul or Darkseid showing up from any of the 28 known galaxies Jor-El referred to, I can see ways Luthor could end up getting his hands on red Kryptonite or being responsible for the creation of a "proper" Bizarro...you name it.

Heck...I look at SR and can see easy means of squeezing in more comics stuff. In fact, I can see at least one way of getting the kid out of the picture - a means lifted from the comics - that doesn't resort to the cheap cop-outs of killing him off or turning him bad or having SR turn out to be a dream.

In all fairness, I think the Donner Director's cut has much more of the feel of the source material than either the first film or any of the sequels - including SR.

Donner probably could have made a great Superman film with Brainiac had the Salkinds gotten out of the way.

[DavidTyler]

http://www.popcornfor2.com/movies/images/superman/super_26.jpg

Reboot with Dean Cain :D

Holy!!! Look at the arms on that guy.

Dean was in great shape for the part.

[The Joker_1000]

It's my belief that Chris Reeve was in the best shape for the role of Superman, then Tom Welling, then Routh, & then Dean Cain.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

It's my belief that Chris Reeve was in the best shape for the role of Superman, then Tom Welling, then Routh, & then Dean Cain.

Best look to Reeve. Best shape to Cain. Best combo of shape/look Routh.

[The Joker_1000]

Could've have said it any better myself. Personally, I think that Routh has the potential to be the best Superman of all time.

[The Guard]

The Byrne reboot took the magic out of Superman.

How so?

[Showtime]

It's my belief that Chris Reeve was in the best shape for the role of Superman, then Tom Welling, then Routh, & then Dean Cain.

Agreed. Superman 3.

[JTStarkiller]

Don't doubt the Routh.

I gotta get that bumper sticker.

[Lightning54SC]

at this point who cares... i just wanna see a fight like in Matrix Revolutions between Neo and Smith.. is that too much to ask for? if so DONT MAKE ANOTHER SUPERMAN MOVIE EVER AGAIN!!!!

[The Joker_1000]

I hate that people hate SR because it wasn't just mindless action. I believe that it could be the start of a great franchise since we got something new (Son of Superman, New Suit, etc.).

[batman44]

I hate that people hate SR because it wasn't just mindless action. I believe that it could be the start of a great franchise since we got something new (Son of Superman, New Suit, etc.).

Who hates SR becasue of the lack of action? That wasn't my problem with it (though, I don't really "hate" SR) and the son of Supermn is part of that problem.

[Sub-Zero]

SR was a decent movie. it was just handled poorly. the kid, lex's stupid plan and camp, lois's hair, superman's lack of dialogue, rehashing a dated kryptonian motif were all bad aspects of the movie. the plane rescue and superman saving the city were really cool.

they could easily make superman into something like god(supes) vs man(lex). introducing lexcorp and making lex the man behind the villains would be better if handled correctly.

[The Joker_1000]

Who hates SR becasue of the lack of action? That wasn't my problem with it (though, I don't really "hate" SR) and the son of Supermn is part of that problem.

I've come across a lot of people on different boards that stated they hated SR mainly because he didn't have an actual supervillain to fight. Also, the son of Superman is the main reason I like the movie so much.

[Mostpowerful]

I hate that people hate SR because it wasn't just mindless action. I believe that it could be the start of a great franchise since we got something new (Son of Superman, New Suit, etc.).

:yay: I like you already. Drop by more often.
And I like Jason too.

[The Joker_1000]

I will, these forums seem to be pretty dead, though. It's probably because of the lack of information we've been getting.....or not getting.

[Mostpowerful]

How so?

-It grounded Superman too much. He became somewhat more ordinary and not fantastic enough.

-The Last Son of Krypton aspect (Kal-El) was severely diminished, and as a consequence the character lost a very compelling layer of his personality. The character's little interest in his alien heritage made him less interesting IMO. He became too comfortable on Earth. Too human. Too happy.

-Making Clark the real identity and Superman the disguise just doesn't do it for me. It is less interesting and compelling. There was no distiction between both personas. The character just loses some drama and becomes boring. Clark was just the farmboy with good morals, too simplistic. And Superman was second place...not great. I believe Clark is raised as a human, but when he discovers his alien heritage, he grows and evolves into something bigger than life: Superman, Earth's greatest protector. After that, he can't stop being Superman, that's who he really is. Hence, why the mildmannered persona is needed to disapear and blend among humans.

-Not powerful enough. I hate that, I don't think Superman power levels should be decreased too much, He is Superman!! I like him very powerful!!It requires very creative writing to make his stories really interesting and it can be done, Morrison has done it, and very well. I also like the Superman of recent times, because his stories have some silver age elements, and I dig that. I loved how Busiek wrote the use of his powers and his characterization of Superman, though the stories weren't all that good.

[batman44]

I've come across a lot of people on different boards that stated they hated SR mainly because he didn't have an actual supervillain to fight. Also, the son of Superman is the main reason I like the movie so much.

Different strokes.

[MrSmith1114]

Sequel with Routh. It's too late to reboot it now. If they were going to do that, they should've done that instead of making Superman Returns.

Though, a sequel would probably mean further continuation of the Son of Superman story. So, I'm really torn on this issue.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I've come across a lot of people on different boards that stated they hated SR mainly because he didn't have an actual supervillain to fight. Also, the son of Superman is the main reason I like the movie so much.

Lack of action is a silly reason to dislike a movie if you ask me, but unfortunately, people need a super-villain with their super-hero movie these days.

I have no problem with a good story, good characters and some character development with action scene's littered about, in fact most of the top CB movies are like this, including SR.

[Mostpowerful]

Don't Doubt The Routh!!!

[El Payaso]

at this point who cares... i just wanna see a fight like in Matrix Revolutions between Neo and Smith.. is that too much to ask for?

Not at all.

Purchase:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/miscgfx2/matrixhddvds.jpg

[The Guard]

It grounded Superman too much. He became somewhat more ordinary and not fantastic enough.

While I can see how he was grounded a little, I'd argue the "not fantastic enough" any day of the week. If anything he became more fantastic, with his feats growing and his range expanding.

-The Last Son of Krypton aspect (Kal-El) was severely diminished, and as a consequence the character lost a very compelling layer of his personality. The character's little interest in his alien heritage made him less interesting IMO. He became too comfortable on Earth. Too human. Too happy.

Which Byrne revamp are we talking about? Is it the one where his heritage is a huge part of who he is by the end, and he reconciles his status as a human and a Kryptonian? For a while, yes, the Kryptonian stuff took a backseat, but it's not like Superman comics always focused on it. Right after the initial arcs ,the Kryptonian heritage became an increasingly more important part of Clark Kent's life. You say he lost a compelling layer of his personality, but I don't agree. I think he gained one: Clark Kent. A real Clark Kent.

And since when was Superman not comfortable on Earth? He grew up there.

-Making Clark the real identity and Superman the disguise just doesn't do it for me.

Neither is that what Byrne did. He recognized that both must co-exist.

It is less interesting and compelling.

How is it less interesting?

There was no distiction between both personas.

There most certainly was.

The character just loses some drama and becomes boring.

What drama did they lose? The Clark/Superman angle was more interesting than ever, if anything, due to the new direction Byrne allowed the character to go in (more women, more adventures, expanded territory, etc)

"Boring"?

Clark was just the farmboy with good morals, too simplistic. And Superman was second place...not great.

I'm confused now. Which Byrne comics were you reading? Seriously. I'm really asking, no sarcasm intended.

I believe Clark is raised as a human, but when he discovers his alien heritage, he grows and evolves into something bigger than life: Superman, Earth's greatest protector. After that, he can't stop being Superman, that's who he really is. Hence, why the mildmannered persona is needed to disapear and blend among humans.

And there was definitely that element to Byrne's revamp and later Superman stories. But Clark realized that, while he had evolved, not everything that had come before was void. Which is the more realistic portrayal of a very human character.

-Not powerful enough. I hate that, I don't think Superman power levels should be decreased too much, He is Superman!! I like him very powerful!!It requires very creative writing to make his stories really interesting and it can be done, Morrison has done it, and very well.

He was still pretty powerful. He just started facing threats the likes of which he'd never faced before. Metallo. The Parasite, Mongul, Darkseid, etc. Threats that were actually on par with him on some level or another. I believe in one of Byrne's arcs he lifted an entire section of ground into space, almost without effort. Where wasn't he powerful enough, exactly?

I also like the Superman of recent times, because his stories have some silver age elements, and I dig that. I loved how Busiek wrote the use of his powers and his characterization of Superman, though the stories weren't all that good.

I haven't read much Busiek Superman. What do you like about his take the most?

[Krypton Girl]

I just found my Superman Returns blog from July 2006. :funny: Oh my, how opinions have changed.

[Super Kal]

care to share what you said back then? :O

[Lazlo Panaflex]

Brandon Routh was fine as Supes, it's the script that made SR suck.

[spideyman101]

Brandon Routh was a terrific Superman...

Superman 3, 4 and SR were all bad... 3 in a row is excuse enough to either quite or reboot.

Superman is coming alive again so it's most likely going to be the reboot option... and if they reboot I doubt they'll use Routh...

[markaudette]

I think the real trick to letting Brandon PROVE he is greatly qualified for the role is to simply give him some more dialog.

Of all the speaking roles in SR, Brandon - the very star of the movie - was the star given the least lines in the movie. That was among the most important things that went wrong in SR.

[The Joker_1000]

I'd bet all the money I'll ever make in my lifetime that Routh could pull off the best Superman we'll ever see if he's given more dialog.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Agreed, i thought his performance in SR was superb, i was totally convinced that he was Calrk/Superman, not just some actor playing the character, give him the chance to show us more WB.

[The Joker_1000]

From what we've seen his Clark Kent is superb, not too geeky & not too much like Superman. While I do think that Routh was great as Superman, we didn't see much of him as Superman so I look forward to seeing him with more lines in MOS.

[mego joe]

I'd bet all the money I'll ever make in my lifetime that Routh could pull off the best Superman we'll ever see if he's given more dialog.

Instead of 'more dialogue' how about a good Superman story WITH increased qualtiy dialogue.

[The Joker_1000]

Actually, the story in Superman Returns was pretty good but for the next few movies we do need super-villains with interesting stories.

[mego joe]

Actually, the story in Superman Returns was pretty good but for the next few movies we do need super-villains with interesting stories.

Basic idea of the world moving on without him was good if not excellent, the actual details and execution of the story were horrible.

[The Joker_1000]

I actually like how the story was executed, it was pretty interesting to me, loved every bit of it.

[mego joe]

I actually like how the story was executed, it was pretty interesting to me, loved every bit of it.

There wasn't really much of a story. Essentially, the only REAL new consequence was Lois moving on. The 'world' was won over with the plane rescue and Luthor was the EXACT same and not any greater challenge than before. There were real possibilities in LEx changing and the world being tougher to convince. The Lois storyline would have been much more compelling if SUperman had not been at fault for not saying goodbye.

SR missed a lot of opportunities to bring something new and really exciting to the table, instead it underwhelmed by being mired in what had already come before and the ineffecive 'sublety' of Singer's Singer's approach.

[The Joker_1000]

Well, that's just what you think but I think that the movie was great & I really want a sequel. Hopefully we'll get to see a major villain brought to the big screen.

[mego joe]

Well, that's just what you think but I think that the movie was great & I really want a sequel. Hopefully we'll get to see a major villain brought to the big screen.

Exactly. We like different things in our films. I saw a shallow and empty characterization with a lame story. A major villain won't help the lame story that has been set up.

[bunk]

My personal hunch:

A reboot is off the table.

If there ever was a choice between a reboot movie and sequel to Returns, I think the choice clearly had to have been made coming out of the writers strike.
I think the decision has been made by WB to go forward with a Returns sequel based on a couple of things. First, Brandon still seems to think it's on. If WB has decided on a reboot and is still stringing Brandon along, I really have lost all respect for them. He would've been told the same as Bana and Jane, one would think.
Another reason being, I don't think WB would go for the idea of potentially 3 different actors playing Superman within a few years. A reboot would require a new actor or whom ever gets the role for JLA. Miller seems to want to do a JL trilogy and the idea of Cotrona or whomever making all of those movies seems impossible.

So to recap, these are my possibilities:

-WB has new writers penning a Returns sequel starring Brandon, maybe directed by Singer.

-WB has new writers penning a Smallville movie for Welling when the series is wrapped.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Exactly. We like different things in our films. I saw a shallow and empty characterization with a lame story. A major villain won't help the lame story that has been set up.Thankyou mego joe!!! Thats what I have been saying for ages, adding a supervillian/superfights won't change the afore mentioned problems, it just isn't that easy, I wish it was but it isn't.

[The Joker_1000]

I'm not saying adding a villain will change the problems from the first movie, just that the sequel would be more interesting. I don't see what the big deal is with SR, I saw it as being a great start for the franchise.

[mego joe]

I'm not saying adding a villain will change the problems from the first movie, just that the sequel would be more interesting. I don't see what the big deal is with SR, I saw it as being a great start for the franchise.

How about the whole Richard, Jason storyline is stupid and the Donnerverse redux was unispired. THose are things that will continue in a sequel and limit it's possibilities. That is the view of a hater.

Even if you disagree, can you see how a hate would view those aspects as limiting?

Conversely, if you like deadbeat Superman and Lame Landscheme Lex, I can see how you would be excited by the prospect of a sequel.

[The Joker_1000]

I like the whole "Son of Superman" angle. If used right it has many possibilities of being a good storyline.

[mego joe]

I like the whole "Son of Superman" angle. If used right it has many possibilities of being a good storyline.

Son of SUperman, but not Bastard son of SUperman. THere's a huge difference here for me. Just look at the difference in Jason White and Chris KEnt in the comics, the potential for each is completely different and yet they are both the 'son of Superman.'

[The Joker_1000]

Yet again, the story is new & something fresh. It gets boring when every interpretation is interpreted the same way.

[mego joe]

Yet again, the story is new & something fresh. It gets boring when every interpretation is interpreted the same way.

But it is also out of character for Superman to be in this situation. If he had a homosexual relationship with Jimmy it would also be 'new and fresh' but it doesn't mean it would be in character or have the potential to be a good SUperman story.

[The Joker_1000]

What I mean is that it's a new story & it's something new to the Superman mythos & it's something I want to see (there are a lot of others who like the story as well). We just need a new director who is capable of pulling it off better than Singer.

[superbaby]

What I mean is that it's a new story & it's something new to the Superman mythos & it's something I want to see (there are a lot of others who like the story as well). We just need a new director who is capable of pulling it off better than Singer.
maybe they should give superman a daughter in the next movie and we see superman learning the parenting skill. that's something new to the mytho too and it's warm and sweet too.

[dark_b]

we talked about this milion times.

but just look how strange this looks.
we want something different but we dont want jason.
he basicly did something different with superman and you didnit like it.
now you want a reboot.....how do you knwo that they will not do a mistake?

[El Payaso]

we talked about this milion times.

but just look how strange this looks.
we want something different but we dont want jason.
he basicly did something different with superman and you didnit like it.
now you want a reboot.....how do you knwo that they will not do a mistake?

The path of the basher is filled with comforts, as you see. That's why you'll see many of them posting more for hating what they hate than for loving what they love.

[The Joker_1000]

I think it'd be stupid to reboot the franchise. Just let this franchise go along & see where it goes. I at least want to see one more movie.

[SuperDaniel]

Reboot without Singer and with Routh.

[The Joker_1000]

We don't need a reboot, just a new director.

[hippie_hunter]

I'd like to see a reboot someday down the line, but right now I think the next Superman movie should be a sequel.

[DavidTyler]

we talked about this milion times.

but just look how strange this looks.
we want something different but we dont want jason.
he basicly did something different with superman and you didnit like it.
now you want a reboot.....how do you knwo that they will not do a mistake?

Why is it so hard to get this point across.....

We didn't want a different TAKE on Superman... we just didn't want a rehash of Superman II... or even S:TMP for that matter.

We wanted a film that FINALLY depicted Superman the way he IS not the way he was in the early 60's. We wanted a complex Superman but not a version of him that acts totally irresponsibly.

The addition of Jason may be different but his inclusion does nothing to achieve getting us a recognizable version of the character. In fact, it takes us in the opposite direction. Now we don't know who the hell this guy is because he makes love to a woman then takes off on her without a word to go chase some vague idea.

We didn't get Superman in this last film. What we got was a placeholder while Richard White became the real hero of the peice.

Something Different? How about a film that's true to source.. Now THAT would be something different.

[mego joe]

Why is it so hard to get this point across.....

We didn't want a different TAKE on Superman... we just didn't want a rehash of Superman II... or even S:TMP for that matter.

We wanted a film that FINALLY depicted Superman the way he IS not the way he was in the early 60's. We wanted a complex Superman but not a version of him that acts totally irresponsibly.

The addition of Jason may be different but his inclusion does nothing to achieve getting us a recognizable version of the character. In fact, it takes us in the opposite direction. Now we don't know who the hell this guy is because he makes love to a woman then takes off on her without a word to go chase some vague idea.


We didn't get Superman in this last film. What we got was a placeholder while Richard White became the real hero of the peice.

Something Different? How about a film that's true to source.. Now THAT would be something different.

Right on all counts.

[superbaby]

Something Different? How about a film that's true to source.. Now THAT would be something different.
i guess WB will never get it. to them something different is... superman wearing robotic suit, doing kung fu fighting, fighting polar bear and giant spider, died and implanted lois lane and rebirthed again, and the miserable singer's version we got.

[The Joker_1000]

I still don't see why people hate SR so much but I will agree that we should get a new director for the next few Superman movies.

[dark_b]

Why is it so hard to get this point across.....

We didn't want a different TAKE on Superman... we just didn't want a rehash of Superman II... or even S:TMP for that matter.

We wanted a film that FINALLY depicted Superman the way he IS not the way he was in the early 60's. We wanted a complex Superman but not a version of him that acts totally irresponsibly.

The addition of Jason may be different but his inclusion does nothing to achieve getting us a recognizable version of the character. In fact, it takes us in the opposite direction. Now we don't know who the hell this guy is because he makes love to a woman then takes off on her without a word to go chase some vague idea.

We didn't get Superman in this last film. What we got was a placeholder while Richard White became the real hero of the peice.

Something Different? How about a film that's true to source.. Now THAT would be something different.you make it more complicated then it is IMO.

my english is not so good. but it come all down to : how do we know that a reboot would eb better? because of BB?
i htink it is 50/50. 50% that a sequel will be bad and 50% that a reboot will be bad.

saying that a reboot would automatic be better the nSR is not right.

and yes singer did a lot of things different with SR then a reboot would ever do.
but make no mistake: i am the guy who hates the homages from S:TM the most on this forum. i hate them with a passion.

[X-Maniac]

I wonder what direction Singer/Harris/Dougherty had in mind for the sequel of SR?

Did they have any idea (at the time of making SR) what they would do with Jason, Lois, Richard and Lex in a sequel? Do we know what ideas they have had since then?

I'm most curious about this. Does anyone have any ideas how the original team planned to take the story forward?

[The Joker_1000]

I don't think anything has been said as of yet on where they plan to go but some people want to see Jason's character be developed over the course of the next few movies, with him becoming another version of Superman. I've read a few people say they want it to happen on other forums.

[batman44]

I don't think anything has been said as of yet on where they plan to go but some people want to see Jason's character be developed over the course of the next few movies, with him becoming another version of Superman. I've read a few people say they want it to happen on other forums.

I would really hate that.

[Nirvana]

Reboot. The thing is with a reboot they would have to scratch Routh, and he just seems like a great choice. He has the look, personality, and he's convincing. I don't know, I just got done watching SR and I have to say of all the comic films that were disappointing (even over X3 and SM3) this one depresses me the most.

[mego joe]

I wonder what direction Singer/Harris/Dougherty had in mind for the sequel of SR?

Did they have any idea (at the time of making SR) what they would do with Jason, Lois, Richard and Lex in a sequel? Do we know what ideas they have had since then?

I'm most curious about this. Does anyone have any ideas how the original team planned to take the story forward?

Even though I don't have any interest in WATCHING their sequel, I would be interested to know what they were thinking in terms of future stories when they introduced the kid.

[mego joe]

Reboot. The thing is with a reboot they would have to scratch Routh, and he just seems like a great choice. He has the look, personality, and he's convincing. I don't know, I just got done watching SR and I have to say of all the comic films that were disappointing (even over X3 and SM3) this one depresses me the most.

I would be willing to sacrifice Routh for a reboot.

[The Joker_1000]

I wouldn't.

[superbaby]

Even though I don't have any interest in WATCHING their sequel, I would be interested to know what they were thinking in terms of future stories when they introduced the kid.
i guess that is the gamble they made. they thought it could make huge interest and people would be so eager to know how the story goes and how the kid and lois's love story develop.

unfortunately. they lost. big time.

[Asgard]

I cant stand the Richard-Lois-Superman-Jason plotline.

Reboot for me.

I like Routh, so he could stay. If they decide to change him then that's fine with me.

[mego joe]

i guess that is the gamble they made. they thought it could make huge interest and people would be so eager to know how the story goes and how the kid and lois's love story develop.

unfortunately. they lost. big time.

Oddly, I think the story that came BEFORE SR, would be far more interesting and entertaining.

I mean some aspect of a sequel is going to have to be 'The dysfunctional Superman Family.' And that just doesn't really seem in keeping with the character.

[Asgard]

Hey Richard I want to call off the engagement!

Why?

Im still in love with Superman.

So, youre going to throw away five years to go back with him?

Yup! Cheers! Let's go Jason, time to meet your real Papa!

Jason's not even mine?!

*SLAM*

[mego joe]

Hey Richard I want to call off the engagement!

Why?

Im still in love with Superman.

So, youre going to throw away five years to go back with him?

Yup! Cheers! Let's go Jason, time to meet your real Papa!

Jason's not even mine?!

*SLAM*

While that's funny, I don't think there will be such an easy transition for them. If so, it's obviously an admission that they screwed up big time in the first movie.

[Asgard]

Yeah, I know.

That's why I didnt like the idea in the first place. Obviously, Lois is going to end up with Superman, so the writers are going to have to figure out a way to have her leave him and get with Supes without her looking too callous. Or they could always have him killed off, either by sacrificing his life or being killed by a baddie. Another scenario would be for Richard to realize that once Big Blue came back into the picture, he lost his place as Lois' #1 and walks away. Either scenario just doesnt sit well with me.

I could be totally wrong though, and the writers intend for Lois to stick it out with Richard.

[mego joe]

Yeah, I know.

That's why I didnt like the idea in the first place. Obviously, Lois is going to end up with Superman, so the writers are going to have to figure out a way to have her leave him and get with Supes without her looking too callous. Or they could always have him killed off, either by sacrificing his life or being killed by a baddie. Another scenario would be for Richard to realize that once Big Blue came back into the picture, he lost his place as Lois' #1 and walks away. Either scenario just doesnt sit well with me.

I could be totally wrong though, and the writers intend for Lois to stick it out with Richard.

One things for sure, I don't really intend to stick it out for this storyline.

[Asgard]

I can't say the same. For now, Im going to designate MOS as rental material.

[StylishHokie21]

So what's new? Are they making it with or without Singer?

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

I'd really like a re-boot.

SR sucked so hard.

Make it with the SMALLVILLE cast. they're all older now, and the 7th series is all wrapped up. Seems like the logical way to go.

ANYTHING apart from the Singer ***** and wooden boy Routh.

[Jochimus]

I'd really like a re-boot.

Make it with the SMALLVILLE cast. they're all older now, and the 7th series is all wrapped up.

Um, it doesn't seem to me that that'd be much a "reboot"...:huh:

[Ol'Canucklehead]

Yes it would, it would be a brand new Superman movie using a MUCH better storyline.

[Showtime]

A Superman Reboot will not be a Smallville Movie, that would be to seperate prospects.

[Ol'Canucklehead]

Probobly, but they could do the series finaly as a movie and I would be happy with the franchise from that point.

[Showtime]

Yeah I could see that.

[Mostpowerful]

I'd really like a re-boot.

SR sucked so hard.

Make it with the SMALLVILLE cast. they're all older now, and the 7th series is all wrapped up. Seems like the logical way to go.

ANYTHING apart from the Singer ***** and wooden boy Routh.

:huh: Smallville on film? NO thanks! Very crappy show. The only good actors there are Rosembaum, Glover, and Mack.

If they do a reboot, they need new cast and a completely new storyline.

But what I want is MAN OF STEEL with Brandon Routh!!!

[Jochimus]

If they do a reboot, they need new cast and a completely new storyline.

Yep, that'd be my definition of the term "reboot".

Directly connecting the movie to a previous continuity is NOT a reboot - it's either a spinoff or a sequel, but it's NOT a reboot.

[Ol'Canucklehead]

:huh: Smallville on film? NO thanks! Very crappy show. The only good actors there are Rosembaum, Glover, and Mack.

If they do a reboot, they need new cast and a completely new storyline.

But what I want is MAN OF STEEL with Brandon Routh!!!


If you think for a second that Welling isn't a good actor than I will refrain from taking your advice on anything. :)

[Ol'Canucklehead]

Yep, that'd be my definition of the term "reboot".

Directly connecting the movie to a previous continuity is NOT a reboot - it's either a spinoff or a sequel, but it's NOT a reboot.


The show itself was and is intended as a reboot. Its just because you have yet to see a "reboot" on film that you say this.

[Jochimus]

The show itself was and is intended as a reboot. Its just because you have yet to see a "reboot" on film that you say this.

By that logic, Star Trek: The Motion Picture would be a reboot...which it isn't. It's the same cast, tied directly into the continuity of the original series.

[Mostpowerful]

If you think for a second that Welling isn't a good actor than I will refrain from taking your advice on anything. :)

I'm totally convinced that Welling is not a good actor. And his choices for movies are bad examples to showcase his "acting chops" if he has any. I think he is a boring actor, and he can't emote emotions well enough. All he does in the show is to stand there, move his eyes the same freakin way all the time. He doesn't look comfortable on the screen. His acting is one-dimensional. Have you asked yourself why Hollywood hasn't offered him a good dramatic role in a serious film?!

But if you like his acting, well good for you.

[Ol'Canucklehead]

By that logic, Star Trek: The Motion Picture would be a reboot...which it isn't. It's the same cast, tied directly into the continuity of the original series.

How is that the same?......Smallville was NOT the begining of Superman. Its not like they would be making a movie to Reboot Smallville. Its not even remotely the same. Smallville itself was a VERY LARGE reboot of Superman from the comics and old movies. It was only because DC was impatient and wanted to make some money that they allowed Brian Singer to make his.....whatever that was. Please let your next statement make sense :)

[Ol'Canucklehead]

I'm totally convinced that Welling is not a good actor. And his choices for movies are bad examples to showcase his "acting chops" if he has any. I think he is a boring actor, and he can't emote emotions well enough. All he does in the show is to stand there, move his eyes the same freakin way all the time. He doesn't look comfortable on the screen. His acting is one-dimensional. Have you asked yourself why Hollywood hasn't offered him a good dramatic role in a serious film?!

But if you like his acting, well good for you.


You are to be ignored and banished from the land! :cmad:

You REALY need to watch more Smallville, especialy episodes in which he plays someone other than himself, like Bizzaro, or Kal-El without Clark's memories, or with the red Kryptonite. The fact that he was type cast in a couple of crappy movies doesn't mean anything. Fact is he was good enough to get his own show, so obviously he is better than most. Brandon Routh hasn't made it past Soap Operas and one crappy movie :)

[Showtime]

I think the Smallville talk has run its course.

[superbaby]

Probobly, but they could do the series finaly as a movie and I would be happy with the franchise from that point.
:dn: :dn:

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

a movie with the smallville cast would make perfect sense really.

[Angeloz]

a movie with the smallville cast would make perfect sense really.

Would they all be mind-wipe kissed by him first so they don't recognise him without the glasses? He really can't become Superman without mass amnesia in that show. By the way I will get the DVD box set this month (they just released season six here). So I can be entertained by the show. It's just some of the concepts that defy credibility. Oh well.

Angeloz

[mego joe]

Would they all be mind-wipe kissed by him first so they don't recognise him without the glasses? He really can't become Superman without mass amnesia in that show. By the way I will get the DVD box set this month (they just released season six here). So I can be entertained by the show. It's just some of the concepts that defy credibility. Oh well.

Angeloz

I read somewhere that Gough and Millar have an idea for explaining why none of these people would recognize Clark as Superman later on. THey said it was something from the comics but an older comic and they weren't sure how the audience would take it.

I think they will go with the notion from an old Superman comic from the late seventies I believe in which it is explained that not only does Clark wear glasses and comb his hair differently, but he subconsiously uses his super-hypnotism to make himself appear older w/ a little gray at the temples, a little paunchy and heavier in the face.

I imagine that they might use this notion and reverse it so that when Clark is Superman he does something similar- super-hypnotism that makes Superman appear different than Clark in ways besides the glasses and hair.

[Bulletproof]

first off I would wager that Welling and Routh possess a similar level of acting skill. However, Smallville the movie would be painful to watch. Don't get me wrong, I like Smallville and I liked SR, but I haven't seen a live action Superman really since 1978. I think it is time to redo the origin of Superman though I would not want to see 20 minutes of Krypton or Clarks aw-shucks moments on the farm. I want to see the years before he decided to become a hero and I think that would resonate with audiences. I want to see a villain besides Lex( I think what S:TAS did with Brainiac was spot on). I don't want to see Superman so easily accepted as a hero (xenophobia angle). I want Lexcorp. I want a better Lois Lane.

[Angeloz]

I read somewhere that Gough and Millar have an idea for explaining why none of these people would recognize Clark as Superman later on. THey said it was something from the comics but an older comic and they weren't sure how the audience would take it.

I think they will go with the notion from an old Superman comic from the late seventies I believe in which it is explained that not only does Clark wear glasses and comb his hair differently, but he subconsiously uses his super-hypnotism to make himself appear older w/ a little gray at the temples, a little paunchy and heavier in the face.

I imagine that they might use this notion and reverse it so that when Clark is Superman he does something similar- super-hypnotism that makes Superman appear different than Clark in ways besides the glasses and hair.

Not a fan of that concept. But I don't expect a miracle. Except for the amnesia or people being in the know and not mentioning it (including Lex). Which begs the question why be known as Superman when everyone pretty much knows? They could do some sort of hologram maybe (and have Brandon be Superman - joking ;)). I don't know. It'll probably be the last episode anyway (if it happens) so they don't have to live with it.

Angeloz

[DavidTyler]

I read somewhere that Gough and Millar have an idea for explaining why none of these people would recognize Clark as Superman later on. THey said it was something from the comics but an older comic and they weren't sure how the audience would take it.

I think they will go with the notion from an old Superman comic from the late seventies I believe in which it is explained that not only does Clark wear glasses and comb his hair differently, but he subconsiously uses his super-hypnotism to make himself appear older w/ a little gray at the temples, a little paunchy and heavier in the face.

I imagine that they might use this notion and reverse it so that when Clark is Superman he does something similar- super-hypnotism that makes Superman appear different than Clark in ways besides the glasses and hair.


Actually I have that comic and he doesn't make himself appear older, just different.

and I didn't really care for the concept then, either.

[DavidTyler]

The only real explanation they can give in Smallville is that this is NOT connected to regular continuity and Clark never dons a costume nor does he ever take on the name 'Superman' and leave it at that.

The continuity was already ruined when Lois joined the cast.

[Showtime]

Or when Perry White came to Smallville to investigate Clark's powers...

[GreenKToo]

yeah, I like S.V., but I think they were to eager to introduce characters that Clark shouldnt have met till years later. (Lois, Perry, Jimmy)

[Superman-Prime]

I'd really like a re-boot.

SR sucked so hard.

And you suck. ;)


Make it with the SMALLVILLE cast. they're all older now, and the 7th series is all wrapped up. Seems like the logical way to go.

ANYTHING apart from the Singer ***** and wooden boy Routh.

So you want the Smallville cast for the reboot of Superman? How will that work? It will mess up and it doesn't make sense at all.

I love Smallville, but I don't want a Smallville movie.

[Bulletproof]

So you want the Smallville cast for the reboot of Superman? How will that work? It will mess up and it doesn't make sense at all.

I love Smallville, but I don't want a Smallville movie.[/QUOTE]

:applaud

I couldn't agree more. I really don't understand why people stay locked into the casting that has already been done before. I like both SV and SR but don't consider either to be the definitive version of Superman. I think we can get better!

[Angeloz]

Like a musical. ;) :D

Angeloz

[mego joe]

Actually I have that comic and he doesn't make himself appear older, just different.

and I didn't really care for the concept then, either.

I couldn't remember the exact reasoning, I haven't looked at it in years.

GOugh and Millar said the audience MIGHT not go for it, so you won't be alone in not going for it.

[mego joe]

The only real explanation they can give in Smallville is that this is NOT connected to regular continuity and Clark never dons a costume nor does he ever take on the name 'Superman' and leave it at that.

The continuity was already ruined when Lois joined the cast.

I honestly think the is the best resolution- perhaps he just works in secret all along and doesn't have a public persona as Superman.

[Angeloz]

I honestly think the is the best resolution- perhaps he just works in secret all along and doesn't have a public persona as Superman.

:wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:

Angeloz

[mego joe]

:wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:

Angeloz

They've put the cart before the horse in almost every other aspect of the SUperma mythos in Smallville. It just doesn't seem believable for him to suddenly don the tights and NO ONE to realize that it's Clark.

[Angeloz]

They've put the cart before the horse in almost every other aspect of the SUperma mythos in Smallville. It just doesn't seem believable for him to suddenly don the tights and NO ONE to realize that it's Clark.

I agree. But what a sucky pay off. Though they've stuffed it up so much it would be a believable way to end it. Unless he uses a hologram or something (i.e. deus ex machina type ending that means no-one recognises him or everyone does and they pretend otherwise) or it's a code name.

Angeloz

[mego joe]

I agree. But what a sucky pay off. Though they've stuffed it up so much it would be a believable way to end it. Unless he uses a hologram or something (i.e. deus ex machina type ending that means no-one recognises him or everyone does and they pretend otherwise) or it's a code name.

Angeloz

Well, that's what happens when you give the main character a child to keep interest and save ratings....

[The Joker_1000]

I was watching Superman Returns on Sunday & it's actually not a pretty bad movie, I still enjoy the movie. It has it's flaws like a lot of movies but I thought the product was pretty good, I still want Singer gone though so we can have a new director for the next few movies.

[Timstuff]

This is what a Superman film should look like IMO (except less blurry, and with more color than 3 shades of brown).

4pChGZtAwY4

[Jesster32388]

Routh. I liked his performance and was IMO one of (if not the only) the good thing's about superman returns. Would really love to see what they do for the next one

[Timstuff]

If Routh was the only good thing about SR, why are you so enthusiastic about seeing what they do for the next one? That's kind of a contradictory statement.

Routh was okay as Superman given what he had to work with, but his Clark was just plain flat and without any charisma at all. Christopher Reeve played Clark as a bumbling klutz, but he still had a sense of charm and personality to him. Routh didn't really have any of that. He was good at floating around in the crucifix pose though, so that's one area where he can claim the edge over Reeve.

[Jesster32388]

If Routh was the only good thing about SR, why are you so enthusiastic about seeing what they do for the next one? That's kind of a contradictory statement.

Routh was okay as Superman given what he had to work with, but his Clark was just plain flat and without any charisma at all. Christopher Reeve played Clark as a bumbling klutz, but he still had a sense of charm and personality to him. Routh didn't really have any of that. He was good at floating around in the crucifix pose though, so that's one area where he can claim the edge over Reeve.

I don't see how it's contradictory no offense. I'm enthusiastic because I know Singer is a great director and Routh did a great job. And though I didn't like everything in Superman Returns I still liked Routh and want to see more of his superman

It would be contradictory if I said "I hated everything about superman returns, but I can't wait to see what Singer and Routh do next"

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I don't know how many were aware of this but I had a previous similar poll quite a bit earlier before making this one...

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=277627&page=6

Interesting at that time the sentiment appeared that more were ready to start over than continue the franchise.

As this time period has continued it seems SR actually has a bit more support on the forums than it did back then. Why is that >>>>?

[Timstuff]

I don't know how many were aware of this but I had a previous similar poll quite a bit earlier before making this one...

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=277627&page=6

Interesting at that time the sentiment appeared that more were ready to start over than continue the franchise.

As this time period has continued it seems SR actually has a bit more support on the forums than it did back then. Why is that >>>>?

I would chock it up to the fact that most of the detractors moved on to different boards. There's only so many ways you can say "SR sucked, and I want a reboot." The more recent poll doesn't mean that SR has gained acceptance. It merely illustrates that most of the people who still bother posting here are the SR apologetics.

[DavidTyler]

Or are hanging on with the hopes that there's going to be a reboot and figure this is the best place to find out about it.

Some of us are even hoping that there's someone connected to the WB lurking around these boards and might take some of what we discuss back to the powers that be involved in the next film.

[nintendo nerd]

Or are hanging on with the hopes that there's going to be a reboot and figure this is the best place to find out about it.

Some of us are even hoping that there's someone connected to the WB lurking around these boards and might take some of what we discuss back to the powers that be involved in the next film.

I'm pretty sure there are people of WB reading some of the threads.

[mego joe]

I'm pretty sure there are people of WB reading some of the threads.

There HAS to be.

[jnhg]

Again.... I really want a reboot. I don't want Donner's Krypton. I don't want the friggin Jason subplot. I don't want Singer's dismal visuals which are more suited to his early work such as Apt Pupil and The X-men. I don't want that lousy costume. and I don't like Singer's aping Donner's take on the characters.

We need a reboot with someone strong enough to give Superman an exciting film filled with action, character interaction, depth, and serious adversaries.

I did like Spacey as Luthor but they didn't give him a lot to work with. The plot had holes you could drive a truck through.

I want to chuck the whole thing and start from scratch. Give us an interesting Science Fiction beginning like the one from Byrne and Wolfman's 'Man Of Steel'. Let us see young Clark travel the world in search of himself like in Birthright. Let's see how Clark arrived at the costume and the identity - I'd like it to be just like in 'Man Of Steel'. I'd like to see him battle Brainiac with Luthor as the Corporate Shark who appears to be Metropolis' defender but, in truth, is trying to manipulate everyone to his own ends.

So, the world DOES need a reboot.

It needs to get this franchise back on the right foot!


I love this!

[Memphis Slim]

Again.... I really want a reboot. I don't want Donner's Krypton. I don't want the friggin Jason subplot. I don't want Singer's dismal visuals which are more suited to his early work such as Apt Pupil and The X-men. I don't want that lousy costume. and I don't like Singer's aping Donner's take on the characters.

We need a reboot with someone strong enough to give Superman an exciting film filled with action, character interaction, depth, and serious adversaries.

I did like Spacey as Luthor but they didn't give him a lot to work with. The plot had holes you could drive a truck through.

I want to chuck the whole thing and start from scratch. Give us an interesting Science Fiction beginning like the one from Byrne and Wolfman's 'Man Of Steel'. Let us see young Clark travel the world in search of himself like in Birthright. Let's see how Clark arrived at the costume and the identity - I'd like it to be just like in 'Man Of Steel'. I'd like to see him battle Brainiac with Luthor as the Corporate Shark who appears to be Metropolis' defender but, in truth, is trying to manipulate everyone to his own ends.

So, the world DOES need a reboot.

It needs to get this franchise back on the right foot!


Batman got it right. Superman needs to follow suit. Clark shouldn't look like a 1970's reject. And after having seen the STAS, JLU Luthor for over 10 years, the Donner Luthor is a clown.

[Prefix]

Gene Hackman played Luthor perfectly straight, just with a lot of charisma and wit. He was not a clown. He was the straight man alongside the comedy duo of Otis and Miss Teschmacher.

[dark_b]

heckmans luthor was good for the 70's and 80's .


spacey would only need to act like he does in serious movies. but the material didnt allow him. again luthor should be dead serious in a superman movie. you get comedy from DP scenes,jimmy,clark,....
thats like having megatron making jokes,dearth vader,magneto,....

again lex luthor is a villain. he needs to be serious.
again from what i remember lex luthor is the only villain from 2000 until now that makes jokes and is funny.

[Prefix]

heckmans luthor was good for the 70's and 80's .


spacey would only need to act like he does in serious movies. but the material didnt allow him. again luthor should be dead serious in a superman movie. you get comedy from DP scenes,jimmy,clark,....
thats like having megatron making jokes,dearth vader,magneto,....

again lex luthor is a villain. he needs to be serious.
again from what i remember lex luthor is the only villain from 2000 until now that makes jokes and is funny.

I've always thought Luthor should be witty.

[dark_b]

i think heath ledger has a nice bald head. he could maybe work as lex luthor in a reboot.
http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/9740/n6145318817347253810jy0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Prefix]

i think heath ledger has a nice bald head. he could maybe work as lex luthor in a reboot.
http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/9740/n6145318817347253810jy0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)If he was still alive, of course :csad:

[Memphis Slim]

Gene Hackman played Luthor perfectly straight, just with a lot of charisma and wit. He was not a clown. He was the straight man alongside the comedy duo of Otis and Miss Teschmacher.


He was clown.....a cartoon.
"The greatest criminal mind of all time!!" Saying goofy stuff like that! I wasn't diggin' that. And why does he need a comedy duo along with him??

the animated Lex was best we've had ever! And I find that strange. Why can't live Lex capture the sinister, shrewd, scientist, mogul????

Heck ....Smallville's Lex is closer to what Lex should be than the movie was.

[Prefix]

He was clown.....a cartoon.
"The greatest criminal mind of all time!!" Saying goofy stuff like that! I wasn't diggin' that. And why does he need a comedy duo along with him??If you compare him to other comic book movie villains around that time he was incredibly serious and dark. Not by todays standards, but to call him a 'clown' is ignorant. Like I said his role was to be the straight man. Complete opposite of a clown. Otis was the clown.

the animated Lex was best we've had ever! And I find that strange. Why can't live Lex capture the sinister, shrewd, scientist, mogul????Because animated Lex was based off the post-crisis interpretation, which funnily enough was inspired by Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Just ask Marv Wolfman.

[dark_b]

He was clown.....a cartoon.
"The greatest criminal mind of all time!!" Saying goofy stuff like that! I wasn't diggin' that. And why does he need a comedy duo along with him??

the animated Lex was best we've had ever! And I find that strange. Why can't live Lex capture the sinister, shrewd, scientist, mogul????

Heck ....Smallville's Lex is closer to what Lex should be than the movie was.a cartoon has a more serious villain then a live action movie.
something is not right here.

[griffolyon12]

With that being said a reboot would fit in nicely and imo an origin story would setup the next generation of fans as well as reinvigorate us older fans of the character.

Imo the world DOES need a reboot.

However it is also my opinion that SR was good enough to garner a sequel if done correctly with better pacing, characterization, and villain for Supes (action).

I would take either one next but the reboot/origin movie needs addressed at some point.

I agree with all of these points. I personally enjoyed SR, but I know many did not, and I agree that it took a few too many liberties and had very little action in it, but I still enjoyed seeing the Man of Steel on the big screen again. With all of that said I do feel that Singer could make a good sequel to SR, but there must be more action, and a lighter tone that isn't so moody (Supes was depressed way too much in SR).

On the subject of a reboot, I don't necessarily know if the timing is right, the timing would have been right if SR hadn't of been made, or it had in fact been that reboot, but it wasn't. The only way I could see a reboot working is maybe in 5-10 more years. I do feel that Superman's origin does need to be retold, I mean Superman: The Movie was 30 years ago, many people born after that time period only know stuff like Smallville as far as Supes origin goes, and that isn't all too truthful to the real origin of the Man of Steel. As many have mentioned Superman does need a Superman Begins of sorts, a nice reboot that redesigns Superman's world, but keeps in tact the same great character we all know and love. I could definitely see it working, and it could be made without just being a remake of STM with better effects. There are a lot of small gray areas in Supes 30 years before he donned the cape, that is where the filmmakers need to start looking, be creative, but don't do something like Smallville that completely alters the origin as we all know it. While focusing on those gray areas you could maybe show some of the stuff we already know, like the destruction of Krypton and the 12 years of tutelage, by combining the old with the new it will create something that stays true to the character, but also makes it feel fresh and exciting to both new and old fans alike. A Superman reboot could definitely be amazing, all it needs is the right work force behind it and Superman could truly return to the big screen bigger, and better than ever.

These were just suggestions of where the franchise could potentially go at this point, and what it could maybe do. I feel that if WB wants another Superman film anytime soon (like lets say in the next 3 years or so) they should focus on a sequel to SR, but if they really want a reboot wait 5-10 years and then start the franchise back up again, and I can guarantee you that it would be well worth the wait if the right talent is hired to bring the Man of Steel back. As a Superman fan I'd be happy with both, but many fans disliked SR so much that they probably wouldn't see a sequel to it if it was made, which is fairly sad. From a money standpoint a reboot would probably pay off better in the long run (since SR wasn't too big of a hit at the box office), but I could be wrong. As I have pretty much said, I don't really care, as long as I get to see one of my favorite superheroes of all-time on the big screen once more.

[griffolyon12]

I am half and half on the subject. I truly enjoyed SR, but many did not, thus putting any sequel on shaky ground. I truly loved Routh's performance in SR and would like to see him get another crack at the character, but I would also like to see a reboot someday that moves away from the Donner universe. As I have said I am half and half on the subject.

[Memphis Slim]

If you compare him to other comic book movie villains around that time he was incredibly serious and dark.

Compared to who?? What villain was out at that time?


Not by todays standards, but to call him a 'clown' is ignorant. Like I said his role was to be the straight man. Complete opposite of a clown. Otis was the clown.


A straight man is never "Fully straight". Andy Griffith, Dean Martin, Bud Abbott all were funny to the "funnier" side kicks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZYBg5qH1XA


Because animated Lex was based off the post-crisis interpretation, which funnily enough was inspired by Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Just ask Marv Wolfman.


Pre-crisis Luthor wasn't a jester either. Ask John Byrne is better....

[Prefix]

Before Hackman's Luthor all we had was the bad guys in the Batman TV show. Hackman's Luthor was dead serious compared to them.

Whether he was fully straight or not, he wasn't a clown.

And if you think that Pre-Crisis Luthor didn't have his campy moments then I don't know.

[VenomsMom]

Before Hackman's Luthor all we had was the bad guys in the Batman TV show. Hackman's Luthor was dead serious compared to them.

Whether he was fully straight or not, he wasn't a clown.

And if you think that Pre-Crisis Luthor didn't have his campy moments then I don't know.
I dont really get into the campiness of Hackmans Luther simply because of the time period he portrayed him in. Its 30 years ago and I dont look back and say that was horrible in how they wrote him surrounding him with utter baffoons. However in this day and age many of us were looking for a more intimidating and powerful Luther who demanded respect in his very presence. The one we have been exposed to in countless media since those days. That was the dissappointment.

[Prefix]

Spacey's Luthor was pretty dark IMO.

[VenomsMom]

Spacey's Luthor was pretty dark IMO.
I would say he was a little darker than Hackmans was and there was no goofball Otis for Abbot and Costello comedy relief. But all those qualities he should have had were just non existent.

[VenomsMom]

He was clown.....a cartoon.
"The greatest criminal mind of all time!!" Saying goofy stuff like that! I wasn't diggin' that. And why does he need a comedy duo along with him??

the animated Lex was best we've had ever! And I find that strange. Why can't live Lex capture the sinister, shrewd, scientist, mogul????

Heck ....Smallville's Lex is closer to what Lex should be than the movie was.
And such a generic 1960s Dr Evil plot that had been expanded to a more epic scale from 1978 STM. De ja vu....

[Lightning54SC]

ive posted in here a few times but for me to accept BR as Superman, they need to alter the suit a bit for his body, he needs to gain a little more weight and CUT THE F***in MOP ON THE TOP OF HIS HEAD, OR I WILL DO IT FOR HIM!!!!

[Memphis Slim]

And such a generic 1960s Dr Evil plot that had been expanded to a more epic scale from 1978 STM. De ja vu....


Dr. Evil was played for comedy as well.........

[Mostpowerful]

I've always thought Luthor should be witty.

Spacey's Luthor was pretty dark IMO.

Yup. Spacey rocks as Luthor!

I liked him a lot, he was much more sinister than Hackman.

[Memphis Slim]

Yup. Spacey rocks as Luthor!

I liked him a lot, he was much more sinister than Hackman.

And yet he still has a Miss Tesbacher clone on his arm.........:whatever:

[El Payaso]

And yet he still has a Miss Tesbacher clone on his arm.........:whatever:

Because no man with a woman at his side can be sinister... :whatever:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/12/HarleyqLG.jpg

Now, must I assume that in the process of cloning there was a horrible mispelling error?

[Eros]

why would someone as arrogant and intelligent as Lex, surround himslelf with people that were as smart or smarter then himself? It makes sense he would put people around him who are to dumb to challenge him, or grasp what he was doing, its an ego thing perhaps.

[VenomsMom]

why would someone as arrogant and intelligent as Lex, surround himslelf with people that were as smart or smarter then himself? It makes sense he would put people around him who are to dumb to challenge him, or grasp what he was doing, its an ego thing perhaps.
Probably because in the grand scheme of things of destroying coastal lands or hijacking nuclear missiles or possessing alien technology to which gives you supposed unlimited power having baffoons who screw up coordinates or sensitive women who dont support your master plans like Testmacher and Ms Kitty can really screw up the world domination thing.

[El Payaso]

Probably because in the grand scheme of things of destroying coastal lands or hijacking nuclear missiles or possessing alien technology to which gives you supposed unlimited power having baffoons who screw up coordinates or sensitive women who dont support your master plans like Testmacher and Ms Kitty can really screw up the world domination thing.

So far the only one who has screwed up things for him is Superman.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Lex would have been better off imo with Mercy than Kitty... Thing is Park Posey could still have been in movie as her instead (Mercy).

Imagine a Lois/Mercy confrontation :D Cat fight :p

[BenReilly]

why would someone as arrogant and intelligent as Lex, surround himslelf with people that were as smart or smarter then himself? It makes sense he would put people around him who are to dumb to challenge him, or grasp what he was doing, its an ego thing perhaps.

Stanford: Why is a guy like you, with a girl like her?

Lex Luthor: Why Stanford?

Why do beautiful women walk around with ugly dogs? Why do people work in hospitals? Why do people work for the mentally handicapped?

WHY?!

To feel better about themselves.

;)

[VenomsMom]

So far the only one who has screwed up things for him is Superman.
True....Ultimately Superman is the foil and will always be but if not for Testmachers sympathy and concern for Hackensack Superman would not have made it and although Superman tosses NK island into the abyss of space at least Lex still would have had his crystals if not anything else but Ms Kitty took care of that. Lex and his demented plans are also foiled by his female sidekicks.

[El Payaso]

True....Ultimately Superman is the foil and will always be but if not for Testmachers sympathy and concern for Hackensack Superman would not have made it

It was sympathy for her mother, not Hackensack. You don't need to be fool or a baffoon to want to protect your mother.

Plus, Luthor knew about Teschmacher's mum and didn't take her with him to the controls room. Basically he let her act freely by not controlling her. He could have even lied to her and tell her it wasn't Hackensack actually so her worries wouldn't have gone on.

His bad.

and although Superman tosses NK island into the abyss of space at least Lex still would have had his crystals if not anything else but Ms Kitty took care of that. Lex and his demented plans are also foiled by his female sidekicks.

Yeah, well. Kitty saw that Lex's plans were far more terrible on the practice. And Lex was the guy who put her in real danger when he promised it was going to be fake (the brakeless car).

In the end, Lex insists to be surrounded by less smart people because he don't want to be betrayed. But at the same time Lex is way too despective to them so the situation would always become against himself. Not easy to be that kind of criminal.

[VenomsMom]

It was sympathy for her mother, not Hackensack. You don't need to be fool or a baffoon to want to protect your mother.

Plus, Luthor knew about Teschmacher's mum and didn't take her with him to the controls room. Basically he let her act freely by not controlling her. He could have even lied to her and tell her it wasn't Hackensack actually so her worries wouldn't have gone on.

His bad.



Yeah, well. Kitty saw that Lex's plans were far more terrible on the practice. And Lex was the guy who put her in real danger when he promised it was going to be fake (the brakeless car).

In the end, Lex insists to be surrounded by less smart people because he don't want to be betrayed. But at the same time Lex is way too despective to them so the situation would always become against himself. Not easy to be that kind of criminal.
And I agree with both statements. It reinterates my point about Lex. He is a cold calculating remorseless killer with no regard for any human life whatsoever. He devises these epic plans that could only result in the death of millions upon millions of people. A man of so much intelligence and lust for that kind of power and greed with a cold black heart should recognize the people he surrounds himself with and the limits they would go along with these plans. He knew both Kitty as well as Testmacher were intolerable to the grand scheme of his plans and yet he keeps them around for his own foil. Which another reason I have so much distain for his character as a main villain.

[El Payaso]

And I agree with both statements. It reinterates my point about Lex. He is a cold calculating remorseless killer with no regard for any human life whatsoever. He devises these epic plans that could only result in the death of millions upon millions of people. A man of so much intelligence and lust for that kind of power and greed with a cold black heart should recognize the people he surrounds himself with and the limits they would go along with these plans. He knew both Kitty as well as Testmacher were intolerable to the grand scheme of his plans and yet he keeps them around for his own foil. Which another reason I have so much distain for his character as a main villain.

Lex knows he's just too smart. And that plays against him in the end. He always forgets a tiny detail that finally ruins everything, because he thinks that his smartness is enough.

He could have had Teschmacher under his eye so she wouldn't try to save her mother (which was a total possibility watching at how she reacted at Lex's information about the missile and New Jersey). Then, he could have grabbed the crystals himself. But he said 'meh, I'm too smart. This girl won't go against my orders because I control them.'

Lex's smartness has traditionally been surpassed by his ego.

[Angeloz]

Well, that's what happens when you give the main character a child to keep interest and save ratings....

I thought we were talking "Smallville"? I grant you I haven't seen everything and they did have children in it.

Routh. I liked his performance and was IMO one of (if not the only) the good thing's about superman returns. Would really love to see what they do for the next one

:) (For most of what you said.)

Angeloz