WB Superman Reboot 3.0: Christopher Nolan Edition

[Kurosawa]

What, so Grant Morrison understands Superman more than him because he doesn't have his perspective?

This is why I hate your attitude. You assume everything you say is correct, no matter how many times you say "In my opinion.". It's as polite as saying "In my opinion, you're a loser because you don't share my opinion."

You can't just say that we're wrong because we don't have your opinion. The sum of your arguments are:

1: "No, YOUR idea is wrong, because it wasn't true to the original story."

2: "Have you ever read a half-century comic book that nobody can find these days? No? Then your opinion is ****."

or

3: "If it isn't Siegel and Schuster, it must suck, because it isn't true to the original authors intentions."

That's how I, and likely a few other people here, see it.



It doesn't matter if you say it's your opinion if you treat it like it's fact.

Actually, yes that is why, because Morrision's perspective is the right perspective. And there are next to no major old Superman stories that are not easily and affordably available in reprint, except for the 4 issue "Who took the Super out of Superman" storyline, which all Superman fans should read and can be found online. And while my opinion is just an opinion, it is fact that the way I advocate for Superman to be handled is the way he was handled from 1938-1986 and those are by far the most successful and iconic years of the characters existence. And I know Siegel and Shuster are nothing to most of you guys but the names of two dead guys, but personally I feel ignoring the work of Superman's creators is just incredibly ignorant and inexcusable. Bond fans don't ignore Fleming. Tarzan fans don't ignore Burroughs. Holmes fans don't pretend that Doyle never existed. Superman fans should give Siegel and Shuster the same respect, but doing that means they have to reject some of Byrne's changes.

[ck1777]

something tells me everything is going to be a different universe. we'll have

superman
Batman
green lantern
Flash
wonder woman

and then another separate universe for justice league that consists of team members that are popular but cant really carry a movie by themselves like

aquaman
atom
martian manhunter
hawkman
hawkgirl
plastic man


to me, i really wouldn't mind this type of setup. then maybe in some justice league sequels (if it ever gets that far) you'll have superman and batman where people will somewhat forget about nolans version. plus if its a sequel the new director/producer may try to be respectful of nolans version but still want to do their own spin on it.

I really doubt that a JL movie would have that lineup. Even though it would be much easier to make, that group wouldnt be able to carry a 200 million dollar movie imo.

[Kurosawa]

^ People don't have to read comics in order to participate of this Forum. Mr. Earle is a cool guy and contribues a lot to this place, just like everyone else. It's not because he only started to read comics recently that he can't give his imput on the subject.

It's nothing personal at all. But I don't like to discuss something unless I have a good handle and solid knowledge of the subject.

[Mr. Earle]

Bond fans don't ignore Fleming. Tarzan fans don't ignore Burroughs. And yet most of the movies have nothing in common with how Flemming wrote Bond.
Holmes fans don't pretend that Doyle never existed.No, but i enjoyed Ritchie's movie.
Superman fans should give Siegel and Shuster the same respect, but doing that means they have to reject some of Byrne's changes. Cant i like both like how i like both Doyle's and Ritchie's Holmes?

See, we dont pretend Siegel and Shuster never existed. We just like the more refined current version of their character.
And I know Siegel and Shuster are nothing to most of you guys but the names of two dead guys, but personally I feel ignoring the work of Superman's creators is just incredibly ignorant and inexcusable.OK, ok, i'll stop by tomorrow and put some flowers on your grandpa's grave. Happy? Will you please drop the lawsuit now? :awesome:

[SpiderByte]

I still think Smallville is a fantastic example of how Superman can fit into a modern day society. He knows about Krypton, but he doesn't shout crap like "Great Rao!" or do random crap like announcing something whenever he uses his powers, such as: (not verbatim, but sort of like these)

"My X-Ray vision will find the bomb!"
"My heat vision will stop you!"

or make up random powers, and these are actually what he called them:

Super-Weaving: http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=36&Itemid=53&limitstart=4
Super-Hypnotism: http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=36&Itemid=53&limitstart=6
Super-Ventriloquism (what the **** ?): http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=36&Itemid=53&limitstart=8

Super-Mathematics : http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=36&Itemid=53&limitstart=1
Super-Landscaping : http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=36&Itemid=53&limitstart=10


The list goes on.

[SpiderByte]

What are you Earles lawyer?

I'm not his lawyer, I'm his friend. :word:

[SpiderByte]

It's not that we don't like Siegel and Schuster. It's just that a lot of people haven't read the original comics, because they were written FIFTY YEARS AGO. You can't just find them at a cornerstore.

We appreciate Siegel and Schuster, but we don't appreciate how you assume we hate them because we like the newer version over theirs. Is that so wrong? We can't like the updated version more than an older one?

Whats wrong with liking both? What, if someone prefers someone else over the original creators, that means that they aren't true fans, or that they hate them? No.

[Mr. Earle]

I still think Smallville is a fantastic example of how Superman can fit into a modern day society. He knows about Krypton, but he doesn't shout crap like "Great Rao!" or do random crap like announcing something whenever he uses his powers, such as: (not verbatim, but sort of like these)

"My X-Ray vision will find the bomb!"
"My heat vision will stop you!"

or make up random powers, and these are actually what he called them:

Super-Weaving: http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=36&Itemid=53&limitstart=4
Super-Hypnotism: http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=36&Itemid=53&limitstart=6
Super-Ventriloquism (what the **** ?): http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=36&Itemid=53&limitstart=8

Super-Mathematics : http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=36&Itemid=53&limitstart=1
Super-Landscaping : http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=36&Itemid=53&limitstart=10


The list goes on.Agreed.
Clark should feel bad about Krypton but he wasnt raised by Kryptonians. He is human at heart.

I'm not his lawyer, I'm his friend. :word:Thanks! :woot:

[epc11223]

I really doubt that a JL movie would have that lineup. Even though it would be much easier to make, that group wouldnt be able to carry a 200 million dollar movie imo.


normally i would concur with you, but with nolans name attatched and the fact that people will hear "justice league", that would kind of bring the people in. to make it last, they would have to rely on a kick ass story and decent special effects. i dont think people expected a hit with xmen be that there were only five people on the original team. in the sequel maybe they would increase the members like x2. people will have some familiarity with green arrow and hawkman, you have hawkgirl to have that dynamic and then plastic man for comic relief. martian manhunter to please some of the hardcore fans. then i see the sequel having green lantern/flash and then maybe the ending of that trilogy will have superman/batman/wonder woman. i'm not saying this will happen, but i have a feeling it may be something like that.

[ck1777]

normally i would concur with you, but with nolans name attatched and the fact that people will hear "justice league", that would kind of bring the people in. to make it last, they would have to rely on a kick ass story and decent special effects. i dont think people expected a hit with xmen be that there were only five people on the original team. in the sequel maybe they would increase the members like x2. people will have some familiarity with green arrow and hawkman, you have hawkgirl to have that dynamic and then plastic man for comic relief. martian manhunter to please some of the hardcore fans. then i see the sequel having green lantern/flash and then maybe the ending of that trilogy will have superman/batman/wonder woman. i'm not saying this will happen, but i have a feeling it may be something like that.

Yeah but the X-men movies had Wolverine. I know some people complain that the X movies are basically Wolverine movies, but they probably never would have been made if it wasn't for him. He's an extremely popular character and if a JL movie with that lineup would be made, I think they would definitely need at least Wonder Woman or maybe GL John Stewart.

[ck1777]

Since one of the biggest arguments of the whole Pre/Post Crisis debate is Pa Kents death, I thought some people would want to read this interview with Grant Morrison.

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100827-Morrison-Superman-05.html

That is one of 10 pages of the interview and I'm pretty sure that's the one he talks about the Kents, but I'd read the whole interview because it was fantastic.

I agree with Grant and even though I liked the Kents alive in MOS, I always felt that one of them has to die at least early in his career. Same goes with Lex. I liked Post Crisis Lex but he was untouchable for way too long.

[Mr. Earle]

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100827-Morrison-Superman-05.html

NRAMA: There’s a sense in the Daily Planet scenes and with Lois’s spotlight issues that everyone knows Clark is Superman, but they play along to humor him. The Clark disguise comes off as very obvious in this story. Do you feel that the Planet staff knows the truth, or are just in a very deep case of denial, like Lex?

GM: If I had to say for sure, I think Jimmy Olsen worked it out a long time ago, and simply presumes that if Superman has a good reason for what he’s doing, that’s good enough for Jimmy.
Lois has guessed, but refuses to acknowledge it because it exposes her darkest flaw – she could never love Clark Kent the way she loves Superman. I raged.

[Kurosawa]

And yet most of the movies have nothing in common with how Flemming wrote Bond.
No, but i enjoyed Ritchie's movie.
Cant i like both like how i like both Doyle's and Ritchie's Holmes?

See, we dont pretend Siegel and Shuster never existed. We just like the more refined current version of their character.
OK, ok, i'll stop by tomorrow and put some flowers on your grandpa's grave. Happy? Will you please drop the lawsuit now? :awesome:

Guy Richie's movie was actually pretty close to Doyle's writing in a lot of places, especially Jude Law's Watson. That's why it's good to know the source material.

It's not that we don't like Siegel and Schuster. It's just that a lot of people haven't read the original comics, because they were written FIFTY YEARS AGO. You can't just find them at a cornerstore.

We appreciate Siegel and Schuster, but we don't appreciate how you assume we hate them because we like the newer version over theirs. Is that so wrong? We can't like the updated version more than an older one?

Whats wrong with liking both? What, if someone prefers someone else over the original creators, that means that they aren't true fans, or that they hate them? No.

Actually, you can find those comics easily online in reprint:

http://www.amazon.com/Superman-Chronicles-Vol-Jerry-Siegel/dp/1401207642

Or any decent local comic shop should have it.

And there's nothing wrong with liking both, but if something blatantly contradicts how the creators intended the character to be, that should certainly send up a red flag that they are doing it wrong.

[Mr. Earle]

Who cares what your grandpa intended? Kane originally intended Batman to be a dude in a red and white suit.

[SpiderByte]

^
THAT I've gotta see.

[Kurosawa]

Who cares what your grandpa intended? Kane originally intended Batman to be a dude in a red and white suit.

Your ignorance is amazing. Kane's vision of Batman never saw print because Finger fixed it. And today's Batman is very much along the lines of what Kane, Finger and Robinson did, once Bruce is Batman again, that is. And even Dick still is a reasonable evolution of how he was originally written. Not to mention you're comparing a preliminary design to almost 50 YEARS of comics. That's just absurd.

[Webhead2006]

Contrary to what you're stating here ... Byrne DID NOT make Krypton a non-factor. Some fo the best World of Krypton stories I've read were Byrne. I loved how he showed Krypton's past and how vibrant it was. Juxtaposed against what Krypton became we get a real sense of it's history. How it went from the bare-chested emotionally rich society to the emotionally repressed dystopia at the end gives me that same sense I had watching the STNG episode 'The Inner Light'. And the point of Byrne's Krypton was that Clark was freed from it's cold, dispassionate ways to grow as a man. In essence, to discover the Krypton it was before it allowed itself to become constrictive and aloof. I always thought it was silly for him to use expressions like 'Great Rao' when it wouldn't have been things he would have casually said growing up. Imagine him sitting in class and coming out with that. He'd be more likely to use the same expression we would.



Superman is NOT Batman. His life doesn't need to be driven by tradgedy..... and, again, it was the powers that be that were the deciding factor in whether the Kents survived or not. The most popular element from the Superboy books were the Kents. The decision was made to keep them around in his adult life because there was no longer a 'Superboy' in continuity. BTW, before we debate whether that character was necessary, I always felt that they were 'cute' reads but ultimately robbed the adult character of experiencing things for the first time.

And, personally, I like that the Kents are around in his adult life. They're great characters and have a lot of uses: They give Clark a place to drop his guard and just be himself... doubts and all; They make a handy tool for exposition - say, for instance, allowing a reader to catch up with the plot - or - letting us inside Clark's head.



Again - I disagree. I feel what makes him a great hero was his decision to become that powerful protector and to stand for something. He could have grown up in any kind of way and still arrived at that. It's fortunate from a character development POV that he had the Kent's who instilled in him - not only their values - but a sense of what it's like to be regular people.



If you were to stop reading the books with the end of the Man Of Steel reintroduction I'd agree with you.... but.... I ask you to reread the Exile In Space arc. It was his wake-up call and I would say he experienced some emotional pain (albeit that it was something he inflicted on himself). It was something so devastating that he feld he couldn't go on being Superman and literally exiled himself.



The original Siegel/Shuster run didn't dwell on Krypton either. Superman seemed to function fairly well then.



K, love you like a brother, but you have to see that you're POV is really just that and that there are many of us who feel otherwise.... and, like you, I didn't grow up with the movies but - the comix.
I agree with most of your thoughts here man. Having the kents in his adult life would be a great way for clark to just be a regular person and enjoy time with his family, have the kents meet up with dp staffers/lois and be way to get into more smallville life stuff if they wanted to and all that. The kent wouldnt have to be around all the time like lois and clark did. But for them to be alive is a good emotional storytelling tool to use as you said.

[Kurosawa]

What are you Earles lawyer? Why don't you take 12 seconds and click find more posts by Mr Earle and see how many times he talks down to people and says things like:

You obviously don't read comics
You really need to read more comics
You clearly don't know anything about the comics

For a guy who just started reading comics, he sure has a holier that thou attitude when it comes to them.

Exactly. If I didn't have pretty good knowledge of what I'm talking about...I wouldn't talk about it. I wouldn't come in a thread about Dr. Who, for example, and start slamming the First Doctor's episodes as stupid or something when I've never seen them, or ridicule statements made by someone who knew that material much better than I. Instead I would read, research, and learn.

[Young Superman]

I like the current version of Superman except for all the Kryptonians. I prefer Superman to be the sole survivor of Krypton, sure. It just makes him a bit more unique in my estimation to not only be something of a alien that introduces himself to the human race by doing good (fighting for truth, justice, and the american way), but also the very last of his kind. To have other survivor's such as Zod, and Kara works. But it's certainly a concept that I could live without.

[protocida]

I raged.
Yeah, that's the one thing I don't agree with Morrison.

[SpiderByte]

But if something blatantly contradicts how the creators intended the character to be, that should certainly send up a red flag that they are doing it wrong.

That's subjective and you know it. Whether or not it fits to the creators intentions is completely up to a person's perspective.

And also, by that logic, then almost every hero in the DC and Marvel universe is wrong, because the creators of Alan Scott didn't want there to be an entire Corps of Lanterns, did they? Change isn't a bad thing.

Siegel and Schuster never intended for there to be a Justice League. Therefore, it must be a horrible idea.

[solidsnake86]

I like the current version of Superman except for all the Kryptonians. I prefer Superman to be the sole survivor of Krypton, sure. It just makes him a bit more unique in my estimation to not only be something of a alien that introduces himself to the human race by doing good (fighting for truth, justice, and the american way), but also the very last of his kind. To have other survivor's such as Zod, and Kara works. But it's certainly a concept that I could live without.

The thing with the current amount of kryptonians is that it wont remain that way and its just a storyline so I'm really enjoying that. It gets boring when things remain static in comics just for the sake of keeping him the sole survivor. I'm just biased cause I think zod is a great villain now, lol.

And just as a side note, Mr. Earle you're getting the responses you do bcause you're baiting people with you're comments. Telling Kurosawa that he's related to the seigels or making fun of them is getting a bit out of hand. I may not agree with what Kurosawa's views sometimes but you come off as very rude, we're discussing superman and comicbooks at the end of the day.

[SuperDaniel]

Bah. Lois & Clark relationship worked very WELL in Lois & Clark and in the Alan Moore story Whatever happened to the man of tomorrow. It is just plain BS when somebody says she can`t love Clark. Obviously that wouldn`t happen If you make Clark a total act and a bumbling fool like the Reeve movie version which i hate.

[SpiderByte]

Smallville is easily the most likely type of route Nolan will take. Real-world environment? Check. Characters you can really feel for? Check. All that's missing is the suit, a good villain, a teeeeeeny bit of stretching, and you've got yourself the greatest Superman film ever made.

[Daybreak_st]

Smallville is easily the most likely type of route Nolan will take. Real-world environment? Check. Characters you can really feel for? Check. All that's missing is the suit, a good villain, a teeeeeeny bit of stretching, and you've got yourself the greatest Superman film ever made.

I pretty much agree, i posted this a while back:

Actually Smallville's done a lot of things right. It has 3 primary problems, none of which would affect a big screen movie:

1) Editorial Mandate - No flights no tights, can't show superman or the iconic costume.

2)Budget - you can only do so much on a TV show budget, they do great with most of the visual effects, even crafting a new look for heat vision and x-ray vision, and giving us a taste for what it feels like to move as clark does. But most of the lame fights on this show, things like doomsday etc, i think may easily boil down to budget.

3) Long Drawn Out storylines - this has result in anticlimatic plots, filler episodes, and poor character development.

None of those 3 would effect a movie.

Now what has Smallville gotten right?

1) The Tone - it feels like a real world metropolis w/o being too realistic if that makes sense, you can see superpowered people inhabiting the world w/o if feeling silly. It also isn't quite as over the top as say spiderman 3 was. I think it could fit into the IronMan type world if it had better effects.

2) Drawing from entire 70 year character history rather than on specific era. A lot has actually been taken from the silver age (various forms of kryptonite, metropolis and smallville being near, the names of Zod's disciples and his wife faora, the version of metallo, etc.)

3) Nice Live action versions of Superman villains. such as brainiac, metallo, (best examples). Also making the Luthor's scholars was great. I could see a movie luthor being a mix bw Michael Rosenbaum and Lionel Luthor.

4) Using the Kents as a sounding board for clark (primarily in earlier episodes of the series)

5) Making a clark a 3 dimensional character, who the audience can relate to.

6) The Lois and Clark dynamic, which may not be as good as Terri and Dean, but at least is setup in a way that allows them witty banter, good interaction, and a little romance (http://forums.superherohype.com/#).


These are just the things i could think of off the top of my head. This same appoach at least in part would work well for a film.

[Daybreak_st]

If you look at the 6 things it does right, and give the budget due a movie of this scale i do think you'd have a pretty good template.

Also i don't think anyone could say "well smallville is the byrne version" or "it's precrisis" or whatever. They've taken a lot of elements from precrisis and post crisis, the point is that they've melded them together to make an internal logic to the character. I don't like all the things it's borrowed from the films and think a new movie shoudl be a greater departure, but still the point remains it's the best live action example of the character that draws from his entire history to create a modern takee on the character.

[Daybreak_st]

double post

[Kurosawa]

That's subjective and you know it. Whether or not it fits to the creators intentions is completely up to a person's perspective.

And also, by that logic, then almost every hero in the DC and Marvel universe is wrong, because the creators of Alan Scott didn't want there to be an entire Corps of Lanterns, did they? Change isn't a bad thing.

Siegel and Schuster never intended for there to be a Justice League. Therefore, it must be a horrible idea.

That's ridiculous. The changes I object to are changes in the past and not even that as much as base changes in Superman's identity and background. Alan Scott's creators (Bill Finger and Martin Nodell) work is not compromised by something that was done with an entirely different character. Now if they had used Alan and retconned that he was not an engineer, or that he had no will at all and was a coward-which is what making Clark Kent a jock more or less was-then THAT would be BS. What they did to Clark would be like retconning Peter Parker as a world class jock with both his parents still alive and to have him regard science as something for nerds while he ran around with 5 girls. Do you understand now what I am getting at? Siegel never intended for Clark to be the reality or for him to be some kind of lame mama's boy. Honestly, if you guys knew anything about Superman previous to 1986, maybe you'd understand what I'm talking about instead of just rote recitation of old Post-Crisis DC talking points.

[Mr. Earle]

Yeah, that's the one thing I don't agree with Morrison.
I was disappointed because if Chase Ihavethebrainofa10yearold Meridian can grow up and love a real man, Lois should be able to do that too. I understand that she'd love Superman at first, but he's only a dream, not a real person. Its like falling in love with a movie star.
Your ignorance is amazing. Kane's vision of Batman never saw print because Finger fixed it. And today's Batman is very much along the lines of what Kane, Finger and Robinson did, once Bruce is Batman again, that is. And even Dick still is a reasonable evolution of how he was originally written. Not to mention you're comparing a preliminary design to almost 50 YEARS of comics. That's just absurd.
I know all about Finger. But ok, you make a fair point, since Kane's batman never saw the light of day.

By the way, i hope i didnt offend you with my Siegel jokes and me implying that you re related to them.
Bah. Lois & Clark relationship worked very WELL in Lois & Clark and in the Alan Moore story Whatever happened to the man of tomorrow. It is just plain BS when somebody says she can`t love Clark. Obviously that wouldn`t happen If you make Clark a total act and a bumbling fool like the Reeve movie version which i hate.Agreed.

[Mr. Earle]

And just as a side note, Mr. Earle you're getting the responses you do bcause you're baiting people with you're comments. Telling Kurosawa that he's related to the seigels or making fun of them is getting a bit out of hand. I may not agree with what Kurosawa's views sometimes but you come off as very rude, we're discussing superman and comicbooks at the end of the day.Yeah i know, sometimes i can be a jackass. Sorry guys.

But really now, Kurosawa's arguements are never about what is best for the character, but rather what honours and what doesnt honour Siegel's original vision. And if you like something that goes against that, you are pissing on his grave. Its infuriating!

[Kurosawa]

Yeah i know, sometimes i can be a jackass. Sorry guys.

But really now, Kurosawa's arguements are never about what is best for the character, but rather what honours and what doesnt honour Siegel's original vision. And if you like something that goes against that, you are pissing on his grave. Its infuriating!

Actually it's not so much that it dishonors them as it is that changes that go too far from what they AND a ton of other writers and artists did for almost 50 years strays too far from the characters core. My Spider-Man comparison is what I am getting at, for that is how much I feel Byrne changed Superman's core...and now Johns has changed it back and I really feel that is the right direction. Although to be honest, I would have been happy if they had left the Earth-0 Superman Byrne's version if they had given the Morrision version it's own book.

[solidsnake86]

There are somethings that smallville gets right and a lot that it gets wrong, but what it does get wrong IMO comes from the fact that it's been on so long and has to drag things out. Instead of dissing the show I'll look at the positive things that I feel it's done well. First being Lois, and the Lois and Clark dynamic. That is how I want to see it on film, Erica durance plays Lois the way she should be played and Clark is not played as a bumbling fool. I think that edge that Clark has which was seen in STAS and lois and Clark is my favourite version of him. Another thing I liked from smallville was metallo's backstory, I think with some work and if u take away the zod transforming him part it's really good. Just think, superman saves a bus of prisoners one of which later kills his sister, that's great drama.

[ck1777]

I kind of see why Kurosawa gets so angry with the whole post crisis debate but I don't think he should take it that seriously. I grew up reading post crisis in the late 80's early 90's and I've always seen people put down everything that came before 1986. Hell, sometimes you would think that Miller and Byrne were the ones that created Superman and Batman by the way some people talk! I think most people are happy with the current direction of the comics and (while I still think it's pretty good) Byrnes' Mos is in the past.

As far as Smallville is concerned, I would hope that Nolan and Goyer look at the first 3 seasons of Smallville for inspiration and none of the seasons after that. IMO seasons 4-9 are up there with Superman 3,4 and the frog eating clone saga from L&C as some of the worst live action Superman I've ever seen. But, there have been a number of good episodes in between seasons 4-9 that Nolan and Goyer should watch but they're too few.

[Kurosawa]

Yeah the main issue with Smallville is they have had to drag it out past the point of credibility. He should have been Superman for years now. I just kinda pretend he is already. But I'm not a Welling hater and Durance is awesome both in looks and performance.

[SpiderByte]

There are quite a few episodes from season nine that I'd love for inspiration, especially the ones involving Davis.

[ck1777]

There are quite a few episodes from season nine that I'd love for inspiration, especially the ones involving Davis.

Davis? Wasn't that Doomsday from season 8?

[Daybreak_st]

Yeah my main point is the approach they've taken with smallville, not so much which episodes were good or what episodes were bad. I actually stopped watching during season 8 then picked back up with season 9, and i've really enjoyed season 9 so far. But as i said in the original post those 6 points, are what they should take from smallville if anything, not so much exact storylines or whatever but how the creative approached a live action version of superman and his world:


1) The Tone - it feels like a real world metropolis w/o being too realistic if that makes sense, you can see superpowered people inhabiting the world w/o if feeling silly. It also isn't quite as over the top as say spiderman 3 was. I think it could fit into the IronMan type world if it had better effects.

2) Drawing from entire 70 year character history rather than on specific era. A lot has actually been taken from the silver age (various forms of kryptonite, metropolis and smallville being near, the names of Zod's disciples and his wife faora, the version of metallo, etc.)

3) Nice Live action versions of Superman villains. such as brainiac, metallo, (best examples). Also making the Luthor's scholars was great. I could see a movie luthor being a mix bw Michael Rosenbaum and Lionel Luthor.

4) Using the Kents as a sounding board for clark (primarily in earlier episodes of the series)

5) Making a clark a 3 dimensional character, who the audience can relate to.

6) The Lois and Clark dynamic, which may not be as good as Terri and Dean, but at least is setup in a way that allows them witty banter, good interaction, and a little romance (http://forums.superherohype.com/#).

[BH/HHH]

There are quite a few episodes from season nine that I'd love for inspiration, especially the ones involving Davis.

You mean season 8? :D

I just wonder if they ever did Doomsday in the Superman movies would teh Davis Bloom type storyline be the best fit seen as though he has no backstory. I dont mean necessarily give him an alter ego but the fact he was created to destroy Superman on Krypton by Zod.

[ck1777]

Yeah my main point is the approach they've taken with smallville, not so much which episodes were good or what episodes were bad. I actually stopped watching during season 8 then picked back up with season 9, and i've really enjoyed season 9 so far. But as i said in the original post those 6 points, are what they should take from smallville if anything, not so much exact storylines or whatever but how the creative approached a live action version of superman and his world:

Yeah but luckily they could get 5 out of those 6 points from the first 3 seasons. Especially the Luthors and the Kents. They were written excellent in the beginning, and little by little they all became ridiculous. The only one who wasn't written horribly was Johnathan and that's because he died before they could screw up the character. But Lex and Lionel were huge disappointments especially for me since they were two of my favorite characters.

As for the Lois and Clark dynamic they should watch Lois and Clark for that since IMO dean and Teri were much better than Tom and Erica.

[TruerToTheCore]

I still think Smallville is a fantastic example of how Superman can fit into a modern day society. He knows about Krypton, but he doesn't shout crap like "Great Rao!" or do random crap like announcing something whenever he uses his powers, such as: (not verbatim, but sort of like these)

"My X-Ray vision will find the bomb!"
"My heat vision will stop you!"

You do know that he announced his powers mainly for the readers? No, you don't. Whatever that has supposed to do with modern society. :doh:


or make up random powers, and these are actually what he called them:

Super-Weaving: http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=36&Itemid=53&limitstart=4
Super-Hypnotism: http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=36&Itemid=53&limitstart=6
Super-Ventriloquism (what the **** ?): http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=36&Itemid=53&limitstart=8

Super-Mathematics : http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=36&Itemid=53&limitstart=1
Super-Landscaping : http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=36&Itemid=53&limitstart=10


The list goes on.

So... again. Point missed. We are not arguing about powers. We do not. We argue about characterisation.


Seriously, this board is a helpless case.

It's not useful to discuss here because 90% of the participants do not have the basic knowledge. The do not know or try to comprehend to context of those stories, they do not know the history and they just don't get that the way that even the pre-crisis Superman stories would be written dramatically different today than he was in the 60s. Because styles change. It's normal. The more "sophisticated" storytelling has nothing to do with Byrne's reboot.

People are just jumping onto the "pre-crisis Supergod dorky Clark!!!11" bandwagon. It's annoying.

[GreenKToo]

''Great Rao'' I think you got it.
Seriously tho, I just want a film that I will want to see over and over and....

[SymbioteKal-El]

Superman Returns rocked!



.... or at least, I liked it... :(

Ditto.

I still think Superman Returns is a brilliant film, I still watch it and really enjoy it now, it just wasnt a summer blockbuster. And Superman did do some un-superman things in it.

[DavidTyler]

Byrne's World of Krypton series was...annoying at best. His Krypton did nothing for me. Later, better writers did at least create some cool things from it like the Eradicator, although that could have been used on a classic Krypton as well. In fact when they started to bring it back before they chickened out in the early 2000's they integrated the Eradicator idea.

You do understand that you've made statement pertaining only to you? While it did nothing for you, others enjoyed them.

Pre-Crisis he exclaimed Rao's name because he watched and experienced the recordings left by Jor-El and also traveled back to Krypton before it's destruction.

It's still something I have a hard time swallowing - that someone who grew up with normal Earthly expressions would eschew them in favour of ones he got from a video he found in his adult life.... and ones so unatural to his surroundings. Great Rao would be a reference to a religious upbringing that he didn't have.

I can give or take Superboy myself, although getting rid of him ruined the Legion and Byrne himself admitted it was a major mistake. I NEVER said that tragedies in his life is what motivates Superman, but my point was that everyone experiences personal pain and losses, and the Byrne-Era version never had those at all.

I've never seen this quote from Byrne. Can you point me at it so I can read it for myself?

I like them a ton, but I've always felt that keeping them alive keeps Clark from being a fully mature character, plus again it took any element of loss from his life. In fact in the Superman 2000 proposal that DC should have accepted they mentioned how those milk and cookies scenes makes Superman look lame.

K - I find that remark a bit offensive. I still have both of my parents and I consider myself a fully mature adult. Why do you insist that losing them is the criteria for maturity? Those 'milk and cookies' scenes aren't meant to stand by themselves - they're meant to be counter-point to the action going on. Looking at them from that standpoint, don't they make more sense to you?


I said part, not all. All heroes in literature have losses and trials. Removing those from Superman was a big part of why the Byrne version failed and was abandoned.

The Byrne version lasted quite a long time. I wouldn't quite say it failed. Birthright lasted only a couple of years... wait ... or was it more like months. If anything was a failed attempt it was that.

And, BTW, Byrne's strategy was to strip the character back down to basics and rebuild. He only took it so far and then we had Ordway and company directing the characters path.

That storyline, while good, came from an event that was complete crap and 100% unacceptable. Superman DOES. NOT. KILL. Not to mention that Green K doesn't work on nonpowered Kryptonians...not that Byrne would know that of course.

I agree in part about the event being out of character for Superman.... but I need to remind you ... IT WASN'T BYRNE .. IT WAS ORDWAY AND COMPANY. Byrne was gone by then.

It would have involved Krypton more if National hadn't taken control from Siegel over the K-Metal story.

I need to read this. Know where I can find it?


Well, most of the best comics writers of the last 25 years agree with my viewpoints and All-Star Superman, which is pretty much how I see Superman, has been acclaimed as the best Superman story in years, so I think the people that count the most agree with me.

Again ... you need to understand when you're stating your opinion versus fact. Best writers is an opinion. People who count... that's all your opinion.

K, again - I respect that you have a preference for a certain period in the history of the character but you have to understand that you aren't the only one with an opinion and that it's just that .. an opinion.

I've been reading Superman for probably as long as you and maybe longer. I've seen so many variations on the character over my lifetime. I have my own opinions and they're pretty much based on a lot of different criteria... mostly the fact that I want to see Superman handled in a semi-realistic way. I want to believe he's at least a little possible. Given that and the fact that I grew up reading Heinlein and Asimov, there are elements from the Superman stories I read in my childhood that I just can't accept now. And I don't want to see a Superman who's life is built around tragedy. I like the fact that he's different. I like that he arrived at his decision to help people because of who the Kents were and how they raised him. I like the fact that he was a little naive at first until he decided to explore the world and himself (the only part of Birthright that I didn't think was crap - I don't think Waid is a wunderkind.)

Ciao -

[Webhead2006]

for me as i say countless times the best thing is to find the best stories from pre/post-modern superman comics, and then take the best elements from the whole history of the character. combine it together and form a composited character that shares all these traits we fans want to see. then craft a new and original story around it.

[Daybreak_st]

Yeah but luckily they could get 5 out of those 6 points from the first 3 seasons. Especially the Luthors and the Kents. They were written excellent in the beginning, and little by little they all became ridiculous. The only one who wasn't written horribly was Johnathan and that's because he died before they could screw up the character. But Lex and Lionel were huge disappointments especially for me since they were two of my favorite characters.

As for the Lois and Clark dynamic they should watch Lois and Clark for that since IMO dean and Teri were much better than Tom and Erica.


Yeah good, point, but the later seasons saw more of his Rouges gallery brought into live action. Can't say i've enjoyed all of them but i appreciate the original approach to the characters as well as some of the logic behind there creation. I really enjoyed Brainiac and Metallo, also though i didn't like the last "Phantom" i did like Bizarro once he arrived. Not necessarily all the story elements he was involved in but as a twisted version of clark who's skin turned chalky white then exposed to direct sunlight. It's that kind of clever approach to some of his rouges i'd like to see done in the new film.

THey should use their own approach obviously to the characters. I do think that smallville has done some clever things with his rogues tho they often aren't realized to their full potential b/c of budget constraints.

[Kurosawa]

You do know that he announced his powers mainly for the readers? No, you don't. Whatever that has supposed to do with modern society. :doh:



So... again. Point missed. We are not arguing about powers. We do not. We argue about characterisation.


Seriously, this board is a helpless case.

It's not useful to discuss here because 90% of the participants do not have the basic knowledge. The do not know or try to comprehend to context of those stories, they do not know the history and they just don't get that the way that even the pre-crisis Superman stories would be written dramatically different today than he was in the 60s. Because styles change. It's normal. The more "sophisticated" storytelling has nothing to do with Byrne's reboot.

People are just jumping onto the "pre-crisis Supergod dorky Clark!!!11" bandwagon. It's annoying.

Yeah, it truly is. All they do is repeat the talking points that they have been taught while refusing to learn anything themselves. It really is frustrating how much people embrace ignorance.

You do understand that you've made statement pertaining only to you? While it did nothing for you, others enjoyed them.

And others, like me, hated his Krypton. Like Wendy Peni, who said Byrne had created a Krypton that deserved to be destroyed.

It's still something I have a hard time swallowing - that someone who grew up with normal Earthly expressions would eschew them in favour of ones he got from a video he found in his adult life.... and ones so unatural to his surroundings. Great Rao would be a reference to a religious upbringing that he didn't have.

Ummm...Superboy DID grow up with that religious upbringing, as he embraced his Kryptonian heritage and spent hours watching and experiencing the recordings from Krypton. Of course Byrne's version didn't grow up with that religion, but the Earth-One Superman did.

I've never seen this quote from Byrne. Can you point me at it so I can read it for myself?

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/FAQ/listing.asp?ID=2&T1=Questions+about+Comic+Book+Projects#143

K - I find that remark a bit offensive. I still have both of my parents and I consider myself a fully mature adult. Why do you insist that losing them is the criteria for maturity? Those 'milk and cookies' scenes aren't meant to stand by themselves - they're meant to be counter-point to the action going on. Looking at them from that standpoint, don't they make more sense to you?

*Sigh* I mean for a fictional hero, not a RL individual. And those milk and cookies scenes are great-for Superboy.

The Byrne version lasted quite a long time. I wouldn't quite say it failed. Birthright lasted only a couple of years... wait ... or was it more like months. If anything was a failed attempt it was that.

Jurgens and Sterns versions were technically Byrne's character but were much closer to the classic Superman in a lot of ways. Or maybe they were just a lot better written.

And, BTW, Byrne's strategy was to strip the character back down to basics and rebuild. He only took it so far and then we had Ordway and company directing the characters path.

The problem is that he didn't take Superman back to basics-he really made a completely different character and gave it the Superman name.

I agree in part about the event being out of character for Superman.... but I need to remind you ... IT WASN'T BYRNE .. IT WAS ORDWAY AND COMPANY. Byrne was gone by then.

??? Byrne wrote Superman #22 where he disgustingly, implausibly and completely out of character killed the PZ villains:

http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/superman-1987/22-1.jpg

Here's how that story is fixed, and the Exiled in Space story still works: Superman exposes the PZ villains to Gold K, leaving them alone on a dead world as punishment. Then he exiles himself out of guilt for failing to save that world. Fixed and in character.

I need to read this. Know where I can find it?

http://superman.nu/k-metal/splash.php

Had DC ran that story, Superman's history would have been entirely different. Another interesting note: number of stories Siegel wrote in the Golden Age where Lois expresses interest in discovering Superman's secret identity: 1. That's a Silver Age cliche, not a Golden Age one. This is also why getting rid of the marriage was Morrison's one idea I objected to.

Again ... you need to understand when you're stating your opinion versus fact. Best writers is an opinion. People who count... that's all your opinion.

I'm pretty sure putting Gaiman, Morrision and Moore on a short list of the most important and influential comics writers of the last 25 years isn't controversial.

K, again - I respect that you have a preference for a certain period in the history of the character but you have to understand that you aren't the only one with an opinion and that it's just that .. an opinion.

I've been reading Superman for probably as long as you and maybe longer. I've seen so many variations on the character over my lifetime. I have my own opinions and they're pretty much based on a lot of different criteria... mostly the fact that I want to see Superman handled in a semi-realistic way. I want to believe he's at least a little possible. Given that and the fact that I grew up reading Heinlein and Asimov, there are elements from the Superman stories I read in my childhood that I just can't accept now. And I don't want to see a Superman who's life is built around tragedy. I like the fact that he's different. I like that he arrived at his decision to help people because of who the Kents were and how they raised him. I like the fact that he was a little naive at first until he decided to explore the world and himself (the only part of Birthright that I didn't think was crap - I don't think Waid is a wunderkind.)

Ciao -

Our tastes are very different, as I find Heinlein and especially Asimov extremely dull and pretentious, and I much prefer fantasy aspects to science fiction. I hold the very concept of "realism" in total scorn to be honest. I want things to be played straight and respectful, and not be corny, but I do not want imagination to be hamstrung by some need for a supposed "realistic" treatment. I figure as soon as you got a guy in a red cape flying in the sky and juggling semis, realism is out the window. But it's not the more fantasy-based elements in which I felt Byrne missteped as it was in the psychological elements and the Superman/Clark duality.

Why CAN Superman do the things he does? Because he's different from us. Because he's from outer space. Why DOES Superman do the things that he does? Because he is, ultimately, NOT that different from us, at least not the best of us. Because despite all the powers, he's a man who cares and feels and has suffered and holds his friends and his world dear because he knows life can be fleeting. He knows that life is precious, and he knows that he can and should help others and encourage them to help themselves and their fellow man. And that's the part of his heritage that came from Ma and Pa Kent. He fights for justice (not against crime), and he does it because he learned those morals from them.

[SuperDaniel]

I have to agree with Kurosawa on this one. SUPERMAN. DOES. NOT. KILL. That story sucked and IMO, it was part of the a mess of alternate universes and all that stuff i really didn`t like. I think its possible to mix both versions of Krypton. What they did with the animated series is pretty much perfect. They kept the look inspired by Byrne`s Krypton but not that much of the coldness. It had also heart.

With that being said, what came after it, Exile, Eradicator stories was to me one of the best times in Superman comic books ever. I really loved that period.

[Webhead2006]

all writers have there fair share of good and bad stories, or stories they didnt want to do but were forced to do and all that. No writer is ever 100% perfect.

[Daybreak_st]

as far as realism goes, you need to be balanced to be successful. I think one of the main reasons for making it into a live action movie is to add a layer of realism to it. If not why not make it a cartoon or 3d animated movie? Once it is in live action the level of realism needs to match the tone of the story. You don't want it cheesy but you don't need it to be dead serious like Dark Knight. It needs to be fun.

I just watched FF4 number 2 yesterday. It's a fun movie and has some nice effects and action but i wouldn't say it is "up there" in terms of the best superhero movies. It just felt like something was missing. Don't know hwo to explain it, but it made me think maybe it had something to do with it's lacking "realism". I'm not advocating making it "realistic" but a certain level of realism needs to be there. Where you feel like that world really exists and is inhabited by fully 3 dimensional characters. I don't want superman to fall into the same category as Fantasic Four. Iron Man and Spidey 2 had what i'm talking about, a "layer or realism" to them that made the films seem more authentic. Superman needs something along those lines, a solid balance between the fantasy/scifi elements and the more character driven grounded elements.

[kalelkilla]

I think there is someplace between the tone of TDK and Ironman that Superman will fit nicely. (good luck Nolan). I'm a bit hesitant to say I want Superman to be "fun."

I want it to be taken seriously but I don't want it to be that heavy either. The only thing 'fun' about Ironman is RDJ and the awesome flying scenes.

Clark Kent/Superman isn't really a fun character because of all the gravitas Superman holds. I think you can make a fun Superman movie by making it amazingly entertaining with dazzling flying sequences and showing off Superman's unstoppable power.

The most fun I had in "Returns" is when the bullet bounces off Superman's eye and everyone in the theatre went, "ooohhhhh!" People want to feel Superman's power.

I want people leaving the theatre wishing they were Superman.

[Daybreak_st]

I think there is someplace between the tone of TDK and Ironman that Superman will fit nicely. (good luck Nolan). I'm a bit hesitant to say I want Superman to be "fun."

I want it to be taken seriously but I don't want it to be that heavy either. The only thing 'fun' about Ironman is RDJ and the awesome flying scenes.

Good point, yeah iron man was fun b/c of tony stark's humor and just how much fun it was to see him using the suit/technology.


Clark Kent/Superman isn't really a fun character because of all the gravitas Superman holds. I think you can make a fun Superman movie by making it amazingly entertaining with dazzling flying sequences and showing off Superman's unstoppable power.

Very well said! :yay: That's pretty much what i'm talking about. I just don't want to leave the theatre depressed this time :csad: I want to have fun seeing him do all the amazing things he can do!

I disagree with "Clark Kent/Superman isn't really a fun character because of all the gravitas Superman holds". I think the daily planet staff is one area that you can make kind of fun without going over the top. L&C tv show had the best supporting cast of any Superman property imo. And i was always invested when watching them interact, they had some great character intereaction that in a new film could be up there with the cast of Iron man. You can definetely have some "fun" moments with those characters and clark without it feeling cheesy or taking anything away from the seriousness if the film. Also one of the best part of the new season of Smallville has been the Lois and Clark stuff, it's always fun to watch their witty banter. That sort of thing could give us good character moments that add some levity to already tense circumstances.




The most fun I had in "Returns" is when the bullet bounces off Superman's eye and everyone in the theatre went, "ooohhhhh!" People want to feel Superman's power.

I want people leaving the theatre wishing they were Superman.

Agreed!

[Mr. Earle]

I think there is someplace between the tone of TDK and Ironman that Superman will fit nicely. (good luck Nolan). I'm a bit hesitant to say I want Superman to be "fun."

I want it to be taken seriously but I don't want it to be that heavy either. The only thing 'fun' about Ironman is RDJ and the awesome flying scenes.

Clark Kent/Superman isn't really a fun character because of all the gravitas Superman holds. I think you can make a fun Superman movie by making it amazingly entertaining with dazzling flying sequences and showing off Superman's unstoppable power.

The most fun I had in "Returns" is when the bullet bounces off Superman's eye and everyone in the theatre went, "ooohhhhh!" People want to feel Superman's power.

I want people leaving the theatre wishing they were Superman.Nolan... fun.....

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/2967/1269272048353.jpg

[Daybreak_st]

Nolan isn't directing and goyer is known for adding some cheesy dialogue to make a movie "fun". The above facial expression is awesome though!

I just watched part of Matrix Revolutions last night, and that movie was awful to me. The first film had "wow" moments, this film was conceptually exhausting without any of the "cool" or "fun" elements of the first. The final battle was so over-rated! And i'm sure thats what the film makers were going for, but when a film takes itself too seriously in that setting, it just makes me look forward to it ending, period. It made me appreciate films that can interject some humor or fun into it and don't take themselves too seriously.

If they approach Superman wrong this time, ie making it overly serious with little humor and nothing fun about it, you'll have another Ang Lee Hulk or SR on our hands. I really don't want that.

[Mr. Earle]

So cheesy dialogue makes a movie fun?

[Daybreak_st]

"Witty" dialogue can make it fun, like Bruce and Alfred's intereaction in Begins.

[Mr. Earle]

Witty (and not cheesy) dialogue would help, but it needs a lot more than that.

[Daybreak_st]

Yeah i agree, i guess overall i'm just talking about being able to have fun while watching the movie, and the filmmakers having a good balance of some fun, scifi, comic book stuff with a layer of realism their to make it beliveable. If that makes sense.

[Webhead2006]

well i do hope they get the tone/feel right this time, i said it before if they can make it a serious movie like bb/tdk that would be great. But we need to have a bright/more happy like world and characters like ironman or the spidey films were. Getting something like that would probably suit supes well.

[GreenKToo]

Exiting the theater, I wanna feel like I just got off the most gut wrenching, grabbed me by the ballz and wouldn't let go, thrill ride, that leaves me begging for more.
Thats all I ask, is it too much?

[Daybreak_st]

well i do hope they get the tone/feel right this time, i said it before if they can make it a serious movie like bb/tdk that would be great. But we need to have a bright/more happy like world and characters like ironman or the spidey films were. Getting something like that would probably suit supes well.

Yeah this is what i'm saying. Though i thought BB had a better tone than TDK, as it still had a slight fantasy feel to it (ninjas, etc) and a hopeful ending , that left you at a high point. Iron Man to me is the best example for Supes to me, just on a higher scale b/c of threat level and powers. Overall i left the theatre excited about what i just saw, it felt like i had just witnessed a superhero stepping into the real world, and it was fun ride to boot. That's what superman needs. Think about the grand scheme of who's going to see this, everyone from kids, to the elderly. While not compromising the story they shouldn't alienate the audience by trying to hard to make it dark and gritty ala TDK. Does not fit the character or his audience.

And i've read many times people saying they want to see this fight that leaves supes bloody, clothes ripped, barely walking etc...that's the ending of matrix Revolutions if i'm not mistaken. The scene was over hyped. Give me the type of scene comparable to spidey fighting doc ock in Spidaey2 and i gaurantee you'll have one excited audience. Make supes face off against things we haven't seen on screen before, a giant robot, a hulk-like beast, or hoards of brainiac bots (not that these haven't been seen before but not facing off against a human size opponent with supes powerset). It can and should be fun to watch supes doing his thing, rather than cringing the whole time b/c its too graphic or violent. You can make it intense but still entertaining, like in spidey 2. Just saying that's what i'd like to see.

Exiting the theater, I wanna feel like I just got off the most gut wrenching, grabbed me by the ballz and wouldn't let go, thrill ride, that leaves me begging for more.
Thats all I ask, is it too much?

I see what you're saying but i think the average movie goer just wants to be visually amazed, and be entertained while watching one of their favorite superheroes on the big screen.

[jmc]

Exiting the theater, I wanna feel like I just got off the most gut wrenching, grabbed me by the ballz and wouldn't let go, thrill ride, that leaves me begging for more.
Thats all I ask, is it too much?

In terms of what Hollywood usually produces? Yes. For every TDK there's a dozen Fantastic Fours.

[DavidTyler]

Yeah, it truly is. All they do is repeat the talking points that they have been taught while refusing to learn anything themselves. It really is frustrating how much people embrace ignorance.

I repeat... I have one of the longest histories of reading this character on this board and nothing I say is a talking point I learned somewhere else. It's all me.

And others, like me, hated his Krypton. Like Wendy Peni, who said Byrne had created a Krypton that deserved to be destroyed.

Yes... Byrne's Krypton deserved to be destroyed. No argument there. It had reached the end of it's life and was beginning to choke itself. But .. in it's death, new life. A chance for a new beginning.



Ummm...Superboy DID grow up with that religious upbringing, as he embraced his Kryptonian heritage and spent hours watching and experiencing the recordings from Krypton. Of course Byrne's version didn't grow up with that religion, but the Earth-One Superman did.

Correct ... there was no Superboy in Byrne's take.... however, even if there had been and he did find the recordings, how would those expressions creep into his lexicon? He'd only use them in costume or take the chance of slipping and revealing himself to those around him. An expression becomes a part of your vocabulary through casual usage not through constrained comments.

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/FAQ/listing.asp?ID=2&T1=Questions+about+Comic+Book+Projects#143

Thank you, I'll look at it in a minute.

*Sigh* I mean for a fictional hero, not a RL individual. And those milk and cookies scenes are great-for Superboy.

Of course you did. There was no mystery in that comment but my point is that, for me to believe in him as a 3 dimensional being, he is subject to the same criteria as we are. Bruce lost his parents and that made him dark and haunted... Clark didn't and became a hero based on the light.

Jurgens and Sterns versions were technically Byrne's character but were much closer to the classic Superman in a lot of ways. Or maybe they were just a lot better written.

No disagreement there... I've consistantly stated on these boards that I didn't think Byrne was a great writer but I do think he's a solid conceptualist.

The problem is that he didn't take Superman back to basics-he really made a completely different character and gave it the Superman name.

Again.. this is your opinion... one I don't share. Byrne stripped away all the trappings that had accumulated like barnacles on a stagnant ship and allowed him a fresh start.

??? Byrne wrote Superman #22 where he disgustingly, implausibly and completely out of character killed the PZ villains:
http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/superman-1987/22-1.jpg

I humbly stand corrected.... My copy of that arc is boxed away but that's no excuse. I should have at least done an internet search before I made the comment. Again - I stand corrected.

Here's how that story is fixed, and the Exiled in Space story still works: Superman exposes the PZ villains to Gold K, leaving them alone on a dead world as punishment. Then he exiles himself out of guilt for failing to save that world. Fixed and in character.

I would have loved that. It is the perfect fix for that story.



http://superman.nu/k-metal/splash.php

Had DC ran that story, Superman's history would have been entirely different. Another interesting note: number of stories Siegel wrote in the Golden Age where Lois expresses interest in discovering Superman's secret identity: 1. That's a Silver Age cliche, not a Golden Age one. This is also why getting rid of the marriage was Morrison's one idea I objected to.

I'm not a fan of the marriage but I don't have a violent dislike for it. I just don't see where it helps the stories.

I'm pretty sure putting Gaiman, Morrision and Moore on a short list of the most important and influential comics writers of the last 25 years isn't controversial.

and you name three great writers but they all have something in common... none actually write science fiction based on hard science (although Morrison comes the closest). They all basically pen fantasy. Even Moore who has written some good stuff like V that have an Orwellian feel is still not dealing with the nuts and bolts of a science fiction based concept.



Our tastes are very different, as I find Heinlein and especially Asimov extremely dull and pretentious, and I much prefer fantasy aspects to science fiction. I hold the very concept of "realism" in total scorn to be honest. I want things to be played straight and respectful, and not be corny, but I do not want imagination to be hamstrung by some need for a supposed "realistic" treatment. I figure as soon as you got a guy in a red cape flying in the sky and juggling semis, realism is out the window. But it's not the more fantasy-based elements in which I felt Byrne missteped as it was in the psychological elements and the Superman/Clark duality.

Why CAN Superman do the things he does? Because he's different from us. Because he's from outer space. Why DOES Superman do the things that he does? Because he is, ultimately, NOT that different from us, at least not the best of us. Because despite all the powers, he's a man who cares and feels and has suffered and holds his friends and his world dear because he knows life can be fleeting. He knows that life is precious, and he knows that he can and should help others and encourage them to help themselves and their fellow man. And that's the part of his heritage that came from Ma and Pa Kent. He fights for justice (not against crime), and he does it because he learned those morals from them.

And here is where you've touched on the very basis of our disagreement. You are very much into the fantasy aspects and I'm not. I might go so far as to compare us to Star Wars vs Star Trek fans. In fact, I'll go a bit deeper... Star Wars vs Outland. I was very dissapointed by Star Wars as I found it childish. (please don't misinterpret.. not referring to you as childish. I'm actually making the point that what appeals to you may strike me differently) I much preferred Outland.

[BrollySupersj]

Being a Superman Returns fanboy, I was really hoping WB would just bite the bullet, and give us a good sequel, but....can't win em all can ya?

So far, this reboot idea isn't so bad, Nolan is a brilliant director with a lot of good ideas, I'm sure whatever he comes up with will impress me.

I am gonna miss that good ol Donner Universe though, I'm a sucker for crystal technology :(

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

...And Nuclear Man.

[db85usa]

...And Nuclear Man.

Destroy Superman!

He said he was going to miss the DONNER universe not the one that destroyed the franchise lol.

[BrollySupersj]

Yep, him too. But still, mostly the crystal tech.

[db85usa]

I really need to look at people's avatars more often.

[BrollySupersj]

I really need to look at people's avatars more often.

Mine will be changing shortly, of course it'll be another Superman IV avatar. But, I think this one might be more well received. Not that it matters of course.:woot:

[db85usa]

Mine will be changing shortly, of course it'll be another Superman IV avatar. But, I think this one might be more well received. Not that it matters of course.:woot:

I loved Superman IV. I'm embarrassed to say that I watched it more than any other Superman movie growing up.

[Webhead2006]

Yeah this is what i'm saying. Though i thought BB had a better tone than TDK, as it still had a slight fantasy feel to it (ninjas, etc) and a hopeful ending , that left you at a high point. Iron Man to me is the best example for Supes to me, just on a higher scale b/c of threat level and powers. Overall i left the theatre excited about what i just saw, it felt like i had just witnessed a superhero stepping into the real world, and it was fun ride to boot. That's what superman needs. Think about the grand scheme of who's going to see this, everyone from kids, to the elderly. While not compromising the story they shouldn't alienate the audience by trying to hard to make it dark and gritty ala TDK. Does not fit the character or his audience.

And i've read many times people saying they want to see this fight that leaves supes bloody, clothes ripped, barely walking etc...that's the ending of matrix Revolutions if i'm not mistaken. The scene was over hyped. Give me the type of scene comparable to spidey fighting doc ock in Spidaey2 and i gaurantee you'll have one excited audience. Make supes face off against things we haven't seen on screen before, a giant robot, a hulk-like beast, or hoards of brainiac bots (not that these haven't been seen before but not facing off against a human size opponent with supes powerset). It can and should be fun to watch supes doing his thing, rather than cringing the whole time b/c its too graphic or violent. You can make it intense but still entertaining, like in spidey 2. Just saying that's what i'd like to see.



I see what you're saying but i think the average movie goer just wants to be visually amazed, and be entertained while watching one of their favorite superheroes on the big screen.
I would like that.

[GreenKToo]

I dunno. Nolan may prove me wrong but I dont see him doing a Spidey II type of fight between Supes and the villain because that doesnt seem like his style, at least to me it doesn't. I think the fight we will see will be violent and harsh, WITH a feel good ending to it.

I see it like this, nolan will be in charge regardless of who directs, right? and he likes a good bit of realism in his films, right?
Sure he could change his style, but is that really realistic to expect? and If he doesn't change his style, how in the world could he film, or oversee, a fight scene between two beings that could throw ships, fly at superspeed, has heat vision, etc, without it being extremely destructive and violent, ie; hero all bloody, suit trashed at least a little, civilian deaths, etc.

Again, I have no idea and the fight may indeed feel similar to Spidey II or even IM's fight scenes, but as of now, i'm guessing not. Not till he says something that makes me think otherwise anyway.
Now i'm not saying that I think the film overall will feel as dark as B.B. or TDK, but certainly darker than a Spidey or I.M. film. The villain will assure that IMO.

[Daybreak_st]

I dunno. Nolan may prove me wrong but I dont see him doing a Spidey II type of fight between Supes and the villain because that doesnt seem like his style, at least to me it doesn't. I think the fight we will see will be violent and harsh, WITH a feel good ending to it.

I see it like this, nolan will be in charge regardless of who directs, right? and he likes a good bit of realism in his films, right?
Sure he could change his style, but is that really realistic to expect? and If he doesn't change his style, how in the world could he film, or oversee, a fight scene between two beings that could throw ships, fly at superspeed, has heat vision, etc, without it being extremely destructive and violent, ie; hero all bloody, suit trashed at least a little, civilian deaths, etc.

Again, I have no idea and the fight may indeed feel similar to Spidey II or even IM's fight scenes, but as of now, i'm guessing not. Not till he says something that makes me think otherwise anyway.
Now i'm not saying that I think the film overall will feel as dark as B.B. or TDK, but certainly darker than a Spidey or I.M. film. The villain will assure that IMO.


You could be right, i think it's a real shame though. Those dark violent fights for all their hype aren't very interesting to watch, at least for me Matrix REvolutions in a example. Too bad really. I think the more violent they push it, they'll lose some of the core audience, ie children and adults who take their children to see superman.

I'm not anti action, just anti-overly graphic violence. To each his own, you're right about Nolan though, which i think stinks.:dry:

[akfj]

I dunno. Nolan may prove me wrong but I dont see him doing a Spidey II type of fight between Supes and the villain because that doesnt seem like his style, at least to me it doesn't. I think the fight we will see will be violent and harsh, WITH a feel good ending to it.

I see it like this, nolan will be in charge regardless of who directs, right? and he likes a good bit of realism in his films, right?
Sure he could change his style, but is that really realistic to expect? and If he doesn't change his style, how in the world could he film, or oversee, a fight scene between two beings that could throw ships, fly at superspeed, has heat vision, etc, without it being extremely destructive and violent, ie; hero all bloody, suit trashed at least a little, civilian deaths, etc.

Again, I have no idea and the fight may indeed feel similar to Spidey II or even IM's fight scenes, but as of now, i'm guessing not. Not till he says something that makes me think otherwise anyway.
Now i'm not saying that I think the film overall will feel as dark as B.B. or TDK, but certainly darker than a Spidey or I.M. film. The villain will assure that IMO.

Do you really think Nolan would be that much of a control freak? I think whoever is chosen as director will be allowed to put his/her stamp on the movie. Nolan will of course have to approve of the director, but I think Nolan's involvement will be much more involved with the conception of the movie rather than the execution.

[JAK®]

A lot of people here seem to think they can speak for Nolan. The truth is nobody here has any idea how he sees the Superman character. I think he's smart enough to understand that he can't treat him the same way as Batman. And of course, he is only the producer, not the director.

[Young Superman]

Four things I love about the Byrne era that IMO Nolan & Goyer should take into account while writing the script.

1. The Sole Survivor of the Planet Krypton. One of the appeals to me is that he was the last survivor of his race. he was unique.

2. Clark as a real man and not a bumbling idiot.

3. Lex Luthor is a self-made corrupt corperate tycoon from suicide slums. Who's hatred of Superman is out of the jealousy of the love of the people of Metropolis for the hero.

4. Both the Kents are alive to guide and support Clark.

[GreenKToo]

No, not speaking for, just guessing on what I think after seeing his past films.
None is more happy or excited than I am about nolan overseeing this, but I seriously doubt we're gonna get something that feels (in tone) like S:TM or Spider-man.
Could I be wrong? dang right I could be. And if I am wrong, but the film is still good, I won't mind a bit.

[Daybreak_st]

I see what you're saying and you could be right. For me the perfect tone for Superman is something like Star Trek and Iron Man. Both films, visually were bright, they had humor, it was fun watching the cast interact, and yet there were serious threats and consequences to all involved. to me that fits superman better than dark and violent.

I think this is also why some of us have said as nice as it is to have a skilled filmmaker like Nolan overseeing this, someone like JJ Abrams or another John Favreau would've been perhaps a better fit (I know about the old Abrams script but it's almost 10 years old you can tell me you've never had a bad idea that you didn't improve in 10 years).

[Daybreak_st]

I'm not passing judgement on Nolan and company, and actually if the Latino story news pans out, i believe Goyer said it would be "fun", so that would be great. If on the other hand GreenKToo is right and Nolan goes for "realistic and violence" then i think it's a missed opportunity and a real shame.

[GreenKToo]

I think it will be fine. My hope is that it will feel like a real threat..not something somebody just mentions in passing like Lois saying ''Brainiac has attacked Moscow'' but we dont see it.
I hope we'll actually see and feel the threat to the world this time, with a real sense of doom.
It would be fantastic to see the world on the very brink of being taken over or even destroyed by Brainiac, then have Supes save the day.
That would make it even more sweet when Supes wins.

[Daybreak_st]

You could be right. I still wouldn't say Iron Man or Star Trek, lacked anything in the "threat" department but were able to maintain a lighter tone, than say TDK.

[GreenKToo]

Oooh I loved the new star trek. Loved IM too.

[SpiderByte]

They're already thinking of making a sequel to the new Star Trek.

[Webhead2006]

yea i cant wait to see how nolan and who ever is the crew for the film will shape this new superman world, and how he will handle fights. i agree he will probably have an overseeing control over things. But who knows with the director he might be/should have his say in things and put his mark in the film a bit.

[Kurosawa]

I repeat... I have one of the longest histories of reading this character on this board and nothing I say is a talking point I learned somewhere else. It's all me.

Maybe not for you, but many of the fans who DO slam the GA or SA Superman do it from a point of total ignorance.

Yes... Byrne's Krypton deserved to be destroyed. No argument there. It had reached the end of it's life and was beginning to choke itself. But .. in it's death, new life. A chance for a new beginning.

And therefore nothing was lost. Which is a waste, and what is worse is his Krypton bore no resemblance to Shusters version or any previous version. It's a shame Batman got to keep so much of his classic elements...Wayne Manor and the Batcave stayed true to the classic, while Superman's Krypton and FOS were deemed not good enough. Even worse that a terrible designer like Byrne got to do a butcher job on Krypton's replacement.

Correct ... there was no Superboy in Byrne's take.... however, even if there had been and he did find the recordings, how would those expressions creep into his lexicon? He'd only use them in costume or take the chance of slipping and revealing himself to those around him. An expression becomes a part of your vocabulary through casual usage not through constrained comments.

Because Superman and Clark Kent are different identities and Superman was disciplined enough to never slip like that as Clark, seeing as he never did. Pre-Crisis. Besides, if you want to say that for Superman, then you could say that for any number of other characters.

Thank you, I'll look at it in a minute.

Of course you did. There was no mystery in that comment but my point is that, for me to believe in him as a 3 dimensional being, he is subject to the same criteria as we are. Bruce lost his parents and that made him dark and haunted... Clark didn't and became a hero based on the light.

I've never said losing his parents was his motivation.

No disagreement there... I've consistantly stated on these boards that I didn't think Byrne was a great writer but I do think he's a solid conceptualist.

Byrne is a poor writer, an overrated artist and a horrid designer. He was okay at Marvel where they wouldn't let him wreck the work of previous writers and artists but at DC where they didn't give a damn, his many inadequacies were quickly exposed. He is not a good enough writer to be put on Superman.

Again.. this is your opinion... one I don't share. Byrne stripped away all the trappings that had accumulated like barnacles on a stagnant ship and allowed him a fresh start.

No, Byrne fixed what wasn't broken and spat on almost 50 years of stories and the fans of those stories, excepting the ones who go along with anything DC does.

I humbly stand corrected.... My copy of that arc is boxed away but that's no excuse. I should have at least done an internet search before I made the comment. Again - I stand corrected.

Fair enough.

I would have loved that. It is the perfect fix for that story.

Agreed.

http://superman.nu/k-metal/splash.php

I'm not a fan of the marriage but I don't have a violent dislike for it. I just don't see where it helps the stories.

Well, I think had K-Metal seen print, Siegel would have moved Lois into a role similar to that of the other Miss Lane of heroic fiction of the time-Margo Lane. As for the marriage, I am neutral on it, but I really think that you can't put the cat back into the bag. They're married, and I look at people saying the can't write them as a married couple in much the same was as I look at people who say they cannot write him at a planet moving power level. Can't do it? Thank you very much, we'll find someone who CAN.

and you name three great writers but they all have something in common... none actually write science fiction based on hard science (although Morrison comes the closest). They all basically pen fantasy. Even Moore who has written some good stuff like V that have an Orwellian feel is still not dealing with the nuts and bolts of a science fiction based concept.

Science Fiction based on hard science =/= quality.

And here is where you've touched on the very basis of our disagreement. You are very much into the fantasy aspects and I'm not. I might go so far as to compare us to Star Wars vs Star Trek fans. In fact, I'll go a bit deeper... Star Wars vs Outland. I was very dissapointed by Star Wars as I found it childish. (please don't misinterpret.. not referring to you as childish. I'm actually making the point that what appeals to you may strike me differently) I much preferred Outland.

That is part of it...I want mythology and wonder, I want inspiration and I want full imagination. To me a desire for a faux "realism" is what got the Multiverse destroyed and was also part of what turned superhero comics from great escapist entertainment into brutal killfests and rape filled misogyny. And as for a movie...audiences tend to reject minutia and would rather just get to the point. It'd be a lot harder to sell a hard sci-fi Superman movie than it would to sell a more pure science-fantasy Superman movie, imo.

[Daybreak_st]

Here's some scenes from recent superman comics that would be interesting to see in the film:

read the text, gives some insight into supes point of view
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/9940/supescomic01.jpg

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/7259/supescomic02.jpg

this is just cool, DP is attacked, Clark goes into supes mode without missing a beat:

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/9659/supescomic03.jpg

[Kurosawa]

Four things I love about the Byrne era that IMO Nolan & Goyer should take into account while writing the script.

1. The Sole Survivor of the Planet Krypton. One of the appeals to me is that he was the last survivor of his race. he was unique.

2. Clark as a real man and not a bumbling idiot.

3. Lex Luthor is a self-made corrupt corperate tycoon from suicide slums. Who's hatred of Superman is out of the jealousy of the love of the people of Metropolis for the hero.

4. Both the Kents are alive to guide and support Clark.

1) Neutral on this, but if he is to be the sole survivor then he needs to care about being Kryptonian and Krypton itself needs to be appealing.

2) Not sure what this means. I hate Byrne's Clark and I didn't care for Reeve's Inspector Clouseau act either.

3) Neutral on Corporate Lex, although it's 100% a Kingpin/Justin Hammer ripoff. It's okay if Superman is a populist and as long as Lex is also a scientist.

4) Not a fan of that at all for reasons I've stated before.

I'm not thoroughly opposed to all things Byrne-I like the idea of them passing Clark off as their own child and the idea they had tried to have their own children, and a lot of his action was good (not as good as Jurgens, however), and theres a lot of things from the Stern and Jurgens stuff that I like, but I do feel Superman should resemble the 1938-1986 character.

[Mr. Earle]

As far as Lex goes, the animated one (STAS, JL) was one of the best i've seen. Both businessman and scientist, and he was an amazing character.

[Abraham]

I just hope to hell the movie has the same kinetic energy, action, and epic visuals as Clash of the Titans. This tv spot looks amazing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFqh49uc3VQ

SFqh49uc3VQ

__

superman needs to be reinvented even more drastically than CotT has been.

http://www.ugo.com/channels/comics/features/superman205/images/superman205_1.jpg

If Clash is as good as it looks, I nominate Louis to take charge of Superman. He wasn't given full control over hulk (the final fight with ab nomination was much larger - hulk and abom using helicopters as swords and other crazy ****) but he still made a rather entertaining film, and Clash looks fantastic.

[Mr. Earle]

Clash looks like a movie Bay would make: Great visuals, retarded plot.

[Abraham]

:roll-eyes:

what everyyy Agree to Disagree

also Bays visuals suck ****.

[Sawyer]

Clash looks stupid. If Leterrier wanted to do something worthwhile, he'd beg and plead with Marvel to let him do a TIH sequel.

[SuperMike335!!]

Four things I love about the Byrne era that IMO Nolan & Goyer should take into account while writing the script.

1. The Sole Survivor of the Planet Krypton. One of the appeals to me is that he was the last survivor of his race. he was unique.

2. Clark as a real man and not a bumbling idiot.

3. Lex Luthor is a self-made corrupt corperate tycoon from suicide slums. Who's hatred of Superman is out of the jealousy of the love of the people of Metropolis for the hero.

4. Both the Kents are alive to guide and support Clark.


Yes. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[kalelkilla]

Daybreak, I love those scenes. I hope they get in the movie in some incarnation. I don't want this movie to be just kinetic action, it is important for Superman to have some quiet moments where he opens up a little bit.

Abraham, that is my favorite drawing of Superman in the recent comics. I would love to see that in the movie as well. When there is action I want to be able to display just how powerful Superman is.

[Webhead2006]

some cool visuals back a page day.

[Daybreak_st]

THanks guys, they the first was from the recent superman 80 page giant, and the last pic was from the recent Batman/Superman comic if anyone is interested.

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Agreed.

http://superman.nu/k-metal/splash.php

Good God, those colors are :awesome:

[BrollySupersj]

Here's some scenes from recent superman comics that would be interesting to see in the film:

read the text, gives some insight into supes point of view
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/9940/supescomic01.jpg

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/7259/supescomic02.jpg

I would love to see a scene like that. I think it'd be somewhat heart warming, knowing how Superman feels about not being able to save everyone.

[Dark Knight]

I would love to see a scene like that. I think it'd be somewhat heart warming, knowing how Superman feels about not being able to save everyone.




The drawings of Supes in these panels kinda look like Cudmore a bit huh?

[Webhead2006]

it would be a very touching type of scene to have. i agree it would make for a great scene if they were to include something like it.

[dark_b]

I would love to see a scene like that. I think it'd be somewhat heart warming, knowing how Superman feels about not being able to save everyone.i dont think this fits in a summer movie.

i think it would look out of place.

[BrollySupersj]

i dont think this fits in a summer movie.

i think it would look out of place.

How is one small heart warming scene out of place in a Superman movie? It's not like every Superman film doesn't have one.

[Webhead2006]

yea dark b why wouldnt it fit, its totally in character for superman. OR if you didnt want it to be with a sucide vitcim what if it was changed to a scene with lois on first interview.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Hobbit's Chances Of Hitting 2012 Get Smaller
Written by Peter Georgiou
Sunday, 28 March 2010 18:32

There will be a Hobbit movie, eventually. The universe of little people has made too much money not to see the flicker of the big screen again, but it now seems like a delay or even more delays depending on what you've been reading, are inevitable. I'm going to provide you with a rudimentary time line of the saga that has been "The Hobbit". Try to stay awake.

There has been a little bit of a soap opera type atmosphere surrounding "The Hobbit". Let's start in November 09 when Peter Jackson's talked to (http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7832:hobbit-to-begin-filming-next-summer-says-peter-jackson&catid=41:news&Itemid=71) a German website MovieReporter.Net, mentioning "The Hobbit" would be filming Summer 2010. The Wrap (http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/hobbit-lovers-wait-release-probably-pushed-2012-10994) followed up with information that the part one of the two part flick would be released in Summer 2012 rather than 2011, a delay of a year. These are the days of our lives.

Collider (http://www.collider.com/2009/12/04/exclusive-peter-jackson-talks-lord-of-the-rings-blu-ray-and-says-the-hobbit-is-still-2011/) then spoke with Peter Jackson in December and the producer of "The Hobbit" denied the rumors that the film would be pushed back to a 2012 release date. Cut to January, where The Trades, as covered by our very own Jamie Williams (http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8173:the-hobbit-pushed-back-to-2012-after-all&catid=41:news&Itemid=71), dropped another log into the fire when speaking with WB's King Alan Horn. "The Hobbit" would most likely be released in the fourth quarter of 2012. Sir Ian McKellen even threw his pointy hat into the mix when he announced via his website a couple weeks ago, that "The Hobbit" would start filming July 2010 as covered by IESB (http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8737:sir-ian-mckellen-confirms-june-start-date-on-the-hobbit&catid=41:news&Itemid=71). As the world turns.

Now Ian McKellen has changed the start date for "The Hobbit" on his website (http://www.mckellen.com/cinema/index1.htm) to "at a time to be announced". This combined with Andy Serkis' telling Digital Spy (http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a211138/serkis-hobbit-to-shoot-end-of-the-year.html) today that "The Hobbit" will start production by the end of the year, helps waft the stench of what already reeks of delay. Need I mention the ongoing issues with MGM? If this information holds true, we're looking at a big fat empty slot in 2012 for New Line, which we all know really means Warner Bros. The young and the restless.

With the news that the NolanConglomerate has taken control (http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8651:christopher-nolan-confirms-involvement-and-says-they-have-a-fantastic-story-for-superman-reboot-and-talks-batman-3&catid=41:news&Itemid=71) over the Man of Steel, is it possible Superman could now be flying on the fast track to a Winter 2012 release? Purely speculation on my part, but it could come from a logical place. Jeff Robinov revealed in an interview with The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121936107614461929.html) back in August of 2008, that The Brothers Warner thought about releasing a sort of sequel "Superman Returns" featuring Batman in December 2009. Merry Christmas?

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8861:hobbits-chances-of-hitting-2012-get-smaller&catid=41:news&Itemid=71

Also Movie Moan (http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8860:movie-moan-lou-vs-the-world&catid=41:news&Itemid=71) is back.

[Crook]

Supes getting the Winter 2012 slot would be awesome. That's a great season for a blockbuster, and it's conveniently just enough time for them to work on a really great movie.

[Lucid]

yea dark b why wouldnt it fit, its totally in character for superman. OR if you didnt want it to be with a sucide vitcim what if it was changed to a scene with lois on first interview.THAT would be amazing!

[Dark Knight]

Hobbit's Chances Of Hitting 2012 Get Smaller
Written by Peter Georgiou
Sunday, 28 March 2010 18:32

There will be a Hobbit movie, eventually. The universe of little people has made too much money not to see the flicker of the big screen again, but it now seems like a delay or even more delays depending on what you've been reading, are inevitable. I'm going to provide you with a rudimentary time line of the saga that has been "The Hobbit". Try to stay awake.

There has been a little bit of a soap opera type atmosphere surrounding "The Hobbit". Let's start in November 09 when Peter Jackson's talked to a German website MovieReporter.Net, mentioning "The Hobbit" would be filming Summer 2010. The Wrap followed up with information that the part one of the two part flick would be released in Summer 2012 rather than 2011, a delay of a year. These are the days of our lives.

Collider then spoke with Peter Jackson in December and the producer of "The Hobbit" denied the rumors that the film would be pushed back to a 2012 release date. Cut to January, where The Trades, as covered by our very own Jamie Williams, dropped another log into the fire when speaking with WB's King Alan Horn. "The Hobbit" would most likely be released in the fourth quarter of 2012. Sir Ian McKellen even threw his pointy hat into the mix when he announced via his website a couple weeks ago, that "The Hobbit" would start filming July 2010 as covered by IESB. As the world turns.

Now Ian McKellen has changed the start date for "The Hobbit" on his website to "at a time to be announced". This combined with Andy Serkis' telling Digital Spy today that "The Hobbit" will start production by the end of the year, helps waft the stench of what already reeks of delay. Need I mention the ongoing issues with MGM? If this information holds true, we're looking at a big fat empty slot in 2012 for New Line, which we all know really means Warner Bros. The young and the restless.

With the news that the NolanConglomerate has taken control over the Man of Steel, is it possible Superman could now be flying on the fast track to a Winter 2012 release? Purely speculation on my part, but it could come from a logical place. Jeff Robinov revealed in an interview with The Wall Street Journal back in August of 2008, that The Brothers Warner thought about releasing a sort of sequel "Superman Returns" featuring Batman in December 2009. Merry Christmas?

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option...news&Itemid=71





Hmm...in the end this guy speculates Superman in Winter 2012?

Sounds like more fanboy speculation to me.....:hehe:

[matrix_ghost]

Personally i think that if Hobbit is delayed and therefore won't be able to meet the dec 2012 release date , we might be seeing Batman 3 .
I made a post about this just now in Batman forums :cwink: :
WB usually sticks with dates that have worked for them. SOmetimes they will experiment to see if other dates work out for them. July of '07 was when they released Harry Potter and the Order Of The Phoenix which led to over 900 million WW. That was followed with TDK in '08 , Potter again in '09 , Inception of '10 and Potter in '11.

If it worked for Potter , why wouldn't WB release batman 3 in July of '12.
Well i think that Spider-man 4 might prove to be the big hurdle. Batman fans might think that studios aren't worried when they have competiting movies being released close to each other , but they are.
SPider-man has already booked the July '12 release date and it will be shown in 3-d. Spider-man 4 is far further in production then batman 3 so i assume that Sony might negotiate a deal with IMAX to allow Spider-man 4 to play in IMAX theaters for a long period .
While TDK performed extremely well , a good part of it's BO performance can also be credited to little competition. THere have been some crowd pleasers released during TDK's run but nothing as big as say SPider-man or TF.
It's still a question of Nolan would opt to release Batman 3 in 3-d . He has softened his opinion on 3-d but for now i think we can say that there probably won't be a 3-d release of Batman 3.
So will WB risk competing with Spider-man 4 ?

That leaves us with the question ? If Batman 3 won't be released in 2012 , which date would WB consider ?
I think that date would be december 2012.
If Hobbit is delayed that leaves them with a huge slot to fill. Sherlock Holmes proved to WB that december is a certainly a profitable month. So much so that WB has fastracked the Sherlock Holmes sequel for dec 2011 release. Ironically also because Hobbit was initially going to be released in dec of 2011 but when the problems at MGM started they saw that they wouldn't be able to meet that date.
There isn't much competition going on during that period. And it also gives WB the oppurtinuty for Batman 3 to getsome serious Oscar nominations /wins

[dark_b]

Also Movie Moan (http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8860:movie-moan-lou-vs-the-world&catid=41:news&Itemid=71) is back.can we save the podcast?

[GreenKToo]

Oh that would be awesome if they could get Superman out in 2012.
Make it so. purty please :O

[dark_b]

yeah yeah.i can already see it. december 2012 for 6 months. then WB changes their mind.

'' hey lets whait until the summer ''

[Showtime]

Hobbit's Chances Of Hitting 2012 Get Smaller
Written by Peter Georgiou
Sunday, 28 March 2010 18:32

There will be a Hobbit movie, eventually. The universe of little people has made too much money not to see the flicker of the big screen again, but it now seems like a delay or even more delays depending on what you've been reading, are inevitable. I'm going to provide you with a rudimentary time line of the saga that has been "The Hobbit". Try to stay awake.

There has been a little bit of a soap opera type atmosphere surrounding "The Hobbit". Let's start in November 09 when Peter Jackson's talked to a German website MovieReporter.Net, mentioning "The Hobbit" would be filming Summer 2010. The Wrap followed up with information that the part one of the two part flick would be released in Summer 2012 rather than 2011, a delay of a year. These are the days of our lives.

Collider then spoke with Peter Jackson in December and the producer of "The Hobbit" denied the rumors that the film would be pushed back to a 2012 release date. Cut to January, where The Trades, as covered by our very own Jamie Williams, dropped another log into the fire when speaking with WB's King Alan Horn. "The Hobbit" would most likely be released in the fourth quarter of 2012. Sir Ian McKellen even threw his pointy hat into the mix when he announced via his website a couple weeks ago, that "The Hobbit" would start filming July 2010 as covered by IESB. As the world turns.

Now Ian McKellen has changed the start date for "The Hobbit" on his website to "at a time to be announced". This combined with Andy Serkis' telling Digital Spy today that "The Hobbit" will start production by the end of the year, helps waft the stench of what already reeks of delay. Need I mention the ongoing issues with MGM? If this information holds true, we're looking at a big fat empty slot in 2012 for New Line, which we all know really means Warner Bros. The young and the restless.

With the news that the NolanConglomerate has taken control over the Man of Steel, is it possible Superman could now be flying on the fast track to a Winter 2012 release? Purely speculation on my part, but it could come from a logical place. Jeff Robinov revealed in an interview with The Wall Street Journal back in August of 2008, that The Brothers Warner thought about releasing a sort of sequel "Superman Returns" featuring Batman in December 2009. Merry Christmas?

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option...news&Itemid=71

Hmm...in the end this guy speculates Superman in Winter 2012?

Sounds like more fanboy speculation to me.....:hehe:

Says the poster who is the definition of a fan boy.

[Man of Tomorrow]

What else could fill that 2012 Winter spot in place of The Hobbit?


Flash? Harry Potter?

[Showtime]

Batman maybe? Just depends on how far along the projects are and how far along they will be.

[matrix_ghost]

What else could fill that 2012 Winter spot in place of The Hobbit?


Flash? Harry Potter?

Potter ends in July 2011. WB won't risk delaying potter for a full year ( again). Besides it's the last potter movie and considering the one before it ends on a cliffhanger , you can't risk having a period of 2 years separating both movies.

Flash could be but i honestly think it works best as a summer release. The blockbusters of nov/dec are more of the "thinking"mans type as opposed to the "brainless but fun" type.
Besides sequels can be made in 2 years time but if you're talking about first time features it usually takes 3 years ( or more) to get the movie in theaters.

At this point i think Batman 3 has the biggest chance of being released in dec of 2012 as opposed to the July 2012 release date ....as i explained inmy earlier post.

[RachelDawes]

I'd love either Batman or Superman in winter 2012. I can't decide which one I'd rather have, though. Maybe Superman.

Also Movie Moan (http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8860:movie-moan-lou-vs-the-world&catid=41:news&Itemid=71) is back.

Hooray! :applaud

[FlawlessVictory]

Personally i think that if Hobbit is delayed and therefore won't be able to meet the dec 2012 release date , we might be seeing Batman 3 .
I made a post about this just now in Batman forums :cwink: :

Excellent post and I completely agree with you. I would love for WB to start releasing superhero movies in the winter. The summer season is just getting way too crowded now. Just look at the release schedule for 2011:

May (Details (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=bydate&release=theatrical&date=2011-05-06&showweeks=4&p=.htm))
• Thor (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=thor.htm) (Par. (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=distributor&id=paramount.htm)) - 5/6
• Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=piratesofthecaribbean4.htm) (BV (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=distributor&id=buenavista.htm)) - 5/20
• The Hangover 2 (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hangover2.htm) (WB (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=distributor&id=warnerbros.htm)) - 5/26
• Mission: Impossible IV (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=mi4.htm) (Par. (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=distributor&id=paramount.htm)) - 5/27
June (Details (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=bydate&release=theatrical&date=2011-06-03&showweeks=4&p=.htm))
• Kung Fu Panda: The Kaboom of Doom (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=kungfupanda2.htm) (P/DW (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=distributor&id=pardw.htm)) - 6/3
• Fast Five (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fastfive.htm) (Uni. (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=distributor&id=universal.htm)) - 6/10
• Green Lantern (in 3D) (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=greenlantern.htm) (WB (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=distributor&id=warnerbros.htm)) - 6/17
• Cars 2 (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=cars2.htm) (BV (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=distributor&id=buenavista.htm)) - 6/24
July (Details (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=bydate&release=theatrical&date=2011-07-01&showweeks=5&p=.htm))
• Transformers 3 (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=transformers3.htm) (P/DW (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=distributor&id=pardw.htm)) - 7/1
• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part Two in 3D) (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=harrypotter72.htm) (WB (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=distributor&id=warnerbros.htm)) - 7/15
• The First Avenger: Captain America (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=captainamerica.htm) (Par. (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=distributor&id=paramount.htm)) - 7/22
• Cowboys & Aliens (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=cowboysandaliens.htm) (Uni. (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=distributor&id=universal.htm)) - 7/29
These blockbuster films are practically right on top of each other. Some studios are sure to face some disappointment with the performance of certain films.

[Webhead2006]

for me i rather keep batman in july 2012 release a good fit for it there. Then if flash does happen for 2012 i would put it in may or june at the start of the summer movie season. Superman would be interesting to see as a winter release. And i would personally rather see it release in 2012 over 2013 due any legal things that could come up when shuster's heirs go to court in 2013.

[solidsnake86]

It would be interesting to know where exactly they are in terms of putting a movie together. From what we know goyer already came up with the story but he could have done that months ago, for all we know they may already have a first draft completed because goyer doesn't seem like a slow writer.

[GreenKToo]

Batman maybe? Just depends on how far along the projects are and how far along they will be.
Just my fanboy opinion here from all we've seen and heard.
I think they'll go with superman.
reasons; ( the biggie) the rights go back to the families in what 2013 and WB will want it out before then imo. The longer they wait to make it, the more the risk.
SR wasn't a huge hit that was s'pose to relaunch Superman and it seems they are anxious for another supes franchise to get off the ground.

They do have Batman, granted, but other than that.... HP is soon ending, The Hobbit sounds like it's in trouble, GL sounds promising but who knows.

[Webhead2006]

totally i would love to know how far along they are too on the script, is it just a treatment is it a first draft. Cause if its at least in draft stage. it could probably be given official green light by the execs and we can move on to officially signing/announcing a director, and then rest of the year get to casting, and where they will shoot the film and all that. I would love if its shooting early spring like feb-april range. But we still need to know when they are hoping to release the film.

[Webhead2006]

edit

[Dark Knight]

Personally i think that if Hobbit is delayed and therefore won't be able to meet the dec 2012 release date , we might be seeing Batman 3 .
I made a post about this just now in Batman forums :cwink: :






Good take!

The Oscar Nomination point at the end maybe valid with a potential B3 December 2012 release date.

[Changeling]

When do most of you think this'll be released? I say 2012

[Webhead2006]

for me i rather take 2012 so if its released in late summer/or winter we can not worry about any legal tie ups and what not when shuster's heirs go to court in late 2013. So then we can have dvd/bluray release and all that be fine.

[Daybreak_st]

Is anyone here an independant filmmaker? I think someone should do a Documentary called "Posting" that chronicles sites like this throughout production of the new film.

If they setup a website they could have some of us posters, send in video clips about our thoughts on the film etc., similar to what someone did with the open letter to George Lucas (read about it online). Also if anyone is willing they could follow around some of the more prominent posters around here and film them logging on and posting etc. There was an interesting feature on one of the Smallville DVD releases that followed along some fans of the show.

It would be interesting to see what the people here are like on the other side of the computer screen. Also to see the reaction when the actual cast is announced and later once the movie premieres what the fans reaction was like.

Maybe Showtime and FNJ could be consultants since they actually work in the industry and could be interviewed for the documentary.

I think it would make an interesting addition to the Movie's DVD release.

[Webhead2006]

that does sound like a great idea for a doc day. I am sure there is someone out there with the same thought.

[solidsnake86]

When do most of you think this'll be released? I say 2012

I think this will be dependent on a few things. We know that batman 3 is coming and I would be surprised if its not 2012, then you have the flash which by all intents and purposes should be further along then this project. Could you see them placing 3 DC films in one year? Just by logic it would seem superman is the odd man out...

On the other hand, they need this film out so as not to get sued. Second, Goyer doesn't strike me as a slow writer, I mean he wrote begins really quickly and if he has a story for this film chances are he already wrote a script. The only reason it could be delayed is because they don't like the story which is probably what happend to his flash film. Thirdly Chris Nolan is going to be a producer and if inception is a success I don't see anything stoping this movie from getting made. The only reason I could see 2013 is because nolan may want to be done with batman so he can help out whoever ends up directing this film.

[Bad Superman]

I know this is wishful thinking but what if. . . Both films get released on the same year? Not saying on the same time period, but one first (mid May) and a few months later the other (late August).

[Webhead2006]

well its likely we would get two dc tentpole films for 2012 since potter will be over. The only question which will be the second film. Since batman is likely going to be one. So the second is either flash or superman. And i guess it will be which ever one has the most development going(probably flash) but who knows with DC these days. things change. Also another thing if say the hobbit doesnt work out to be filming this yr/early next yr for a 2012 winter release. Maybe wb will try out doing 3 films. They could go may/june for flash, batman in july, and superman nov/dec. Hopefully we know soon enough when any of the 3 films will actually be going into production and tentative release dates.

[Webhead2006]

well its likely we would get two dc tentpole films for 2012 since potter will be over. The only question which will be the second film. Since batman is likely going to be one. So the second is either flash or superman. And i guess it will be which ever one has the most development going(probably flash) but who knows with DC these days. things change. Also another thing if say the hobbit doesnt work out to be filming this yr/early next yr for a 2012 winter release. Maybe wb will try out doing 3 films. They could go may/june for flash, batman in july, and superman nov/dec. Hopefully we know soon enough when any of the 3 films will actually be going into production and tentative release dates.

[Bad Superman]

2012 will be an insteresting year that's for sure.

[Webhead2006]

yea with what is coming next yr and for 2012 we will be getting some interesting comic book films to enjoy.

[solidsnake86]

Has anyone seen the new iron man tv spot they posted on the front page. I'm bringing it up because the flying scenes they showed look great and provide something new that I really think superman has been missing. Obviously with iron man its a little bit easier to pull off because it seems like they have really mastered creating CGI metal, but one thing they really have to strive for in this new series is bringing something new to the table in terms of the flying. Singer peaked with the plane sequence to early in SR.

[Webhead2006]

oh totally i really hope we get some epic looking flying scenes, and that it looks realistic and all that. I would perfer to have the actual actor on wires/in a green/bluescreen room to get things just right.

[Maze]

Rumor:

Superman or Batman – Billy Zane chatting to Christopher Nolan?

Posted by liveforfilms on April 16, 2010

Bit of an odd one this. I got an email from someone in the States saying that Billy Zane had been talking with Christopher Nolan – director of the Batman films and shepherd of the Superman films whenever they get made.

As you will know I am a big fan of Billy Zane. He’s a cool dude after all. Even when the film is poor, and many of his are, Zane is always fun to watch and let us not forget he was in Titanic which made a bit of money. He was also in The Phantom which wasn’t too good and had the distinction of one of the worst taglines for a comic book movie – Slam Evil! – What were they thinking.

Getting back to the Zane and Nolan chatting. I thought this is obviously a rumour, but then I got another email from a different source who is usually pretty reliable. They said the same thing. I’ve asked for clarification, but nothing yet. I still have my doubts about the while thing.

However, I thought this would lead to some good discussion as to what character Zane could play if he was somehow involved in the next Batman film or a Superman reboot. Hell, let’s throw it open to the Marvel Universe as well.

What character could Zane play in a comic book movie?

Andy M and I always thought he would have been a perfect Batman back in the day. His Bruce Wayne would have been brill. Now he could make quite a cool Lex Luthor or Brainiac. As for Marvel I somehow see him a “Dum Dum” Duggan for SHIELD.

http://liveforfilms.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/superman-or-batman-billy-zane-chatting-to-christopher-nolan/

[DavidTyler]

I've always like Zane for Luthor. He would bring to live action a lot of what Clancy Brown brought to the character in animation.

[Rodrigo90]

I've always like Zane for Luthor. He would bring to live action a lot of what Clancy Brown brought to the character in animation.

My sentiments exactly.:up:

[GreenKToo]

Hmmmm. Looks like the Zane for Luthor faction will be back.

[Showtime]

When do most of you think this'll be released? I say 2012

Christmas 2012

[Man of Tomorrow]

Christmas 2012?

What about Batman III then?

[Showtime]

What about it?

[Man of Tomorrow]

Batman III and Superman in the same year?

[Showtime]

Does that strike you as odd?

[dark_b]

Batman III and Superman in the same year?6 months apart.

[Webhead2006]

yea i dont see why we couldnt have both batman and superman, or batman and flash in the same year. Either one at start of the summer film season, and one at the end of the summer season. Or could be fall/winter release and a summer release.

[GreenKToo]

Christmas 2012 huh..They better get busy and soon.

[Showtime]

Plenty of time.

Superman Returns came out on June 28th 2006. Bryan Singer wasn't hired until July 2004 and Brandon Rout wasn't cast until October 2004. If WB/DC was indeed thinking of a Christmas release, they are still ahead of schedule.

[GreenKToo]

yeah. I'm just getting antsy.. I know its happening of course, but until we start getting some info, i'm fearful they'll wuss out, ya know.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

yeah. I'm just getting antsy.. I know its happening of course, but until we start getting some info, i'm fearful they'll wuss out, ya know.

I know how you feel, and with the history of (failed) Superman projects it is a valid feeling to have. I hope development news starts popping up soon.

[RachelDawes]

My fears about the project not happening can still be found in my blue sig.

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

I find it funny that the somewhat fan favorite Superman Returns is starting to look like Batman and Robin. Singer killed the franchise! :awesome:

[Showtime]

I find it funny that anybody would compare Superman Returns to Batman and Robin.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I find it funny that anybody would compare Superman Returns to Batman and Robin.

NICE :D


If there is anyway to make SR look like an Oscar worthy mistake free film, I guess you could compare it to BR :confused:

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Not like that. I don't like either one, but Singer's movie is definitely a lot better than Schumacher's. But Superman Returns wasn't really a great revival of the character and for awhile there, Superman was in limbo with no movie in sight.

[bgshw44]

Christmas 2012

i like it:yay:

[Rodrigo90]

I bet its 2013,like Aquman...Uhh.

[Webhead2006]

yea if they have at least a yr and a half before a release i would think that is plently of time. REally all we need is like 3-4 months of pre production, then like 4 months for production. Then the rest for post production, reshoots, and the whole marketing time.

[dark_b]

i am no expert but i would try to plan the filming so so that you would have at least 2 months for reshoots . and not reshoots like 3 months before the premiere but like reshoots at least 6 months before the realese.

why ? greenscreen filming with the actor on wires. lets face it its very hard to to find lighting on the greenscreen set that fits 100% with the CGI enviorment. so what to do? hhhhh why not rush filming? if you have tim why not plan it?

so you storyboard the movie,pre-viz and writte the script. then you film the movie. then months later in post production you can maybe change things and by then you would still have enough time for reshoots.

look guys this is superman and not batman,spiderman,hulk or iron man. those superheroes are full CGI or have a mask on. if you make a CGI digital double in a close up its no a problem because we dont see the face. with superman its different. so if you would have enough time for reshoots in post productino you could fix everything.

but hey this is hollywood. it neds to be rushed .

[GreenKToo]

SR is head and shoulders above B&R.
That said, IMVHO, Singer's mistake was in thinking that the fan's and public's love for the Donner films would automaticlly make SR a hit with them. it doesn't work like that.

If SR would have had no kid, a supervillain, and a different take on Lex, we would have had our sequel by now, and we would possibily even be talking about the third film being in production, or near it, right about now.

Meh, oh well. Here's to hoping the next film is one that has what we all ( or most all ) want.
If after seeing it, I then want to turn right around and see it again, then it has passed my test. SR didn't give me that feeling, BUT, I didn't hate it either, it was just ''there.''

[\S/JcDc\S/]

SR is head and shoulders above B&R.
That said, IMVHO, Singer's mistake was in thinking that the fan's and public's love for the Donner films would automaticlly make SR a hit with them. it doesn't work like that.

If SR would have had no kid, a supervillain, and a different take on Lex, we would have had our sequel by now, and we would possibily even be talking about the third film being in production, or near it, right about now.

Meh, oh well. Here's to hoping the next film is one that has what we all ( or most all ) want.
If after seeing it, I then want to turn right around and see it again, then it has passed my test. SR didn't give me that feeling, BUT, I didn't hate it either, it was just ''there.''

Here is my theory on why Singer went in the direction he did.

Singer overcomplicated things. I think he knew what fans thought of as obvious ways to go, and felt he could avoid backlash by going around those "obstacles" with a twist to an existing story that fans would not expect (Superman already having left earth and actually returning for the opening, coming back to find out he's a Daddy).

Some examples of how I believe he processed fanboy wishes. Fans=Bring in Brainiac. Singer thought "Nah, we'll set things up with Lex first." Fans=Corporate Lex. Singer thought "Nah let's make him the underground criminal instead. All recent modern stories have done the corporate angle already. Let's go back in another direction"

I think he basically tried to counter the obvious decisions one could make in telling a modern story.

With Batman, Nolan went with mostly obvious decisions (basically decisions that general fans have had a consensus on for a while)

If Singer worked a different angle nobody expected, maybe his line of thought was that he couldn't mess up certain story elements if he simply omitted or altered them completely.

The next director must have the nerve to actually take on what the fans want. He can not have a fear of failure, and worry about whether it lives up to their expectations. He should just worry that he is layering the elements in a cohesive way. Fans will appreciate the attempt even if it is not 100% accurately pulled off. Fans will not put up with no attempt at all in delivering the type of story/characterizations that they have been waiting on in a modern story. Avoidance will get you no where. You can turn away from hitting a deer, but then you might just end up off the road (like Singer).

In some ways Singer ran away from doing the obvious, and it was a 50/50 shot and he ended up with the wrong half :o

[super-t]

christmas 2012? GREEEEEAAAATTT... the damn me world is gonna blow up in the middle of buyin my tickets online

[Lighthouse]

I find it funny that anybody would compare Superman Returns to Batman and Robin.

I think people are confusing their disappointment for awfulness. Batman and Robin is awful sewage, but people had a lot more invested in Superman Returns. I'd say a slightly better comparison would be to the Star Wars Episode I(though that movie is 100 times more disappointing).

[Webhead2006]

its all about what type of filming style they go with and type of director going. Some like to take a long time to get a film going like spielberg/lucas who would take like a yr/yr and a half to shoot and all that. But a yr and a half/about 2yrs prior to release is plently of time. its just all about how much time is needed for pre production, production, post production, and the marketing end.

[Anita18]

Here is my theory on why Singer went in the direction he did.

Singer overcomplicated things. I think he knew what fans thought of as obvious ways to go, and felt he could avoid backlash by going around those "obstacles" with a twist to an existing story that fans would not expect (Superman already having left earth and actually returning for the opening, coming back to find out he's a Daddy).

Some examples of how I believe he processed fanboy wishes. Fans=Bring in Brainiac. Singer thought "Nah, we'll set things up with Lex first." Fans=Corporate Lex. Singer thought "Nah let's make him the underground criminal instead. All recent modern stories have done the corporate angle already. Let's go back in another direction"

I think he basically tried to counter the obvious decisions one could make in telling a modern story.

With Batman, Nolan went with mostly obvious decisions (basically decisions that general fans have had a consensus on for a while)

If Singer worked a different angle nobody expected, maybe his line of thought was that he couldn't mess up certain story elements if he simply omitted or altered them completely.

The next director must have the nerve to actually take on what the fans want. He can not have a fear of failure, and worry about whether it lives up to their expectations. He should just worry that he is layering the elements in a cohesive way. Fans will appreciate the attempt even if it is not 100% accurately pulled off. Fans will not put up with no attempt at all in delivering the type of story/characterizations that they have been waiting on in a modern story. Avoidance will get you no where. You can turn away from hitting a deer, but then you might just end up off the road (like Singer).

In some ways Singer ran away from doing the obvious, and it was a 50/50 shot and he ended up with the wrong half :o
I don't think directors think in "what the fans want." Sure that may be occurring to them every once in a while, but I think both Singer and Nolan mainly went for the stories that interested them personally. Singer wanted to go for the concept of adoption, family, and belonging for Superman. Which is fine...except that it's boring when it comes to meaty physical conflicts, especially for a guy as powerful as Supes is. :oldrazz: And then for some reason he decided to use the original Superman movie as a crutch for the physical conflict he couldn't come up with. :funny:

[DavidTyler]

Here's an interesting thought ...

What if Nolan ended up with the Batman we got because he DIDN'T know anything about the character (other than the obvious) and brought in someone who was (Goyer) to help guide the film. The end result being the resource keeping things closer to the comix and the feel of the books.

Now - that might explain how Singer ended up on the wrong stretch of road.... he took his own head and used Donner's films as his resource. It would explain why we have a regurgitated Superman the Movie. Of course, Singer added his own soap opera tilt.

If I'm right, I think we can count on Nolan to bring in people who will nudge him away from things that are too far from source and let the character be himself. Plus, I think Nolan is great at supporting casts and will pay a lot of attention to getting them right.

[GreenKToo]

Here's a formula for a successful Superman film.
It needs the classic suit ( or close to it), give the film a bright tone overall, have a supervillain or two,
an A-list cast, a powerful score, epic fights, lots of action with plenty of destruction thrown in, AND last but not least a good story. All that will = $$$$ at the B.O. Anybody disagree?

That ain't rocket science.

[Showtime]

I think people are confusing their disappointment for awfulness. Batman and Robin is awful sewage, but people had a lot more invested in Superman Returns. I'd say a slightly better comparison would be to the Star Wars Episode I(though that movie is 100 times more disappointing).

Thank you. Well said.

[Ultimate_Superman]

SR is head and shoulders above B&R.
That said, IMVHO, Singer's mistake was in thinking that the fan's and public's love for the Donner films would automaticlly make SR a hit with them. it doesn't work like that.

If SR would have had no kid, a supervillain, and a different take on Lex, we would have had our sequel by now, and we would possibily even be talking about the third film being in production, or near it, right about now.

Meh, oh well. Here's to hoping the next film is one that has what we all ( or most all ) want.
If after seeing it, I then want to turn right around and see it again, then it has passed my test. SR didn't give me that feeling, BUT, I didn't hate it either, it was just ''there.''Even all that aside if Singer just stuck to his word and did a small project instead of Valkyrie we would have had a sequel last year. Superman Returns as I have said before and I will stand by it is proably one of the best well written and filmed comic book movie to date. It is very hard to make Superman human and relate able and Singer was able to do that. I think had the film not been heavily edited the way it was it would have been even better. Either way Superman Returns faults and all the movie was still given a sequel it was just Singer agreeing to do Valkyrie that set off a whole chain of events that lead us to where we are now.

[Anita18]

Here's an interesting thought ...

What if Nolan ended up with the Batman we got because he DIDN'T know anything about the character (other than the obvious) and brought in someone who was (Goyer) to help guide the film. The end result being the resource keeping things closer to the comix and the feel of the books.

Now - that might explain how Singer ended up on the wrong stretch of road.... he took his own head and used Donner's films as his resource. It would explain why we have a regurgitated Superman the Movie. Of course, Singer added his own soap opera tilt.

If I'm right, I think we can count on Nolan to bring in people who will nudge him away from things that are too far from source and let the character be himself. Plus, I think Nolan is great at supporting casts and will pay a lot of attention to getting them right.
Some folks over in the realism thread would disagree with you. :funny: But I agree - I looked over TLH and Year One this weekend and the feel to TDK was uncanny. Great complement to those books even though it had an atmosphere of its own as well.

And I think the Nolans were a little more familiar with Batman than you give them credit for. Chris gave Jonah TDKR for his birthday when he was a teen, so at least they were familiar with that...

I agree that there's no indication Singer was familiar at all with the comics, since basically everything we saw in SR we already saw with S:TM.

[Daybreak_st]

Instead of SR being a continuation from Superman 2 i think a more interesting idea would've been to continue from Superman 4. Before you all start complaining just read on. The only reason Singer didn’t do this, is so his plot with Lois getting pregnant would work out. Anyway the biggest problem with Superman 4 was the execution not the idea.

You want a morally conflicted Supes, look no further than that film. He honestly doesn’t know what to do, whether he should interfere in mankind’s affairs by destroying Nuclear missles. He addresses the United Nations, which was interesting to see how the world views superman. He visits the Fortress and it’s interesting to see him talk to Kryptonian elders about the dilemma, they mention that if earth is destroyed there are other more advanced worlds he could go to in which war has been eliminated. Also at the end of the film Superman gives a great speech about how and when we as humans may attain world peace, which highlights his belief in humanity, then he also talks about other advanced civilizations out there that humans will one day meet, the look on Chris Reeve’s face in that scene was terrific. Also despite how dumb his scenes turned out, Lex Luthor was shown to actually be a genius in creating Nuclear man, rather than a cheap con artist who wants real estate.

Multiple times the movie references other advanced alien civilizations. It reminded me of how George lucas mentions the clone wars in star wars, but never shows anything from it b/c he didn’t feel like the technology was right at that time. The setup was there in Superman 4 to later show some of these alien civilizations, and if lex was to return he could’ve been better defined as a scientific genius rather than a real estate con man.

SR could’ve addressed the current state of world affairs and superman may have wondered if he’d done enough to prevent the new wars from arising (a soft reference to superman 4). At this point an advanced alien civilization shows up, similar to the “V” tv show, full armada of giant ships across the world. The world quickly gravitates towards them, and their promises of peace and advancement. Superman is hopeful but a little skeptical at first, people also start favoring the new aliens rather than superman. Clark and Lois are trying to investigate these new vistors while superman seeks knowledge from the fortress of solitude. He’s surpised there is no record of this civilization, or if there is they’ve supposedly been wiped out, so he’s suspicious. At some point it’s revealed that one of Supes classic villains is behind this “arrival” and it’s really an invasion. Supes has to use all of this powers and insight to fight off this threat. We could’ve introduced Star Labs, the science police, and eetc. Supes realizes that he needs Luthor’s help (scientific genius lex not real estate con artist) and somehow they work together to stop the aliens. Luthor is pardoned and the setup is there for him to become corporate lex in the sequels.

This is what should’ve happened with SR.

[GreenKToo]

Like I said before, I would have had the same general opening...but no rich old lady this time tho. Lex just rents or steals a yacht to get to the artic, who cares how, he just does.

Anyway, Superman ( we see that he was tricked by Lex ) still leaves Earth to see if any Kryptonarians are alive.
Lex still breaks into the F.O.S. and steals the crystals, but instead of stealing them to create real estate, he studies them, learns their secrets, and creates new advanced technologies.

Lex sells the new inventions off he has created from the crystals, and creates Lex-Corp from the proceeds. He hires a few dozen men, soldiers of fortune, and forms intergang. He arms them with advanced weapons, again, all from the crystals.

Once Lex-corp has been formed, Lex takes his best henchman, John Corbin, and makes him into Metallo.
Lex then sets about creating cures for diseases, stopping famine, using intergang and Metallo to stop petty crimes ( all the while using them for bigger, secret, crimes).
He also sells advanced weapons to different countries.

Lex does all this to gain the trust of the very people he cares nothing about.
He wants to rule not just America, but the entire world and he needs the sheep to support him.

Before long, Lex is buying up nearly all the major media outlets. First in Metropolis, then the entire country. The DP and a few others hold out and refuse to sell.
Lex now controls almost all that is reported, and of course it's all anti-Superman slanted.
Things like ''Superman abandoned us'', and ''who needs him anyway'' are the usual reports on TV and in the papers, while at the same time they report on how ''Lex has saved them'', and ''he is a savior of the world.''
Before long, whenever an image of Superman appears on a TV or in print, people throw things at it, or rip it up in anger.

Lex smirks at how well his plan is going.

Of course The folks at the DP dont trust Lex and are constantly trying to get the goods on him. Lois and jimmy are always on the trail of Lex, to the point that they annoy him.

Its at this point that Superman would return from space. We see the same greeting from martha. We see Clark reading ALOT of newspapers and watching the news and really understanding that the world has moved on without him.
We see Him debating whether or not to go back to Metropolis and Martha convincing him that he needs to.
We see Clark calling Perry and asking if there is still an opening at the Planet for him.


The plane/shuttle save would still be the big first reveal of Superman, only this time we see a CLASSIC REAL shirt rip with the williams theme blasting slow..

[Webhead2006]

well hopefully nolan, goyer will get the right feel, tone, themes for superman and use the many ideals and elements we fans want to see that hasnt really been embraced in the past supes films.

[Ultimate_Superman]

well hopefully nolan, goyer will get the right feel, tone, themes for superman and use the many ideals and elements we fans want to see that hasnt really been embraced in the past supes films.
Really that's easier said then done. The only thing fans can agree on when it comes to a Superman movie is that they want to see post-crisis Lex and want the classic suit. Other then that you will not really see the fans agree on anything. For example Superman's Secret Origin the book that is now Superman's Origin for New Earth if you read the reviews fans are pretty much split with this book because of the heavy Donner over tones they use. Take something from Smallville and you will see a riot because Smallville is held in the same regards as Superman Returns if not worse. That something from the old moves and you'll get the same reaction you got with Superman Returns. The only thing you might be able to model him after if you use any form of Superman we have seen in the past few years is Timm's Superman. Superman: Man of Steel is something that had the fans split why? Because he was to much like a Marvel hero. His powers were different where Superman could lift something heavy but in the same it wasn't really him doing it (read Superman #1 for an example of that it is explained it is done by sheer force or will). What Nolan and company should is something like what JMS is doing with Earth One Superman. Take the person start over and make him your own while staying true to everything Superman stands for and represents. Because if that take bit and pieces of stuff you have seen over the course of time you get Superman Secret Origin and as I said before that has fans split already on how they feel with treatment of everything expect for Lex.

[kalelkilla]

There isn't enough room on these boards to go through all the mistakes Singer and his merry men made. What did he think everyone in the world watches Superman 1 and 2 on dvd every other day? How out of touch can you be?

[Anita18]

Really that's easier said then done. The only thing fans can agree on when it comes to a Superman movie is that they want to see post-crisis Lex and want the classic suit. Other then that you will not really see the fans agree on anything.
That'll always be the case. But I think the easiest way to get fans behind what you're doing is to emulate one of the modern classic Superman stories, the same way BB and TDK took mostly from Year One and TLH. Sure some fans might prefer to see something else, but there's a good reason why those two particular stories are classic must-read Batman comics. Lots of comic fans liked them. :oldrazz:

[Ultimate_Superman]

That'll always be the case. But I think the easiest way to get fans behind what you're doing is to emulate one of the modern classic Superman stories, the same way BB and TDK took mostly from Year One and TLH. Sure some fans might prefer to see something else, but there's a good reason why those two particular stories are classic must-read Batman comics. Lots of comic fans liked them. :oldrazz:Yea but the difference is with Superman is that so many people see Superman in so many different ways. Some like the Red Son Superman, others prefer the Donner Superman, others prefer TAS Superman, others want the Smallville Clark, then you have those who say Superman has no new origin past Man of Steel, while you have those who like Birthright or Secret Origins. Once again Batman can be easy to do because you reall have only three version of him. The is pre WWII, then Adam West Batman (which went into the comics as well), then you have Frank Miller's Batman (current Batman and Burton/Nolan's Batman). With Superman you have so many that it is hard to please everyone. Look at Secret Origins Johns tried to please all the fans by putting all the stuff fans loved together and fans are now saying they really wish he didn't do that.

[Daybreak_st]

Yea but the difference is with Superman is that so many people see Superman in so many different ways. Some like the Red Son Superman, others prefer the Donner Superman, others prefer TAS Superman, others want the Smallville Clark, then you have those who say Superman has no new origin past Man of Steel, while you have those who like Birthright or Secret Origins. Once again Batman can be easy to do because you reall have only three version of him. The is pre WWII, then Adam West Batman (which went into the comics as well), then you have Frank Miller's Batman (current Batman and Burton/Nolan's Batman). With Superman you have so many that it is hard to please everyone. Look at Secret Origins Johns tried to please all the fans by putting all the stuff fans loved together and fans are now saying they really wish he didn't do that.

No comic movies would ever get made if they worried about pleasing all the fanboys and gals out there. They just need to focus on solid storytelling, well developed characters, high quality/ground breaking special effects, if they get all those elements right, only the most irritating fanboys will be complaining. These movies are about the general audience and making movie. If they tell a compelling superman story that focus on quality and solid characters people will enjoy it period.

[Webhead2006]

yea that is the darn problem for us to face we fans are so spilt in things we want to see and things we dont want to see. Hopefully in the end they can find the balance there to please the majority of the fanbases out there and we get a well rounded out characters, story, and world for superman.

[Young Superman]

I think the reboot should be a cross between "Man of Steel" and "Superman Birthright".

[Webhead2006]

well like how we know the batman movies were taken ideas/elements from certain stories from the batman comics. i am sure that will be the case here too. Now as to what they will be looking at we dont really know beyond that first rumor a few months back that its bryne mos. But i am sure they will be looking at a few other stuff too.

[Gabe99]

From Splash Page:
'Dark Knight' Producer Compares Chris Nolan Rebooting Superman To 'The Wrath Of Khan' (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/04/20/the-dark-knight-chris-nolan-rebooting-superman-star-trek-the-wrath-of-khan/)

[Webhead2006]

interesting find gabe.

[FilmNerdJamie]

That's non-news. We've heard Man of Steel being compared to Wrath of Khan dating as far back to Bryan Singer in '06. Heard that comparison God knows how many times. "Interesting find?" No. Just MTV being hit-whores. Yet again.

[dark_b]

i think Singer used it in better context at making a Wrath of Khan sequel to Superman Returns.

Nolan producing a wrath of khan superman reboot? doesnt makes sense.

[GreenKToo]

Wrath of Khan huh...could it mean that we see an old villain return??
Gus Gorman FTW DAMMIT! :awesome:

[Daybreak_st]

I think the reboot should be a cross between "Man of Steel" and "Superman Birthright".

Sounds good to me, though i would mainly draw from birthright and maybe the second half of Secret Origins with Metallo and Lane

Wrath of Khan huh...could it mean that we see an old villain return??
Gus Gorman FTW DAMMIT! :awesome:

Gus Gorman

http://cfs2.tistory.com/upload_control/download.blog?fhandle=YmxvZzUwNDU2QGZzMi50aXN0b3J5 LmNvbTovYXR0YWNoLzMvMzI1LmpwZw%3D%3D

and Otis team-up

http://www.smallvillepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/otis.gif


Chis Tucker for Gus and Seth Rogen for Otis FTW!!!

[Bad Superman]

"Man of Steel" + "Superman Birthright" + the second half of Secret Origins = Epic :up:

[kalelkilla]

Superman for All Seasons + Birthright = Superman Begins = Box Office Gold = Spring Board for great Superman Movies for the next decade or so.

[dark_b]

Wrath of Khan huh...could it mean that we see an old villain return??
Gus Gorman FTW DAMMIT! :awesome:if Zod comes back then Nolan needs to ''freeze in hell ''
http://i41.tinypic.com/107763c.jpg

[Webhead2006]

there isnt anything wrong with zod in my book. as long as they define him differently and do other stuff with him he could be a solid villain to go with. But yea first i want to see guys like metallo/brainaic get on big screen before they go back to zod.

[GreenKToo]

I wouldn't mind if Zod is shown or referenced in the reboot, but I wouldnt want him as the main villain right off.
If it's Brainiac ( which they already said it was) maybe show that Zod is behind him, show that he programmed Brainiac to destroy Krypton and he is also the reason that Brainiac came to Earth, to kill Kal-el.
Build Zod up so that the audience will really have some hate going for him by the time a sequel rolls around.

Cast someone like Joaquin Phoenix or Russell Crowe as Zod.

[dark_b]

no ZOD
http://i44.tinypic.com/n1qeer.jpg

[Young Superman]

"Man of Steel" + "Superman Birthright" + the second half of Secret Origins = Epic :up:
Heck yeahhttp://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gifhttp://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gifhttp://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

if Zod comes back then Nolan needs to ''freeze in hell ''
Agreed IMHO Zod's is a lame villian and has been done to death.

[GreenKToo]

I dont think we have anything to worry about. Zod hasnt been mentioned, Brainiac has.

[Mr. Earle]

If it's Brainiac ( which they already said it was) maybe show that Zod is behind him, show that he programmed Brainiac to destroy KryptonZod wants to rule Krypton, not destroy it. He is a fascist, not a lunatic. Am i right?
and he is also the reason that Brainiac came to Earth, to kill Kal-el.But that destroys Brainiac as a character. Brainiac is a sentient machine that wants to record all the information in the universe and then destroy it. You are making him a simple tool of Zod's.

[Daybreak_st]

One mediocre film with bad characterization = done to death? :doh:

Only person "done to death" is Lex.

[Daybreak_st]

Zod wants to rule Krypton, not destroy it. He is a fascist, not a lunatic. Am i right?


You are correct! See this is why i would like to see Zod again b/c he's not the 2d character from Superman 2. In the comics in vastly more interesting than that. What they did to him is close but not quite as bad as what those movies did to lex, make them one note villains rather than deep or interesting.


But that destroys Brainiac as a character. Brainiac is a sentient machine that wants to record all the information in the universe and then destroy it. You are making him a simple tool of Zod's.


Yes the only interaction those two actually have is that Braianic is the only enemy Zod has failed to defeat. He's also obsessed with him. IN the phantom zone he's spent decades studying their initial conflict to figure out how and why he failed and what he would do different the next time around. I'm telling you between the way he was written in Last Son and the whole New Krypton/Brainiac arc he is a very interesting character.

Anyone complaining about Zod simply doesn't know the character. It's like people complaining aobut how lame Lex Luthor is when they're only familar with Hackman's version.

[Mr. Earle]

Honestly, i only know Zod from Superman 2 and that comic book story that introduces Lor-Zod, so that's very little. That said, i would be intrigued about a Zod that is as tormented about Krypton's destruction as much as Superman is, if not more because he actually lived there half of his life. It'd be interesting if he wanted to rule Krypton, thinking that his monarchy would be the solution to every problem, just like Hitler thought he was in the right.

I dont know how much of that is actually in the comics, but i do know that Krypton is destroyed and the stories take place on Earth, where he comes only to extract revenge on Jor-El's son or to enslave it and create a new Krypton. So he seems kind of irrelevant to me. If the story was about Jor-El and took place in a Kryptonian colony, i would get it, but now, its just:
"Your father was an *******, i will kill you. Hey, that's a nice planet you found. I will enslave it!!!"

In other words he becomes a Superman villain because of his obsession with Jor-El and that's pretty forced in my opinion. I just dont care.

[Alonsovich]

One mediocre film with bad characterization = done to death? :doh:

Only person "done to death" is Lex.

Crook Lex... the other types of Lex Luthor haven't been still on a cinema's screen...

[Lead Cenobite]

Heck yeahhttp://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gifhttp://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gifhttp://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif


Agreed IMHO Zod's is a lame villian and has been done to death.

Why Is he lame exactly? Because he was popularized by the Donner movies? And how has he been done to death? He's only been the villain in one movie. You know, I'd loooooooooove to know what was so great about the silver/bronze age era comics compared to the Donner movies that makes you all bash them so much, because apparently they came no where near living up to that kitchy, simple minded writing. You think Zod is lame? How about a villain who's origins can't be decided upon by the writers? The villain of the next movie, Brainiac. Nobody can tell me a damn thing about the character's motivations. He shrinks cities just because? How is that any better than a traitorous general from Krypton exactly? Oh right, because he wasn't in the Donner movies, which are an abomination to Superman. You people are ridiculous.

[Mr. Earle]

Relax Richard, we still like your movies. :awesome:

[protocida]

They should just adapt "Brainiac", add a Clark/Lois/Superman love triangle, a Lex Luthor subplot and change the ending.

[Daybreak_st]

Crook Lex... the other types of Lex Luthor haven't been still on a cinema's screen...


Lois and clark = corporate lex, Smallville 7 seasons = corporate lex, superman animated series = corporate lex, Ruby spears animated superman = corporate lex, Superman Doomsday = corporate lex....

Superman 2 = Zod, Season 9 of Smallville = Zod


So who's been done to death exactly?

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

They should just adapt "Brainiac",
Read that for the first time today, really liked it.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Metallo working under Lex is what I want to see but I'd be cool with Brainac.

[Bad Superman]

I think one main villian with small parts or cameos of other villians could work well. The two best examples:

*Batman Begins: Ras Al Gul (main villian), Carmine Falcone and Scarecrow (supporting villians)

*The Dark Knight: The Joker (main villian), Scarecrow (cameo), Two-Face and Maroni (supporting villians).

[GreenKToo]

I think one main villian with small parts or cameos of other villians could work well. The two best examples:

*Batman Begins: Ras Al Gul (main villian), Carmine Falcone and Scarecrow (supporting villians)

*The Dark Knight: The Joker (main villian), Scarecrow (cameo), Two-Face and Maroni (supporting villians).
I agree.
I'd like to see Brainiac as the main villain, with Lex having a big role as the secondary villain along with his lackey, John Corbin.

[solidsnake86]

Zod wants to rule Krypton, not destroy it. He is a fascist, not a lunatic. Am i right?


Kind of but he's not a complete lunatic. Non and Jor-el find out about krypton's destruction and go to the council. They lobotomize Non for heresay and zod finds out the truth and of the impending destruction. Thats why he tries to overthrow the council because he knows they were dooming the planet by not listening and with him taking over he would be able to save the people. Its a really interesting back story they have given him. Obviously the actions he took were extreme but considering the circumstances you might say they were needed.

[Young Superman]

Metallo working under Lex is what I want to see but I'd be cool with Brainac.
Me Too

[Daybreak_st]

Kind of but he's not a complete lunatic. Non and Jor-el find out about krypton's destruction and go to the council. They lobotomize Non for heresay and zod finds out the truth and of the impending destruction. Thats why he tries to overthrow the council because he knows they were dooming the planet by not listening and with him taking over he would be able to save the people. Its a really interesting back story they have given him. Obviously the actions he took were extreme but considering the circumstances you might say they were needed.


Well said, Zod is a very interesting character and his backstory has been much more fleshed out in recent years. You could argue that any character is only as good as the writers handling them. The JOker is basically an evil clown for goodness sakes! Yet look at how well he's handled. He's probably the most popular super villain of all time. But if written poorly he may have never had that chance.

Supes has a nice rogues gallery, just write and develop them well and any number of them could work well in a film. Also why i appreciate what smallville has been doing in bring their own twist/interpretation to his classic rogues for live action. Hopefully the movies will take a similar approach and not stick us with 3 more films featuring only lex :whatever:

[solidsnake86]

The only thing thats disappointing about secret origins is that its only six issues, I would really like to see a sequel like the long halloween fleshing out metallo and parasite a bit more. I really like what Johns did with metallo, not so much with parasite. But your right, it really depends on the writer.

[Daybreak_st]

Yeah i agree, a sequel would be great. Biggest dissapointments for me was Parasite, just so lame, and clark being too much based on Chris Reeve's version. I think the characterization wasn't all bad, i loved the scene when he meets john corben, classic. But when he's first introduced he's slipping around the office, dropping things, just too over the top for me. Would've prefered more "mild mannered" and less "over the top". But all in all i've enjoyed Secret Origins.

[Mr. Earle]

Kind of but he's not a complete lunatic. Non and Jor-el find out about krypton's destruction and go to the council. They lobotomize Non for heresay and zod finds out the truth and of the impending destruction. Thats why he tries to overthrow the council because he knows they were dooming the planet by not listening and with him taking over he would be able to save the people. Its a really interesting back story they have given him. Obviously the actions he took were extreme but considering the circumstances you might say they were needed.
If thats how it went then ALL HEIL ZOD! He did what was necessary to save his planet, didnt he?

[Alonsovich]

Lois and clark = corporate lex, Smallville 7 seasons = corporate lex, superman animated series = corporate lex, Ruby spears animated superman = corporate lex, Superman Doomsday = corporate lex....

Superman 2 = Zod, Season 9 of Smallville = Zod


So who's been done to death exactly?

Read again... I said cinema screen. :cwink:

The general moviegoing audience hasn't seen still the corporate/presidential Lex... which despite TAS and Smallville... most poeple in this audience don't watch those series, so there's a fair chance of surprising that audience with that type of Lex.

[echostation]

when the hell are the big announcements coming for this... we've been waiting months and nothing but silence and **** have popped up

[Young Superman]

I'll be honest the main reason I don't like Zod is because I prefer Superman to be the last of his race, the sole survivor of Krypton.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I don't know what Zod is in the comicbooks because I don't read comicbooks very often but I liked the corny Zod in Superman 2. I still don't want him for the reboot though as I'd perfer a villain never seen before on the bigscreen...like Metallo for instance

[Webhead2006]

yea i said myself i wouldnt mind seeing zod again. As long as he is different then the donner take. But yea i would leave him off to a 3rd film type of deal. so we could finally get villains like brainiac, metallo, toyman, mongul, parasite, etc.... guys who havent had their share on the big screen. As for lex i still want him to be a major player and if we get to see him in corp setting it will be much different then the donner take con man type.

[kalelkilla]

If Zod in is in the film, I would be bummed down. I just want to see a new villain on the screen. There is the technology now to make a great villain like Brainiac to come to life.

[Daybreak_st]

Read again... I said cinema screen. :cwink:

The general moviegoing audience hasn't seen still the corporate/presidential Lex... which despite TAS and Smallville... most poeple in this audience don't watch those series, so there's a fair chance of surprising that audience with that type of Lex.

I see your point. Corporate/President lex provides some interesting material to work with. My only point was just as there are multiple takes on Lex, either corny like in the Reeves films, or deep interesting ala the Corporate verison; Zod is no different, the comics have added nice layers to the villain so he's not lame or 2D. It's all about being handled well.

All that said, i don't want to see him in the reboot. I won't mind him being used much later, like in the final film, but that's about it. I also like in Smallville the connection the two share, like brothers, and it would interesting to see that played out on screen, for kal-el to feel some sort of kinship to these kryptonians, but that's playing out on smallville so maybe not. Just saying he could be used interestingly.

To dismiss him is no different that citing Batman Forever and it's cheesy verison of Two-Face as a reason for him not to be included in the new BAtman franchise. And yet look that amazing job Aaron Eckard and Nolan brought to the character in DArk KNight. It's all about how the character is handled.

I'll be honest the main reason I don't like Zod is because I prefer Superman to be the last of his race, the sole survivor of Krypton.

I see your point. And that's certainly fair. I just think showing other kryptonians, not a lot mind you but a few, emphasizes his upbrining, and how unique superman truly is. The powers of a kryptonian but the heart of a human.

Also in the comics very few times has he truly been the last kryptonian, Bottle City of kandor, phantom zone, etc. Seems like there was always a way for other surviors to be around. Also Supergirl.

I don't know what Zod is in the comicbooks because I don't read comicbooks very often but I liked the corny Zod in Superman 2. I still don't want him for the reboot though as I'd perfer a villain never seen before on the bigscreen...like Metallo for instance

I see your point. I also prefer some of his other rogues to make it on screen but wouldn't mind seeing zod down the road, in say the 3rd film for instance.

yea i said myself i wouldnt mind seeing zod again. As long as he is different then the donner take. But yea i would leave him off to a 3rd film type of deal. so we could finally get villains like brainiac, metallo, toyman, mongul, parasite, etc.... guys who havent had their share on the big screen. As for lex i still want him to be a major player and if we get to see him in corp setting it will be much different then the donner take con man type.

Yeah that should be the priority.

[GreenKToo]

I would have no problem with Zod in a sequel, or like the poster above said in the third film, but not in the reboot. And for sure not as the main villain.
Mentioning him would be ok tho.

[Showtime]

when the hell are the big announcements coming for this... we've been waiting months and nothing but silence and **** have popped up

Before comic con on Batman and Superman. Most of Green Lantern will be at Comic Con.

[GreenKToo]

oh realy???

[Webhead2006]

totally we should gun for foes we havent seen on the big screen yet, then get to zod down the road. As for lex i still say we need to have him. But yea let him be secondary threat in this first new film, and build up his corp/political take. So we can see lex in a much different light then the donner take most movie goers only know of him.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

http://screenrant.com/batman-3-official-announcement-comic-con-rob-55252/

Superman talk in this as well.

[The Batman]

Why Is he lame exactly? Because he was popularized by the Donner movies? And how has he been done to death? He's only been the villain in one movie. You know, I'd loooooooooove to know what was so great about the silver/bronze age era comics compared to the Donner movies that makes you all bash them so much, because apparently they came no where near living up to that kitchy, simple minded writing. You think Zod is lame? How about a villain who's origins can't be decided upon by the writers? The villain of the next movie, Brainiac. Nobody can tell me a damn thing about the character's motivations. He shrinks cities just because? How is that any better than a traitorous general from Krypton exactly? Oh right, because he wasn't in the Donner movies, which are an abomination to Superman. You people are ridiculous.

The reason I love posts like this is that absolutely exposes a lot of fans on the Supperman board....which is why people dont even bother to respond to these kinds of posts.

[GreenKToo]

http://screenrant.com/batman-3-official-announcement-comic-con-rob-55252/

Superman talk in this as well.
Maybe the ole' rumor train will start chugging along now.

[Kal El Vis]

The reason I love posts like this is that absolutely exposes a lot of fans on the Supperman board....which is why people dont even bother to respond to these kinds of posts.

Isn't Zod on Smallville every week too?

No rehashing super-villains from previous Superman films. It's time for something NEW.

[Webhead2006]

well not technically every week this season for smallville out of 19 episodes that have aired he has only appeared in about 10 of them.

[NotFadeAway]

I've typed some of this out before, but because I've been away for awhile, I thought I'd shake the cob webbs by detailing my plans for a Superman franchise. Not one film or a trilogy, but a franchise. These are my idea's and nothing else, though I do admit to taking some good things from the failed J.J. Abrams script.

Before I get started, the plans that I have DON'T take into effect the no-origin rule, and assumes that the cast/crew will stick around the whole time with a slowly aging appearence. And with the final two films, I only have a few details so far. I need to work out alot more, so it will be vague at the moment. So here we go....

1) Superman - The origin flick. Begins with Jor-El, Lara, and the destruction of Krypton. Braniac is included here in similiar fashion to the S"TAS origin. This makes the story fresh for the general audience and gives the film a villian. Braniac would be the only villian here, with no more than a bit role for Lex, if any, but constent mention of LexCorp and Luthor running for Senate. Anyway, we see Superman/Clark grow up in a similiar way to For All Seasons, and travels the world as a freelance or even foreign reporter for the Daily Planet pre-Superman, like Birthright. He then becomes Superman, we meet the daily planet characters, Clark falls for Lois. Superman debuts with Lois falling for Supes, but the general public fears the flying alien, which would continue until the end of the film. Lois would be the only person who has Superman's back at first, with others slowly believing here and there until he whole world believes at the end. Braniac shows up to turn Earth into his own personal zoo collection, with the twist being that Earth's atmosphere is unique in that it can support any life from any planet from anywhere in the galaxy that Braniac has traveled. The exception is that only Kryptonians gain powers from the yellow sun, so Braniac wants to create a tophy planet with Cloned DNA samples of all the species he has conquered, including humans, and then dividing them up all over the world with a brainwashed Kryptonian police force. Jor-El also takes on the appearence of Jor-El, which messes with Superman. Eventually toward the end, Superman learns his kryptonian origin, as his space ship was damaged coming to Earth and he has only seen glimpses of his father as a result. The ship corrects itself once sensing that Supes was in danger. This leads to an all out brawl between Superman and Braniac, with Superman winning and becoming the hero of Earth. Lois begins to suspect Clark is Superman at the end, while LexCorp recovers some Braniac technology, which leads us to...

2) Man Of Steel - Superman has been fully embraced by humanity and saves the day on a daily basis. Lex Luthor meanwhile has become a Senator in his first step toward political power, as well as furthering LexCorp's power. With hints of true insanity, Luthor believes himself to be the worlds saviour and that he knows best. He believes that necessary evil must be done to begin the reclamation priject, and part of that scheme is the creation of Metallo and the LexCore security force(think blackwater) as a way of destroying his enemies and anyone that he deems a problem with getting tthings his way. But in doing so, Lex secretly funds terrorist and criminal activity so that he then in turn wipe it out to look like a hero. Lois catches on to the plan, but Superman returns home after Martha Kent falls terminally ill so he can be there for her. We wold see flashbacks of clarks childhood, 1 through 5-8 years, and in the moment that the Kents found Kal-El with Martha convincing Jonathan to keep him. Martha passes away as Metallo begins a reign of bloodshed and terror against anyone Lex wants dead. I would really go for a scary vibe with Metallo, ala Arnold in the 1st Terminator. Lois discovers Clark is Superman and shows up at the Kent farm for some revelations, smoochies, and a romp in the sack. Metallo tracks down Clark using the same info, and a battle scne takes place on the Kent farm, with Superman eventually defeating Metallo and foiling a Presidential assasination plot by Lex. Just as Lex is about to get busted for that and Metallo, Mercy Graves takes the blame for everything, keeping Lex safe and chillingly saying that she is sacrificing herself for the cause. This takes us to....

3) Superman: Doomsday - Self-explainatory. In what I would describe as a romantic action film, Superman battles both Doomsday and where to go with Lois from here. This would also provide detailed Krypton flashbacks of Civil War and Jor-El creating Doomsday as a weapon of mass destruction. Those flashbacks scene's would weave in and out, revealing that many Doomsday's were sent into space by Jor-El's brother and evil kryptonians to both find and kill Kal-El and other civilizations for colony purposes. Kandor will have survived here, and the twist would be that Jor-El sent Kal-El away thinking he would be dying. It would be found that Jor-El is still alive and imprisoned by his brother. Meanwhile, Superman decides to propose to Lois, but is interrupted by Doomsday waking through cities and armies, leading to a confrontation with Superman that Doomsday wins, followed by another victory over Superman along with the army and even other super beings. Superman ultimately dies destroying Doomsday. Afterwards, a funeral is held, Lois has a heart breaking scene finding Clark's engagement ring for her, and Luthor declaring his intention to run for President. Off in space, Jor-El senses his sons death and decides to finally escape for the save. This leads us to....

4) Superman: Invasion - Ok, so Abrams script left alot to be desired, but it had some cool things, like Superman fighting a kryptonian invasion force beside airplanes filled with kryptonite filled missiles. Superman has been involved with other Kryptonians in Superman 2, Lois&Clark, and Smallville, but it's all sucked and I want it done right. Here, months would go by before Superman's resurrection. Jor-El escapes and comes to Eath for the save but is tracked. Jor-El saves Superman with his own life force, briefly interacting with him in a form of mind meld that would see both physically together and aware. Superman returns to the shock of the world as the Kryptonians arrive, and again, all out battle scene with a Supers victory. Jor-El would also have brought him back with pre-crisis power levels for the task at hand. Superman defeats the Kryptonians, but then urges Lois to move on with her life, a real life that he could never give her. In the meantime, Lex Luthor becomes President, leading us to.....

5) Superman: Last Son of Krypton - This is where the Supes/Lex storylines comes to a head.Lex's final plans get put in motion as he clones Superman DNA, creating both Bizzaro and Connor Kent to that they can either replace Superman or match Superman. Bizzaro obviously becomes defect and Connor Kent is good. Superman finally revails Luthor's evil doing and master plan for him to remake the world, with help from Connor and a turned Bizzaro at the end. Luthor is impeached and imprisoned by a shaken world/nation that has Superman to lean back on. In other news, Lois begins to move on. This leads to......

6) Superman: Champion - Superman starts to question his life decisions, with Lois among other things. Jonathan Kent has recently passed, and for the first time Clark faces immortality, that he will out live his loved ones, even Connor Kent, and even if he finds me, the same thing will happen. Clark see's the day that Clark Kent can no longer exist if though thats who HE REALLY IS, because everyone who knows him as Clark will have died and in order not to reveal his identity, Clark Kent has to 'die" at some point, leaving only Superman. Lex Luthor ends up escaping jail. Now completely mad, Luthor turns to black magic to kill Superman and plunge what he see's as an ungrateful world right into the apocalypse. If he can't have his wasy and power, then he wants everything to end. And with black magic, thats the only thing other than Kryptonite that can hurt him, so screw the power suit, lets use some black magic. Remember, I want a more fanatical universe here, using DC properties to there fullest. Save the realism for Batman. Now powered up, Luthor kills Connor and the begins wreaking havoc, even becoming an equal to Superman's abilities. The story here would be that Lex can be killed, but only by Superman. With Lex being able to destroy start an apocalypse if not killed, Superman must make a moral decision in the matter. This would be interesting. I also might throw in a Lana Lang story, because Lois WILL have moved on with her life, like Clark told her to do.

[Daybreak_st]

Isn't Zod on Smallville every week too?

No rehashing super-villains from previous Superman films. It's time for something NEW.

Zod is used partially in season 9. Lex Luthor was used in seasons 1-7. Lois and Clark season 1, with appearances in season 2 and 3. In Superman TAS seasons 1-3, Superman Doomsday, and pretty much every other superman property. Zod is in one movie and one season of smallville. Lex has been in pretty much everything else.

It's fair to use him again if people are willing to use lex again. Not in the first movie but somewhere down the road in the franchise.

[Daybreak_st]

I've typed some of this out before, but because I've been away for awhile, I thought I'd shake the cob webbs by detailing my plans for a Superman franchise. Not one film or a trilogy, but a franchise. These are my idea's and nothing else, though I do admit to taking some good things from the failed J.J. Abrams script.



Your post really belongs in the Writer's Workshop area:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=18093394#post18093394

[NotFadeAway]

Your post really belongs in the Writer's Workshop area:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=18093394#post18093394

If the mods want to move it there, thast fine by me.

[GreenKToo]

Not bad, but I think we will be lucky to get two Superman films.
Check that. We'll be lucky to get one.

[GreenKToo]

A little constructive criticism??

this part...
Martha passes away as Metallo begins a reign of bloodshed and terror against anyone Lex wants dead. I would really go for a scary vibe with Metallo, ala Arnold in the 1st Terminator. Lois discovers Clark is Superman and shows up at the Kent farm for some revelations, smoochies, and a romp in the sack.

Bit soon after martha passes isnt it? My take on that is it made me think Lois was taking advantage of Clark in his sorrow.

[SpiderByte]

Smallville shows exactly how you can give a seemingly random character in comics an actual backstory that is interesting.

Yes, I am talking about Doomsday.

[Daybreak_st]

Smallville shows exactly how you can give a seemingly random character in comics an actual backstory that is interesting.

Yes, I am talking about Doomsday.


Yeah not to mention, their inventive use of Brainiac, Bizarro, Metallo and currently Zod. I'm always surprised by how small people can think when it comes to lesser known characters. You can pretty much do anything with them if it works for the story and could potentially craft them into a really interesting character. Example compare Two-Face in BAtman Forever with Two Face in The Dark Knight. Based on the same comic character but polar opposites when adapted for live action.

[solidsnake86]

Just going back to zod for a second I definately wouldnt want to see him in the first or second film if its a trilogy. I'm just putting it out there because I really don't want to see darkseid just to fullfill fans dreams of them two fighting on the big screen at the cost of having better villains used with much better story lines.

[Webhead2006]

fade some interesting thoughts/ideals of yours. i wouldnt mind seeing some of those ideas come to light.

[Dark Knight]

http://screenrant.com/batman-3-official-announcement-comic-con-rob-55252/

Superman talk in this as well.





Hmm...I think Blunt would work well as Selina and also as WONDER WOMAN!

[NotFadeAway]

A little constructive criticism??

this part...
Martha passes away as Metallo begins a reign of bloodshed and terror against anyone Lex wants dead. I would really go for a scary vibe with Metallo, ala Arnold in the 1st Terminator. Lois discovers Clark is Superman and shows up at the Kent farm for some revelations, smoochies, and a romp in the sack.

Bit soon after martha passes isnt it? My take on that is it made me think Lois was taking advantage of Clark in his sorrow.


Constructive criticsm is always welcome.

This thought never crossed my mind, honestly. And you have a damn good point. BUT, if this was ever a real movie, I think the situation could be fixed and handled with simple dialouge.

But, thanks for mentioning this.

[Man of Tomorrow]

Smallville shows exactly how you can give a seemingly random character in comics an actual backstory that is interesting.

Yes, I am talking about Doomsday.

Smallville's Bloomesday was an EPIC fail. :dry:


His arc was better in the comics and even in the Doomsday Sanction/Task Force X stuff of JLU.

[Ultimate_Superman]

I am sorry but Doomsday on Smallville was nothing but the Hulk under another name.

[Daybreak_st]

Smallville's Bloomesday was an EPIC fail. :dry:


His arc was better in the comics and even in the Doomsday Sanction/Task Force X stuff of JLU.


The stuff from the JLU was AWESOME!!! Those story lines would translate nicely onto the big screen.

[Mr. Earle]

^ I agree 1000%.

[GreenKToo]

Warner Bros. Pictures and IMAX Corporation dropped a bombshell this morning saying that Christopher Nolan's next Batman movie and the new Superman movie are part of an up to 20-picture deal! Here's an excerpt from the press release at ComingSoon.net (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=65561):

Under the agreement, Warner Bros. movies that will be released in IMAX are: Legends of the Guardian: The Owls of Ga'Hoole 3D (September 24, 2010); Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (3D) (November 19, 2010); Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II (3D) (July 15, 2011); Happy Feet 2 (3D) (November 18, 2011); and The Hobbit (December 2013). Warner Bros. and IMAX also plan to release an additional 15 films over the course of 2011, 2012 and 2013, including Gravity, Dark Shadows, Fury Road, Batman 3, and Superman.

[Crook]

Not surprised, WB has released a lot of their tentpoles on the format. It'd have been more interesting to see which films would actually be filmed natively in IMAX, if there are any.

[GreenKToo]

I'm more stoked that there was even a mention of Superman than I was about the whole IMAX thing.

[Young Superman]

Me Too.

[Crook]

But we already knew the film was being worked on and likely soon to be greenlit. :huh: