New Origin = Opposite of Donner's

[Steyin]

Originally Posted by Mr. Earle

I only insulted the part where he shoots lasers when he is horny.

I actually don't mind that take on the glasses/heat vision at all. Something has to trigger his abilities for a first time. And as bad as this is going to sound, we ourselves "shoot lasers" when horny the first few times, then learn to control it. Makes sense to me.

[Fresh Prince]

Originally Posted by ck1777

Yeah, the truth is Byrne's Superman is very dated. It's not a coincidence that Michael Douglas in Wall Street was one of the most important villains of the 80's.

That being said it doesn't mean Billionaire Lex doesn't work today. In fact if we do get a reboot, I'm pretty positive he'll be closer to Post-Crisis than Pre-Crisis.

But people need to realize that this isn't anything new to the WB. They KNOW WHAT POST CRISIS SUPERMAN IS! Obviously the concept isn't different enough for them. They won't spend $200 million dollars for a Post-Crisis movie, and yet they've made Lois and Clark, and Smallville (which has a lot of Post-Crisis elements) because they're cheap tv shows. A film is a much much bigger gamble.

Also, they didn't greenlight SR because of the Donner influences. They greenlit it for all the things that people hated about it (colors, kid, depressing, etc.). They never showed any interest in continuing S:TM until Bryan Singer came along. Singer basically told them how much he loved S:TM, at the same time he pitched them what THEY WANTED TO HEAR (colors, kid, depressing, etc.).

So to sum up:

1)The WB knows about Post-Crisis Superman
2)Marv Wolfman (co-creator of CEO LEX) is working with the film division.
3)Geoff Johns (who's writing CEO LEX in SO) works with the film division.
4)If they want a Post-Crisis Superman movie they'll make it!
5)History has shown that WB doesn't see enough difference between PRE/POST CRISIS
6)WB always tends to be attracted to drastic changes to Superman

I want my golden age Superman films....But have Superman fly and everything...And way you saying it is WB still wants to do the Donner like Superman stuff.

[storyteller]

The thing is there's been one movie since Reeves movies and that was treated as a continuation of those movies and then there were issues with that movie that had little to do with being in continuity(honestly if you never saw the reeves movies, you can understand Singers movie without much issue-heck it barely references the old movie).

To me Superman in cinema hasn't had enough experience to have what does and doesn't work. Batman had pretty much 3 different types of films. Superman had Reeve and Routh with decades between.

[ck1777]

Originally Posted by Fresh Prince

I want my golden age Superman films....But have Superman fly and everything...And way you saying it is WB still wants to do the Donner like Superman stuff.

1)Period films rarely make any money so I reeaally doubt that's going to happen.

2)I said the Wb never had any intentions of making a Donner sequel before Singer pitched SR. They agreed to make SR because of the changes Singer made, not because of any ties to S:TM.

3)I don't think the WB want any ties to the Donner film.

4)I don't think the WB want anything that's been done before!

[ck1777]

Originally Posted by storyteller

The thing is there's been one movie since Reeves movies and that was treated as a continuation of those movies and then there were issues with that movie that had little to do with being in continuity(honestly if you never saw the reeves movies, you can understand Singers movie without much issue-heck it barely references the old movie).

To me Superman in cinema hasn't had enough experience to have what does and doesn't work. Batman had pretty much 3 different types of films. Superman had Reeve and Routh with decades between.

Yeah but in those decades between, we've had Superboy, Lois and Clark, Smallville and a bunch of cartoons. That's why the WB has such a hard-on for making a diiferent version of Superman. I guess they figure if they're going to spend all that money, they should spend it on something they haven't done before. I say let Geoff, Grant, and Marv do there thing, but I doubt they'll have much power when it comes to Superman.

[The Batman]

Originally Posted by ck1777

Yeah, the truth is Byrne's Superman is very dated. It's not a coincidence that Michael Douglas in Wall Street was one of the most important villains of the 80's.

That being said it doesn't mean Billionaire Lex doesn't work today. In fact if we do get a reboot, I'm pretty positive he'll be closer to Post-Crisis than Pre-Crisis.

But people need to realize that this isn't anything new to the WB. They KNOW WHAT POST CRISIS SUPERMAN IS! Obviously the concept isn't different enough for them. They won't spend $200 million dollars for a Post-Crisis movie, and yet they've made Lois and Clark, and Smallville (which has a lot of Post-Crisis elements) because they're cheap tv shows. A film is a much much bigger gamble.

Also, they didn't greenlight SR because of the Donner influences. They greenlit it for all the things that people hated about it (colors, kid, depressing, etc.). They never showed any interest in continuing S:TM until Bryan Singer came along. Singer basically told them how much he loved S:TM, at the same time he pitched them what THEY WANTED TO HEAR (colors, kid, depressing, etc.).

So to sum up:

1)The WB knows about Post-Crisis Superman
2)Marv Wolfman (co-creator of CEO LEX) is working with the film division.
3)Geoff Johns (who's writing CEO LEX in SO) works with the film division.
4)If they want a Post-Crisis Superman movie they'll make it!
5)History has shown that WB doesn't see enough difference between PRE/POST CRISIS
6)WB always tends to be attracted to drastic changes to Superman

Agreed.

You're also the only guy I've seen on here that acknowledges the truth about post crisis supes in the media. 2 out of the three post crisis superman tv shows werent so successful. Lois and Clark only lasted 4 seasons, and that was a show that was on ABC I believe. STAS isnt even considered the definitive superman like BTAS is for batman, and only lasted 54 episodes.

Fans are going to have the accept that this oncoming reboot will, in all likelyhood, be based on a superman that is still rooted in donner, or accept the idea of something completely different. But a totally post crisis superman? Not gonna happen.

[Mr. Earle]

Originally Posted by ck1777

But people need to realize that this isn't anything new to the WB. They KNOW WHAT POST CRISIS SUPERMAN IS! Obviously the concept isn't different enough for them. They won't spend $200 million dollars for a Post-Crisis movie, and yet they've made Lois and Clark, and Smallville (which has a lot of Post-Crisis elements) because they're cheap tv shows. A film is a much much bigger gamble.

So they'll make the movie for themselves and not the general audience? They ve seen Post Crisis Superman? Well besides Lois and Clark we havent.

And for ****'s sake, will you stop assuming that you know what DC thinks, wants, plans, knows, will do, etc? Its like this in everyone of your posts. What are you, Didio? Jesus Christ cut that **** out.

[The Batman]

Originally Posted by Mr. Earle

Oh come on, maybe Clark isnt as dynamic as he used to be in the 90ies, he still isnt like Donner's.

This is the second time you've shown that you're really not paying attention to comics you keep mentioning.

Read Geoff Johns "Action Comics" and tell me that isnt donner. Better yet, pick up the issue of "Secret Origins" that came out today, or will come out after the holday.

[Mr. Earle]

Originally Posted by The Batman

Lois and Clark only lasted 4 seasons, and that was a show that was on ABC I believe.

Lois and Clark wasnt action packed and focused more on the romance. It had a small budget and at its time comic book franchises werent so popular as they are now.

STAS isnt even considered the definitive superman like BTAS is for batman, and only lasted 54 episodes.

BTAS isnt the definitive Batman. Its a fan favourite, that's all. The definitive Batman is the one found in the monthly Batman and Detective Comics issues.

Fans are going to have the accept that this oncoming reboot will, in all likelyhood, be based on a superman that is still rooted in donner, or accept the idea of something completely different. But a totally post crisis superman? Not gonna happen.

And you know this because kids spent their Saturday mornings watching something else instead of Superman and because Lois and Clark wasnt a massive success?
Because if BTAS or L&C were more like the Donnerverse they would be successful?

Originally Posted by The Batman

This is the second time you've shown that you're really not paying attention to comics you keep mentioning.

Read Geoff Johns "Action Comics" and tell me that isnt donner. Better yet, pick up the issue of "Secret Origins" that came out today, or will come out after the holday.

OK, so i dont read as much Superman as i'd like but i will try and catch up in the future. Right now my time is limited and i am trying to catch up on Batman and Blackest Night. Goddamn DC and their events....

[The Batman]

Originally Posted by Mr. Earle

Lois and Clark wasnt action packed and focused more on the romance. It had a small budget and at its time comic book franchises werent so popular as they are now.:

No offense, but all I'm seeing here are lame excuses.

Originally Posted by Mr. Earle

BTAS isnt the definitive Batman. Its a fan favourite, that's all. The definitive Batman is the one found in the monthly Batman and Detective Comics issues..

I like how you tried to divert from the fact that people dont consider STAS definitive like they do BTAS, which was the main point.

Originally Posted by Mr. Earle

And you know this because kids spent their Saturday mornings watching something else instead of Superman and because Lois and Clark wasnt a massive success?

Because common freaking sense tells me that if WB were going to follow a modern day superman thats actuallly...MODERN, its not gonna be based on a take from 1978....and its not gonna be based on a take from 1986. It's probably gonna be based on John's Superman...the one that mixes everything from pre crisis to the smallville tv show together.

Originally Posted by Mr. Earle

Because if BTAS or L&C were more like the Donnerverse they would be successful?

Did i say that? Are you misunderstanding what i'm saying? I dont know why L & C didnt capture people's attention like STM did, but that dosent give WB the excuse to rehash it for a new movie just because some fanboys want the same version on a bigger budget. Thats exactly what singer did for SR. Either do something that reflects the comics now, something original, or nothing at all. But dont do post crisis, and dont do donner.

[Lead Cenobite]

Originally Posted by Nuffsaid

Not the wisest of thread openers.

Since when is it a bad thing to have Superman: The Movie as a favorite movie? It isn't totally accurate to the comics, but it's accurate enough, and it's a good movie. It seems like ever since Superman Returns that people are treating it the same way comic fanboys treat the Burton Batman movies, always fussing about what they changed and how it's a bastardization and they don't ever want it to influence a future sequel in any way.

I think people would have a little respect for a movie that tried to make the comic movie genre halfway respectable and give us a somewhat realistic take on Superman. Yeah, they could have given us a more serious Lex (and not Lexcorp Lex because he didn't exist in 1978), but everything else made up for it.

Don't blame STM for the existence of Superman Returns. It could have been a good movie even with all the Donner influences.

[BenReilly]

Originally Posted by The Batman

Read Geoff Johns "Action Comics" and tell me that isnt donner. Better yet, pick up the issue of "Secret Origins" that came out today, or will come out after the holday.

It's definitely Donner inspired. Johns has always cited STM as his all time favorite film. Not to mention, he's always had a close working relationship with the man. Before Johns became a comic book writer, he started out as Donner's assistant.

[The Batman]

Originally Posted by Lead Cenobite

Since when is it a bad thing to have Superman: The Movie as a favorite movie? It isn't totally accurate to the comics, but it's accurate enough, and it's a good movie. It seems like ever since Superman Returns that people are treating it the same way comic fanboys treat the Burton Batman movies, always fussing about what they changed and how it's a bastardization and they don't ever want it to influence a future sequel in any way.

I think people would have a little respect for a movie that tried to make the comic movie genre halfway respectable and give us a somewhat realistic take on Superman. Yeah, they could have given us a more serious Lex (and not Lexcorp Lex because he didn't exist in 1978), but everything else made up for it.

Don't blame STM for the existence of Superman Returns. It could have been a good movie even with all the Donner influences.

Its sad, because most of the hatred stems from SR and the fact that Donner's superman influences the history of the character in ways "their superman" never will...

[The Batman]

Originally Posted by BenReilly19

It's definitely Donner inspired. Johns has always cited STM as his all time favorite film. Not to mention, he's always had a close working relationship with the man. Before Johns became a comic book writer, he started out as Donner's assistant.

This ^....AND Johns is helping out the new film division???? With that in mind, i doubt we're seeing "MOS" on film....

[Fresh Prince]

Jeez man do we need more Donner like Superman films?....Have a new director come in and blast O!....His own thing not Donner....Do not want to see crook/conman/real estate Lex anymore.....NO MORE!!!!!! EVER!!!!!

[Mr. Earle]

Originally Posted by The Batman

No offense, but all I'm seeing here are lame excuses.

I am just saying that you re judging the appeal of a version of the character based on a tv show. A tv show that might have not been as good as it could be, a tv show of a small budget that didnt allow it to have even half the action of Smallville, a tv show of the 90ies when apart from Batman there wasnt any other superhero franchise around. Superhero franchises have never been so mainstream before and they always carried that stigma of being cheesy and shallow just because they were based on comic books.
But lets see, by your logic, judging by the success that Brave and the Bold has achieved, a lighthearted Batman movie with talking gorillas riding on pterodactyls would be successful. Well i'll bet you my house that the general audience would never get it and the movie would flank.

I like how you tried to divert from the fact that people dont consider STAS definitive like they do BTAS, which was the main point.

They were both kid's shows. So maybe kids didnt like Superman as much and it didnt get the ratings of BTAS. Pokemon is very successful, does that mean that a live action movie would be successful?

The general audience doesnt have the standards and criteria of little kids of comic book fans. Nolan's success is based a lot on his realism (g.a cant stomach a lot of unrealism) and his great stories. It doesnt have to do with the version of batman that he chose. I bet that his batman is an amalgam of many versions of the character.

As for what the true fans consider "definitive", well maybe STAS wasnt that well made. I dont think that the fact that it didnt succeed as much has anything to do with the version of Superman that was used.

Because common freaking sense tells me that if WB were going to follow a modern day superman thats actuallly...MODERN, its not gonna be based on a take from 1978....and its not gonna be based on a take from 1986. It's probably gonna be based on John's Superman...the one that mixes everything from pre crisis to the smallville tv show together.

OK, again i need to catch up on Superman. I actually thought that he is still like in the 90ies but apparently DC is doing that recap thing on Superman as well (they did it to Batman as well). I really dont see why they have to embrace every version of the character. Each version appealed to its time and some of them were terrible, so why do we have to make an amalgam version of all these and create the current character?

Anyway, i dont know all the little details, but frankly what i was mostly interested about the 90ies Superman was the dynamic Clark. I could never get the buffoon Clark. Are there any other major differences between the 90ies and the current Superman or is it just that?

but that dosent give WB the excuse to rehash it for a new movie just because some fanboys want the same version on a bigger budget.

I am not asking for Lois and Clark. I just dont like the buffoon Clark. I frankly dont know if there are any other differences between those two versions of him? Are there?

For example its like hating stupid playboy Bruce and preferring the more serious philanthropist Bruce (i like them both btw).

Either do something that reflects the comics now, something original, or nothing at all.

Nolan's batman doesnt reflect the current comics, but it is something original.
Anyway, i am not asking for a specific version of superman, because i can hardly distinguish them. I am only saying that the buffoon Clark was just sad, pathetic and completely unrealistic. He doesnt have to be a complete idiot to throw off suspicion, just like Bruce doesnt have to be a complete ***hole to throw off suspicion. In BTAS for example he was a very serious and assertive philanthropist who would throw off suspicion by acting clumsily in front of many people, stating to others that he would never do dangerous sports and things like that.
So just by acting like a normal person + the changes in appearence that he applies + superman doesnt wear a mask and he is an alien + being absent minded (superhearing a crime for example) and clumsy on occasion would be enough.

I am currently reading All-Star Superman and in a single issue he tripped over a 100 times. For ****'s sake! Do we want Lois to ever love him for who he is, or keep her in love with the Ken doll that lifts continents? I mean, i liked how Kidman's character in Forever said that girls have to grow up sometime and she realised that she cant be in love with a Ken doll and chose Bruce. But that isnt possible for Clark when he is retarded.

[Mr. Earle]

Originally Posted by Lead Cenobite

Since when is it a bad thing to have Superman: The Movie as a favorite movie?

He said it was favourite movie in general, not his favourite superhero movie. For any comic book movie to be your favourite movie in general you'd have to be 10...

Originally Posted by BenReilly19

It's definitely Donner inspired. Johns has always cited STM as his all time favorite film. Not to mention, he's always had a close working relationship with the man. Before Johns became a comic book writer, he started out as Donner's assistant.

That explains a lot actually, but i suppose that he doesnt do whatever he wants and his writing is supervised. So i guess DC is sucking the Donner **** again. They re even drawing Supes like Reeve for god's sake!

[Lead Cenobite]

Originally Posted by Mr. Earle

He said it was favourite movie in general, not his favourite superhero movie. For any comic book movie to be your favourite movie in general you'd have to be 10...

I'm sure plenty of people here are good contenders for having a comic movie as their favorite of all time, considering they have thousands of posts and can write page long rants about whether or not Superman's suit should have trunks/underwear. :P

But still, what is wrong with it? Do you have to have something like the Godfather or Citizen Kane as your favorite movie of all time to be considered mature?

[Mr. Earle]

Originally Posted by Lead Cenobite

I'm sure plenty of people here are good contenders for having a comic movie as their favorite of all time, considering they have thousands of posts and can write page long rants about whether or not Superman's suit should have trunks/underwear. :P

But still, what is wrong with it? Do you have to have something like the Godfather or Citizen Kane as your favorite movie of all time to be considered mature?

I'll let someone else answer that because frankly i dont have the skill to do it.

[ck1777]

Originally Posted by Mr. Earle

So they'll make the movie for themselves and not the general audience? They ve seen Post Crisis Superman? Well besides Lois and Clark we havent.

And for ****'s sake, will you stop assuming that you know what DC thinks, wants, plans, knows, will do, etc? Its like this in everyone of your posts. What are you, Didio? Jesus Christ cut that **** out.

Since you have a knack for talking about things you don't know anything about I'll just tell you what I told you before. Google Superman, and development hell and then come back in a few days!

I remember being 12 or 13 when I saw Nic Cage on a late night talk show (leno I think) talking about Superman. That traumatized me forever! And then after that train wreck was avoided, along came another one, and another, and so on.

Between the history this franchise has had, and the darker angry god comments what makes you think anything has changed? You'd have to be blind to not be worried. It also looks like this is going to be a much more studio controlled movie than any other WB film. There not going to give this to an A class director, they'll probably give it to a Yes Man that'll follow orders.
I hope things have changed at Warner Brothers, but all the evidence shows otherwise.

And for the record, S:TM is my favorite movie of all time! It's the only movie I've seen 200 times and yet somehow I'm still not sick of. I also love The Godfather, the Right Stuff, Star Wars, Rocky, Apocolypse now and more! So since you like talking about things you know nothing about, tell me what's wrong with the movies I listed. Im sure you'll insult them all even though youve probably never seen them? I mean judging from all the Geoff Johns comments that is your style right?

[ck1777]

Originally Posted by Lead Cenobite

I'm sure plenty of people here are good contenders for having a comic movie as their favorite of all time, considering they have thousands of posts and can write page long rants about whether or not Superman's suit should have trunks/underwear. :P

But still, what is wrong with it? Do you have to have something like the Godfather or Citizen Kane as your favorite movie of all time to be considered mature?

Seriously, I said that it was my favorite movie of all time not that it was the Best! Id be annoyed but i've noticed everytime earle posts something its obvious he's talking out of his @$$. Just look at his posts through out this thread!

[ck1777]

Originally Posted by Mr. Earle

I'll let someone else answer that because frankly i dont have the skill to do it.

Smartest thing you've posted in this thread yet! Now all you have to do is put that in your sig!

[Mr. Earle]

WB asked Schumacher to up the camp and make the bat films more family oriented. But after the debacle Batman went through development hell and in the end they decided to leave it up to Nolan since his vision seemed good.
So WB might let director X do his thing, or not. Or maybe do this story of Superman, or that. Who knows? They might have learned from their mistakes. Its not like its the exact same people on board that they were back then. You said it yourself that they have Johns on board, so he'll probably push for a movie based on the superman he is currently writing.

Originally Posted by ck1777

Seriously, I said that it was my favorite movie of all time not that it was the Best! Id be annoyed but i've noticed everytime earle posts something its obvious he's talking out of his @$$. Just look at his posts through out this thread!

Hey man, dont stare at my ass!

[ck1777]

Originally Posted by Mr. Earle

WB asked Schumacher to up the camp and make the bat films more family oriented. But after the debacle Batman went through development hell and in the end they decided to leave it up to Nolan since his vision seemed good.
So WB might let director X do his thing, or not. Or maybe do this story of Superman, or that. Who knows? They might have learned from their mistakes. Its not like its the exact same people on board that they were back then. You said it yourself that they have Johns on board, so he'll probably push for a movie based on the superman he is currently writing.

I have no doubt that the WB learned there lesson and we won't see ANYTHING like Burton's Superman, but all signs still point to a new version. The good thing is we do have Wolfman (co-creator of Post-Crisis Superman), Johns (master of taking things from pre/post Crisis) and Morrison (master of everything) working as consultants so that's definitley a relief!

Like I said before, I think the WB is going to be looking for a Yes Man to direct this film. After giving total control and $210 million to Singer, there going to want a guy they can control much easier. Luckily I can't prove this part, so I hope I'm wrong!

[ck1777]

To try to get back on topic, what I mean by the opposite of Donner is to not do anything that was shown in S:TM. Since S:TM is very accurate to the comic, for all the things that have to be shown just give them a slight twist.

S:TM
1)Jor-el sends his son to Earth
2)Kal-el is found by the Kents
3)Raised by the Kents until Johnathan dies
4)Goes to the Arctic
5)Clark Meets Jor-el and learns about Krypton in new fortress
6)Get's job at Daily Planet
7)Superman makes his debut by rescuing a helicopter
8)Lois interviews Superman
9)Lex puts his scheme in motion
10)Superman meets Lex
11)Lex almost kills Superman
12)Superman saves everyone from missiles
13)Turns back time to save Lois
14)Superman smiles at the camera
15)Credits

My version
(These are just examples. I'm not saying these should be in the new movie)

1)No Krypton. keep it a mystery for the sequel
2)Found by Kents (I can't come up with anything different than that)
3)raised by Kents and Johnathan doesn't die
4)Goes around the world with Lana and her archaeologist father.
5)Find some sort of Alien technology
6)Technology awakens Brainac
7)Fights Braniac drone
8)Almost dies from the Braniac fight
9)Lana finds out about Clarks powers
10)Clark realizes he's the only one that can stop Braniac
11)Creates a prototype costume with a certain kryptonian symbol
12)Stops Braniac and saves the day
13)Finds a couple of kryptonian clues from Brainiacs tech
14)Tells lana he's made his decision and is moving to Metropolis
15)makes an appointment for a job interview
16)Credits

If the WB insisted on keeping Lex, Krypton, and the Daily Planet than:

1)Jor-el vs. Brainiac on Krypton like STAS
2)CEO Lex.
3)And the most controversial.....a new Daily Planet

The Daily Planet would have all the classic characters (Lois,Jimmy,Perry) but it wouldn't just be a newspaper anymore. In real life the newspaper is practically extinct so to update Superman for a new generation you'd have to update the Daily Planet. Clark could work as a journalist behind the scenes, while Lois could be an On-Location T.V Reporter. I'm not too crazy about that idea, but I think it worked really well in The New Frontier. Or, if they don't want Lois in front of a camera, they could both work behind the scenes. Or the DP could be a media outlet like CNN, but at the same time have a very small newspaper division where Clark and Lois could work.

Once again: I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS WHAT THE NEXT MOVIE SHOULD BE. The point of this was just to not show anything that Donner did, and the things you have to show to update them a little. Abrams first draft was nothing like Superman in the comics, but after every draft it got closer and closer. I'm saying change everything from S:TM in the most simple way, and if Warner Brothers insists on more changes, than so be it. But always start with the most simple solution first!