Reign Of The Supermen

[luca_frontino]

Yes, exactly.
Why pay the Siegels for the origins and force the audience to a big screen adaptation of Smalville?
Just overwhelm them and put immediately the camera in the middle of Kal-El life: after his popular death.
Four superdudes wearing the shield and kickin'. Non stop action.
And with many cameos: Mongul (ally of Cyborg Superman), Supergirl (either Kara or Matrix), the JSA cheated by Henshaw to leave Earth and finally Jordan witnessing his very city destroyed, paving the way for Emerald Twilight!

 

[Octoberist]

Even the Death of Superman has major baggage from the Burton/Kevin Smith days. I doubt that WB would wanna touch it at this point.

 

[Jochimus]

Eh, frankly, I think "Superman : Doomsday" is the closest we're going to get to seeing the Death and Return story for the foreseeable future. I mean, it'd be nice if WB could salvage something from "Superman Lives", but I'm not entirely sure how much they'd want to revisit one of the biggest fiascoes the studio's had in recent years.

That said, though, I'd still whittle down and streamline the story into something far less convoluted, although it would be a BIT closer to the comics - Supergirl, Steel and Henshaw would be in it, at least.

 

[Kal-El Fan]

I always thought the death and return story should be 2-3 movies. The first movie would be the Doomsday story arc, and possibly Funeral For A Friend. We'd end that movie with the "Adventures of Superman" #500 scene with Lois finding Superman's empty coffin, and perhaps the "First Sightings." The second movie would be "Reign of the Supermen," with Superman returning at the end, ala Superman #82.
The 3 movie option would have "Funeral For A Friend" be it's own film, but I don't know if it would be interesting enough to carry its own movie. In this case the first film would end with Superman dying in Lois' arms.

 

[luca_frontino]

That's why I said to start immediately with ROTS and forget about "Death of" and "World Without".
They already tried to make a movie on his death and it only birthed an animated one (that really sucks BTW).

 

[Kal-El Fan]

Will a ROTS movie make sense without the "Death of..." story?

 

[The Guard]

No. Just no.

They couldn't get just Superman, Doomsday, and a single imposter Superman right in animated form.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done, just that I doubt it would be done well.

 

[luca_frontino]

I started reading Superman from ROTS and I loved it.

Stop with all those continuity pretests like origins and boring story arcs that you think are essential to understand a character.
Today, every franchise suffers from the "Harry Potter sindrome": you all prep Superman as a series of movies, but every one is weaker than the other.
The strenght is in quality and not in quantity.

Look at Terminator Salvation: they build it as a start for another trilogy, but failed because it added nothing to the mythos. It looked just like a day in the life of John Connor.
Start with the best story and don't plan any sequel or the first movie gets as weaker as the more the sequels are.

 

[MadVillainy]

ok. Doomsday and the whole Death of Superman is an interesting comic book arc. But I still dont see it being translated well into film.

The primary reason is Doomsday himself. Either you have the Doomsday fight near the beginning of the movie which ends up being epic, but then the rest of the movie feels uninteresting in comparison. That was my problem with the Superman|Doomsday DTV.
or
The Doomsday fight would be at the end, but then the rest of the film once again will be boring because people would be waiting this long time to see the 2 titans fight

So no the Doomsday/Death of Superman/Reign of the Supermen

 

[Jochimus]

The primary reason is Doomsday himself. Either you have the Doomsday fight near the beginning of the movie which ends up being epic, but then the rest of the movie feels uninteresting in comparison. That was my problem with the Superman|Doomsday DTV.
or
The Doomsday fight would be at the end, but then the rest of the film once again will be boring because people would be waiting this long time to see the 2 titans fight

Actually, IIRC, one of the "Superman Lives" scripts had Brainiac re-animate Doomsday at some point AFTER the big early battle with Superman. But yeah, to make Doomsday work would probably require some significant deviating from the original story. Which wouldn't be a bad thing if one could figure out how to do it without just having them smack each other down in the first 15 minutes and then saying "Well, that's it for Doomsday, folks".

 

[The Guard]

I thought Kevin Smith had a decent idea for making Doomsday work, but he brought the concept in too late (which I suppose was due to budget, thinking about it). The issue with the original "Doomsday" storyline is that it's basically one big fight scene with bits and pieces of character interaction interspersed. Bits that don't work just randomly on their own, and would make for a confusing film in its original form, even adapted. You don't have to know Superman's history to understand why the "death" interactions between he and Lois and everyone else matter, but it sure helps, and it definitely enriches that storyline if you've followed it all the way through.

It worked in the comics because you had a bunch of established elements that all came together almost perfectly, Superman's work with the JLA, Cadmus, Guardian and the Newsboys, a particular Luthor storyline, Supergirl, John Henry, Bibbo, etc. Writers have been trying to imititate that angle for years, trying to draw several years worth of storylines into one major one, and it usually sucks.

Now, you could make a Death, Reign, and Return of Superman trilogy with some alternations. Easily. Would it be worth spending three films on? Eh. Maybe, if it was really well done. I don't think one film does the concept justice, though. SUPERMAN LIVES, every version of it, was underwhelming in the long run because there just wasn't much weight to his loss. He was offscreen for all of like ten minutes, and it was played as a joke of sorts. Ditto SUPERMAN: DOOMSDAY (Which I wanted to become "The Death of Lois when I saw what Anne Heche was doing with the character) to a point.

I'd argue SUPERMAN RETURNS portrayed the death angle better than any of those scripts did, partially because instead of just tossing us into this relationship between Superman and Lois (hey, they're getting married! Which may have worked in a slightly post LOIS AND CLARK era), SUPERMAN RETURNS built a backstory and conflict for their relationship, it didn't just "exist". I dunno. I think the Death of Superman has been done, both in SUPERMAN: DOOMSDAY and SUPERMAN RETURNS and belongs in 1992 now. Frankly, SMALLVILLE has ruined Doomsday's chances at being seen on the bigscreen, and will further ruin it this coming season. Ah well.

 

[Zor-El]

Eh, frankly, I think "Superman : Doomsday" is the closest we're going to get to seeing the Death and Return story for the foreseeable future. I mean, it'd be nice if WB could salvage something from "Superman Lives", but I'm not entirely sure how much they'd want to revisit one of the biggest fiascoes the studio's had in recent years.

That said, though, I'd still whittle down and streamline the story into something far less convoluted, although it would be a BIT closer to the comics - Supergirl, Steel and Henshaw would be in it, at least.

I agree. I think Superman: Doomsday is as close as we're gonna get. Between that, Doomsday on Smallville, and all the failed projects like Superman Lives, I feel like, while it could be really successful, it's been executed enough and had enough unsuccessful attempts that it shouldn't be touched at least for a while.
For the record, I love the Doomsday character, the Death of Superman arc, and there have been a lot of valid ideas in each iteration of the story. But I feel that it would be repetitive in the same way another origin story would be repetitive. That said, the origin story has been done enough that it's been done very well several times over. I'm not saying all the Death of Superman attempts/portrayals were good or bad-- they've just been done before.

 

[Fresh Prince]

I would like to see that.

 

[BATZARRO WWD]

I'd like to see Steel done right in Live action, but I'm not so sure of this. It's a story so inmersed in 90's cheese(which I love...but not as a movie) that some of it would HAVE to b trimmed. And I'm not sure of Cyborg Superman as a main bad guy.

 

[luca_frontino]

Again...
No Death Of Superman and World Without A Superman.
I'm talking about only of the last arc: Reign Of The Supermen.
It works alone. I started from there and read the death story only after.
ROTS has great potential to relaunch Superman on the big screen.

 

[Fresh Prince]

I'd like to see Steel done right in Live action, but I'm not so sure of this. It's a story so inmersed in 90's cheese(which I love...but not as a movie) that some of it would HAVE to b trimmed. And I'm not sure of Cyborg Superman as a main bad guy.

After the terrible Steel movie with Shaq from 97, it be alot to get that movie on screen.

 

[MikeE]

Doomsday and ROTS would make for a great movie 4 and 5 in a revived Superman series. Superman has a strong enough rogues gallery to sustain a trilogy of films (Luthor, Metallo, Brainiac, Darkseid, etc.). Films 4 and 5 is where the normal film series would start to get stale. Besides, for the audience to really care about Superman's death, you have to spend time with the characters. I think that's why the 'Superman Lives' push in the '90s never really worked. If you kill off Superman in the first movie (even if he's shown as an established character), the audience won't have the investment in the new version of Superman needed for his death to have any meaning. Especially given that everyone will already know that he will be resurrected one way or another.

 

[MikeE]

Again...
No Death Of Superman and World Without A Superman.
I'm talking about only of the last arc: Reign Of The Supermen.
It works alone. I started from there and read the death story only after.
ROTS has great potential to relaunch Superman on the big screen.

So you're suggesting that in the first film in a relaunch of Superman that there shouldn't be a Superman (in the red and blue) until the end of the story? Why would any one care that Superman is gone in the first place? Just because we're supposed to? Don't get me wrong, I really like ROTS story, but I think the filmmakers have to earn that story - you can't just start with it.

 

[Kal-El Fan]

So you're suggesting that in the first film in a relaunch of Superman that there shouldn't be a Superman (in the red and blue) until the end of the story? Why would any one care that Superman is gone in the first place? Just because we're supposed to? Don't get me wrong, I really like ROTS story, but I think the filmmakers have to earn that story - you can't just start with it.

Thank you for bringing this up. That's basically what I meant with my previous question. If you skip Doomsday and FFAF, then you have a confused audience. They'll spend the whole time wondering, "Who are these guys wearing "S" shields, and where the Hell is Superman?" How do you start with RoTS? What framing do you have?

 

[luca_frontino]

You're just too close minded, people.
You always think that everything must be shown from the very beginning. That's wrong!
I started reading from ROTS and the hype for the return of the real Superman is very well built.
In fact, after Reign Of The Supermen, the books became very boring.
And that's because Superman inspires more when he's absent. Like a god.
I think The Death Of... should be omitted so that Superman's death can be left open to imagination and create a greater attachment, than an actual movie dealing with the matter.

 

[Kal-El Fan]

That's great, but did you know WHY RoTS was happening? Did you know where Superman was? I'm not saying RoTS can't be its own movie, but you need to explain to people where Superman is/what's going on. Whether you do that with an intro, like SR had, a flashback, montage, dialogue, etc, you have to establish what the situation is.

 

[Webhead2006]

I would hold off on ROTS to like a third film were in end of second film supes was "killed" then by middle of 3rd film come back and takes his place as the rightful superman.

 

[MikeE]

You're just too close minded, people.
You always think that everything must be shown from the very beginning. That's wrong!
I started reading from ROTS and the hype for the return of the real Superman is very well built.

It has nothing to do with being open minded or close minded. It's the basics of storytelling. It's like starting Rocky at the training montage and assuming the audience will care how he does in the boxing match. For the audience to care how he did at the end, we have to see his journey that brought him there.

I can't speak for your personal experience regarding ROTS, but given that you're posting in a Superman thread at SHH, I might assume that you have a basic appreciation of the character that you brought with you to your initial read of ROTS. For the general audience that doesn't know much about Superman was going into the story, they wouldn't know that it was shocking that Superman died, they wouldn't know that his 'resurrection' wasn't expected and they wouldn't know if he's fully recovered by the end. For the WB to start a new Superman film series with ROTS would be a huge gamble on experimental filmmaking, not only in terms of the cost of the individual film but also the future of the franchise.

 

[what_19]

i agree....i think the animated movie did well enough, and still i am not a big fan of it...i just dont like the idea personally, it just seems contrived to me personally, and to start a movie on this concept doesnt work, because why would we want the real supes to come back? we dont care cuz we dont know him...but thats just me i guess.

as a stand alone film, i'd be WAY more interested in a Kingdom Come style movie

 

[luca_frontino]

Well, let's take Michael Jackson as the example: he died.
Was anyone of us carefully following him lately in his work? I don't think so.
But his death, without seing it properly, brought millions of new fans and a never before seen increase in discs sales.

So, this movie could start with TV news broadcasts telling to the world that Superman died at the hands of a Doomsday monster.
Then we see other broadcasts of his funeral, with some cameos if you want, and then start the real picture with the 4 Supermen appearing for the first time in different places of Metropolis.
For those who are not familiar with the story, each one of them incarnate a different characteristic of the original Superman:

Cyborg Superman is "The Man Of Tomorrow" and he's the one believed to be the original from the majority of people, with the trust of the US President himself too (in the comics it was Clinton, but today could be Obama, just to drag Obama fans in too).

Superboy is indeed "Superboy", since in the Byrne era, in wich this story took place, Superman never done the costume during his youth, retconing the Pre-Crisis element of Clark Kent wearing the suit when he was still living in Smallville.

Steel is "The Man Of Steel": a full armored superhero wearing the shield of Superman, but he never declare himself as the real Superman back to life. In the movie he could unmask himself just after the return of Kal-El, so to keep the audience questioning his identity 'till the last minute.

Eradicator is "The Last Son Of Krypton": an ancient artificial intelligence created on Krypton with the purpose of preserving the kryptonian culture and every life form born on his planet. Of the four, he's the one who resemble completely identically the look of Superman, but none of his humanity.

I don't want to spoil the entire story. It's better to leave you the choice to read or not.