Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion

[Fresh Prince]

Donnerverse wans overrated and lame to begin with. But sadly thats how Superman was back then and his characters.

 

[VenomsMom]

Its a francise that existed in the late 70's. Why criticize that now. They knew they should have started a brand new francise for the new millenium by starting over. Now they are stuck in mud tryin to figure out what to do. I have nothing against those Donner movies but be realistic they should not have tried to continue it 30 years later.

 

[MadVillainy]

Its a francise that existed in the late 70's. Why criticize that now. They knew they should have started a brand new francise for the new millenium by starting over. Now they are stuck in mud tryin to figure out what to do. I have nothing against those Donner movies but be realistic they should not have tried to continue it 30 years later.

exactly... I mean it doesnt even make sense so the events of Superman II I guess happened in the 80s...so then Supes leaves for 5 years and suddenly we're in the new millennium. Unless we're suppose to believes the events of Superman II happened in like 01

 

[VenomsMom]

I dont even know what they recognized or ignored any more. They just kind of made up their own s***. Its not even a direct sequel to those movies. Its just used as a basis for the story. Horrible ideas IMO.

 

[Webhead2006]

I know it was silly making SR be a vague/qausi sequel to a 30+ yr film. When they just rebooted batman the year before to sucess superman should have gotten that treatment too in 2006. Now hopefully they See using the past was a mistake and will do things differently this time. I have nothing again homage's and using past supes actors in a small role, but i dont want to see next film be another lets totally rehash the past and role some silly things like super kid in the film.

 

[MadVillainy]

Random: Honestly DC superhero films are so f***ed

Superman = Courtroom cases out the whazoo

Batman = Good.

Wonder Woman = Whedon signed on. Then (from what Ive read) spent over a year writing basically a glorified outline and then eventually left due to creative differences with the studio. Then some guys wrote a spec script that is a period piece that the studio bought because they didnt want it floating around. Now, I dont even know

The Flash = Goyer was on board and Reynolds was interested, then WB said the script was too dark and that collapsed. Next Shawn Levy was on board, so was Reynolds; that fell through. Then David Dobkin and that crashed. Now Dan Mazeau is writing and hes an unknown which is fine, but Geoff Johns is on board to produce. And honestly the only thing I like Johns doing is GL comics but at least the project might be having some headway

GL = Hey well here the hope. I dont know though, its been really quiet no casting since Reynolds and besides the screenwriter and I think the producer I havent seen anybody else really seem that passionate about it. But hey theres a good script and they have a good director so cool

Aquaman = I mean Aquaman I guess would be risky given his status. But I think a badass Aquaman film. Didn't DiCaprio get invovled recently like as a producer?

And then Green Arrow= So apparently there's SuperMax and then there developing another different GA film at the same time....wtf? And SuperMax, while it would be original sounds like a bad idea for GA maybe for the Punisher it would be cool but not for Green Arrow

and not to mention all the other projects that were announced that really didnt go anywhere. Zatanna, Lobo, Bizarro (why?), Plastic Man, Shazam (because it wasnt dark enough), Teen Titans, and there might be more

I understand being cautious, but it's one thing to be cautious and another just to not do anything at all

I would think that with Superman being tied up they would look forward to character's they dont have legal disputes to make them money. The hold up is probaly the fact WB has alot of other franchises.

I really wonder what's going on.

 

[Wally West]

Singer himself acknowledged his familiarity with the comics was pretty cursory. So I kind of doubt the idea of Lex as a modern CEO was fully fleshed out between him Dougherty and Harris. The possibilities it could have presented were probably not given the time they needed to be expanded upon. Again Donner's film was a cornerstone to much of what we saw in LL in SR.

From what I understand Lex finding Kryptonian Tech and using that knowledge to start Lexcorp was in one of J.J. Abrams screenplays. The idea was right in front of them, they just decided to take the character backwards instead of moving him forward. (btw I know they didn't use the Abrams script for SR but I'm sure they were aware of it's contents)

 

[Wally West]

Star Trek success? Sure, to a point. Superman Returns still Outgrossed Star Trek worldwide..

Success is so relative.

Superman Returns grossed $391 million world wide - Star Trek grossed $382 million world wide. The budget for Star Trek was 120 million dollars less than SR...it was indisputably a success. The film was extremely well recieved by critics as well as audiences. Soon the DVD will hit stores and the people who missed out in theaters will find out how good it was, which will raise anticipation for it's sequel even further. That franchise is in great shape. The Superman franchise (SR continuity at least) is not in very good shape right now to say the least...

 

[Wally West]

SR may have out grossed trek, but I doubt it made more. I also doubt there is near the division amongst ''its'' fans, but I could be wrong.
I betcha a sequel to Trek is made before another superman film is.

If you manage to place that bet, you're gonna cash in.

I read an interview with Chris Pine recently where he said that they were aiming for a sequel in 2011.

 

[mego joe]

Seriously GreenK, those few little paragraphs sound like they could have been so awesome.

...and there's probably a dozen other posters on this board who've had much better ideas than what was in SR. And oddly (sarcasm) I don't think anyone of us would have come up with the SR storyline for a Superman film.

 

[mego joe]

To a point. I'd say "after-market" reaction holds more water for franchises today. Which is to refer to the anticipation level of the mainstream/geekdom, long after the movie's release hype has died down. Staying-value, I guess you would call it.

BB got it's sequel, and so will Star Trek, despite both getting less box office than SR. The more important issue, which is I think where the studios smartly gauge future projects, is the audience response. A sequel will always rest on the previous movie's success. Which is why TDK and X2 did huge compared to their predecessor. And as I'll predict, SM4 and Wolverine 2 will do worse because of the lukewarm response.

WHile not in those exact words I've said the exact same thing in respect to SR. Everyone wants to talk about money, but it's all about the potential for a sequel based on audience reaction/ response. BB, Star Trek connected with their audiences. SR did not.

Crook, you've hit the nail on the head.

 

[Wally West]

...and there's probably a dozen other posters on this board who've had much better ideas than what was in SR. And oddly (sarcasm) I don't think anyone of us would have come up with the SR storyline for a Superman film.

Hindsight is 20/20. It's also the stuff internet movie message boards are made of - that, and wild speculation, rumors and occasional spoilers of corse.

 

[sf2]

...and there's probably a dozen other posters on this board who've had much better ideas than what was in SR. And oddly (sarcasm) I don't think anyone of us would have come up with the SR storyline for a Superman film.

we are no match to singer.
and we never thought singer had such a "huge ball" to do such a story at the time. lol

in singer we trust. remember?

 

[mego joe]

Hindsight is 20/20. It's also the stuff internet movie message boards are made of - that, and wild speculation, rumors and occasional spoilers of corse.

I didn't need hindsight to tell me SR was doomed as soon as I heard about the connection to the Donner films and the kid storyline...

 

[Octoberist]

I have to be honest..the topic of this thread makes no sense.

 

[Octoberist]

From what I understand Lex finding Kryptonian Tech and using that knowledge to start Lexcorp was in one of J.J. Abrams screenplays. The idea was right in front of them, they just decided to take the character backwards instead of moving him forward. (btw I know they didn't use the Abrams script for SR but I'm sure they were aware of it's contents)

I think Hackman's Lex was..amusing for its time. For that, I kinda accept it but overall, it was too hammy. With the cartoony theme for Otis and the wigs for Lex's bald head.

But to bring that Lex into the 21st Century was a huge mistake. It's now just dated and sadly disconnected; once again, Lex and Superman barely has any screentime together. I just never liked that aspect of that particular versions of Lex and Supes in the Donner movies, and Singer's movie too.

 

[Wally West]

I didn't need hindsight to tell me SR was doomed as soon as I heard about the connection to the Donner films and the kid storyline...

Yeah, the son of superman thing was really the last straw for me. But I didn't know about it until I saw it in theaters.

 

[Octoberist]

I think my problem with Superman Returns was that it had great ideas but nothing was explored. NOr was it progressive in the right way: the kid for example.

 

[dark_b]

Star Trek success? Sure, to a point. Superman Returns still Outgrossed Star Trek worldwide..

Success is so relative.

more people want a star trek sequel then a superman sequel.
people smiled when they walked to the car and talked about what happened in the movie.i dont think this happened with SR. not saying that they were sad. but they were not jumping happy around because superman has a son.

and as you like to always mention the BO for SR for a lot of movies i remember very good that you also like to mention reviews.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/


BO matters. but the budget for star trek was huge. like with SR. and is it just me or was in ST more action on an epic scale. where in SR he lifted a rock

thank you.

 

[Octoberist]

the sad thing is that Superman Returns feel so irrevlent. I don't dislike the movie but man, it just feels irrelevant to the masses, and Superman shouldn't be like that.

 

[dark_b]

Superman Returns grossed $391 million world wide - Star Trek grossed $382 million world wide. The budget for Star Trek was 120 million dollars less than SR...it was indisputably a success. The film was extremely well recieved by critics as well as audiences. Soon the DVD will hit stores and the people who missed out in theaters will find out how good it was, which will raise anticipation for it's sequel even further. That franchise is in great shape. The Superman franchise (SR continuity at least) is not in very good shape right now to say the least...

if SR budget is somewhere around 220-240 millions then wouldnt this mean that the budget for ST was 100 millions?

i mean WTF?

 

[DavidTyler]

I was asked to repost this thread here. It's sort-of a devil's advocate thing in an attempt to argue a pro-sequel argument.

If the formula to the success of 2009's Star Trek was the fact that it cut ties with the past, then why even make a Star Trek movie?

I mean, yeah yeah, things gotta evolve or die. But why couldn't it die? Why not just say, "oh well, it had a good run?"

Oh wait, maybe the name value added to the marque value. Why, though? Oh, because it was familiar to people.

And even if it had to have the Star Trek name, it didn't have to be Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. I mean, the second Star Trek: the Next Generation film, Star Trek: First Contact was a sizable hit and so why not just make another spin-off?

...

Maybe the problem wasn't that it was too stagnant. Maybe it was that there was no other way to go. Maybe it was time for a back-to-basics approach.

"Oh, but it established a new continuity." True... well, sort-of. It certainly did so, but they didn't just say, "those movies never happened," but much like with Crisis on Infinite Earths, it was still rooted in the timeline of the original, PLUS what else could they do? If they wanted Spock and Kirk, they had to go to the past, but if they did so, it would bind them with the events of the original series.

Okay, but why not get a new actor to play Old Spock? Why Leonard Nimoy? Oh, because he's an awesome actor and popular in fan groups.

But why so many homages? Well, everyone knows the "I'm a doctor, not a..." quip and because some fans like homages to more esoteric stuff like, "you are my superior officer, you are also my friend. I have been and always will be yours."

Gee. It's almost like this WAS my father's Star Trek and if there wasn't, there wouldn't be a point in making it.

And there you have why the Trek movie worked. However, I don't see that working for a follow up (not a sequel) to any of the previous Superman movies.

Superman requires a clean break from Donner and from Singer. The film makers need to go back to basics with Superman (just like Byrne and Wolfman did with MOS). A fresh take on Krypton based on current science fiction sensibilities (the origin by Siegel and Shuster was considered that in it's day), a return to the finalized costume that has been the iconic vision of the character for over 40 years, and a Clark who is a crusading reporter.

While your title says this, what your post states is the opposite. Trek didn't really cut ties while Superman needs to.

 

[GreenKToo]

Well, you got to hand it to singer for doing one thing. He had the power to convince WB to let him make HIS superman film, one for HIM, and not the fans or the public.

I'm as diehard of fan as anyone here, but I had no desire to see a repeat viewing of SR.
I didnt hate it, but it didnt wow me enough to care about it either.
Now how sad is that? A superman fan not wanting to see a superman film on the big screen twice.. VERY I say.

 

[Superfreak]

I'm pro sequel. I am so, because I'm not down with seeing an origin. I'm not down for seeing a 2 hour superman movie, where the first hour is used to rehash a background story (that's all it is) that I already know. It's just a waste of my time, and forces me to wait 2 years minimum on top of the time it would take to barf out an origin, for the story to move beyond the 'introductory' phase.

I want a sequel, to SR. It doesn't have to be a direct continutation (like that between Star Trek II and Star Trek III), but rather more like a Star Trek VI (as SR kind of counts as a Star Trek IV and V: the sub par transitional movies). A sequel that plunks the audience into the familiar atmosphere, without having to redefine everything AGAIN, and delivering a quality story.

I want a disconnected SR sequel, that acknowledges SR, but doesn't have to be a direct continuation of that narrative. (ie. things like Jason could be acknowledged, but not be part of the sequel narrative in any way shape or form... they merely have to mention the name once). It's so simple in my mind.

Simply put: make a sequel that acknowledges that SR happened, but that is completely original, and disconnected from the SR narrative.

 

[VenomsMom]

I am a firm believer that if you are going to do something then you should do it right. Start this thing over with a clean slate and no ties to any previous movie. I dont give a damn about sitting through an origin on the big screen again because you can set up your potential future sequels with new stories villains and cast. I think it is necessary to launch a new Superman francise to just start from scratch like it should have been done. SR should just be considered the conclusion to the old Donner francise.

Everything should be reinvented. It is worth the wait IMO to give a 70 year old character who is still very popular the proper respect he deserves in a transition to the 21st century. And if that means Krypton origin for Supes and a new origin for an updated Lex Luther then so be it.