Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion

[SuperDaniel]

It's funny how Mostpowerful still keep defending SR after all these years... SR will tahnkfully be forgotten.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I love the Superman boards for the people, not the news.

 

[SuperDaniel]

All i know is that the only reasonable way to go with next movie is to do a full origin with all the characters so WB better pay the Siegels for it. The first movie has to be an origin to estabilish the characters right for once. With modern cinematography and storytelling, it doesn't have to be a linear origin.

 

[KalMart]

It's funny how Mostpowerful still keep defending SR after all these years... SR will tahnkfully be forgotten.

Judging by what's happening....it already has been.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I still defend alot of flicks sometimes...some more than 3 years old. It's not funny, it's just something some people do.

Is it the smartest use of your time? Nope but you can't help yourself sometimes.

I know one thing SR has been forgotten by me and thats whats most important.

 

[KalMart]

I still think Singer is a good filmmaker. he had one major misstep.....that, bewilderingly, still grossed $400M, but it is what it is....or was. Going back to square one could, in hindsight, end up being the best thing that ever happened to the Superman movie franchise, and if this past experience finally forced that issue, then so be it.

 

[TheDarkKnight08]

Yep, he and Goyer were obviously spewing bulls**t.

Just replace Rosenberg and Goldstein with Nolan and Goyer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPcH368QLHI

I'll bet that's how she got the role.

 

[M.O.Steel]

full origin is the way to go...i know people say crap like everyone knows the origin, but so does everyone the origins for spiderman and batman. you gotta make it fresh.

introduce the franchise. introduce the character.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

It grossed 391 million because it was the first Superman movie in 19 years...or atleast thats what I keep telling myself.

Hell Fantastic Four grossed 330mil so it's not an unprecidented number.

Perception is a big part of the moviemaking game:

Superman was expected to make more, for obvious reasons, and it didn't.

 

[KalMart]

It grossed 391 million because it was the first Superman movie in 19 years...or atleast thats what I keep telling myself.

Hell Fantastic Four grossed 330mil so it's not an unprecidented number.

Perception is a big part of the moviemaking game:

Superman was expected to make more, for obvious reasons, and it didn't.

I don't see the 19-yr gap as being a big factor, since it's not like people were waiting anxiously for another Superman movie in particular, like fanboys or what have you. The genre itself was hot, and you figure that such a familiar name with today's movie magic could at least deliver on the level of the better of the other superhero movies, if not big-time movies in general. Why NOT go see a Superman movie, right? Well....now we know why.

 

[storyteller]

Supermans issue was that they gave the movie a 250 million dollar budget. Such a high budget depended on one hell of a return that many films don't get. For its story they should never have green lighted that budget.

Next Superman has remained in development hell. In all the years they've had. They could have gotten a a working script and director. The fact that there is a flippen tv series going into its next season after 8 years is a sign at how the Wb has just been dropping the ball.

The Wb does not want to make Superhero movies. I find it quite odd that many movie companies can get scores of action movies out. That studios cant get trilogies out and are ramming up for 4th to 5th films. The Wb doesnt want to make superhero films.

 

[storyteller]

Supermans issue was that they gave the movie a 250 million dollar budget. Such a high budget depended on one hell of a return that many films don't get. For its story they should never have green lighted that budget.

Next Superman has remained in development hell. In all the years they've had. They could have gotten a a working script and director. The fact that there is a flippen tv series going into its next season after 8 years is a sign at how the Wb has just been dropping the ball.

The Wb does not want to make Superhero movies. I find it quite odd that many movie companies can get scores of action movies out. That studios cant get trilogies out and are ramming up for 4th to 5th films. The Wb doesnt want to make superhero films.

 

[KalMart]

Leave the origin/growing up for a second movie, if it gets that far. People need to reinvest in Superman being Superman....AS Superman. That's what needs an updated approach moreso than the origins. Leave more time and momentum for taking people on a wild ride. Introduce Superman/Kent off the bat right as he first arrives in Metropolis, almost as if we're introduced to him like the people of Metropolis are.....out of the blue comes something that changes what you thought you knew about what's possible. Then go from there with the gas pedal all the way down.

Then, once you've made the experience of being Superman cool again, you can take more dramatic license in the second movie to go deeper into his origins et al, paralleling it with the sequel's story (Godfather II? ). Might as well take advantage of what movies can do...not just effects-wise, but narratively as well...and do something a bit different than the standard linear/chronological approach from the very beginning etc.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

EDIT: F**k double posts.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Although Jamie would disagree with me I think that every single movie costing 175mil is a bad idea. It's just plan bad for business.

D9 reportedly (I ofcourse don't know if it's true) cost 30mil to make and it looks fine, other movies have cost less than 175mil and they looked fine. It's not impossible for these movies to cost less than these new fangled massive budgets, hollywood just doesn't seem to want them too.

Oh well I guess it's their business and they know more than I do. Still even with the added revenu of DVD's, T.V rights and toys do they really make a ton on all of these outrageously budgeted films?

I don't know, maybe they do but it doesn't seem like it to me. Van Helsing made over 300mil worldwide and they still didn't make a sequel. Sounds like that 160 million dollar budget did hurt it.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Man do I hate that WB didn't go for a reboot in 2004/2005.

 

[Venom'sDad]

An origin story would do this franchise much good... I sincerely hope WB think will hard about the path they are willing to take with this franchise.

 

[Kal-El Fan]

I would say start it with Clark's trip around the world. Start with say, Africa, as in Birthright. That was one of the few good things about that story. I say, play it like Birthright, until he gets to Metropolis, and then combine MOS and TAS to make an exciting story, with Luthor as a "background" villain, with a more "physical" villain(s) (Metallo, Parasite, etc) to actually test Superman. We would learn about the characters and about Krypton, with most of the growing up in Smallville, and the more in-depth look at Krypton in the sequel, as KalMart suggested. Of course we'd throw in the "love triangle for two," and a bit of the romance, as Lois & Clark's relationship is important to the mythos.
I really like the Godfather II approach that people have mentioned. This could be tied into the story of the sequel and the villain(s) (i.e. Bizarro and Brainiac).

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Although I do want a non-Singer Superman movie sooner rather than later, sometimes I wish that a new Superman movie would come out in 2015. That wait would make a full reboot make more sense.

 

[KalMart]

I just feel that today, with how Superman has fallen out of favor compared to other characters, that if you want to get people back into him at that level...you risk too much by making viewers wait 10-20 minutes to see him being Superman....regardless how 'well' you do a new version of the origin etc. His origins are still familiar enough to not have to go through it right from the beginning....by starting the new 'era' of Superman movies with an exciting Superman sequence, you make a bold statement right off the bat that people are in for an exciting ride. Deliver on that level first, because that's what's missing the most...then once you've got them, I think you'll get more interest in the deeper stuff, than the more typical other way around. Just some options to chew on.

 

[Venom'sDad]

I don't think making anyone wait 10-20 minutes mean anything. If they come to see the film, they are not going to leave 20 minutes later because they don't see the man in blue.

People understand the concept of the story and the process/journey of the film playing out.

 

[Kal-El Fan]

I have no problem starting with an established Superman, but I do feel we need some mention/hint of the origin, just to show that this is a new continuity. We don't need to spend a lot of time on it. Just a flashback or two, or a conversation on the Kent farm, showing BOTH parents, just to help distance us from the previous films, that's all. I really agree with you on the whole Godfather, really establishing the origin/history in the second film. Especially if we have some kind of Kryptonian villain, or even the Colu Brainiac with his info on Krypton, and possibly Kandor in his posession. That is where the Krypton stuff should really come in.

 

[KalMart]

I don't think making anyone wait 10-20 minutes mean anything. If they come to see the film, they are not going to leave 20 minutes later because they don't see the man in blue.

People understand the concept of the story and the process/journey of the film playing out.

But stating out differently than the rest of the pack could add to the uniqueness of the overall approach. I think Superman, in particular, could benefit greatly from that...to more of a degree than a new look at the origin from the outset. Also, it'll allow the origin used later to be more than just an origin/intro. You can expand and weave it in more without having to get it over with quicker as you would putting it in the first act of a new restart. I just think people will find that part of Superman's past more interesting after you establish a more exciting present, allowing you to get more meat out of the intricacies of said past.

 

[GreenKToo]

I'd be open to either idea if they would JUST make one.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I don't think making anyone wait 10-20 minutes mean anything. If they come to see the film, they are not going to leave 20 minutes later because they don't see the man in blue.

People understand the concept of the story and the process/journey of the film playing out.

Exactly.

I've only ever heard fanboys b**ch about orgin stories. If normal people like what they are seeing in a movie they aren't going to run out of the theater because the action doesn't start right away.

I didn't see them running from the Superman: The Movie, Batman 89 (not a full orgin story like the others but it was somewhat of an orgin story) Spider-Man or Iron Man. And need I point out all of the non-comicbooks that took 30 minutes to really get going?

Seriously, people on here can not want an orgin story and not like orgin stories but normal people don't give a s**t if they like the movie.

I just hate how some people are suddenly pretending that orgin stories don't make huge bank all the time.

The only reason I didn't bring up Batman Begins is because despite the fact that it did get a sequel it wasn't some big hit in theaters.

I'm a f**king zealot when it comes to this topic. I want a full orgin movie, anything less will lead to disappointment to me. I'm not saying the movie wouldn't be good or great but I'd still be disappointed.