Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion

[Venom'sDad]

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.

There should have never been a Superman Returns... it should have been a reboot, a new beginning. Period.

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...

mego joe, :heart:ya man... i couldn't agree more. The first time we heard the script was a loose sequel to Donner's film I was like OMG!?! Than, when we found out that Superman would have an asthmatic son, I was completely like WTF!?!. I felt uneased about this bastardization of a film, from that point on. I agree with you 100%.

I really felt portrayed, because I was really expecting a retelling of the origin story, that what have the potential of setting up other villains tied to his home planet, that would feature Corporate Lex, back-engineering the FoS technology, in becoming a worthy adversary to Superman. I got completely nothing of the sort from Singer. How disappointing.

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.

I hated it, but your sentiments are very well said.

 

[X Knight]

y'know....I tried to keep an open mind and stay optimistic about SR....even when I started to learn it wasn't exactly a reboot but "vaguely" connected to the Donner movies......and even when I learned that the kid might actually be Superman's.

In regards to the kid issue, I just couldn't believe that anyone in their right mind, who really knew the character of Superman, would do something like that. I held out hope, until the day I saw the movie, that the kid issue was part of an older draft idea and changed for the final film ( as some here were claiming......ahem ).

Even after I saw SR, I was still pretty gung-ho and positive about the movie. But, I think that had more to do with my excitement of finally seeing Supes on the big screen. However, a few days later, "reality" sunk in.....and as I pondered over what they actually did to my beloved Superman in SR.......well.......my opinions changed drastically.....

I wonder though....if SR had been more successful in spawning a new franchise...and if we already had a sequel or two......would this whole court ruling business have turned out differently?

 

[Nightwing1983]

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.

Well, I refuse to consider Superman Returns the conclusion to the old Reeve series. I mean, if they can try again with the loose sequel thing, I'm all f or it; but if not then so be it. I'm just tired of people scapegoating STM because of Returns.

 

[nintendo nerd]

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...

 

[Nightwing1983]

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.

1) I think it needs to cut ties with Superman Returns. I say if it can retain its ties with the earlier films, then great.

2) You are aware that a "back to basics" approach is the opposite of cutting ties with the past.

3) Why does everything have to be defined by a director's last name? I've never once said to someone, "hey! I'm gonna go watch Donner."

 

[Timstuff]

The older films are old and outdated. I don't see why a new Superman movie should be held back by 30 year old pre-crisis movie that most of today's audience is too young to even remember.

 

[DA Dent]

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.

But did you like Superman Returns or are you just being impatient?

 

[Octoberist]

The older films are old and outdated. I don't see why a new Superman movie should be held back by 30 year old pre-crisis movie that most of today's audience is too young to even remember.

Even though I don't want to continue down the Donner route, I just want to point out that they're still good movies. Classics, really. With the power of netflix, anyone can watch them, so I don't age has to do anything with it. (Yeah, they do look outdated if you compare to the comic book movies of today, however)

But there is not enough progression going on here with the Superman storyline. It's like it's stuck at gear one (pre-Crisis/Donner) and there's so much to Superman now to like.

 

[Timstuff]

...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 couldn't have come up with SR, because it's probably autobiographical. Jason represents Bryan Singer, an Superman and Lois Lane represent his mom and dad.

 

[BlackLantern]

We couldn't have come up with SR, because it's probably autobiographical. Jason represents Bryan Singer, an Superman and Lois Lane represent his mom and dad.

so where was the gay part?? as Singer is openly homosexual

 

[bunk]

What is this thread about again? Just for the record: it was really the only type of Trek movie they could make. There weren't really any others directions they could go. A 150 million dollar movie with characters nobody's heard of would have been foolish, and the TNG crew movies weren't profitable. It was either what they did, or nothing at all.

 

[Showtime]

Didn't you already open a Star Trek thread in the Superman Forums?

 

[Nightwing1983]

Didn't you already open a Star Trek thread in the Superman Forums?

This isn't a Star Trek thread. It just happens to mention Star Trek.

Also, what exactly are you referring to?

 

[Nightwing1983]

What is this thread about again? Just for the record: it was really the only type of Trek movie they could make. There weren't really any others directions they could go. A 150 million dollar movie with characters nobody's heard of would have been foolish, and the TNG crew movies weren't profitable. It was either what they did, or nothing at all.

Well, this is about how I believe Star Trek was successful because it DID embrace the past and there should be a reason to reboot rather than just, "the old stuff is old," in which case there's no reason to make a reboot and that they could have just used original characters, or done nothing at all.

Star Trek wasn't like that, and was an original story, yet one that benefits from the use of the classic characters.

A Superman reboot needs to be like that. I want to get away from Superman Returns even if it means getting away from the other films; but I think it'll be a hard sell if it's just an adaptation of Man of Steel.

A 150 million dollar movie with characters nobody's heard of would have been foolish,

Yes, because no movie has ever been a hit with characters nobody's heard of.

 

[bunk]

Yes, because no movie has ever been a hit with characters nobody's heard of.

If you think the Star Trek franchise was on an equal playing field prior to this summer, you're delusional.

 

[BestGirl]

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.

I can sympathize with you not wanting to watch an origin you've seen and read about so many times, but it's going to be very difficult to make a sequel - even a loose one - to SR. How, for example, would someone mention Jason without showing him? Superman's son can't just disappear.

 

[Nightwing1983]

If you think the Star Trek franchise was on an equal playing field prior to this summer, you're delusional.

I honestly don't understand this post.

Are you saying that prior to the current film that it was not a huge draw? Obviously.

Or that the current film couldn't have done as much bank if it weren't for the characters' popularity? Probably not, but you never know.

I'm saying what made it work is that it respected the past even though it did reboot.

 

[Timstuff]

There's not really anything in SR that I would say is worth trying to fix all of its problems for. You've got Routh, but there wasn't really anything remarkable about him that I'd say makes him irreplaceable. He was a big guy with black hair who did a passable Chris Reeve impression, but that was about it.

Also, modern storytelling methods don't require them to spend 1 hour on the origin if it's a reboot. They can start us off with Superman and then tell the origin through flashbacks throughout the movie, which is not an uncommon storytelling technique these days anyway.

 

[Nightwing1983]

I can sympathize with you not wanting to watch an origin you've seen and read about so many times, but it's going to be very difficult to make a sequel - even a loose one - to SR. How, for example, would someone mention Jason without showing him? Superman's son can't just disappear.

That assumes that if they wait long enough, they can't just ignore Superman Returns the way Superman Returns ignored the hilarious Superman III and the brilliantly allegorical Superman IV.

But also, I think they went through the trouble of trying to imply that it's ambiguous whether or not Jason is his son, or at least, that was my interpretation when I first saw it. Could they just say it's Lois and Richard's? I mean, that doesn't solve every problem, but one could live with it.

 

[Nightwing1983]

Also, modern storytelling methods don't require them to spend 1 hour on the origin if it's a reboot. They can start us off with Superman and then tell the origin through flashbacks throughout the movie, which is not an uncommon storytelling technique these days anyway.

Yeah, you could absolutely start in the middle of the story. I just think that whatever they do, there needs to be a point, especially when they change stuff. Why is it better for Lex to be a billionaire? Why is it better for Ma and Pa Kent to be alive? Is it necessary to make those changes?

 

[Timstuff]

Superman can't be with Lois because he's Kryptonian. Jason is unhappy too, until he discovers that he is also Kryptonian. Try and figure that one out.

 

[BlackLantern]

Superman can't be with Lois because he's Kryptonian. Jason is unhappy too, until he discovers that he is also Kryptonian. Try and figure that one out.

Bryan Singer teaches us all

 

[BestGirl]

That assumes that if they wait long enough, they can't just ignore Superman Returns the way Superman Returns ignored the hilarious Superman III and the brilliantly allegorical Superman IV.

I've never seen S3 and S4, but I assume neither had plot points that absolutely needed to be carried over into SR, like a kid.

But also, I think they went through the trouble of trying to imply that it's ambiguous whether or not Jason is his son, or at least, that was my interpretation when I first saw it. Could they just say it's Lois and Richard's? I mean, that doesn't solve every problem, but one could live with it.

They would have to explain how Lois and Richard's kid was able to throw a piano.

 

[Showtime]

I think at this point, one of their only choices is to present a Superman Starts type storyline.

 

[dark_b]

i am desperate. give me a superman movie