Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
I say put him in only because I WANT to see the modern day Lex in a friggin' movie. Not a con man, but a TYCOON.

He doesn't have to be the main villain; put him in there. I just want Lex to get his friggin' due.
 
I'd like Lois to be rushing to the scene of a near disaster that was averted by something that people just can't explain...she's there to get the scoop, but finds out there's already some tall guy in glasses that she's never seen before who says he's from the Daily Planet too...interviewing some cops and bystanders. She doesn't think much of him, but she's a bit put off by being beaten to the punch. He tries to introduce himself, but she cuts him off when she asks another question to the cop about just what got that speeding bus with bomb-rigged terrorists stuck up in the top floor of that abandoned building.

"Who knows...", says a cop. "People said some sort of hurricane or something just came in and....it's crazy, who knows?"

She then gets that guy back by stealing a cab from him...but when she arrives back at the Daily Planet...there's that friggin' guy again...already there in the office! WTF? It's then that he's introduced to her by Perry as Clark Kent, the newly-hired reporter.

Bullet-train would be good....because it's speeding along the ground, and you could emphasize Superman's high-speed flying better with more objects whizzing by....buildings, trees, through tunnels, elevated tracks (hopefully not too Spiderman II)...better physical dynamics than in the open sky, and a lot of large obstacles that he has to weave in and out of....using shots from inside the train car seeing Supes flying along outside the windows, etc.

But instead of stopping the whole train at once from either end...which would likely cause the multiple cars to fold up around eachother of tear off inpieces....he has to do it in sections, one car at a time....severing the links with heat vision, safely slowing that car down so as not to put too many g-forces on the occupants (thing's traveling at over 200+ mph, after all). Then he has to catch up to the rest of the cars that are speeding away, and so on over the course of miles....with each car and section of track presenting different obstacles....tunnels, raised tracks, nearby buildings, etc. But by the time he's ready for the last car....in this case the front car since he goes from the back forward...it's nearing the end station with a dead end. Not enough room left on the tracks to slow it down without it squashing upon impact. So in a split second, he zips over to the end of the track barely ahead of the oncoming last car....rips the track from the ground and the 'end pin', and lifts them up in the air so it's a ramp, which sends the car flying like a javelin hundreds of feet in the air.


Then he simply catches it and brings it floating back down to Earth. There's your rescue scene.


See...if they end up doing that, it's already friggin' spoiled for us. :oldrazz:

I can see these in my mind's eye and I'm :applaud.
 
I like starting with a pre-Superman Clark saving people for a couple of reasons. First off, as was shown in Birthright (again some of my only praise for that series), we see Clark learning things about being a "hero," about the true nature of people, and the world in general. He still has hope that we can build a better world, but he knows it's not perfect. This helps to convince the non-fans that he is not some naive boyscout who thinks everything is perfect.
Second, like in MOS, having Clark rescue people in plain clothes, and finally getting caught by Lois, etc helps lead him to create the Superman identity. This gives us a reason to create a suit that is not of Kryptonian origin, as many want (it can or cannot be made of Kryptonian fabric, etc...I don't think that matters.)
I like the MOS origin with Clark being the person, and Superman being the disguise. In the end, both Metropolis Clark and Superman are disguises, but I'd like to move away from the Superman/Kryptonian importance from the Donner film.
 
How would continuing SR's storyline have been a positive, though? At the very least, you keep it to one generally forgettable showing, and finally moving on from the past.....instead of taking up even more valuable time and money spreading it out over two, possible three installments. Whatever reasons have virtually forced WB to reboot have got to be a positive for the franchise compared to what had resulted in SR, even if it means leaving it dormant for another 5-8 years or so. At the very least, they now have a concrete example of why they can't just depend on et familiarity of the brand and past merits, and why they need to step things up when/if they do get to another one.

If we don't get another Superman movie for another, say 20 years, than continuing SR's storyline would've been a better option rather than waiting decades for a reboot.
 
If we don't get another Superman movie for another, say 20 years, than continuing SR's storyline would've been a better option rather than waiting decades for a reboot.

Disagree. I would rather have nothing than to continue anything from that movie.
 
How would continuing SR's storyline have been a positive, though? At the very least, you keep it to one generally forgettable showing, and finally moving on from the past.....instead of taking up even more valuable time and money spreading it out over two, possible three installments. Whatever reasons have virtually forced WB to reboot have got to be a positive for the franchise compared to what had resulted in SR, even if it means leaving it dormant for another 5-8 years or so. At the very least, they now have a concrete example of why they can't just depend on et familiarity of the brand and past merits, and why they need to step things up when/if they do get to another one.

The storyline continuing and being positive or negative is a matter of opinion. Nobody knows what a possible sequel would have done. Those who hated SR will say it would have tanked, those who loved SR would tell you it would have been gangbusters at the box office. It is all futuristic speculation.
 
Although I hate to see the origin story on the big screen again, I think they should adapt one of the Superman graphic novels for the new movie, like Whatever Happens to Man of Tomorrow?, or Superman: Birthright. One thing they should definitely do is to severe all ties with the Donner films; all the Superman movies (including Singer's) have relation with Donner's classic, and it's time for them to create a Superman movie that is new and different, like what Nolan did with Batman.
 
I'd be interested in knowing what you consider huge, then.
It's all about the tone. The things you mentioned sound relatively "big" on paper, but it's execution just did not translate that feeling.

Comparatively speaking, TDK was a much smaller-scale film than SR (on paper), yet undoubtedly felt much, much, bigger.
 
It's all about the tone. The things you mentioned sound relatively "big" on paper, but it's execution just did not translate that feeling.

Comparatively speaking, TDK was a much smaller-scale film than SR (on paper), yet undoubtedly felt much, much, bigger.
i agree.

the flying through space is basic stuff now . it is not complicated anymore to model planets and fly through them.

spaceship landing? it was a f..... reflection on the windows. you see martha in the house. and you only see the spaceship landing in the reflection.
 
It's funny when you see the railroad model scene when Lex tests the crystal, and then you compare it to what actually ends up happening. It definitely does not live up to the foreshadowing.
 
The storyline continuing and being positive or negative is a matter of opinion. Nobody knows what a possible sequel would have done. Those who hated SR will say it would have tanked, those who loved SR would tell you it would have been gangbusters at the box office. It is all futuristic speculation.

Obviously, but really, if you wanted to ideally make Superman movies from here on out....would you not want to be able to start from scratch, though? Look at it as if both approaches could be done as well as possible, which is what you hope for. Creatively speaking, I see a lot more benefits from not being bound to prior versions and continuities, and I think it's safe to say that audiences are at least just as receptive to restarting, as evidenced by other franchises that recently have.
 
If we don't get another Superman movie for another, say 20 years, than continuing SR's storyline would've been a better option rather than waiting decades for a reboot.

I don't see it that way...although I can see how some Supes/comics fans etc. may. To me, it's not 'something is better than nothing', because there are a lot of other movies out there, and I don't think something's missing if there are no Superman movies in particular, or any other specifically. I'd rather there be none, than a handful of bad ones. If there are no more Superman movies in my lifetime, I'm okay with that because at least there are a few that were made that I liked like STM. But for those who feel the need for Superman movies, I could see the 'wait' hurting, but I could also see it being worth the price if it means that things will finally start over....given that it will be made well, of course. If it's not, then it won't make me feel that they should have continued from SR instead...I'd rather they just stop and put those resources towards something else that will be fresher and more contemporary.
 
Blasphemy.......Lex should definitely have a presence in the next film.

I dunno....I'm pretty sick of him as far as movies go. I know that a lot of Supes fans take the stance 'it hasn't been done right', but I'd rather they put the time and effort for new things instead, or at least wait....like BB-TDK did bringing in the Joker later than right off the bat.

But then again, it may also depend whether or not you're going to tie Luthor in to Clark's origins/growing up. If they don't, then it'll be easier to bring him in later....like perhaps at the end of a first movie, leading into the next (if there will be one). But in general, I'd find it refreshing not having him for a while.
 
Luthor is so tied in to Superman's and Metropolis' backstory (since he's such a public figure as the Lexcorp CEO), that it's hard not to mention him unless he's in prison or whatever.
 
If Warner Bros. wanted to continue the storyline put forth by Superman Returns they could have done so already. Whether I dislike the film or not, Superman Returns certainly made enough money to constitute a sequel. However, it seems as though Warner Bros. has decided to go in another direction. They obviously view the film as a disappointment, for what ever reason
 
And for whatever reason....I'm glad they did, as I think there's a better inherent chance of creating better movies by starting over. Of course it could still be botched up, but so can anything. At least you can say that the decision was (hopefully) made for the right reasons in terms of what you wanted to achieve.
 
Last edited:
If they wanted a sequel, they missed the boat. At this point, it's obvious WB were not pleased with the film and it seems like Singer has moved on from the franchise.

If they did it now, THEN NOW there's baggage due to the behind the scenes stuff. I know that only film geeks will know about that, but still.
 
Luthor is so tied in to Superman's and Metropolis' backstory (since he's such a public figure as the Lexcorp CEO), that it's hard not to mention him unless he's in prison or whatever.

It doesn't have to be written that way, though. I don't think changing that specific association is as vital...you could still introduce him later as a powerful scientist/entrepreneur whatever with Supes meeting him for the first time right there and then, and then perhaps reveal that he was somehow involved with the dangers that Supes has faced prior to getting to Lex. I'd really like to see then start with something new and different than Lex being the threat/bad guy....or even in the picture... from the start.
 
And for whatever reason....I'm glad they did, as I think there's a better inherent chance of creating better movies by staring over. Of course it could still be botched up, but so can anything. At least you can say that the decision was (hopefully) made for the right reasons in terms of what you wanted to achieve.

I agree 100%.
 
Luthor needs to be in a Superman film...he doesnt have to be the main badguy but as others have said he needs to at least be a presence
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,435
Messages
22,105,234
Members
45,898
Latest member
NeonWaves64
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"