Superman Reboot Writers Workshop

[Jasomius]

Comic book Luthor, yes. Animated Luthor, yes. But Movie Lex has not established himself as a worthy villain, his poorly thought out and illogical evil schemes make him ability more then anything else. Seriously considering he has no resources, no allies and be wanted by the police after Superman reveals the backstory behind that NK thing, how is Lex supposed to pose a threat now or be a position to create some of the thug villains like Parasite, Bizzaro or Metallo. Movie Lex will need a major revamp before he can be seen as villain who can pose a contiuious threat.

In your opinion, of course.

So how exactly are we going to improve on his character if you don't want him in the movie? Seems he has to actually be on screen to see an improvement...

 

[COMPO]

if they bring Lex back then they should have build an corporate empire, trash the land obsession and turn it into weapons. Have lex making a deal with the military for a weapons deal. It doesn't go well. Becasue there is no war. So lex has a HENCHMEN hack into a missile base from one counrty and america so that it blows a part each counrty starting a war and him making a deal to become the sole benefactor for them military.

 

[Jasomius]

if they bring Lex back then they should have build an corporate empire, trash the land obsession and turn it into weapons. Have lex making a deal with the military for a weapons deal. It doesn't go well. Becasue there is no war. So lex has a HENCHMEN hack into a missile base from one counrty and america so that it blows a part each counrty starting a war and him making a deal to become the sole benefactor for them military.

But why should we dramatically change Lex's motivations? How would that benefit the story?

 

[COMPO]

because no one except Lois and Superman know it was lex that started the island thing. So they have no proof. And besides, that way he's closer to the comics. In the shadows. Plus, he's that old woman's money to start up his empire.

 

[Jasomius]

because no one except Lois and Superman know it was lex that started the island thing. So they have no proof. And besides, that way he's closer to the comics. In the shadows. Plus, he's that old woman's money to start up his empire.

So why would being closer to the comics make a better movie?

 

[The Overlord]

But why should we dramatically change Lex's motivations? How would that benefit the story?

Lex with his corporate empire would have a greater ability to cause damage to Superman and even create thug villains like Parasite and Metallo (those guys are good for fist fights, but they really can't hold their own movie.) That would justify Lex as a contiuing threat and having presence in all the movies. Movie Lex right now has no real resources and creates schemes that 5 year old would find flawed, I don't see how you can justify his contiued presence in the movies in his current state, he really doesn't present an ongoing threat.

 

[The Overlord]

In your opinion, of course.

So how exactly are we going to improve on his character if you don't want him in the movie? Seems he has to actually be on screen to see an improvement...

Your not paying attention, the only way I would want to see Lex on screen again is if they improve his character, so if they improve his character, I would be willing to to give Lex another chance, but as is, no, I don't see a reason for Lex's return.

 

[YJ1]

This franchise's only chance is to fire Routh and replace Singer. Since neither of those things are going to happen, keep your expectations very low.

 

[bunk]

I'm glad Singer had Luthor as the villain, that way I could see him just once on screen the way he was meant to be and not as a stupid clown. I wish Singer hadn't based him of the Donner version at all, than he'd be even better.

 

[Jasomius]

I'm glad Singer had Luthor as the villain, that way I could see him just once on screen the way he was meant to be and not as a stupid clown. I wish Singer hadn't based him of the Donner version at all, than he'd be even better.

The Donner version is my favourite version of Lex Luthor, I want to see more of a Donner influence if anything.

I don't want him wearing wigs all the time though, but then neither did Donner.

 

[dar-El]

No kid, no superman leaving for five years and a better, brighter costume. Then maybe id give singers take a chance
.

 

[TripXyDE]

Sounds like you're a post-crisis fan threatened by change. Aww, so SR isn't post-crisis Superman? Stop whining. Singer had as much right to use pre-crisis Supes as much as he did Post-Crisis. You can't say Singer is wrong for doing so.

And I don't really see what is wrong with the kid, other than he isn't in the comics, which is a crappy reason. I doubt you can give another reason, though.

the existence of THE KID would mess up the storyline into levels that would put the Superman franchise out of line. His existence would require storylines that would be very much outside the realm of what a Superman movie would be. it may be a daring direction... but Singer would be making a universe of his own making, in effect, violating the source material.

I don't really care if it's a Post-crisis or Pre-crisis Superman...
Singer was just plain awful in how he made SR.

who made you God of the boards to tell me to stop whining???... as far as i know, you're obviously just another SR-loving SingerVision fanboys who dont have a sensible stand of arguement to defend your beloved Superman Returns Chickflick... this is a FORUM...people have the right to WHINE here

I'd like to see one of thse fans make their own movie and read the reactions he gets. Chances are his version of Superman would be considered 'wrong'.

& that is your BIG argument? ....argue with something that is way out of consistency or something that does not exist. such a childish argument on the topic of criticism. what are you... twelve?

There was no camp to Luthor in SR.

oh...so the kryptonite island where he's supposed expect what remaining people would buy...paying him with seashells because all the banks in the US continent have sank down the ocean ---WAS NOT CAMP enough for you?

camp doesn't just mean that a character would be goofy like Schumacher's Bat-villains like Two-Face...Camp could mean how incredibly absurd his/her character is (that includes what he does in the movie)

In your opinion, of course.

So how exactly are we going to improve on his character if you don't want him in the movie? Seems he has to actually be on screen to see an improvement...

not only in The Overlord's opinion, but also in the opinion of MANY who can comprehend how lame Singer's SR was.

How exactly do we improve Luthor's character?
you see...this is what i am talking about..... you people who just let themselves blurt out their own sides of opinion without ever LISTENING to our side.....We HAVE LONG BEEN SUGGESTING THE IMPROVEMENTS that SHOULD be TAKEN........& it is only NOW that you ask THAT question?????

how newbie could you get?

The Donner version is my favourite version of Lex Luthor, I want to see more of a Donner influence if anything.

I don't want him wearing wigs all the time though, but then neither did Donner.

oh.... no wonder

tsk tsk

 

[raybia]

I agree with all of your comments. If there were no expectations and no source material other than the Donner movies then I would say that SR was good, not great, but good. However when continuing the rich source material especially the post crisis material, then SR sucks. Sorry, thats just the way I feel and the way I saw it.

And one more thing: The new Superman movie should have been a no-brainer because WB already had the PREFECT model on how to do the movie. The model is the one put together and used by Chris Nolan for BB.

WB should have know better. Most of this is their faults.

 

[bunk]

The more I think about the more I wish Singer had just restarted the franchize. As much as I don't want to see another origin movie, I would have liked to see it done differently too. Singer basically took the Donner movies and schackled them to his ankle, restricting his freedom to correct any mistakes made in the past. Luthor could still be the villain and would be much more formidable, rich, powerful ect. and maybe utilizing attack robots and what not that supes could smash. SR is basically the 3rd in a series and Supes relationship with Lois hasn't progressed, they're treading water, so Singer wouldn't lose anything there by starting fresh. He could have introduced a Metropolis police force for added antogonism, and started groundwork for the next villain. He could've also introduced S.T.A.R. labs which I'd love to see. By the time we get to a third movie we could even see Luthor as president, and I'd be open to a Lois and Clark marriage at that point(as long as he doesn't have long hair). I don't see Singer as the wrong director, just a director who took the wrong path.

 

[raybia]

The more I think about the more I wish Singer had just restarted the franchize. As much as I don't want to see another origin movie, I would have liked to see it done differently too. Singer basically took the Donner movies and schackled them to his ankle, restricting his freedom to correct any mistakes made in the past. Luthor could still be the villain and would be much more formidable, rich, powerful ect. and maybe utilizing attack robots and what not that supes could smash. SR is basically the 3rd in a series and Supes relationship with Lois hasn't progressed, they're treading water, so Singer wouldn't lose anything there by starting fresh. He could have introduced a Metropolis police force for added antogonism, and started groundwork for the next villain. He could've also introduced S.T.A.R. labs which I'd love to see. By the time we get to a third movie we could even see Luthor as president, and I'd be open to a Lois and Clark marriage at that point(as long as he doesn't have long hair). I don't see Singer as the wrong director, just a director who took the wrong path.

Well, WB could have restarted the franchise without doing a traditional origin story.

It could have opened up with Superman already in Metropolis and Clark already working for the Planet for about one year. Clark has no idea of his Kryptonian origins and merely assumes that he is a metahuman but still human.

Luthor could have been re-presented as a Corporate Mongul who was the #1 man in Metropolis before Superman's arrival but now has taken a big backseat to the Man of Steel.

Luthor motivation is either has Supes work for him or to get rid of him one way or another. Luthor's investigation into Superman leads him to discover his Kryptonian origin (and possibility a Kryptonian reminant in the form of Brainac) and once the public finds out there is mass Xenophobia towards Superman with himself now torn between his once assumed humanity and his newfound Kryptonian heritiage.

Like BB, this movie could have consisted of flashbacks but there was be no need to explain every detail about Superman's heritiage, at least not in the first movie. Have more info come out in the 2nd and maybe 3rd movie as well.

Also like BB, I think the new series should have been planned as a trilogy where each movie is somewhat connected especially with the the events of the 1st movie playing a significant role in the direction of the next two films.

WB and Singer took the easy way out that did not require any imagination and it shows.

 

[JBElliott]

Here's how to fix things: Pick a good Superman comic and make that into a movie. Pick a good story, use it, use the characters, use the costume. Ditch all the lame changes to costume, characters and so on. Go with what has worked for nigh on seventy years. Action Comics #775 would be a good start to remind people why Superman is the best of the best.

 

[raybia]

Here's how to fix things: Pick a good Superman comic and make that into a movie. Pick a good story, use it, use the characters, use the costume. Ditch all the lame changes to costume, characters and so on. Go with what has worked for nigh on seventy years. Action Comics #775 would be a good start to remind people why Superman is the best of the best.

I agree. My idea above is essentially from Bryne's Man of Steel and Superman: TAS.

 

[matthooper]

WB and Singer took the easy way out that did not require any imagination and it shows.

I just can't understand why more people don't recognize that point. The people who didn't like it usually talk about the kid, the suit, or some other minor point. The reason the movie was a failure in my opinion was purely from a creative standpoint. Absolutely no creativity on any level. There is not one moment, not one scene, not one line that rings imaginative.

The people who liked the film usually won't admit it, but if you got them on a lie detector, I bet they would admit that the film suffered from a lack of creativity. I'm not saying they don't actually like it, I'm saying if truth be told, even they would admit this.

The next film has to be creative and imaginative. It needs to be something we've never seen before. When we walk out of the theatre we have to be floored and in absolute awe. This is Superman for heavens sake.

 

[raybia]

I just can't understand why more people don't recognize that point. The people who didn't like it usually talk about the kid, the suit, or some other minor point. The reason the movie was a failure in my opinion was purely from a creative standpoint. Absolutely no creativity on any level. There is not one moment, not one scene, not one line that rings imaginative.

The people who liked the film usually won't admit it, but if you got them on a lie detector, I bet they would admit that the film suffered from a lack of creativity. I'm not saying they don't actually like it, I'm saying if truth be told, even they would admit this.

The next film has to be creative and imaginative. It needs to be something we've never seen before. When we walk out of the theatre we have to be floored and in absolute awe. This is Superman for heavens sake.

:heart:

 

[Octoberist]

I had a discussion with a bud about the Superman movies (including Superman returns), and Lex Luthor was a worthy villain..for the time.

In many ways, the 'real estate agent from hell' is an outdated concept, no matter how fun the role can be. Esp when the other comic book movies have more..visually interesting villains to content with.

Honestly, I felt that Lex is very overused. But if you're going to use him, use him right. So when Singer decided to not create the Lex along the lines of the modern comics or from the animated series, I was confused and saddened.

Sadden because i know that the fans will give Singer a hard time for it. And honestly, as fun as Spacey was, I was not threatened by him. His actions are a threat, but not his character no matter how hard they tried. At least, he was more intimidating than Mr. Hackman but by an inch.

SO a new villain is the way to go. And if Lex comes back, give him something to do.

 

[raybia]

I had a discussion with a bud about the Superman movies (including Superman returns), and Lex Luthor was a worthy villain..for the time.

In many ways, the 'real estate agent from hell' is an outdated concept, no matter how fun the role can be. Esp when the other comic book movies have more..visually interesting villains to content with.

Honestly, I felt that Lex is very overused. But if you're going to use him, use him right. So when Singer decided to not create the Lex along the lines of the modern comics or from the animated series, I was confused and saddened.

Sadden because i know that the fans will give Singer a hard time for it. And honestly, as fun as Spacey was, I was not threatened by him. His actions are a threat, but not his character no matter how hard they tried. At least, he was more intimidating than Mr. Hackman but by an inch.

SO a new villain is the way to go. And if Lex comes back, give him something to do.

My sentiments exactly. If Singer goes with Zod as the villian for the next, then I will officially consider SR and its sequel as remakes to Superman I and II.

I also look more foward to seeing Donner's cut of Superman II than any Superman sequel that Singer puts out.

 

[The Overlord]

The Donner version is my favourite version of Lex Luthor, I want to see more of a Donner influence if anything.

I don't want him wearing wigs all the time though, but then neither did Donner.

But what exactly is Lex supposed to do in a sequel? Movie Lex has no real scientific ability (he stole those nukes in the first movie and stole the alien tech in SR), no real planning ability (both of his plans were illogical and poorly thought out) and not a whole lot in the way of resources (he likely blew a lot of the old widow's money on the scheme in SR, plus he only had a few thugs to help him, how is he supposed to create thug villains like Parasite or Metallo?)

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

BRING BACK CLARK.
The best thing about superman in recent comics is the line between clark and superman. I like the clark is the real man and superman is what he can do. Gives him true humanity.

Fix the costume. I dont just mean colorwise or collarwise, i mean how its filmed. What i like about the spiderman costume is that its used. Singer could have just had half the suit made the way he filmed routh in the costume. Dont be afriad to flaunt it around.

Get of the donner trip. My problem with everyone thinking donner is god when it comes to superman is that donner got the shaft making his flippen movie. I liked the first movie but it had little foundation that probably would have found a temples worth had donner not been working with pricks of producers.
Times have changed. Theres a reason why cartoons are made the way they are.

People ofcourse have different interpitations of the character and I respect that, but I never really cared for the Clark Kent is the costume idea. I always liked to think of Superman as Clark (everyman) Kent with powers. I never liked that he hated being Clark, he is Clark IMHO. Sure he tones himself down to fit in and for that reason can never act exactly like himself but I see him as more of an everyman with superpowers, not some g-d.

 

[C. Lee]

The people who liked the film usually won't admit it, but if you got them on a lie detector, I bet they would admit that the film suffered from a lack of creativity. I'm not saying they don't actually like it, I'm saying if truth be told, even they would admit this.

Calling people who have an opinion different from yours "liars"...is a bit much.

Too many people on here have a problem admitting one important thing....different people have different opinions. A "fact" is an accountable, definable, proveable thing....an opinion is an opinion. Many subjectful things go into formulating an opinion....so don't call someone a liar if it differs from yours.

 

[raybia]

But what exactly is Lex supposed to do in a sequel? Movie Lex has no real scientific ability (he stole those nukes in the first movie and stole the alien tech in SR), no real planning ability (both of his plans were illogical and poorly thought out) and not a whole lot in the way of resources (he likely blew a lot of the old widow's money on the scheme in SR, plus he only had a few thugs to help him, how is he supposed to create thug villains like Parasite or Metallo?)

He walks up to them and says, "Hi, everybody! The name's Luthor, Lex Luthor. Possibly you've heard the name: the Greatest Criminal Mind Of All Time!

I can give you the Brass Ring, unlimited freedom to maim and kill and destroy! PLUS: Lex Luthor's keen mind, Lex Luthor's savvy, Lex Luthor's career guidance and give you the Son of Jor-El? Or maybe you know him better by the name he normally uses and travels under... Superman.