Superman Reboot Writers Workshop

[That'ssuper!]

Part of the revamp would be making him a bigger icon than he is now for what he stands for. Perhaps we can introduce him saving some American troops somewhere, scarring the crap out of a wife beater. Giving homeless people a bite to eat once in awhile. There's many things we need to explore.

 

[mego joe]

I don't think Batman Begins "reimagined" Batman in any way. If anything, it just boiled the character down to his essence and ran with it. Similarly, Superman just needs to be embraced for what he is. He needs to be that larger-than-life symbol of hope and justice. He doesn't need to be modernized or revamped, he just needs to be, well, Superman.

I didn't take re-imagining to mean a re-imagining of the character but a re-imagining that separates it from the previous film franchise in it's look, approach and story details.

You are correct though that BB does boil Batman down to his essence and goes. I find that if it takes from any specific era it is the '70's O'Neil/ Adams era. Which is a great era to base Batman on.

 

[afan]

Part of the revamp would be making him a bigger icon than he is now for what he stands for. Perhaps we can introduce him saving some American troops somewhere, scarring the crap out of a wife beater. Giving homeless people a bite to eat once in awhile. There's many things we need to explore.

Disagree with your examples especially if saving troops involves meddling in armed conflict, and why do they have to be American troops.
Battles against wife beaters, world hunger, and other social issues are best left to Clark Kent's power as a journalist. In such instances the pen is mightier than the sword.

 

[The_Beav]

Batman Begins was the first Mainstream TV or Movie that dealt with Batman's origin. I'm not counting the cartoon.

Superman's origin has already been told countless times. People know that stuff already. The only reasons to start over are to completely change it (bad idea), bring it into current times (not necessary), or showcase a younger actor to relate to a younger audience.

I think what draws people in to seats is action. I don't think a young pretty metrosexual icon is important.

The best thing for Superman solo franchise is to fast-forward. A rough and masculine Superman (think Clint Eastwood or Harrison Ford type actor) in his early 40s battling something big like Darkseid in a trilogy would be awesome. BTW, I do like Alex Ross' Superman.

 

[Showtime]

I'd like to see a stand alone Superman film, with no ties to previous film. Not a re-origin or sequel, but a reboot.

 

[Memphis Slim]

I think Superman's origin has been covered enough at this point. Hell, it's essentially the story of Moses for cryin' out loud. If you're a devout christian, you've already heard that story enough to last you into the afterlife.

A Superman film can start with him already established as Earth's hero and take things from there. We don't have to see Clark arrive in Metropolis, if anything, we need to see him and Lois actually work as reporting partners. We also need to establish Lex Luthor as some sort of self-made man/scientific genuis. Someone who doesn't need to swindle some old woman on her deathbed out of her fortune.

How 'bout we not have Luthor in it at all?? Enuff with the Lex thing.....

 

[afan]

A crucial question to me at least..........when discussing future films..........
Is live action appropriate anymore, especially keeping in mind the nearly total use of CGI in the "super" fx, including even the cape of the Man of Steel, why not just go the distance. Cast the voice for a Curt Swann, Neal Adams, John Byrne or Alex Ross, Superman, certainly easier than casting a live actor.
Does CGI preclude story quality?

 

[That'ssuper!]

That Luthor and the swindiling old ladies thing was beyond extremely pathetic. If we're not careful of the specifics, we could get a reboot with the kid being the next Man of Steel. Horrible all around.

 

[Obi Wan Kenobi]

I think Superman's origin has been covered enough at this point. Hell, it's essentially the story of Moses for cryin' out loud. If you're a devout christian, you've already heard that story enough to last you into the afterlife.

A Superman film can start with him already established as Earth's hero and take things from there. We don't have to see Clark arrive in Metropolis, if anything, we need to see him and Lois actually work as reporting partners. We also need to establish Lex Luthor as some sort of self-made man/scientific genuis. Someone who doesn't need to swindle some old woman on her deathbed out of her fortune.

You know this is my first time reading this thread and you are dead on. I don't know why on God's green earth people want to see the origins of Superman told OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. Everyone knows where Superman is from & how he got here.

Why we can't move forward with interesting plots & interesting super villians has always puzzled me.

 

[That'ssuper!]

The problem with just starting with an established Superman would be that the general audience would think that it was just a sequel to Superman Returns. The Donner vision is so far overstretched with the sequel to films made thrity years ago, people will be confused entirely. It could be nice to make a revamp of the origin story where people would be able to tell the difference between the styles of the film.

Batman had a reboot and everyone knew where Batman came from, it made no difference in what they thought of him. It just reconnected his motivation for crime fighting to the audience, and actually gave him a motivation. Seeing a complete reworking of the wars on Krypton and the chaos that followed would make a more realistic meaning for why he came to Earth. It's revising it, not just retelling it.

 

[WhatsHisFace]

Singer messed up. He thought paying homage would lead to nostalgia and lead to the return of Superman. Instead, he did not bank on fans being a bit clever and realizing that he brought Superman back with no NEW ideas.
Look at Batman Begins. As soon as Batman flipped over the card, people were already talking about the sequel. Nolan COMPLETELY flipped the script on the franchise. He not only did that, but he did it well.
Superman needs a director who is not afraid of taking a big risk and re-imagining Superman for the millenium. Kids will follow Bale's Batman over Routh ANYDAY! The Routh Superman just ain't relevant for today.

Superman needs a change and needs it NOW!

Superman having a kid and Lois being engaged are not new ideas?

 

[Excel]

check the sig, thats the best reimaging youll get.

no origin crap, just batman 89 esque flashbacks. Lex is young and dating Lois, alien named Lord Havoc in town to hunt down Supes while he falls for Lois.

Dream Cast:
Russel Crowe as Jor-el
Josh Duhamal as Superman
Leonardo Dicaprio as Lex Luthor
Reese Witherspoon as Lois Lane
Topher Grace as Jimmy Olsen
Joaquin Phoenix as Lord Havoc

 

[mego joe]

Superman having a kid and Lois being engaged are not new ideas?

I think the fact that they are so overwhelmingly bad ideas kind of negates the fact that you might be able to also call them new. But those are the only 'new' ideas in SR. But they are such bad ideas, their awfulness precludes their inclusion in any other category so they get overlooked as 'new.'

Perhaps it's like when your wife says, "I don't have anything to wear." What she really means is she doesn't have anything NEW to wear. In the case of these 'new' ideas in SR, what is really being said is that SR had no GOOD 'new' ideas. Two bad new ideas, but no GOOD 'new' ideas.

 

[KalMart]

More useless repetition of words and lines for the sake of it. And certainly more annoying one-liners.

As opposed to SR's brilliant one-liners....or should we say the ones it borrowed from Superman: The Movie?

More unintelligible fight scenes too.

How were SR's fight scenes? Did it have fight scenes?

Perception is a world of curiosity.

What's the perception of SR these days?

It worked in many aspects and didn't in many others.

All those aspects got a sequel in 2-1/2 years.

Being not a big fan of fight scenes would work too.

Like SR fans, for example?

Nice try, though. There's an old saying...if you can't surf, don't start.

 

[The Kid]

I'm down with this.

 

[El Payaso]

As opposed to SR's brilliant one-liners....or should be say the ones it borrowed from Superman: The Movie?

All of them, yes. Better than BB's one-liners for sure. To destroy the moment when Batman appears for the first time with a 'Nice coat' is certainly deplorable.

How were SR's fight scenes? Did it have fight scenes?

It needn't any fight scenes. As STM didn't have fight scenes either and it's the best Superman movie.

In BB we have long minutes to show us how Bruce Wayne trained himself to fight and then, when he's ready... we don't see a thing.

What's the perception of SR these days?

I perceive it as a great movie these days.

All those aspects got a sequel in 2-1/2 years.

Thanks to the BO. It's a matter of money here.

Like SR fans, for example?

SR had good action. I wish BB had it too.

Nice try, though. There's an old saying...if you can't surf, don't start.

I'm just being generous enough to dig you up out of the sand.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

As opposed to SR's brilliant one-liners....or should be say the ones it borrowed from Superman: The Movie?


How were SR's fight scenes? Did it have fight scenes?


What's the perception of SR these days?


All those aspects got a sequel in 2-1/2 years.


Like SR fans, for example?

Nice try, though. There's an old saying...if you can't surf, don't start.

Great post, I couldn't have said/wrote it better myself.

 

[KalMart]

All of them, yes. Better than BB's one-liners for sure. To destroy the moment when Batman appears for the first time with a 'Nice coat' is certainly deplorable.



It needn't any fight scenes. As STM didn't have fight scenes either and it's the best Superman movie.

In BB we have long minutes to show us how Bruce Wayne trained himself to fight and then, when he's ready... we don't see a thing.



I perceive it as a great movie these days.



Thanks to the BO. It's a matter of money here.



SR had good action. I wish BB had it too.



I'm just being generous enough to dig you up out of the sand.

You shoulda' kept walkin'.

 

[bunk]

You shoulda' kept walkin'.

You should've actually responded to the post.

 

[El Payaso]

You should've actually responded to the post.

 

[bobguy64]

In Rocky II, how did they up the ante? Clubber Lang killed Apollo Creed.

In Man of Steel, the villian should kill the kid.

Superman's rage would make the ground tremble and the oceans boil. The fight scene that ensued would be amazing.





bobguy

 

[SuperFerret]

[/B]


How 'bout we not have Luthor in it at all?? Enuff with the Lex thing.....

You can't not have Luthor at all. He doesn't have to be the main antagonist, but he's as inseperable from the Superman mythos as Lois Lane is.

Both Lex and Lois give the "human" POV of Superman, each representing one of the two possible opinions that someone like Superman would create if he existed. Some would love him, idolize him, and see the "man" over the "super". Others would have him, fear him and see the alien as a threat to humanity. A character like Superman has a polarizing effect on the populace, and there needs to be equal time given to the hate side as the love side. Luthor provides that.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

How many times has this thread been done? No offense but, nothing new here folks... Move along.

 

[mego joe]

In BB we have long minutes to show us how Bruce Wayne trained himself to fight and then, when he's ready... we don't see a thing.

YOu know, I thought the fighitng in BB was really effective, b/c cinematically Nolan portrayed how Batman CAN take down many men at a time b/c his techniques make him elusive and hard to see and you can't quite pin down what he's doing, where he is or how many people he is.

I thought it was very effective.

In SR, we know how Superman lifts things...

 

[KalMart]

You should've actually responded to the post.

It ridiculed itself just fine, didn't need my help. t: