Tom Welling as Superman

[Fresh Prince]

he said it is supposed to be this epic trilogy that chronicles the life of Superman. It starts on krytpon and ends with Superman being the last one on earth. He said he had an American director in mind who was willing to shoot it with him. I always thought he was referring to Michael Bay...

Um so the first film be him on his planet then go to his Superman years then him being the only one on earth?

 

[SuperAl]

Millars idea is kinda guitared. I mean Superman ages slower but come on he wouldnt outlive the friggin sun. He wants it to end with the Sun going Supernova, thats just stupid

 

[Prison Mike]

I haven't heard ANYTHING else after that so I'm thinking Millar's idea is a no go...

 

[Fresh Prince]

Millars idea is kinda guitared. I mean Superman ages slower but come on he wouldnt outlive the friggin sun. He wants it to end with the Sun going Supernova, thats just stupid

Yeah agreed.

 

[Fresh Prince]

I haven't heard ANYTHING else after that so I'm thinking Millar's idea is a no go...

As it should be. Its dumb. They should just go with the Death of Superman thing they was gonna do in Burtons film but have Doomsday be the main villian instead.

 

[SuperAl]

I would prefer a Brainiac story as the first film and save doomsday for maybe the 3rd film because it would be hard to top the death of superman.

 

[B]

Millars idea is kinda guitared. I mean Superman ages slower but come on he wouldnt outlive the friggin sun. He wants it to end with the Sun going Supernova, thats just stupid

Agreed x10 Billion, because thats how many more years the sun in the real world will last..

 

[Fresh Prince]

Agreed x10 Billion, because thats how many more years the sun in the real world will last..

So we would be watching those movies for hours.

 

[SuperAl]

So we would be watching those movies for hours.

it takes millions/billions of years for a sun to go supernova, plus i dont even think our sun is capable of going supernova. dont think it is big enough, but w/e I don't understand his logic in that. Does he think Superman is immortal or that hes stupid enough to sit on a deserted planet for millions of years by himself even though he could just leave considering the fortress has information about the universe and other living beings.

 

[Webhead2006]

I do wonder where the whole superman on film is going to go with the 2011 deadline wb has to have another film in production, and the possibly of loosing the rights fully come 2013.

 

[Fresh Prince]

it takes millions/billions of years for a sun to go supernova, plus i dont even think our sun is capable of going supernova. dont think it is big enough, but w/e I don't understand his logic in that. Does he think Superman is immortal or that hes stupid enough to sit on a deserted planet for millions of years by himself even though he could just leave considering the fortress has information about the universe and other living beings.

Agreed.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

I thought that was explained in the book that he could leave but that he chose not to.

 

[Fresh Prince]

Oh well we get 2 more seasons of SV.

 

[AgentPat]

I do wonder where the whole superman on film is going to go with the 2011 deadline wb has to have another film in production, and the possibly of loosing the rights fully come 2013.

I don't think Warners even knows, but at least they know enough to go back to the drawing board...

Variety
July 25, 2009

WB still seeking DC strategy
Film development proceeds slowly, other content debuts
By MARC GRASER

In theory, last summer's $1 billion haul for Warner Bros.' "The Dark Knight" should have supercharged the studio's plans to spin off DC Comics' stable of superheroes into successful film franchises.

But Warner Bros. still doesn't have an overall strategy, even as it has firmed plans for the "Green Lantern" feature set for July 17, 2011. It recently put the glowing ring on Ryan Reynolds to star in the actioner that will be directed by Martin Campbell, two-time Bond franchise rebooter.

The studio has access to well-known characters such as Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the Flash -- properties that have the potential to mint a lot of coin for the coffers of Warner Bros.' various divisions should a pic score with audiences.

The DC move would seem like a no-brainer. But it's easier said than done. Studio executives admit to being delayed by the writers' strike and then by the takeover of New Line. And WB toppers Alan Horn and Jeff Robinov would like the studio and DC to closely develop superhero pics together, rather than hand off projects to individual producers. They're also aiming for each division at the studio to time the release of everything -- from licensed merchandise like T-shirts and action figures to exclusive DVDs, videogames and digital content -- to when a pic gets released in order to build up the tentpole's franchise potential.

Meanwhile, the Home Entertainment and Interactive divisions aren't waiting for the big features to roll out; they're moving ahead with DC-based projects of their own.

However, the studio has yet to tap an executive to shepherd DC Comics' adaptations the way Marvel has a dedicated team to run its own film division. DC currently consults on projects the studio is developing.

Warner Bros. has spent years trying to come up with a strategy, the way Marvel has done with its own comicbook properties.

And outside of "Green Lantern," Warner Bros. has yet to officially announce plans on which superhero it will greenlight next. Ask the studio about the next Batman installment and it says it's all up to how director Christopher Nolan wants to proceed. Marvel, on the other hand, has skedded its next pics -- "Iron Man 2," "Thor," "Captain America" and "The Avengers" -- through 2012.

For now, DC's far lesser-known properties are moving forward, with supernatural Western "Jonah Hex" out next year and actioner "The Losers" headed into production, while projects for better-known characters like Aquaman, the Flash, Green Arrow and Shazam are still being developed.

Another reboot of Superman is also in the works, but needs to start production by 2011 in order to bow before the character rights revert to the heirs of Superman creators Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel, in 2013, who will demand steep licensing fees.

While a date has not yet been set, the studio does want a new Batman pic for summer 2012.

Spy thriller "Red," with Bruce Willis attached, isn't even being made at Warners, but Summit Entertainment.

More obscure characters can still strike a chord with audiences. Marvel proved that when it successfully launched "Iron Man" as one of Hollywood's top new film franchises. The character wasn't that well known among the masses, but the pic banked $585 million at the box office, with a sequel due out next summer.

The pokey development of DC's superhero business has spurred Warner Bros.' other divisions to come up with their own ways to capitalize on the characters.

This week, Warner Home Entertainment hyped its own "Green Lantern" pic "First Flight" at Comic-Con in San Diego. The animated direct-to-DVD film is the latest in a line of more adult-skewing PG-13 films the division has produced with Warner Bros. Animation that are based on DC's characters and have performed well at retail.

Last year, it released "Wonder Woman," and "Batman: Gotham Knight," "Justice League: The New Frontier" and "Superman: Doomsday" before that. "Superman/Batman: Public Enemies" is next. "Doomsday" remains one of its top earners, with more than $9.4 million; the toons are made for around $3.5 million apiece.

Meanwhile, Warner Bros. Interactive is developing a "Green Lantern" videogame, and is off and running with plans to produce games based on DC characters that appeal to various age groups and turn into their own franchises. For Batman, that ranges from the cutesy "Lego Batman" to the far edgier "Batman: Arkham Asylum" that's forthcoming.

It's easy to compare DC with Marvel, given their comicbook businesses. But making movies has been a little easier for Marvel.

Marvel isn't owned by a major conglom, and is set up to make decisions faster, whereas DC is just one of the many divisions under Time Warner.

The performance of a pic also can move Marvel's stock price, so it constantly needs to keep investors updated on its development pipeline. Time Warner is so large, with so many media divisions under its belt, that despite the impressive haul of "The Dark Knight," the pic hardly affected the company's stock at all. So WB doesn't need to be in a hurry to have DC's caped crusaders make the leap to the bigscreen.

In fact, why rush when taking time to develop Warners' superhero pics can lead to a revived Batman franchise that dominates at the box office, instead of a high-profile stumble like "Catwoman" or the lukewarm reception afforded "Superman Returns?"

The only ones clamoring for the films are the fans. And that's just the way Warner Bros. wants it.


http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118006484

 

[Webhead2006]

Ya i know that but with all the issues they had in the 90s and the lack of anything since SR be that sequel, reboot, etc,... it doesnt really seem like they will end up actually getting something to go before that deadline. As for the whole creators families and the possiblitity in 2013 the shuster family gains the other half, i do hope in the end wb/dc and the families can make a deal with all parties to keep supes were he is and where he would logically make the most money for all parties involved and they would just ask wb/dc to use the rights a just a bit higher cost but still be something that could work for wb/dc.

 

[Fresh Prince]

Superman can make tons of money anywere he goes Marvel for example.

 

[Webhead2006]

Ya but you might recall even though if both families gain full rights on the character. The families only have the 1938 powers, look, lois/clark, krypton, and his parents kryptonian/earth i think, they wouldnt have the rest of the elements like daily planet, perry, jimmy, pretty much all the other powers, his major villains, etc.... so if they wanted to take him elsewhere they would have to recreate the character all over again. And who knows if a redoing 1930s supes would even do well as the present day dc supes.

 

[Jason20]

I'd love to see Welling put on the tights and cape on the screen, in my opinion he's the only man thats right for the job. The greatest person to play Superman and who was a Superman in real life was Christopher Reeves, and he basically handed the reins of the character over to Tom. Now I'm not really one to believe in the curse thats said to be on the roll, but you gotta admit these two men are the only ones to have basically escaped it.

Now as for the other cast and the type of movie that it would be, I'd go for Durance as Lois, and Rossembum (sorry for spelling) as Lex; keep it the way it is on Smallville their each made for the roles. Now story wise, I would do a Smallville, Superman birthright, Batman begins (minus the darkness) type of thing. Show Clark's training and and time around the world before he comes to Metropolis and becomes Superman, have Lex as the evil businessman and an old friend of Clark's from his teenage days in Smallville.

If they did a sequel, I'd either have Metallo, Parasite, or Toyman as the baddie. Third I'd have Brainiac. And the forth I'd do a death of Superman with Doomsday. But thats just me.

 

[Fresh Prince]

Ya but you might recall even though if both families gain full rights on the character. The families only have the 1938 powers, look, lois/clark, krypton, and his parents kryptonian/earth i think, they wouldnt have the rest of the elements like daily planet, perry, jimmy, pretty much all the other powers, his major villains, etc.... so if they wanted to take him elsewhere they would have to recreate the character all over again. And who knows if a redoing 1930s supes would even do well as the present day dc supes.

Yeah would not work well.

 

[Webhead2006]

Ya so if thats the case in what the families would hav and what dc would keep, if you were the families wouldnt you just charge wb/dc a bigger fee to keep it where its intact and the more logical place to make money from.

 

[triplet]

Ya but you might recall even though if both families gain full rights on the character. The families only have the 1938 powers, look, lois/clark, krypton, and his parents kryptonian/earth i think, they wouldnt have the rest of the elements like daily planet, perry, jimmy, pretty much all the other powers, his major villains, etc.... so if they wanted to take him elsewhere they would have to recreate the character all over again. And who knows if a redoing 1930s supes would even do well as the present day dc supes.

Is it really that broken up?

They get rights to any version of Superman as long as he uses only the 1938 powers? That's crazy.

Although, a filmed version of Tom De Haven's It's Superman would fit the bill for that.

It's an awesome book, I'd go see that movie without thinking twice about it.

 

[super85]

Is it really that broken up?

Its difficult and wierd and the most logical resolution in a few years will probably be DC Comics and Warner Brothers having to pay the heirs a fat licensing fee. For example DC owns the Superman "S" shield, becouse that was created att DC,Superman had a different "S" when he first appeared,so the heirs could for example not sell/licensed T-shirts with the Superman logo that is known world wide,but DC can. work for hire and all that. Supergirl, Superboy(I believe Siegel pitched it to DC without Shuster when Superman was already created,but that one could also be a bit messy or atleast has been) etc are all DC.DC even stopped calling their current incarnation of Superboy by name for a few years becouse legal trouble, but that has apparently been settled in DCs favour(most likely also a part of this same lawsuit( cause now they are calling him Superboy again.

Its messy,and complicated,and quite interesting to read whenever the papers publish something regarding that.

 

[zerohour films]

Is it really that broken up?

They get rights to any version of Superman as long as he uses only the 1938 powers? That's crazy.

Although, a filmed version of Tom De Haven's It's Superman would fit the bill for that.

It's an awesome book, I'd go see that movie without thinking twice about it.

Very much agreed!
At the very least I would love for WB to make an animated DTV of that book.

It would be awesome to see the film----

Spoiler

leading up to the fleischer cartoons at the end same as in the book.

 

[Fresh Prince]

Turn the fleischer cartoons into a movie and I be cool.

 

[Billy Batson]

Superman can make tons of money anywere he goes Marvel for example.

Man it'll be cool if Marvel buy Superman outright and trade those rights for Captain Marvel. t: