You're The Producer Of The Superman Reboot

[Nightwing1983]

there really shouldnt be any connections to donner/singer's film. Superman should have the chance to break away be its own thing with a fresh new adaption. Heck if batman can do it, hulk can do it, and coming soon spidey? why shouldnt superman have the same chance of it.

Well, no matter what they do, it'll still have "connections" to every other Superman film because it's... well... Superman. It doesn't matter if it isn't in the same continuity. I mean, I still hear people sticking up for the first Batman with Michael Keaton. That reminds me: on the day Batman Begins was released on DVD, they re-released all the other Bat-films on DVD with documentaries and commentaries (including Batman & Robin which surprised the heck out of me) which just isn't something I see them doing when they were trying to completely "break away and be its own thing." Oh, it did to the extent that it was a new continuity and usually seen as "better," but if anything, I think that the inference that they were saying, "oh forget about these other films that were so big," might have hurt the film in the short run.

As for "[if] Hulk can do it," well, Hulk didn't do it. I mean, people may have intoned that it wasn't a sequel; but the plot was obviously originally meant for a sequel, and they still used same cheesy CG of the Hulk. Some say it was better, but I don't see much of a difference. Yes, there was a different cast, and the direction of the film was different in a lot of ways; but I don't think it "was its own thing," any more than, say, Batman Forever, which was still marketed as a sequel.

Finally, we don't know what's gonna happen with the Spider-Man reboot. I think there's way more room for improvement than with the earlier Superman films; so for all we know, it could come out--a mere ten years after the first one--and receive a turd in its stocking for distancing itself from the '00s Spidey films or for just not being very good.

That's why I say, if it's a loose sequel where Jonathan Kent is dead, Lex Luthor isn't the most powerful man in Metropolis, and the Fortress is a bunch of crystals; I happen to be fine with that, as long as Superman isn't a deadbeat dad.

And I don't think it's a package deal.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Well, no matter what they do, it'll still have "connections" to every other Superman film because it's... well... Superman. It doesn't matter if it isn't in the same continuity. I mean, I still hear people sticking up for the first Batman with Michael Keaton. That reminds me: on the day Batman Begins was released on DVD, they re-released all the other Bat-films on DVD with documentaries and commentaries (including Batman & Robin which surprised the heck out of me) which just isn't something I see them doing when they were trying to completely "break away and be its own thing." Oh, it did to the extent that it was a new continuity and usually seen as "better," but if anything, I think that the inference that they were saying, "oh forget about these other films that were so big," might have hurt the film in the short run.

As for "[if] Hulk can do it," well, Hulk didn't do it. I mean, people may have intoned that it wasn't a sequel; but the plot was obviously originally meant for a sequel, and they still used same cheesy CG of the Hulk. Some say it was better, but I don't see much of a difference. Yes, there was a different cast, and the direction of the film was different in a lot of ways; but I don't think it "was its own thing," any more than, say, Batman Forever, which was still marketed as a sequel.

Finally, we don't know what's gonna happen with the Spider-Man reboot. I think there's way more room for improvement than with the earlier Superman films; so for all we know, it could come out--a mere ten years after the first one--and receive a turd in its stocking for distancing itself from the '00s Spidey films or for just not being very good.

That's why I say, if it's a loose sequel where Jonathan Kent is dead, Lex Luthor isn't the most powerful man in Metropolis, and the Fortress is a bunch of crystals; I happen to be fine with that, as long as Superman isn't a deadbeat dad.

And I don't think it's a package deal.

The point is with batman it wasn't directly link to the old films, Nolan had freedom to portray the character as he saw fit and it's resulted in giving new life to a dead franchise. Oh course any new movie will make people think of the old ones, it's like how they create video games for movies that have little in common plot wise but people are excited about the movie so they buy the games.

What the majority of us are saying is why do another superman movie that simply rehashes what's been seen before? That's what happens with a "loose sequel". Initially i thought singer had the right idea, he could've taken the story anywhere. Heck look at superman 3 and 4, whether you like them or not they were in the same continuity as the first 2 films, yet they didn't rehash old plot elements. He should've gone for something like that. But he didn't. He made a direct sequel to Superman 2 and look at the result. Why do we need to continue to let a 30 year old movie influence or limit a visionary director who may have a completely different/fresh take on the material ala what Nolan did with Batman. Sure he kept what worked but he didn't feel obligated stick with what didn't.

Just think would Chris Reeve be so universally praised for his superman if he just tried to imitate George Reeves from the old tv series? What about Donner, what if he liked the old tv show so much he just wanted to bring it to the big screen? Would the movie even have been as successful as it was? Who knows. The point is that donner had the freedom to bring his vision for superman to life and it's about time a new director was given that same freedom. Also with today's visual effects they could easily make it more like the comicbook or at least take what's worked in the comic and other live action versions and use those elements in a new film. They don't have to or need to be limited by what someone else did with the character. Otherwise why even do it again.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

meant for a sequel, and they still used same cheesy CG of the Hulk. Some say it was better, but I don't see much of a difference.

I saw some big differences. I think he looks WAY better in TIH.

To me the CG in TIH looked pretty good, and was a huge improvement of the 2003 version.

 

[Webhead2006]

Yea i thought the cg work and hulk looked way better in tih over 2003 hulk. what i meant in my post on the other page. i just dont really want to see all superman films stuck in the donner/singer 30 yr old take on superman. Since the character has changed alot, the film universe has changed alot. Its time to be new and different be a new take on the character like nolan did with batman. I just want to see the next film be its own thing and not rely on piggbacking off the reeve movies. Sure its ok to do nods and injokes on the reeve movie. But i dont want it to be just reeve movie all over again like singer did(minus his changes like the whole kid thing blah).

 

[Nightwing1983]

The point is with batman it wasn't directly link to the old films, Nolan had freedom to portray the character as he saw fit and it's resulted in giving new life to a dead franchise. Oh course any new movie will make people think of the old ones, it's like how they create video games for movies that have little in common plot wise but people are excited about the movie so they buy the games.

What the majority of us are saying is why do another superman movie that simply rehashes what's been seen before? That's what happens with a "loose sequel". Initially i thought singer had the right idea, he could've taken the story anywhere. Heck look at superman 3 and 4, whether you like them or not they were in the same continuity as the first 2 films, yet they didn't rehash old plot elements. He should've gone for something like that. But he didn't. He made a direct sequel to Superman 2 and look at the result. Why do we need to continue to let a 30 year old movie influence or limit a visionary director who may have a completely different/fresh take on the material ala what Nolan did with Batman. Sure he kept what worked but he didn't feel obligated stick with what didn't.

Just think would Chris Reeve be so universally praised for his superman if he just tried to imitate George Reeves from the old tv series? What about Donner, what if he liked the old tv show so much he just wanted to bring it to the big screen? Would the movie even have been as successful as it was? Who knows. The point is that donner had the freedom to bring his vision for superman to life and it's about time a new director was given that same freedom. Also with today's visual effects they could easily make it more like the comicbook or at least take what's worked in the comic and other live action versions and use those elements in a new film. They don't have to or need to be limited by what someone else did with the character. Otherwise why even do it again.

There seems to be this attitude that being connected to Superman I & II in even the loosest continuity means imitating them to the letter like Superman Returns did. I think even some of the most staunch Superman Returns-sequel supporters voiced the opinion that they would want it to go in a different direction: for something to happen to Jason, for him to battle a more formidable foe, etc.

My only point is that it's not the earlier films I'm mad at, it's Superman Returns. If they have to take the earlier films out of continuity to keep SR out of it, then fine. I just want a Superman film to confirm that that stuff never happened. Yet, I think that one of the great things about Superman IS his history and that it should be respected.

 

[Webhead2006]

oh yea you can respect the history that is superman but we dont just need another film to be losely connected to singer's film or reeve's films.

 

[Nightwing1983]

Yea i thought the cg work and hulk looked way better in tih over 2003 hulk. what i meant in my post on the other page. i just dont really want to see all superman films stuck in the donner/singer 30 yr old take on superman. Since the character has changed alot, the film universe has changed alot. Its time to be new and different be a new take on the character like nolan did with batman. I just want to see the next film be its own thing and not rely on piggbacking off the reeve movies. Sure its ok to do nods and injokes on the reeve movie. But i dont want it to be just reeve movie all over again like singer did(minus his changes like the whole kid thing blah).

Let's just say that to me, a "different take" can be achieved in the same continuity. Admittedly, the more I see stuff like Donner's cut of Superman II (which I still like better than the theatrical cut, but it could still use work) or read interviews with him about where they wanted to go or what he wanted to do, or how much he loved Superman Returns (which was, I'm sure, as much to do with the @$$kissing as the film itself); that the main reason STM worked out so well was because it only went so far.

But to me, that still doesn't mean a film that's not the origin and is generally consistent with the continuity of it--Pa Kent being dead, the Fortress being crystals and Lex being a billionaire--doesn't mean it makes the mistakes that Richard Donner may have when he made STM. That's why I get so p*ssed when I say, "oh yeah, I have an idea for a loose sequel," and they say, "oh you want to continue Donner." I don't watch STM thinking, "oh yes! Richard Donner made this," I watch it thinking, "this is such a great movie about Superman, my favorite fictional character. I love watching him fly around saving people."

And no matter what, I still consider Superman III the end of the trilogy and Superman Returns its own little imaginary story.

Oh, and I consider Superman IV a student film.

 

[Nightwing1983]

oh yea you can respect the history that is superman but we dont just need another film to be losely connected to singer's film or reeve's films.

Of course we don't "need" it. We don't "need" anything. But if they do a story other than they origin, they should be somewhat consistent with it. If they want Jonathan Kent to be alive and Lex Luthor to be a billionare, they should do the origin and find a way to make it interesting.

 

[Webhead2006]

i get what you are saying man, for me i would clearly just like to see a new story, new tone, feel, setting for superman. Sure donner's movie was great and i enjoyed the reeve films i have seen. But like i said i really dont want to have all superman movies be in some way fully/loosly connected to reeve's superman for the rest of my live. Did lois and clark, the 90s animated series, or smallville need to fully rely on what happend in reeve's movies. No they may have taken some ideas or traits and what not from it. But they were able to be their own thing and make their own mark on superman. I jsut want to see a new film have its chance of being on its own feet.

 

[Daybreak_st]

yeah i see your point. I think that would've worked fine before superman returns. AFterward i think the only way to rectify is to start fresh. The Jason thing is such an elephant in the room, thing that needs to be either addressed or removed but it can't be ignored in an already established superman. The average movie goer is propablly wondering what will happen to the kid.

If you go back to the old movies you also have an simple crook for lex luthor rather than the brillaint businessman he's grown into. You also have supes parents being dead, which i'd like to see them alive for once as it'd give the audience the chance to see a different side of clark, the side he only shows to someone who knows his secret. Also looking back at the old movies while it was great to see a live action superman the stories themselves were nothing that special to me. He basically stopped lex's real estate scam by turning the earth backwards. then in the richard donner cut stopped zod's invasion by again turning the world backwards. Then in superman 3 he turns evil, splits in two, fights himself (best part of the movie) then remerges a hero and defeats a giant computer. the plots were nothing spectactular. If you simply start fresh, you can do a new interpretation of luthor, zod, etc. Also the world he inhabited back them, as far as i could tell he was the only superhero on the planet. I actually like smallville, in that there are other metahumans on earth. I would like to see a movie that has different feel to it, more along the lines of iron man and spidey 2, one that embraces the fantasy/scifi elements but balances them with the great character moments we've seen in lois and clark and smallville.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

Yea i thought the cg work and hulk looked way better in tih over 2003 hulk. what i meant in my post on the other page. i just dont really want to see all superman films stuck in the donner/singer 30 yr old take on superman. Since the character has changed alot, the film universe has changed alot. Its time to be new and different be a new take on the character like nolan did with batman. I just want to see the next film be its own thing and not rely on piggbacking off the reeve movies. Sure its ok to do nods and injokes on the reeve movie. But i dont want it to be just reeve movie all over again like singer did(minus his changes like the whole kid thing blah).

Oh yeah, agreed there.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Also if i was producing a new movie i'd be looking for someone like this for superman:

Found that pic on this sight, don't know who the artist is. But to me that's a great visual of superman that doesn't look anything like reeve. And that's my point, superman is bigger than any one actor or one interpretation. So let's allow a new creative vision for him on the big screen, who knows we may actually get someone who's a complete departure from Reeve but who makes an awesome superman. that's my hope at least.

 

[Webhead2006]

that is a cool image there. And yea really with how things were with SR and where superman is in general for movies. IT would be best to clean slate it all and start fresh. So people can see the character in a whole new light.

I totally agree as much as i loved reeve's superman and his look for the role. I want to see a new look for the character. Sure nothing to drastic like making superman have blonde hair or be a skinny guy or anything. I just dont want to see a clone look of reeve again for film.

 

[Bad Superman]

Being the producer this would be my ideal cast:

Superman/Clark Kent - Henry Cavill

Lois Lane - Anne Hathaway

Lex Luthor - Billy Zane

Brainiac - Paul Bettany

Jor-El - Jim Caviezel

Lara-El - Saffron Burrows

Jonathan Kent - James Caan

Martha Kent - Diane Keaton

Perry White - Robert De Niro

 

[Bad Superman]

Jimmy Olsen - Anton Yelchin

 

[Alonsovich]

Great casting...

 

[Webhead2006]

some nice casting there.

 

[Bad Superman]

Great casting...

some nice casting there.

Thanx!

 

[GreenKToo]

Superman/Clark Kent: as of now, Harmon Walsh

Lois?

Jor-el: Jim Caviezel

Lara: Catherine zeta Jones

Jonathan: Kirk Russell

Martha: Susan Sarandon

Lex: Daniel day-Lewis

Perry: Alec Baldwin

John Corben: Kiefer Sutherland

Brainiac: Lawerence Fishburne or Johnny Depp

Jimmy: Anton Yelchin

 

[Webhead2006]

no problem bad superman. and green some nice picks in your list

 

[Webhead2006]

no problem bad superman. and green some nice picks in your list

 

[BH/HHH]

That looks like Pierece Brosnan

 

[glofty726]

Henry cavill would be a great choice physically, but the man isn't an American, and I simply think you have to cast an American as Superman

 

[BrollySupersj]

oh yea you can respect the history that is superman but we dont just need another film to be losely connected to singer's film or reeve's films.

I suppose that's where I'd disagree with ya. Being a fan of the Donnerverse, I'd have no problem with another movie connecting dots to the past one. But adding new elements wouldn't be bad either. No reason you can't have both.

 

[Webhead2006]

oh brolly i am not knocking donnerverse at all. it was great for its time. But we are in a new era and new time. its high time superman can have a fresh new take on things.