Superman Rebooted (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

That's what I'm hoping too. I know everyone always wants to say that studio execs are all idiots but it doesn't take much brain power to tell that the tone of Nolan's Batman movies is not right for a Superman movie.

And like Greg, I think Lex Luther will be the bad guy... again since it's an origin story... again.

 

[TerryRL]

While Luthor will be used because it's an origin story, but I bet another major villain (ala Brainiac, Bizarro, Darkseid, Doomsday, or Metallo) will be used along with Lex. As for the money spent, TDK's massive run (on top of WB's stellar year thus far) has bought them a lot of freedom to pursue their next batch of superhero projects.

 

[Chris Atkins]

This is why I think the suits are idiots. There's nothing stopping them from doing a balls out action adventure as a sequel to SR! SR was nothing more than a bridge from the Donner films to a new set of films. SR closed out the thread started in the Donner films (while ignoring the weaker sequels), and left it nearly wide open for the next set of films. Not sure why the suits think this is a problem. Singer's even been quoted as saying he wants to take it a different direction in the next film. The guy's proven he can direct the action stuff (see X2).

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I'm pissed about this and quite taken aback by it.

I liked Superman Returns and I really grew to love Brandon Routh as Supes and now Warner is going off half-cocked because they're still riding their The Dark Knight high. :rolleyes

SUPERMAN ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE DARK!!!! Why is that so difficult to understand?

 

[teapot2001]

This is ridiculous; it's like if they got rid of Nolan and decided to go with a different direction for the Batman sequel just because it made only around $200 million. Superman Returns made pretty much the same amount.

~T

 

[Ruz-El]

Did Warners actually say they wanted Superman to be dark, or just some guys in this thread? There's a difference between having a serious kick ass Superman, and a brooding Superman, I'm guessing they are going to go with the former, basically getting rid of the whimsical tone that Donner started.

 

[Greg_S_H]

It's because of this paragraph from a Wall Street Journal article:

 

[Ruz-El]

I don't think it's cause to think they are going to go all out dark. based on this:

""We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it,"

Doesnèt mean Supes is going to be brooding all through a film, it could mean he gets super pissed off and actually shows emotion, like he has in the comics for about 40 years.

 

[Patrick H.]

Indeed, while that paragraph in the article initially alarmed me, reading it again it's really not that bad. He says "dark to the extent the characters ALLOW it", and then it's the ARTICLE that ties that to Superman, not Robinov himself. What I took away from this is that they're looking for a harder-edged take on the character, maybe more psychological and subjective, but not literally brooding and/or gritty like Batman. Basically, I think they're looking for somebody with a strong understanding of the character, who has a clear idea what direction they want to take a new franchise.

IF that perception is correct, I am definitely supportive. I though 'Returns' was a near-total failure which tried to do its own confused thing with the character while hijacking the style and exposition of the Donner films (which I love) so they could spare themselves the really hard work of re-establishing him. The fact that Singer seemed so vague in interviews about his plans for the sequel only cemented this for me. But if they've now got some passionate filmmakers willing to roll up their sleeves rebuild this character and his world from the ground up, I'll go see what they come up with.

 

[troy evans]

My thing is, Superman can't be dark. He fights against that. You don't bring Superman down to a human level. He's larger than life and above us all. That's what makes him work, the fantasy of him. His god like abilities. In a sense, he's a savior given to us for our most dire times from his own father. I don't want to get to deep here, but, you don't humble him. More so, people should be humbled by him, because of his example to always do what's right and regard no one life as any more important than another. This was on display even in SR. When Supes went to save Lois and saw the fault line heading the other way he turned right around and saved Metropolis and it's people first. As far as dark goes, watching Luthor shank Superman and let him fall off the edge of the new Krypton was pretty damn dark. That scene got to me and I didn't like watching as he was brought down by Lex, who acted like nothing more than a petty thug. That's not Superman and demonstrates why "dark" doesn't work in that world. Lex would have developed something way more ellaborate than that crap death. Watching doctors try to insert needles into his arms was another head shaker. Let's see, bullets bounce off him but a hypo should go right in. Who wrote this shit! If you want dark, wait for Batman III. I want a Superman movie. Not a Superman does his best immitation of Batman movie. Nuff Said.

 

[Brian Borst]

A reboot doesn't mean the entire Krypton sequence/Lex Luthor has to be done again. They didn't show Bruce's transformation all over again in The Incredible Hulk, and they don't have to do it here. Everybody knows the origin of Superman anyway.

 

[Sam Favate]

Well, I think this is terrible news. I also think many readers have overblown it. It does not say Roth would be replaced, nor does it say Singer would be replaced. Why can't the movie go in a different direction, or have a different tone, with the same man in the suit or behind the camera?

If this ends up being a Michael Bay film or even a Michael Bay-like film, I will skip it.

 

[DavidPla]

For sure.. this doesn't mean we're going to get the origin again. All it says is "reintroduce" Superman. To me that sounds like a new take.. not another origin film. At the very most we may see quick flashes of his past.

 

[JonZ]

Booooooooo

 

[Holadem]

Awesome news.

A-friggin-men. I've been ready to move on glad, glad WB finally appears ready to cut the umbilical aswell.

Let's give an entirely new vision of the character a chance.

Yay!

--
H

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

What does Lex Luthor have to do with Superman's origin? Its not as if he was the one that blew up Krypton.

 

[dana martin]

SR works on some very good levels, as an homage to donners film, but really it is a newer take, and i liked spacey and routh in there roles, now the deal on the sequal that he has, does it need to be a direct sequal, or another movie after the next one, hell want to have funn with the next movie get gilbert godfrie to play Mxyzptlk

 

[TravisR]

I meant that he's the main Superman villain so if they're going to tell his origin again, they'll probably also have his main enemy in it. Like others have said, I think there could be a villain team up but I would count on Lex Luthor being part of the movie.

No, the first Nolan Batman movie didn't have the Joker in it but Batman has a bigger and better assortment of villains to choose from than Superman.

 

[Chip_HT]

If they drop the crazy mad scientist Luthor and go with evil businessman Luthor, then I'm all for it. Otherwise, forget about him.

 

[Ruz-El]

Lets hope they put that in a movie. I nearly died laughing when they show'd it on SUPERFRIENDS. Talk about holding a grudge.