Superman Rebooted (1 Viewer)

[TerryRL]

It took SR 17 weeks to pass the double-century mark. A week later WB pulled it from theaters. "Batman Begins" passed that threshold after 8 weeks in theaters, WB pulled it after it had played for 20 weeks.

The biggest percentage declines SR suffered were during its second (-59%) and final (-77%) weeks in theaters. Otherwise, it showed solid legs during its run. The problem was that it didn't achieve the gaudy numbers the studio had hoped for.

 

[Pete-D]

Wasn't there someone on these boards that was really big on Superman saying SR would crush $400 million+ and maybe even challenge Titanic because it had such broad appeal?

I forgot who that was.

 

[troy evans]

Huh? Yeah, let's see, Superman sitting around on his ass talking to a dog or having the ultimate showdown with one of the greatest villians in the DC universe. I think I'll take the smackdown

 

[Paul_Scott]

It seems like a no-brainer, right? But the problem with Darkseid is similar to the same problem with a Dark Phoenix (or more appropriately, Galactus and the Silver Surfer)- taking enough time and more than adequetly setting it up so that you can spectacularly pay it off. Darkseid and Apokolips and all the assorted supporting cast that entails requires huge amounts of screentime devoted to exposition and integration. If you introduce him in a perfunctory way just to get to a big fight set piece in act 3, you leave people with the same reaction they had with X3-"not epic enough". Doesn't matter how much property damage ensues, Darkseid and that universe needs to be fully and logically integrated into our world within the first two acts. Good Luck.
That also doesn't address one of the main complaints about SR which was the character of Supes himself. You try to introduce Darkseid and pay him off in the same film and you will have the Superman equivilent of Burtons Batman- a story that needs to reduce the hero to a cypher to acommodate the story needs of the antagonist.
Krypto could be used to efficently illuminate the main character in a warm and human way. Darkseid could generate a lot of light (in terms of eye candy effects) but likely very little warmth and the result would likely be magnificent, but ultimately unsatisfying, spectacle..
jmo, of course, but I would absolutely take earthly dilemmas and antagonists + illuminating character monologues (via conversations with Krypto) over a can't-help-but-be rushed 'epic' battle anyday.

 

[Paul_Scott]

and yeah Greg, that probably did come across as condescending. My social skills still need a lot of work.
But I do think that if you don't intelligently speculate on things like this, you are relegating the material to a more simple-minded level. I would like to see these kinds of films reward intelligent thought, not penalize it.
I can't believe Pete and I are the only ones that think it would be cool to see a Superman movie that was as much about great ideas as it was about great feats of strength.

 

[Pete-D]

I'm kind actually taking the Nolan approach I think.

It's pretty clear Nolan/Goyer sat down and actually entertained the idea of "OK, what if ... Batman was real ... how would he get his suit? How does he get his training? What happens to Gotham after he arrives? How do the citizens respond? The police?"

I mean they actually took the subject matter seriously rather than a "well ... don't think too much about it, wink, wink, nudge, nudge".

Though I do think it probably is a bit harder to do Superman that serious because lets face it people can't recognize him with his glasses on, lol. I did think Superman Returns had that funny little scene that played with that idea when Lois and Richard are taking about how much Clark weighs.

If they want to do the really serious approach though they have to address this issue. Maybe one of his powers is people can't recoginize him without the suit or his appearance changes or something. I dunno. That's a toughie.

 

[Don Giro]

Now, THIS is where I feel the need to chime in

.

I still consider Margot Kidder's Lois Lane to be the best portrayal of any of the many incarnations of the Superman "canon." Sure, she wasn't the best-looking Lois by any stretch of the imagination (that distinction is awarded to Smallville's Erica Durance, IMO), but she made me BELIEVE she was a hard-edged reporter. The script added a believable "70's feminism" to her character that ascended her character from being a mere "damsel in distress."

Kidder's body language and facial expressions are what makes the character "work" for me. Her "I've-heard-this-spiel-time-and-time-again" eyeroll when Perry White is blasting her that Clark Kent "not only does he treat his editor with respect" is still a priceless moment for me.

Check out some of the screen tests on the S:TM DVD, and tell me that ANY of the others tested would have made a better Lois Lane (although Deborah Raffin wins the "hotness" award, hands down). Leslie Ann Warren as Lois Lane? How "campy" would HER Lois Lane have been?

As for all the "hate" for "Smallville," I originally thought that the show was going to be a "whiny teen drama" a la "Dawson's Creek" (as someone else put it), largely thanks to the promo posters of Welling with the "S" spray-painted on his chest. When I FINALLY got around to watching it on DVD, I was VERY pleasantly surprsised at how much I liked the show.

If you strip away all the early "Kryptonite monster" episodes, I think you're left with a wonderful "origin story" stretched out over several seasons. Those of you who thought the Smallville segment of S:TM was too long will disagree, but I like the leisurely pace of "Smallville."

I'm a season behind (I wait for the DVDs because the show usually conflicts with my viewing schedule), but when I reminisce about the first six seasons, there's plenty there that I like, especially the little changes and liberties the writers have made to the mythos: Lex Luthor's friendship with Clark turning sour for a FAR more believable reason than making his hair fall out, the idea that Jor-El had an arguably more malevolent reason for choosing Earth to be his son's adopted home, and introducing a Lois Lane that doesn't really like Clark Kent all that much (and vice versa) for several seasons keep me coming back for more (I'm waiting for the "moment" that sparks their everlasting, undying love for each other).

More on topic to this thread: I wholeheartedly agree that Superman should NOT go in a darker direction.

And as for the laughable possibilty that Michael Bay could be involved, I just remember that fake "Michael Bay's The Dark Knight" script that "surfaced" on the Web a while back. Could you just imagine? The quick, cutting shots of The White House with the "booming" soundtrack between each cut, the overbearing music cues that are meant to instill a sense of "patriotism" in the hearts of the audience, and the overuse of the Armed Forces and Advanced Weaponry brought in to "take down" this caped figure who is seen as a "threat" to democracy?

 

[Paul_Scott]

I would have him keep face to face conversations with everyone, including Lois, fairly terse. I would also suggest that in close contact that he purposefully radiate a small amount of energy/light/heat from his eyes making his facial features difficult to see. You could show this effect once from the other persons P.O.V., and also have them slightly squint as they talk to him, and later make the comment that his eyes were blinding. Showing this effect in full once or twice and then just showing people squinting thereafter when talking to him would probably be enough to sell the difficulty of trying to study his features.
After that, body language, bearing, the authority in his voice would make the two seem seperate and distinct enough entities.
Also, from my own experience, there have been times in the past where I've been so infatuated with a girl, that I can talk to her for an hour and then minutes after she leaves have troubling recalling her features exactly being so bewitched by our eye contact the whole time. If you have ever been in the presence of a huge charismatic celebrity, the same effect might occur as you become overpowered by their larger than life sense. If someone could possibly be a messiah or the anti-Christ, just imagine how much that would be magnified for most people. Establish this aspect to his interactions strongly early on in in one or two scenes and it shouldn't be a problem ever again.
Also, unlike Bales Batman, we should be able to buy him being able to modulate and disguise his voice to greater effect (even it it needs to be accomplished as an audio effect). There is just more latitude with this character for a 'cheat' like that to work.

 

[JonZ]

My problems with X3 werent that it wasnt epic enough but that it swept characters they took 2 films to build under the carpet with a shrug - and once against focused on Wolverine(BTW I have ZERO interest in seeing that film). The Film had finished principle photography in Sept for a May release. Also had a 100 minute runtime to complete the archs for a dozen characters. It was a rush job. Compare this mess to the care and attention given to X2,Batman Begins,The Dark Knight and Spiderman2.

X3 had alot of studio interference. The writters were given perameters to work with. Kill Cyclops and Dark Phoenix.Well anyone with even the slightest understanding of the Xmen should know that that isnt going to work.
According to one of the writters(said after the films release) the idea to kill Cyclops had nothing to do with Marsdens involvement in SR but was pitched as the catalyst for Phoenix. He also admitted that the clueless suits who came up with this completely underestimated Cyclops popularity and were suprised by the online hostility when the info was leaked. But it was too late to change the story. Instead they lied,called us "idiots", and kept giving saying it was a earlier draft

They should have forgotten about Phoenix and just gone with the Cure plotline.


Focusing on Brainiac for this film, leading up to Darkseid in the next.


And I liked Kidder as Lois as well.

 

[Andy Sheets]

There's certainly nothing at all wrong with ideas but one needs to be careful about not losing perspective. I have no doubt that Bryan Singer and his screenwriters played this same game - they took the material seriously, they asked certain questions that they found intellectually stimulating, then they kept asking questions based on the particular conclusions they arrived at, and before long they had drifted way off course and crafted a film that out-thought itself and failed to give a lot of people what they were looking for in a Superman movie.

 

[Paul_Scott]

I agree Andy.
But you can still give them everything they want on paper (the specs), and still not captivate them to the degree that they can't wait to re-experience it. Hulk '08 was supposed to do that, but I don't see a whole lot of new found love there.
Before Batman Begins I'm sure the boards were full of fans saying what couldn't /shouldn't be done
-no more than one villan per movie because it's never been done well before
- you can't wait an hour to put him in costume because that's one big thing that was wrong with the Hulk
-you can't improve on Nicholsons Joker so don't waste time trying
-you can't use Ra's because he's not well known
-you can't do Two-face properly because he would scare kids.
and on and on. It just takes one guy(or gal) who understands the qualites that make any given story a page-turner to reorient peoples perception of what's possible and what fits.

 

[Jerry R Colvin]

Here are my thoughts:

1. A Superman movie doesn't necessarily have to be darker, but we do need it to be a little more realistic, real-world, believable... like all the successful superhero movies of this century have been. Take five or ten seconds to show that when Clark puts on his glasses, made out of the glass from his rocketship (we learned this in a '70's comic story), they magnify his super-hypnotism to convince people he doesn't resemble Superman. Just a little tidbit to get us beyond that stumbling block. (On the other hand, I kind of always viewed all this as, we don't always recognize what is obvious right in front of us because we don't pay attention). The leftover problems with this (can't people still compare photos of the two) and of his "silly" costume can also be explained away with quick tidbits, enough to get us to move on. Not every last detail is explained in the other superhero movies (Batman's black makeup around his eyes, Spidey's well-made costume by a poor college student). But don't do anything drastic like give him a different costume or no costume -- Superman is not Superman without his Superman costume.

2. No more origin stories, no more Lex Luthor (or, keep him in the background and not dominate).

3. It needs more action... start out with a big action scene, like the latest Batman movie, and don't have stretches of boredom (like the first several minutes of SR). On the other hand, don't make it mindless action. Let it all be part of a bigger story already in progress, that will take some time for the audience to catch up. I don't know about you, but I had to see Dark Knight twice before all the pieces came together for me, and I loved that.

4. Keep Brandon Routh or not keep him, but in either case... completely recast everybody else. Every single one of the SR characters is better cast on the Smallville series. But I don't think you can just use those actors.... the Smallville world (which I enjoy) has changed too much of the mythology to lend itself to a proper Superman movie. The reason I think we could keep Brandon is because we still don't know him as anyone else but Superman.

Speaking as a big Superman fan and a big movie fan... I believe it all starts with the story, and so far only the first Superman movie is anywhere close to being good. The much-revered second movie does not hold up to modern day viewing, in my opinion (even back then, upon my first viewing, that long scene where the villians use superbreath on a street crowd seemed really, really ridiculous to me), and the others stink, though I liked parts of SR, including the son(!) which I felt added humanity to Superman. I agree it can and should be primarily about bigger themes than just watching Superman lift things (SR) or hit things or rescuing cats.

I would love to be living in a world where once again Superman is revered as the greatest superhero of all time. So I hope they keep trying until they get it right.

 

[Kraig Lang]

Jerry, I couldn't agree more with your entire post. And this quote from the end of it is exactly what needs to happen. A story that returns Supes to what he is supposed to be. Nice Post!

 

[Will_B]

One advantage may be that the public might not even know that Superman uses a secret identity. People might assume that he wears his Superman suit all the time. That scene in SR undercuts that of course, but, unless Superman told Lois in an interview "I actually dress up like an everyman when I am not saving the day, and have a job, and do my grocery shopping, etc", then people might not even be looking for his secret identity.

 

[JonZ]

1. I dont think the suit is silly,outdated or needs to be changed beyond what they did in SR (despite a couple nitpicks I have)
2. I agree.
3. I agree again.
4. I hope Routh comes back.

 

[Steve_Tk]

1. My problem with the suit is we all know that no one is going to throw on red TIGHTS with a blue SPEEDO and be taken seriously. It's old, and outdated. How old is superman, written 70 years ago and it has not changed? It doesn't have to be changed a lot, but something (IMO) should be done.

 

[RobertR]

If I saw someone literally able to move mountains and toss freight trains for miles, I'd take him VERY seriously, regardless of what he was wearing.

 

[Sean Laughter]

I'd take his strength seriously, but the costume would have me wondering whether he's actually all there in the head.

 

[TerryRL]

On top of this being an origin story, expect a new, re-designed suit as well. Of all the directors who tried to get the movie off the ground from '96 to '05 (Tim Burton, Brett Ratner, McG, and Bryan Singer), only Bryan Singer didn't want the suit radically altered.

From what I understand, WB brass also feels the suit is "too dated" and want to bring the Man of Steel into the 21st century with a much cooler look. They also want something that will be cool enough for kids to want to buy the toys considering that merchandise sales for SR were extremely poor.

We'll see if any of this comes to pass, but I'm expecting Superman to look a lot different than what we've seen in the previous five movies.

 

[Larry Sutliff]

Another origin story is a waste of time. And messing with the suit will be a big mistake.