Superman Redux?

[frogboy4]

What Kind of Superman Film Should WB Make?


It’s been reported that WB and DC are trying to produce another Superman movie before the character rights become far more complicated. The exciting news is that they’d probably start from scratch and have “Dark Knight” director Christopher Nolan shepherd the project as a godfather. That’s the report, anyway. He wouldn’t write or direct the piece, but he’d come up with a good concept and push the film in the right direction. I don’t think he’d give it the Batman treatment. I believe Nolan would find the right pieces within the character to frame a compelling story for today’s audiences.

No one from “Superman Returns” is contractually attached, so this is a whole new ballgame. I liked the last film, including Routh and Spacy, but Singer made one rather wrong turn. He emulated the previous films rather than bring out the root of the character. Superman is not just icon or an alien. He represents the best of America during a troubled but hopeful time widely coined as “the Greatest Generation” in our country’s history. Any Superman film should be set in the 40s or 50s when newspapers still meant something and America was still optimistic.

I’ve always felt that people can’t relate to Superman because, aside from the fact he’s kind of a god, his personality is an artifact of an era long gone. They shouldn’t change him, but they shouldn’t stick him in a post modern world either. It just makes him seem campy like the gag with the Brady Bunch films.

Mark Millar wanted to create a trilogy of back-to-back Superman films rebooting the franchise from birth to the infamous death of Superman. I like the idea of a contained series. I think it should be a period piece with lots of action, some humor and roots in the rich comic book history stretched out over three pictures.

Any thoughts?

 

[Beauregard]

Whatever they do, they need to make the decision: Is Superman all powerful, or is he a wimp? Because all the other movies just never seemed to decide what they wanted to do with him, so they threw in some kryptonite and made people kick him about -- which, frankly, no one wants to see.

People don't identify with Superman for the reasons that Jamie said...And yet, people can identify with Smallville. So maybe they should have a look at that aspect (although I think Smallville and Superman are two very different properties).

What is most important is that they make some firm decisions about who Superman is, what he means and how he should act...And then stick with them, instead of dilly-dallying around the edges adjusting him to fit what they think people want to see.

 

[Drtooth]

I’ve always felt that people can’t relate to Superman because, aside from the fact he’s kind of a god, his personality is an artifact of an era long gone. They shouldn’t change him, but they shouldn’t stick him in a post modern world either. It just makes him seem campy like the gag with the Brady Bunch films.

You've just stated half the problem with Superman. The other half is that he WAS the first comic book super hero of all time, and doesn't have any of the fancy bells and whistles more specifically powered or themed super heroes/vigilantes that are more popular than he is with comic book fans. Superman is very dry when you compare it with Batman (though he's a vigilante and a detective, not a super hero), the X-Men, and all the rest. Even I never quite got into him, and prefer Super Grover, Super Chicken, and Suppaman. And of course, Batman and Spider-man and like that.

If Supes was the only one around, he'd be more interesting, but it seems that people are drawn to characters with a broader back story and a higher mortality... there's more drama there. Plus, again... his secret identity works at a dying medium (something I think they even addressed slightly on Smallville).

They've had some rough time trying to get Superman into a new, big blockbuster movie. I don't see why they didn't try a sequel to Superman Returns. After all, the sequel to Batman Begins did much better than BB did (though, it could have been due to the buzz that Heath ledger brought to it).

 

[GonzoLeaper]

I personally really enjoyed Superman Returns! It was great finally seeing a Superman movie in theaters! (Of course, I didn't care for the Superkid thing- I really thought that was rather unnecessary.) And I absolutely loved the spiritually-resonating line Superman says- "You wrote that the world doesn't need a Savior. But every day I hear people crying for one." Awesome! And so true.
I hope Chris Nolan can help get a new Superman movie going because I'd certainly love to see some more. Brandon Routh did such a good job picking up from where Christopher Reeve left off- I really hope they get him back for a new movie. I don't know if they would bring back the rest of the cast, but at least him. And it'd be great to see further Superman villians show up- like maybe Brainiac, Metallo, Toyman, Parasite, Darkseid, Bizarro, maybe even Doomsday at some point. There's tons of other characters and storylines that could be explored. I just want them to stay true to the character of Superman as the beacon of hope that he's always been and I'll be happy with whatever from there.

 

[frogboy4]

I personally really enjoyed Superman Returns! It was great finally seeing a Superman movie in theaters! (Of course, I didn't care for the Superkid thing- I really thought that was rather unnecessary.) And I absolutely loved the spiritually-resonating line Superman says- "You wrote that the world doesn't need a Savior. But every day I hear people crying for one." Awesome! And so true.
I hope Chris Nolan can help get a new Superman movie going because I'd certainly love to see some more. Brandon Routh did such a good job picking up from where Christopher Reeve left off- I really hope they get him back for a new movie. I don't know if they would bring back the rest of the cast, but at least him. And it'd be great to see further Superman villians show up- like maybe Brainiac, Metallo, Toyman, Parasite, Darkseid, Bizarro, maybe even Doomsday at some point. There's tons of other characters and storylines that could be explored. I just want them to stay true to the character of Superman as the beacon of hope that he's always been and I'll be happy with whatever from there.

I agree with most of that. I thought Routh's only limitations were the ones enforced by the production. He opened up once his contract expired and stated how he thought there would be more action in the film. I liked the emotional elements, but it was a little too emo. I thought the kid inclusion was clever, but contradicted his primal themes in his character.

Smallville has really jacked the story of Clark Kent in some inconsistent ways, but it is entertaing. I wouldn't want it to be the foundation for the story, yet the personality is spot-on! I still see more relevance and interest found in a reboot if they turn back the clock to a golden time in America. I still think both Routh and Welling would make wonderful choices as lead...or somebody new.

If Supes was the only one around, he'd be more interesting, but it seems that people are drawn to characters with a broader back story and a higher mortality... there's more drama there. Plus, again... his secret identity works at a dying medium (something I think they even addressed slightly on Smallville).

That's always the weak spot with him. Basically the guy can do anything and that waters down his perception. Batman and Superman both came out at almost the same time. Batman rules the night, but has no powers while Superman is charged by the sun and has few limitations.

Whatever they do, they need to make the decision: Is Superman all powerful, or is he a wimp? Because all the other movies just never seemed to decide what they wanted to do with him, so they threw in some kryptonite and made people kick him about -- which, frankly, no one wants to see.

People don't identify with Superman for the reasons that Jamie said...And yet, people can identify with Smallville. So maybe they should have a look at that aspect (although I think Smallville and Superman are two very different properties).

What is most important is that they make some firm decisions about who Superman is, what he means and how he should act...And then stick with them, instead of dilly-dallying around the edges adjusting him to fit what they think people want to see.

It boils down to the fact that a figure like Superman is so god-like in his abilities that it creates a human distance between him and the audience. It doesn't have to. I did like the savior aspect brought up in the last film. The thing is, he has nearly unlimited powers but has to decide in a split second how to use them and has nobody to really talk to about it. Take the fact that we're talking about super-powers out of the equation and that kind of angst is very human. Reeve found the character that worked for the 80s, but the new team needs to find what will best communicate now. No soap opera paternity, no changing relativity in the toxicity of Kriptonite and no pseudo-sequels. A clean slate is in order I think. I still believe it could be done.

 

[Super Scooter]

I seem to remember seeing some old cartoons (from the forties) where they found a really good balance that worked. There was Clark Kent, pretending to be a character we can relate to. The story focused on him and Lois and the bad guy. Superman only came in when it was time to save the day, and he was almost as mysterious to the audience as to Lois and the other characters. I like that.

But, yes, I agree that Superman would work best in a period piece.