Well the thing was because there was already alot of better action heroes at the time when Living Daylights and License to Kill were laughed at. People easily looked to the Die Hard and Lethal Weapon films. By the time Golden Eye was released, Die Hard pretty much went into hiatus and that the Lethal Weapon series was on its last legs. There are better superheroes so far than Superman right now so I dont think it will go as smoothly this time around for the next movie

All I have to say is that if they decide to make Superman himself dark and brooding, instead of say having the villians be dark and brooding, Warners is going to have a mammoth fuck up on their hands. Superman is not a dark character. There were a lot of people who complained that Superman Returns was too dark for it's own good. Imagine what they would say if they went down this route.

If they plan on making their other DC properties in the same vain as Batman then they might as well just hand the DC name over to someone else. Batman works in a dark setting. Superman wouldn't, Green Lantern wouldn't, The Flash wouldn't and Wonder Woman wouldn't.

Then again if we want to get really technical he never said the word reboot. He said "reintroduce". Although I think it's going to be pretty much a reboot at this point, there's a chance that could also mean revamp. I'm not counting on it though.

Search IMDb and Superherohype.com. Whether it's from the overall tone of the film to literally the actual look of the film in the tones (Superman's suit, Metropolis, etc.) there were some people who thought the film was too dark for a Superman film. I'm not one of them, but there are some who complained.



I know and I wouldn't mind seeing those films even if they prove to be a bigger risk for Warners. The "boyscout" Superman has proven to work with general audiences. The post-Crisis hasn't. That's not to say it never will, but what makes Warners think they're going to get it right this time around?

But we're talking about Warner Brothers here who have yet to make a smart move outside of the Batman franchise since 1980. It's not that hard to assume that they're looking at The Dark Knight and thinking that this is how the rest of the films should be dumb. Stupid I know, but their track record outside of Batman hasn't proven otherwise yet.



Spider-Man and Iron Man say otherwise. Although I agree with you that Superman can be a dark and complex character, it's a risk thinking the general public wants that as well. And whose to say that audiences won't be different in 2010-2012? Will they be as cynical (I'm not saying that's why TDK worked, but just look at the films that have been successful recently). I'm not going to delve into politics or anything because that's completely beside the point, but there's a reason why people are going to see "darker" films. Whose to say they won't want "the boyscout" in a few years?

Yeah I have to agree with that. The pre-crises superman is BORING. He's simply too powerful and too godlike to really be of any interest. And in this day and age where audiences like their superheros more human and more grounded in reality, any attempt at making another god like Superman will ultimately fail. After all, what is the point of any villain if Superman has the ability to simply travel back in time?

Well let's be honest. Two films were absolute shit and SR didn't get a sequel because the studio was desperate to get another film out there and overspent. They also thought it would be something the size of Spider-Man or what Iron Man eventually made. They didn't take into account that the film franchise had been dead for 20 years. Nothing was wrong specifically with the character, just with the scripts.



I hope so.

Otherwise Superman is going away for another 20 years. The one good thing I take out of Rubinov's comments are that they have Superman as a top priority. As long as they want another Superman film soon (I think Rubinov might be a little too optimistic about getting a Supes film out within three years. That's unless it's not a complete reboot though I'm not holding my breath) that's fine by me.



Except for being the ultimate outcast and someone who is trying to fit into the world. That's not human at all.

Obviously you can't ground Superman completely in reality, but a lot can be done to make him feel more real. Stripping him of a number of powers (including the god awful power to go back in time) would be a good start.

Okay, I'll agree with that (minus the turning back time - which Donner didn't want to use; he used it as a crutch after the producers wanted him to finish up the first film instead of completing both at the same time - for me that device works because of the performances from Reeve and Kidder, although I could see how some people may not like). As much as it might not sound like it, I do want to see where the character can go from here. And although it's looking like we'll never know, I thought that although Singer used the Donnerverse to get things going, I thought he could do some amazing things to start to break away from it.

I just don't want to see something radically different.

Here is what I would do, Luthor should still be in it. But go with what the cartoon series did. Luthor is the CEO of Lexcorp maybe even make him dabble in politics. Make the man legit this time and untouchable. So you need a second villain either Braniac or Metallo make the most sense. You could have Luthor create Metallo and have it blow it in his face where Metallo because the central villain. Or Braniac have Braniac the destroyer of Krypton which would make it a very different slant. I would also have hints of the existence of Darksied. So you can either bring him in a later Superman film or Justice League.

Abrams is the man they have to get- HAVE to get! Hopefully its an origin film.

And screw metallo, crank up da sci fi by bringing in aliens!

use Kevin Smith's script. I want a giant fucking spider

I enjoyed superman returns but it had three problems imho.

It needed one more really big action set piece.

Also, Loius Lane should have been raising mini supes as a single mother. The dweeb she was with was a pointless distraction from the movie.

And most aggregious of all,

The girl who played Louis Lane was absolutely horrible, did not look anything like margot kidder, had red hair and 2 times the amount of forehead of a normal human being. Every time she came on screen we commented on that landing pad above her eyebrows.

Who ever cast her must have been the same casting director who cast that french poodle in Ang Lee's Hulk. Totally inappropriate call.

Now that i think about it, having Super rugrat in the film probably wasn't a great idea if they wanted flexibility on where to go next in the series.

Still, i did like the film.

With Routh unfortunatley done, fans are rallying around this guy:




Henry Cavill

They should avoid any actor who looks like Christopher Reeve. The new superman/clark kent must have his own personality like DC did with new Bond. Plus there is no need to make another origin movie. Reboot can start anywhere. At the maximum they can show couple of scenes using flashback.

Plus folks are over reacting to "dark" nature. I am sure WB will hire a quality director who will make a character driven superman. It will be only as dark as what should be.

1st thing is to hire a quality director. Then find the superman.

Henry Cavill..

Actually theres a big need for an origin movie. Not many people know it.

that he's an alien from another planet?

That can be summed up in about 5-10 minutes

I agree, it can, but there needs to be some sort of explanation for where he came form and how he raised...personally I found the way they handled it in superman the movie boring, even the 1st time I watched it. I liked the way Abrams handled; the krypton scenes are more sci fi star wars esque action while smallville is more like spidermans origin scenes; played for comedy.

yes yes yes yes

nobody over the age of 25 rember the original and smallville is a joke.

Look, Superman is a slightly boring character as it is, showing how he originated isn't going to bring in the dough.

People wanna see some action.

The same they didnt care about how Batman began, right?

If you want audience to care about superman, theyll have to indentify with him through some other means than not being able to with the girl he loves; the only way to do that is gonna be through his origins i.e. what happened to his family and the burden he feels. Like Wayne was a billionaire with endless money and time on his hands, supes is a god amongst men. Making audience care about them and the things the character cares about will have to be a lot deeper; you have to know the origins of the emotions that drive the characters to do what we want to see them. Even transformers did this.

They want to start a franchise; the 1st film cannot be simply 2 hours of superman smashing things and fighting villains. The audiences will have to understand why & how superman does what he does and that can only be explained through his origins in krypton and smallville.

Read JJ Abrams script; of his krpyton and smallville scenes; the 1st 28 pages. IHis origin can be done very effectivly while still being entertaining. Other than the random mauling of the landlord; they are superb. They would be splendid to see on the big screen.

http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/Superman(JJAbrams).pdf

Kind of ironic, given that Nolans been quoted saying the closest comic film inspiration for BEGINS was STM.



Bay wouldnt be "Hulk smash". HeHe'd have as much substance as the Abrams scipt did, which was the perfect amount. Hulk Smash would be a guy like Mark Steven Johnson or Tim Story; all action no story. Bay is clearly the ideal director for this project, but I dont think hell do it. He turned a rumored 15 mill in 2004 because he wanted to do the island

The guy I want is steven spielberg jr; jj abrams, directing (thats if bay isnt available).

Never.

Leave Donner's picture alone. It was perfect enough as it was, the origin of Superman and prelude to the kryptonians. No reason to restart the movie

Who said it did? My point was to show that even though the character are different, their films can still follow the same formula to find success.

Re: Magnu's quote; again, if you ever wanna find why Superman wakes up as Superman and disguies himself as CK, yiull needto see where he comes from and why he is that way.