Jason Solo

Yeah...I was wary of the storyline from the start as I think we discussed at the time, but I still thought it was going to be more than this. Then you put on top of that delays, "interlude" issues, and now JMS leaving the book, it just amazes me the half-assed job the editors are doing with this characters. Maybe if DC didn't have all their attention on their thirty Batman books, I dunno (love Batman, but damn, Batbooks take up half DC's solicit pages anymore). Anywho, I was thinking it might be kinda cool if Sterling Gates got a shot at writing Superman soon, considering they forced him off Supergirl for some reason that only they know, and I thought Supergirl has been the best Super-book in publication since he's been writing it.

Reign of Doomsday can't get here fast enough as far as I'm concerned. I'm not into villain-centered books so no matter how good I hear it is I can't get on board with Lex on Action, and I dont' think I've ever been more bored with a comic than I have been with Grounded in Superman. Preachy, hamfisted, and Superman's written like a dickwad. So I look forward to Reign of Doomsday to hopefully put an end to the bore-fest of Grounded, and also get Superman back in Action comics (which I'm guessing will happen in Action #900, which I think will be the still-secret final part to the Doomsday storyline). But for the present, no Superman for me right now and that sucks.

I'm with Krawlie, whoever it is it needs to be a brand new score. No rendition of the William's theme. No rendition of any Williams piece period. Time to let go and let others make their own vision in all aspects, for better or worse.

You both suck. You wait right here till I come up with an appropriate comeback to hit you guys with, since I'm not thinking of anything on the fly.

How about a snappy, no, you're lame!! Ha! That'll have to do...

The way I see it is that, since the 90's, mainstream has pushed the idea of focusing more on Clark Kent as oppossed to Superman. You had Lois & Clark over on ABC, then Smallville on CW. And they were interesting and new takes to explore. But that's been done now. Maybe, just maybe, its time to give general audiences just Superman again. Bar none. Flying around, kicking ass, saving the day. Forget about the journey. The mainstream audience has been given the journey, and the "normal" side of Clark Kent ad nasueum. So go back to the basics. I don't particuarly need nor want a story about Superman discovering himself or the journey to become Superman. I want to see him already there. And I can't stress enough how that doesn't necessitate no origin elements in the story at all. They're not mutually exclusive ideas. Burton did it with the original Batman, its not that hard.

Gah, love Brainiac but hate that particular android version to the right. I like the idea they use currently in which robots similar to that look are his drones as opposed to actually him. If you're going to go with an artificial intelligence, I'd use the DCAU version. Otherwise the classic/current continuity Coluan Vril Dox is just as good. Or the computer from Superman III.

Last was a joke.

If they wanted a similar effect of Zod (a villain hearkening back to his Kryptoninan heritage), then they could use The Eradicator. Little known, but would fit the story pretty seamlessly.

I agree. Only knock on him would be his age, but despite being only 24 he's got the right build I'd say.

You make good points, Jason, but are you certain they couldn't pull off a reboot with Brandon?

 

I wonder if they would offer the part to Tom Welling? Or Tim Tebow?

Well I'd hesitate to say certain, I'm just some goofy guy in the internet, not actually in the industry. I just think, why risk associating anything with the past film, when the reaction was apparently so much less than you'd hoped that you decided to start over again to begin with.

But I'm down for Saint Tebow.

No no, I just used his name as an example, as while I'm open to not a complete unknown taking the role, one of the Hollywood "elite" I just couldn't buy.

Just someone who looks the part and is a decent actor enough to pull off the dual identity. That's all I want. No mega-stars like Brad Pitt or something like that but by all means if its someone whose name is known it shouldn't discount them. An "unknown" again would be nice, but I'm over it being an absolute, bar-none necessity. When Returns was getting up and running I was one of those people, the OMG UNKNOWN people, but that was just being a fanboy and making the role and its requirements way more complicated and nit-picky than I had to.

And the studio would look like indecisive idiots to bring Routh back. They decided on a reboot. That means everything is gone, including Routh. See it all the way through and start off fresh if that's what you set out to do. Holdovers from previous franchises, and huge inspirations from the Donner films (a small nod here and there isn't terrible), is showing that the studio didn't learn from Singer's mistakes. Even if he was absolutely remarkable in the role (he wasn't), I still think the reboot mandate would have demanded a change, albeit a more difficult decision to make.

Reminaginings bother me when they happen in really close proximity to one another. Like Spider-Man. I was even wary of Batman Begins despite the garbage that was Batman and Robin, but even that had about an 8 year buffer. Reimagining a franchise that hadn't seen a film in over 20 years though? That's not just fair game, that demands a reboot in my mind. I think Returns proved it.

I've said

I don't see how it makes any sense whatsoever to keep the Returns cast for an intended reboot.

 

I can think of one reason: they were ****ing awesome. Especially Routh. But all of them were. But I can see you being sour on the cast though since you hated the movie.

Eh. I thought it was fairly uninspired casting. Routh was alright, but his greatest asset was looking like Christopher Reeve. Beyond that nothing special. The rest of the cast was just not good. Even Spacey was an incredibly overrated Lex Luthor. He offered nothing to the role that Gene Hackman didn't already do better. And to this day I have no clue how anyone could think Kate Bosworth fit as Lois Lane. I like the actress, but, no. Scrap it all.

And while it sure sounds like it, I actually don't hate the movie. I enjoyed it, actually in spite of the casting. But that's because I grew up on the original films and it was an interesting continuation of that story, but I recognize it shoudln't have continued that story in the first place. Singer got a huge boner for his childhood and it compromised what should have been a new Superman tale for a new generation. But I've said all that before so I'll stop beating the dead horse. Main point I guess is I didn't hate it, lol. But this movie absolutely needs to start fresh across the board. For better or worse, hopefully the better.

I don't see how it makes any sense whatsoever to keep the Returns cast for an intended reboot. Not gonna happen nor should it.

So visually this should look nice, but can Snyder do notdark? I haven't bothered to see much of his work (hell I'm very out of touch with cinema altogether today), but my impression was that he had a darker tone visually? That won't fly much in Metropolis. And yeah, like Wally kinda bummed as the chances aren't so great now for a memorable score.

CBR's saying that the villain apparently is going to be General Zod. I'd rather see Brainiac but if Zod's the villain than the past of Krypton should feature heavily, which gives tons of room to set the stage for him or even introduce him.

+1 for Wally there.

But you said it yourself-- EVERYONE knows that origin. Everyone's seen it. He's the icon for all super heroes. if somebody is going to see a Superman film they aren't going to sit and wonder how he became Superman. It's just not needed.

 

You're right. An origin isn't really needed. But I want them to touch on it somewhat. It's only right. I'm not saying they should take half the movie to tell it. Three to five minutes is all you need. They could do it during the opening credits.

Agreed. Just because everyone knows it doesn't mean that touching up upon certain aspects of it cannot serve the story in a meaningful way. I get and agree that everyone knows the origin tale so its not needed in full, but I don't think that means you just hit the ground running and never touch upon nor build up throughout certain aspects of this particular adaptation's mythology, which will and should have its own differences here and there to accommodate a feature film franchise.

I think a reboot IS needed. Not in the sense that we need to spend a half hour on an origin, that's not what I mean. But there needs to be a noticable divergence from this new project and the previous films. Fans have yet to get a Superman film for a new generation, for the new times. I stress again that Returns was in actuality Donner's Superman III. It was relevant for us fans of the old movies but relevant to no one else and that above all is why it didn't fair as well as hoped. It not only didn't target the mainstream, it didn't target even the young comic reading audience. It targeted older superfans of the original franchise.

So definitely start from scratch. As I said before when I cited the original Batman as an example, you can start fresh and get right into things without going all out origin tale. Everyone knows he's from Krypton, everyone knows it exploded, everyone knows he's the last survivor of the race, everyone knows he was raised on Smallville by Martha and Jonathan. Those are the things they don't have to cover at all in depth, but I do think a plot that revolved around something from Krypton's past would be interesting, to give the planet a place in the narrative and for us to see it via flashback or whatever yet have it not revolve around what everyone knows, which is Superman's rocketing off from the place.

Indeed. I think you definitely have Lex in the film, but in that exact capacity. Even better if its a relatively small role in the first film, to build up his credibility as a schemer and manipulator who hides behind the scenes, while maintaining a facade for the public of being a man of goodwill.

All the respect in the world to Gene Hackman who's awesome, but his Lex by design was a man who claimed to be this great criminal mind, but with little to show for it aside from an admittedly nice lair....but doesn't change the fact he was forced underground literally. The mainstream has never seen a Luthor who was what he claimed, and legitimately held power.

So long as it isn't an origin story I don't care.

I still think they'd fair well by taking a page from Burton's original Batman. The movie opens with him already around, just fairly new in town. Have his own history intertwined with the main threat of the story, and receive some background info in that sense. If they use Brainiac as the main villain, that aspect writes itself. Zod also would fit nicely, but I think they should give the mainstream a villain that's new to them, like using Ra's in BB.

Nolan via Empire Online:

"Superman is very specifically superpowered and obviously otherworldly; Batman is very human and flawed... there's an elemental feeling of power in the iconography of those characters. To me that's originally because they stood alone. I need to hang on to that in my imagining of them."

 

Thank god he feels the way I do.

Good good.

Yeah, it kinda bugs me at times. But then again that's the demand, I'm certainly not going to dress up as Superman and go to a convention with a book of lectures on how Batman shouldn't be focused on so much. Batman is it right now, so you capitalize off that. But that's part of the reason I want a Superman film to be done well and be well-received. Not out of some desire to see Superman "back on top" so to speak, I could care less about that. I just want it proven that just because he's not dark, brooding and angsty doesn't mean that he can't be interesting and relevant to any generation.

Meh. TAS is the best Batman interpretation outside the comics, period. The best altogether in those unfortunate times when a book gets saddled with a **** writer. But the Timmverse outside of Batman I find to be overrated. Mainly because Batman is his baby and it shows, painfully, when the group gets together. He should just stick with Batman, in my opinion. And yes, I know that's very much a minority opinion.

Part of that's probably because my view of Batman isn't the same as what's popular opinion today. I love the character, but I don't relate well with him. When it comes to enjoyment, sure I get a kick out of dark and brooding characters. But I don't relate to them. That lack of relating to the character is probably why I don't hold him to exactly the same state of lauding the character receives today more than ever before.

yes that's all i got.

leave me alone!

It comes down to two very simple things...

 

Superman is a nad.

The DCverse is stupid, except for Batman.

SAYZ THE MACINTOSH DOOSH

Yeah, I only mentioned the two Burton directed films in the original franchise though, ignored Schumacher's camp contributions. But it just goes to further prove how unnecessary it is to even bring up other superheroes. That line sucks. I don't see anything wrong with building a franchise on the template that they're alone, and onscreen simply not draw any attention to the question of whether or not other superheroes or vigilante crimefighters exist period. Then if something happens down the line where you want to incorporate a team-up movie, you can still do it, nothing says you can't.