Superman: Man of Steel

[Exodus]

I lol'ed too, but I don't know why.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

I think it is awesome that Christopher Nolan is doing a Superman movie, and I think he is right to keep Superman and Batman separate. The only two DC characters I really liked were Superman and Batman, but IMHO, whenever they are paired up, or appear in JLA, etc, both characters are watered down. In fact I think a JLA movie would not work because it would be so busy, every character would be watered down, and the more characters you have in it, the lest development you will have for each one.

 

Think of it this way: why do most superhero movies start out with 1 hero and 1 villain? For character development, at least in part, right? When superhero movies fail, usually it is because they try to cram too much in a 2 hour film, and have multiple villains (IE Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, Spiderman 3). This waterend down the characters, and made them caricatures, instead. The same thing would happen if they ever did a cross over movie involving Superman and Batman, expecially a JLA movie with other heroes and villains too.

 

 

Batman Begins had 3 villains though. Scarecrow, Ras Al Ghoul and Falcone. You can have multiple villains and/or heroes if you have a skillfull filmmaker who can weave the characters and storylines together.

I will agree with you there, but I think Batman Begins is the exception to the rule. Most times, it ends up a mess.

[Tank]

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.

[The Human Torch]

I want to hurt him.

[Jason Solo]

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.

[Wally Q]

I like everything he's saying. Now I just want to know what this big idea is and that Goyer is only writing it with Jonathan Nolan and not directing it.

[Tank]

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

[Wally Q]

And please God no Lex Luthor.

[Mercury]

I want to hurt him.

 

I'll hold him while you gut-punch him.

[Mercury]

And please God no Lex Luthor.

 

I wouldn't mind if Luthor was in it. As long as it's a version similar to Michael Rosenbaum's Luthor and not the campy Gene Hackman/Kevin Spacey Luthor.

[Jason Solo]

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.

[Mercury]

I think a quick origin sequence during the opening credits (a la 2008's The Incredible Hulk) would work nicely. Everybody's already familiar with it, anyway, so they wouldn't have to spend too much time on it. It just wouldn't be right to not touch upon Superman's origin to some degree in the reboot.

[Wally Q]

And please God no Lex Luthor.

 

I wouldn't mind if Luthor was in it. As long as it's a version similar to Michael Rosenbaum's Luthor and not the campy Gene Hackman/Kevin Spacey Luthor.

Michael Rosenbaum is the superior Lex, in my opinion. I would only accept LL as the villain if he was pulling the strings from atop LexCorp.

[Jason Solo]

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.

[Mercury]

Michael's Lex Luthor is the most multi-faceted and complex depiction of the character in any medium. Smallville has it's detractors (I'm not one of them, obviously), but there's a lot they've gotten right, as far as being faithful to the Superman mythos. I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but I'd be perfectly fine if it continued into the movies. Not to say that I won't like Nolan's version. It's just that I already consider this generation's true Superman to be Tom Welling. Sorry if that offends anyone, but that's how I feel. Erica Durance is also the PERFECT Lois Lane. I mean, it only makes sense. That would solve the whole origin story problem right there, because it's all there in Smallville.

[Wally Q]

I couldn't have said it best.

 

+1, Merc.

[Mercury]

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.

 

I also have nothing but respect for Hackman's Luthor. His portrayal was appropriate, for its time. Not to mention just plain fun. Back then, that's how the comics were. Today's Lex is almost another character entirely, however.

[The Human Torch]

Smallville sucks... mostly. Keep it away from the silver screen.

 

Since Nolan is staying Super-Solo part of me, just a wittle part, wants him to take the Superman Returns cast and make a sequel that rox that version to the next level... you know instead of a reboot from scratch.

[Tank]

I think a quick origin sequence during the opening credits (a la 2008's The Incredible Hulk) would work nicely. Everybody's already familiar with it, anyway, so they wouldn't have to spend too much time on it. It just wouldn't be right to not touch upon Superman's origin to some degree in the reboot.

 

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 know instead of a reboot from scratch.

 

Again-- Superman is such a known commodity. A reboot isn't needed. If you got a guy in the suit and he's flying around Metropolis no one will question it. Even if it's a new guy.

 

It doesn't have to be a starting point. Superman isn't like Bats where there's been dozens of permutations of the concept. Hes pretty much been the same every time out. A stand alone Supes story is fine and wouldn't need an into. Everyone knows where he is coming from.

[The Human Torch]

I agree. It's also why I sorta want Routh to get another shot. I mean let's face it, IMO at least, the casting wasn't a problem with Returns. I'd like to see Routh return and I'd love for it to be under Nolan's "new" vision for the franchise. I don't think that having Routh return would push people away from the film, I think that like a Bond film another Superman film could just explode into a new story and barely if at all pay lipservice to Returns.

[Jason Solo]

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.

[Tank]

You're both wrong/right.

 

I'm saying reboot reschmoot and it won't matter who you cast. The mythos stand fine on their own and are a very known commodity in pop culture.

[Mercury]

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.

[Ryn]

I agree. It's also why I sorta want Routh to get another shot. I mean let's face it, IMO at least, the casting wasn't a problem with Returns. I'd like to see Routh return and I'd love for it to be under Nolan's "new" vision for the franchise. I don't think that having Routh return would push people away from the film, I think that like a Bond film another Superman film could just explode into a new story and barely if at all pay lipservice to Returns.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

[Mercury]

I wouldn't mind giving Routh another chance, either. It's a shame, because he could've been a great Superman, if Superman Returns hadn't been so dour and dreary. He was enthusiastic for the role, which means a lot when it comes to movies like this. Especially this role. Plus, he looks the part even more, now that he's gotten a bit older. I highly, highly doubt we'll ever see him play Superman again, though. I'll always feel bad for the guy, for being unfairly dismissed. If only he'd been part of this reboot and Superman Returns had never been made.