# And so it is official ....... Superman getting reboot



## Bear Walken (Aug 22, 2008)

> *Warner Bros. Confirms Superman Reboot*
> 
> Just a few days after this article was posted, Warner Bros. Pictures Group President Jeff Robinov has told The Wall Street Journal that the studio is going to be reintroducing Superman. We assume this will be similar to how Louis Leterrier's The Incredible Hulk was a reboot of Ang Lee's Hulk. Here is what the article says:
> 
> ...



Not too sure if making it darker will work. It worked with Batman because the friend is the Dark Knight. 

I hope they bring back Routh, who was pretty decent. Everyone else can eat shit though, especially the writers.


----------



## Legend (Aug 22, 2008)

wow so it's gonna be awhile for the justice league


----------



## Chee (Aug 22, 2008)

I hope he realizes that TDK worked because it was fresh. If he makes every single super hero movie "dark" like TDK is would get repetitive.

And fuck Batman vs Superman. I don't want that shit tainting Batman's name.


----------



## Potentialflip (Aug 22, 2008)

Everything about Superman Returns sucked. The best actor in that whole movie was a CG of Marlon Brando. Routh sucked trying to much to be like Reeve instead of his own... Bosworth was flat worse acting ever... Spacey was bad tried to do Hackmen... all horrible performances.

I have to admit the whole dark thing might be pushing it. I'm guessing it will take at least a more serious tone which this franchise could use. Let's face it Superman Returns was just a nostalgic experience and messy. As long as it isn't Singer at the helm cause apparently I have lost all faith in him I'll be happy. Of course just a whole overhaul on the casting.


----------



## Castiel (Aug 23, 2008)

By "dark" I think they mean something that's not as shittily lighthearted as Returns was.   serious, but not too serious, and not retarded.

also since this pretty much means Bale will at some point be on screen with Supes, I am so psyched for this.  I know some people () are just against it but Batman is a moderately important part of the Superman mythos and vice versa, plus I'm positive whatever bale bats would say would be epic



they should follow these rules like if it was the bible


----------



## Chee (Aug 23, 2008)

I'm against it because Nolan created Batman to be realistic. Introducing Superman would just kill it...its like adding Batman Forever Robin to the series.


----------



## Castiel (Aug 23, 2008)

I doubt Supes himself would appear in the Batman movies, if anything it'd work best the other way around, like having Bruce and Lucius hack Brainiac while he;s trying to use the cell phone machine? 

Kinda like in the comics, where most of the Batman titles have at least "_some_" semblance of being grounded in reality despite the fact that beings like the Spectre exist in the same universe, it just isn't addressed. least that's how Ithink they'll do it


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 23, 2008)

I say if you do "Superman Vs Batman", get a different director. I like Nolan's films because of their realism, but also like the more cartoonish adaptations as well....to me, Batman is a comic book. Nolan was cool because he gave us something different. It WILL eventually loose its edge. That's why I think Nolan should bow out and forget about doing another Batman film. TDK can't be topped. 

I was fine with "Superman Returns". I think people are hard on it because it's more of a personal film than an action one. Unfortunately, Synger fucked up because he didn't take into consideration that the other Superman movies are OLD and few people remember them.......

I'm concerned at all this revamping. Seriously, "Hulk" was bad enough but now "Superman"? What's next, a revamp of "X-men"?


----------



## Castiel (Aug 23, 2008)

I doubt they'dever fight, if anything it'll be Bruce trying to punch him while Clark says he just wants to talk and bruce listens.

also Fox will never give up X-men since they're now doing the spin off  movies


----------



## Chee (Aug 23, 2008)

> Nolan was cool because he gave us something different. It WILL eventually loose its edge. That's why I think Nolan should bow out and forget about doing another Batman film. TDK can't be topped.



I don't think it will ever be topped, but I don't think that's the reason why he shouldn't do another Batman film.
He begun it, he challenged it and now he has to end it. Third one will be the last, better than TDK? No. But great nonetheless? Yes.

And you sound very negative. I think TDK will never loose its edge. Get old, of course, but it will still be a great film.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 23, 2008)

No, No. I love TDK. Currently, its in my top 10 favorite films of all time.

The realistic Batman angle that begin in "Batman Begins" will lose its edge, however. 

Either way, can't I say "Tim Burton began it, challenged it, and needs to end it" or God forbide....the same thing with Joel Schumaker.

Both ended their streak with 2 films, neither really ending the series. I think it should be the same with Nolan. But that's just me. If he does make another, I'll rush to see it with everyone else. But I think he's going to upset alot of people........

Even Michael Caine said they should just stop while they are on top. Hell, even the actor who doesn't give a shit about what he does(I remember "Jaws: the Revenge") wants it to end.


----------



## Castiel (Aug 23, 2008)

Superhero movies are cursed, after 2 good movies the director usually leaves and the 3rd is crap.  Happened with Superman, X-Men, Batman (first time).  Spider-Man is just shameful because Raimi was there for all 3


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 23, 2008)

Meh, people are mixed on "Batman Forever"........need to see it again before I pass judgement. I remember thinking Jim Carrey was too over-the-top at times.


----------



## Chee (Aug 23, 2008)

Eh', I agree with you and Caine (I myself am a huge supporter of stopping while on top) but a third one is gonna come and I believe Nolan is the best choice to do it. 

And honestly, I really wanna see some more Batman.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 23, 2008)

I say get Robert Rodriguez and make a "Sin City" style Batman.....


----------



## Castiel (Aug 23, 2008)

Thing with Carey was that he wasn't playing the Riddler, he was playing Jim Carey.  And Tommy Lee Jones was *shit* as Dent


----------



## Chee (Aug 23, 2008)

The squeaky sounds when he was throwing bombs = 



> I say get Robert Rodriguez and make a "Sin City" style Batman.....



Hell no                .


----------



## Graham Aker (Aug 23, 2008)

Right, excellent news then. Though I hope they keep Routh, the guy who played Perry and Olsen. Bosworth can hit the road, a Lois she is not. And please, no Kevin Spacey.

Anyway, I hope that they'll make Clark mild-mannered, instead of the dork we saw in the previous films.


----------



## Castiel (Aug 23, 2008)

I honestly didn't care for this Jimmy, I really liked Perry though


----------



## Adonis (Aug 23, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> I was fine with "Superman Returns". I think people are hard on it because it's more of a personal film than an action one. Unfortunately, Synger fucked up because he didn't take into consideration that the other Superman movies are OLD and few people remember them.......



No, Returns sucked because Synger buttfucked the source material and piggybacked off of the previous Superman movies rather than, y'know, doing something original.

Superman is reduced to a homewrecking stalker with a goddamn illegitimate child (burdened by genetic defects, it would seem) who abandons Earth for 5 years to confirm that his dead home planet is dead then has the gall to be disappointed the world wasn't as crippled by his absence as he seemingly intended. Dickhead.

Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor is a half-assed Gene Hackman impersonation who seduces old women out of their fortunes while wearing unconvincing wigs. I can stop right fucking there.

Lois Lane, despite having apparently won a Pulitzer, is reduced to a flat-faced tart with the sex appeal of a soggy bagel who at one point asks how many K's are in the word 'catastrophe' (How are you an esteemed journalist, you dumb slut!?) and the extent of whose moral dilemma can be summed up with the question: which of these assholes do I want to raise my bastard son?

Need I even mention the ending fight which entirely consists of Superman lifting billions of tons rock laced with kryptonite? He gets his shit split by some goons and thrown off a cliff by Lex Luthor like a bitch but still has the strength to *LIFT A MOTHERFUCKING KRYPTONITE ISLAND* and hurl it into space?


Jesus fucking Christ!


----------



## Castiel (Aug 23, 2008)

indeed aside from the kid and Cyclops none of  Returns was original.  EVERYTHING was either "inspired" or flat out stolen from the first 4 movies in one way or another.


----------



## Vonocourt (Aug 23, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> I say get Robert Rodriguez and make a "Sin City" style Batman.....



God no. I'm guessing Frank Miller would get involved with it...and then what would we get? 

Though even if Frank Miller kept his crazy hands off of it, Rodriguez hasn't actually made a good serious film since...well ever. He's been making the same b-movie type films for years.


----------



## Castiel (Aug 23, 2008)

funny thing is, "Holy Terror Batman" will no longer include Batman   i'm serious


----------



## Castiel (Aug 23, 2008)

for people who didn't click the IGN link

THE 10 COMMANDMENTS FOR MAKING THE NEW SUPES MOVIE

01 - A Worthy Set of Villains

02 - An Actor Who Can Embody Superman and Clark Kent

03 - A Willingness to Diverge From Past Projects

04 - A Healthy Respect For What Came Before

05 - Maturity Without Being "Dark"

06 - No More Super Kid!

07 - No Rehashing the Origin

08 - A More Believable, Complex Luthor

09 - More Showcases of Superman's Power

10 - Keep John Williams, Please


----------



## Chee (Aug 23, 2008)

Kilowog said:


> funny thing is, "Holy Terror Batman" will no longer include Batman   i'm serious



Comics. Are. Weird. 



Kilowog said:


> for people who didn't click the IGN link
> 
> THE 10 COMMANDMENTS FOR MAKING THE NEW SUPES MOVIE
> 
> ...



I can whole heartedly agree with those things. 

Especially number 4, they respect it but they don't adapt its "style".


----------



## Chee (Aug 23, 2008)

> Either way, can't I say "Tim Burton began it, challenged it, and needs to end it" or God forbide....the same thing with Joel Schumaker.



No, because Nolan specifcally made Batman Begins to begin Batman and he made The Dark Knight to challenge Batman. He will probably make one to end it because he created the first two films to be..."interlocking" I suppose. 

Burton's and Schumaker's version were just made to be an entertaining summer flick.


----------



## Castiel (Aug 23, 2008)

I truly hope they follow #5, because if it's TOO dark and serious it'll feel more like a Hyperion story.

also #10 is crucial, this theme is a *CLASSIC*, they should get Williams HIMSELF to score it, Returns just recorded the main tune then had some guy make his own score


----------



## blackshikamaru (Aug 23, 2008)

I don't want a reboot. Just kill super-son and have superman go go super apeshit on some villians. I really don't want a re-boot. re-boots make me sad.


----------



## Chee (Aug 23, 2008)

blackshikamaru said:


> I don't want a reboot. Just kill super-son and have superman go go super apeshit on some villians. I really don't want a re-boot. re-boots make me sad.



Batman Begins is a reboot...that made you sad?

You're a dumbass, Superman Returns was massive fail, killing Super-son would hardly fix it. Just restart the series, start from scratch and it will be all better. Dunno why you hate reboots, I love them.


----------



## masamune1 (Aug 23, 2008)

_Superman Returns_ was okay. The only real problem I had with it was the story, and the fact that they tried to insert it as part of the 70's series ((and all things deriving from that).
The stuff about his son did'nt bother me too much, though mainly because I just kept assuming that he was part of some bigger plan for a sequel (eg. he's really Brainiac's son/ weapon, part of a plan for world domination).

*@Adonis*- Lois was always a crappy speller. They did'nt make that up for the film.


The problem with doing a reboot is that _Returns_ should have been a reboot, but was'nt, which means that we are left with a rather awkward position. In a sense, _Returns_ was the start of a new story even though they were building upon old ideas, so the fact that we're starting _Superman_ again for the third time in so many years just seems pretty cynical and soul-destroying. 

It's also suggesting that Hollywood thinks that all of it's problems can be solved that way. If a film does'nt do hat well, then screw it! Start again! 
It was fine with _Batman Begins_ because, well, _Begins_ was the beginning. No-one had, to my mind, ever done something quite like that before. It was fresh and original. _Casino Royale_ followed soon after- less original but still great and still pretty fresh.

But now they are just coming so often, it's getting pretty repetitive. I won't be surprised if they do a remake of _Spiderman_ now, even though the last film- while weaker than the other two- was above-average at worst. 


And it means we're going to have to go through more and more re-introductions of characters we've already met before, and not that long ago either. Even if they don't do them as orgin stories, we're still being thrown into a world that's...new, but eerily familiar. 

And if they don't do an origin story, then the film feels shorter somehow. I liked _Incredible Hulk_ but it was clearly more a part of the bigger tapestry that was the _Avengers_ franchise than a complete film in it's own right.

And it's worse for Superman because his world is much, much bigger and more complex than Bruce Banner's (who has a handful of villains so he would never have a long shelf life). It's getting tiring- thing's are not progressing because of perfectionism, and the backtracking that is caused by it.


----------



## Chee (Aug 23, 2008)

> and the fact that they tried to insert it as part of the 70's series



SR had cell phones in it...


----------



## masamune1 (Aug 23, 2008)

Chee said:


> SR had cell phones in it...



Alright...

And the fact that they half-heartedly tried to insert it into the 70's series.
Marvel, sliding-timescale style.


----------



## Seany (Aug 23, 2008)

For the love of God i hope, fucking hope that Lex Luthor is not the ONLY villain in this new movie. WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF HIM D:


----------



## Ryuk (Aug 23, 2008)

THE LEGEND OF Q said:


> wow so it's gonna be awhile for the justice league



That Sucks  .


----------



## Chee (Aug 23, 2008)

I wanna see The Avengers.


----------



## raxor (Aug 23, 2008)

I read Spiderman... And was all 

Then I saw Superman... and was all: Meh, don't care


----------



## T4R0K (Aug 23, 2008)

A reboot of a reboot ? I thought Superman Returns was a reboot ?!


----------



## Castiel (Aug 23, 2008)

no it was a Requel


----------



## Vonocourt (Aug 23, 2008)

Kilowog said:


> no it was a Requel



Nope, it was a Requake.


----------



## Castiel (Aug 23, 2008)

it felt more like a ripoff sequel than a remake


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 23, 2008)

Vono: Yes, most of Robert Rodriguez's films are glorified B-movies....but as much as Batman fans will hate to admit it....so are the Batman films. Keep in mind, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" technically was a B movie.....if you can do it right, it no longer matters if it's a B movie or not.



Adonis said:


> No, Returns sucked because Synger buttfucked the source material and piggybacked off of the previous Superman movies rather than, y'know, doing something original.
> 
> Superman is reduced to a homewrecking stalker with a goddamn illegitimate child (burdened by genetic defects, it would seem) who abandons Earth for 5 years to confirm that his dead home planet is dead then has the gall to be disappointed the world wasn't as crippled by his absence as he seemingly intended. Dickhead.
> 
> ...



1) I didn't mind Supermans questionable decisions.....I generally take that as character flaws....remember how badly he fucke up in Superman 2? The "having a son" bit kind of bothered me in that it was so predictable....

2) I agree Kevin Spacey was pretty lame as Lex. I initially thought it was good casting, but he overdid it.

3) I never liked Louis Lane to begin with. She always came across as shallow. She even states at one point: "Everyone was in love with Superman" and I never got the impression it was anything but infatuation. I mean, if they did something like "Spiderman" did, where it seems like she loves the superhero but realizes she loves the dude behind the mask(before finding out he is the superhero), then you got something. Even the original Superman botched this up with her crappy voice over monologue. 

4) Once again, I don't mind these type of things. You're bitching consists of opinion, not fact. You can hate a movie, but that doesn't mean it sucks. The ending bit can be taken as "overcoming a weakness", a common trope. One thing I did hate about it was that even though it was a sequel, it had an identical plot to the original. 

I don't remember much of the movie, but I'll give a quick review. The movie was servicable. It had some awesome special effects, a decent lead(not as captivating as Christopher Reeves), had some effective moments(when Superman is being pwned near the end and Parker Posey starts having second thoughts) but I dunno, I kept comparing it to the original and the only thing it improved on is the Special Effects.

Also, I have the personal opinion that sequels should be BIGGER than the originals. If this was the remake, then fine. But going from  "Fighting three Superfreaks" to back to the EXACT same plot of the first film is kind of a step backwards.....

I'd say it wasn't as good as the first two Superman films, but better than part 3 and 4(But is that even a compliment)

My ratings on it tend to go from a 2/4-3/4, depending on my mood.


----------



## FitzChivalry (Aug 23, 2008)

Superman _Returns _was _okay_, but that's why it gets criticized so much, because such an iconic figure in comics and pop culture only had a barely passable movie made about him. I agree with the overhaul, and I definitely agree with the aforementioned notion made by someone in this thread that the reboot should have been done _for Returns_, not after. That movie lacked a lot of things. For instance, yes, the writers could have done a better job of displaying his powers. In _The Dark Knight_, the suit augments Batman in many ways, and we clearly see what kind of protection and enhancements it grants him. He bent the barrel of a gun with one hand; he jumped several stories and landed on a truck and suffered no injuries; he dove off the near top of a penthouses and landed on his back on a cab. His suit can take shots. 

Batman doesn't even have superpowers, and yet we were given insight when it came to his pretty much every one of his suit's abilities, which was explicitly explained to us in both _Batman Begins_ and _The Dark Knight_. Superman has a ton of abilities and powers. Make an effort to show them. And please work on the plot. With _Batman Begins_ and _The Dark Knight_, the screenplays were great, tight. And _TDK'_s was so good that I think it should get serious consideration for a Best Screenplay Oscar. _Returns_, had plenty of shit I didn't care about. Superman's ego, his child, the fact that it was too much like the movies made over three decades ago. If _The Dark Knight_ is inspiring Warners to take him in a new direction, the modernization should really be key here. Keep with the times, get rid of the 70's feel, redo the music along with the movie, etc. Show respect for what came before, yes, but don't piggyback it to success.

Also, can we get some new villains? Darkseid? Brainiac? Enough of Lex Luthor. He's important in the Supermanverse, but he's not all there is to it. These alien villains should be tried out. It's not like these studios have a lack of technology to make that happen. I know there's slim to no chance of villains like Darkseid and Brainiac showing in this next Superman, since it's probably going to be an origins story, and that probably means--SURPRISE!--more Lex Luthor.


----------



## Chee (Aug 23, 2008)

Martial, the new batman films aren't B movies. Check around the internet, most reviews are an A.


----------



## Bender (Aug 23, 2008)

Seeing a Batman vs. Superman movie wouldn't be all that bad although I don't like it crossing over with Nolan's universe. so I'm kinda on the odds with it.



> Nope, it was a Requake.



No it was a refail


----------



## Vonocourt (Aug 23, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> Vono: Yes, most of Robert Rodriguez's films are glorified B-movies....but as much as Batman fans will hate to admit it....so are the Batman films. Keep in mind, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" technically was a B movie.....if you can do it right, it no longer matters if it's a B movie or not.



No, Raiders of the lost Ark was not a b-movie. It was a big budget action/adventure inspired by pulp stories. Neither were any of the Batman films.They had Jack Nicholson, George Clooney, and Arnold Schwarzenegger for chrissake.

I made a mistake and forgot to put a pair of "" around b-movies in that post. His movies aren't B-movies, he just keeps trying to make intentionally bad movies.



Chee said:


> Martial, the new batman films aren't B movies. Check around the internet, most reviews are an A.


I lawled.


----------



## Castiel (Aug 23, 2008)

I don't criticize it for being mediocre, I criticize it for being a cheap rip off of what came before that brought nothing new to the table except for super-son which was terrible mistake.

also worst lex luthor ever


----------



## Most_Valuable_Playa (Aug 23, 2008)

Flash movie?
Yes...!


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 23, 2008)

I mainly refer to the aspect of "B" movie in terms of it's plot. 

Although granted, TDK isn't really one of them.......

Keep in mind, B-movies  aren't always bad. 

The original term was simply made to refer to lower budgeted films, but the term has basically been glorified into something cool.

Grindhouse was a B movie with the quality treatment of an A movie. Same with Raiders. But once again, I suppose the only B-aspect of Nolans Batman films is Batman himself.....


----------



## Vonocourt (Aug 23, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> Grindhouse was a B movie with the quality treatment of an A movie. Same with Raiders.



Grindhouse tried to replicate the B-movie experience, hence why it can be referred to as a "B-movie." Raiders was a summer blockbuster through and through, the only thing remotely "b-movie" like was the pulp inspirations.


----------



## crazymtf (Aug 24, 2008)

I don't mind a reboot if it's good. I really liked the hulk 2008 compared to the original piece of shit in 2003. If superman comes back and does it better then returns I'm good.


----------



## Xion (Aug 24, 2008)

I don't know whether to be mildly amused, ecstatic, sad, or just nonchalant about it.

Superman is just one of those series.


----------



## Arishem (Aug 24, 2008)

I'd love to see a Superman movie based off of a screenplay by Alan Moore. He's a huge fan of the character. Too bad his hate for DC burns hotter than Clark's heat vision.


----------



## Adonis (Aug 24, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> 1) I didn't mind Supermans questionable decisions.....I generally take that as character flaws....remember how badly he fucke up in Superman 2? The "having a son" bit kind of bothered me in that it was so predictable....



Character flaws have to make sense within the context of the character.

Superman is a Christ-figure. Personally, I hate that characterization because I view it as lazy (lol, Jesus allegory is totally new, right ) and cliche but that's what he is and that's how he should be treated for the most part.

Yes, I understand why a director would feel the need to ground him and make him relatable but how does making him a jealous dick who abandons his responsibilities (e.g Earth/bastard son) accomplish that? That's insulting to the audience. And how is it in line with a hero described as a superpowered boy scout with midwestern hometown sensibilities? 

Wanna have Superman suffer from piety or naivety that makes sense as a character flaw. Homewrecker? Not so much...



> 2) I agree Kevin Spacey was pretty lame as Lex. I initially thought it was good casting, but he overdid it.



Kevin Spacey's been phoning it in for as long as I can remember.



> 3) I never liked Louis Lane to begin with. She always came across as shallow. She even states at one point: "Everyone was in love with Superman" and I never got the impression it was anything but infatuation. I mean, if they did something like "Spiderman" did, where it seems like she loves the superhero but realizes she loves the dude behind the mask(before finding out he is the superhero), then you got something. Even the original Superman botched this up with her crappy voice over monologue.



I agree and this is one of the problems I have with Returns continuing where Superman II left off. The entire plot with Superman giving up his powers, revealing his identity and sleeping with Lois was a mistake.



> 4) Once again, I don't mind these type of things. You're bitching consists of opinion, not fact. You can hate a movie, but that doesn't mean it sucks. The ending bit can be taken as "overcoming a weakness", a common trope. One thing I did hate about it was that even though it was a sequel, it had an identical plot to the original.



Ideally, overcoming a weakness makes logical sense and doesn't negate the weakness. I would use an analogy about what would happen if Superman just up and started throwing aside kryptonite rocks like he was Cy Young because the plot required it but the movie actually took that 3,000,000 steps further and has him toss aside an entire *KRYPTONITE ISLAND*; after establishing kryptonite takes away his powers to the point where Lex can lay the smackdown on him. I call bullshit.

Weaknesses aren't minor inconveniences that can be ignored when convenient. 



> Also, I have the personal opinion that sequels should be BIGGER than the originals. If this was the remake, then fine. But going from  "Fighting three Superfreaks" to back to the EXACT same plot of the first film is kind of a step backwards.....



It's a full Olympic gymnast vault backward.





And as for them making the movie darker: DON'T. FUCKING DO NOT!

As kilowog said, dark=/=mature and it's that same bullshit mindset that just about killed comicdom in the 90's. As many times as I've seen my favorite superheros get raped, mutilated, emasculated, it's a goddamn miracle I'm not a serial killer.


----------



## mystictrunks (Aug 24, 2008)

I think Garth Ennis should have something to do with the reboot. He's one of the few writers who can make a down to Earth Superman without taking away any of what makes him Superman.IMO No one wants to see a Superman as ineffectual as the one in Returns, but he can still be emotionally vulnerable; he has the power to see things no human can see but he'd rather watch a good movie, he can move mountains but he still gets sucked in when he looks into the horizon, he's admired by the world and doesn't completely see what's so great about himself. 

And make Clark Kent a bigger part of the movie, Clark is Superman, Superman isn't Clark.


----------



## Gaiash (Aug 24, 2008)

My main problem with giving Superman a reboot is that the villian will once again be Lex Luthor with a piece of Kryptonite. Now I have nothing against Lex Luthor, I think he's a great villian, but I really want to see a different Superman villian. I especially want to see Brainiac.


----------



## Seany (Aug 24, 2008)

^ Lmao exactly. This will be what? the 4th time Lex will be in?  

Brainiac please.


----------



## Chee (Aug 24, 2008)

Yea, no Lex Luthor please. 

He's been done so many times, I want to see a different villain.


----------



## Graham Aker (Aug 24, 2008)

Too bad. He's just as important to Superman as Joker is to Batman. The only thing we can hope is if he's portrayed right, and not some greedy idiot who wants land for money, killing millions, no... BILLIONS! In the process.


----------



## masamune1 (Aug 24, 2008)

I'd imagine if they do this then Luthor will be in it, but he might not be the main villain. 

Best way to pull it off would be having Superman already in Metropolis, though probably just starting out. They'll probably also stick to te idea of Luthor being a corrupt (and hopefully, super-intelligent) businessman rather than a straightforward criminal. And if they're sticking to that version, he won't end up in jail by the end of it. Jail (or death/ would be for the third/ fourth film or something.

Brainiac will probably be the main villain, but Lex will have a role. He's not like the Joker or any other arch-villain- he is part of Superman's regular supporting cast, purely because he is never truly defeated but remains a key figure of Metropolis society. If Brainiac, then Lex will probably start out welcoming him and possibly planning on using him, but then forced to team up with Superman against him after it's clear how dangerous he is. Something like that. 

That's just the min reason Lex is Superman's archenemy, even though he has so many others that dwarf him in either power or occasionally intelligence. He is the only one that is _always_ there, and literally tries to thwart Superman at every turn. But he oes'nt have to be the main villain to be in the film.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 24, 2008)

Vono: Once again, you are misunderstanding me. However, you even point out the "B Movie inspirations" "Raiders" had. A movie can be purposely a B movie at heart, but given "A movie" treatment(which "Raiders" got). 

I'm trying to figure out if "Jaws" was a B movie. The budget was modest, and most "monster" movies tend to qualify as a B movie.....but once again, if it was, it was given "A movie" treatment.  



Adonis said:


> Character flaws have to make sense within the context of the character.
> 
> Superman is a Christ-figure. Personally, I hate that characterization because I view it as lazy (lol, Jesus allegory is totally new, right ) and cliche but that's what he is and that's how he should be treated for the most part.
> 
> ...



Bleh, the "Christ figure" can be manipulated too much. You can make him simply....well, God. Or you can potray him like how "The Last Temptation of Christ" did. Anyway, the exact allegory is flawed. Jesus was not a weak, timid man who could transform into...God(or superhero, whatever). The closest thing to a comparison would be that Jesus tells his apostles not to reveal he's the Messiah. The only real allegory was
-Marlon Brando's references("I have given my son...")
-Superman choosing the world over his own desires.

I guess I can understand/agree with the rest of your points.


----------



## Vonocourt (Aug 24, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> Vono: Once again, you are misunderstanding me. However, you even point out the "B Movie inspirations" "Raiders" had. A movie can be purposely a B movie at heart, but given "A movie" treatment(which "Raiders" got).



Then practically every action movie is a b-movie by your definition.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 24, 2008)

Most are.........the action genre is arguably the third crappiest genre(behind martial arts and horror flicks...) in the industry


----------



## crazymtf (Aug 24, 2008)

I'll take a action over most comedy though, and especially romance


----------



## Vonocourt (Aug 24, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> Most are.........the action genre is arguably the third crappiest genre(behind martial arts and horror flicks...) in the industry



Martial arts would be a sub-genre of action.

And if that is what a b-movie is, then the term doesn't really mean anything since every action movie would be one.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 24, 2008)

Vonocourt said:


> Martial arts would be a sub-genre of action.
> 
> And if that is what a b-movie is, then the term doesn't really mean everything.



That's true, then it's generally a lowest of the action genre.

In film, terms are used so liberally it's hard to pin down a exact definition. So if your definition of a "B movie" is the classical definition, then I guess you're right, Raiders isn't a B movie.


----------



## Chee (Aug 24, 2008)

In order, the best genres in my opinion:

1. Drama
2. Thrillers
3. Action/Adventure (includes Fantasy)
4. Comedy
5. Horror
6. Romance
7. Martial Arts

Action movies are the mostly average-story blockbusters but drama and thrillers have the most "story" and "character" depth which makes them great films but not exactly blockbusters.

So I don't agree with you martial. Action films, while most don't have great story or character depth, are really good movies.


----------



## jdbzkh (Aug 24, 2008)

Oh come on as for the whole Superman and his son thing

One. the guy is a ALIEN and by any logic at all shouldnt be able to get Lois Pregnant 

Two. he is one hundred percent alone in the world as for the whole Jesus thing, remember he went out into the desert for 40 days think of Superman searching for his home and his self in that way.

Three. He didnt know he had a Kid so dont blame him for not being around.

Four. I dont know about you but when your in love with some one and you see them with somebody else you tend to get jealous and wonder if they ever think about you.

So to wrap things up, Superman was shown more human thats why people complain.  

Now for the best part about the Reboot, Superman and all other DC heros will be placed into Batman's world meaning they will all receave a realistic tone.


----------



## Chee (Aug 24, 2008)

Yea, what was up with Lois? That bitch was married and all of a sudden she loves Superman again just cause he took her flying?


----------



## jdbzkh (Aug 24, 2008)

^ She wasnt married, she was dating or engaged and Jimmy said it in the begining of the movie towards Clark, 
" If you ask me shes still in love with you know who. "
So it wasnt just a fly around town, it was OMG the father of my baby is back, the love of my life and the guy that saved me a billion times before is back into my life type of thing.


----------



## Castiel (Aug 24, 2008)

Id like it if they did it sort of like in the DCAU, Lex is a captain of industry who gets sucked into helping Brainiac then begrudginly accepts Supes' help.  but along the way he becomes jaded in Supes and decides to want to bring him down


----------



## Chee (Aug 24, 2008)

jdbzkh said:


> ^ She wasnt married, she was dating or engaged and Jimmy said it in the begining of the movie towards Clark,
> " If you ask me shes still in love with you know who. "
> So it wasnt just a fly around town, it was OMG the father of my baby is back, the love of my life and the guy that saved me a billion times before is back into my life type of thing.



Oooh okay. She's still a whore though. 

And dude...Superman banged Lois. Its an odd image.


----------



## Chee (Aug 24, 2008)

Superbulge.


----------



## Seany (Aug 24, 2008)

Lol that's what you get for wearing that costume.


----------



## Chee (Aug 24, 2008)

I hope they change the costume. I hate blue and red tights. 

The only thing they should keep is the large S.


----------



## Seany (Aug 24, 2008)

I think they should replace Superman with Batman.


----------



## Chee (Aug 24, 2008)

Mr. Toon said:


> I think they should replace Superman with Batman.





They should make it red and black instead of red and blue. Yes.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Aug 24, 2008)

I saw Superman Returns and yeah it was too "goody goody" with his mom and his family and all that crap about his love for Loris. He was even peeping on her when she was at home. They should make his character more serious, the superman in the movie was such a pussy...


Let him kill a few people please


----------



## Castiel (Aug 24, 2008)

Suit can;t be changed, it's iconic it's like having a Flash that isn't red or a Batman without a cape and little ear things.  it just isn't done, which is why the black suit and blue lightning stuff didn't last

also it'd make sense, Clark can't be hurt (as far as he knows) so there's no reason to go for armor, just pick something lively so he'll look positive.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 24, 2008)

Chee said:


> In order, the best genres in my opinion:
> 
> 1. Drama
> 2. Thrillers
> ...



Most action films suck...........I think the 90's were both nice and cruel to the genre.


----------



## Violent-nin (Aug 25, 2008)

Well I'm one of the few people glad to hear they're doing a reboot, though I just hope they do it right.

Superman Returns wasn't horrible at all IMO, but I see why people didn't like it much.


----------



## blackshikamaru (Aug 25, 2008)

Chee said:


> Batman Begins is a reboot...that made you sad?



Actually, yes. I didn't like Begins that much. Ras could have been done a lot better. 



> You're a dumbass,



Because...I don't agree with you?



> Superman Returns was massive fail, killing Super-son would hardly fix it. Just restart the series, start from scratch and it will be all better. Dunno why you hate reboots, I love them.



Oh. Good reasoning.


----------



## Arishem (Aug 25, 2008)

Oh god...

I hope they don't go overboard with the "darkness". Some characters are naturally gritty, but attempting to shoehorn that element into personalities that are the opposite is a recipe for disaster. Superman himself should not be dark and brooding. If anything, the darkness should come from humanity in the next film, as Clark can personally see ALL of our failures. That'd actually make good material for a discussion between him and an alien villain. Something along the lines of "Why do you even bother with such a petty, immature race?"


----------



## Disturbia (Aug 25, 2008)

I think it was about time. I'm looking forward to it.


----------



## the_sloth (Aug 25, 2008)

The only thing that would make me unhappy would be replacing Routh, Langella (White) and Huntington (Olsen).  I kinda liked them... especially the guy who played Olsen.


----------



## Taleran (Aug 25, 2008)

Arishem said:


> Oh god...
> 
> I hope they don't go overboard with the "darkness". Some characters are naturally gritty, but attempting to shoehorn that element into personalities that are the opposite is a recipe for disaster. Superman himself should not be dark and brooding. If anything, the darkness should come from humanity in the next film, as Clark can personally see ALL of our failures. That'd actually make good material for a discussion between him and an alien villain. Something along the lines of "Why do you even bother with such a petty, immature race?"



I sense horrible horrible things coming from this


----------



## Chee (Aug 25, 2008)

I agree with the darkness thing. If they fail hard at it, they would look retarded...like they were trying to hard.

I think "more serious" would be better for Superman, not "more dark".


----------



## Castiel (Aug 25, 2008)

indeed this is a "Superman" movie, not "Supreme Power"*


*Supreme Power was a marvel comic where they took a look at a JLA emerging in a realistic world, it was very dark and mature and had tits and gore.  I mean the "Batman" of that world was a Black supremasist who killed his "Joker" with a grapling hook by ripping his stomach out.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Aug 25, 2008)

Meh. Sounds like it'll be years before I give a shit.


----------



## Shark Skin (Aug 25, 2008)

Yeah, I mean I like the idea of a reboot, but doesn't sound like they really know what direction they're taking just yet. I just hope they don't with the darkness stuff, like others have said.


----------



## Comic Book Guy (Aug 25, 2008)

They should have done a reboot in the first place.


----------



## fghj (Aug 25, 2008)

We'll see the same stories again, how exciting


----------



## Castiel (Aug 25, 2008)

fghj said:


> We'll see the same stories again, how exciting



and this assumption is based off of what exactly?


----------



## Ha-ri (Aug 25, 2008)

Needs more Bizarro.


----------



## Micku (Aug 25, 2008)

I don't mind a Superman reboot, it needs one considering how good Batman is doing. 

However, I wonder if they could make a good Superman movie that everyone cares about. All of the recent superhero movies have been people that we could relate to and have a little fun side to it, all at the same time, trying to be a little realistic. The only superhero movies that really tried to be serious, or the most serious, were Hulk 2003 and Nolan's Batman.

I think times has changed and we don't want the traditional movie Lex Luthor plot to take over the world and by using kryptonite to kill Superman. I don't even want Lex Luthor as the main bad guy for a while. I also don't like the idea of Superman being like TDK. Superman=/=Batman in terms of dark storyline, but then again, it could work if done right. I don't mind a little maturity, but the whole "dark" thing could get redundant and just seem like a copy of TDK. The new Superman movie should strive on being it's own thing, different from Nolan's Batman, but at the same time, trying to be as good.   

No moar Superman kid. Ever. Not even in reboot. Eww....


Edit:

Y'know what may happen that will sort'a make me mad? More superhero movies will try to copy what Nolan did with TDK. I don't think you can copy something like for every superhero movie.


----------



## Chee (Aug 25, 2008)

I think they should copy what TDK did as in the serious tone TDK took but not the darkness of it. It's The DARK Knight for a reason.


----------



## Vonocourt (Aug 25, 2008)

Micku said:


> IThe only superhero movies that really tried to be serious, or the most serious, were Hulk 2003 and Nolan's Batman.



Watchmen, if handled correctly, should blow those two movies away.


----------



## Red Viking (Aug 25, 2008)

As long as there isn't any superkids.  That was the most awkward thing about Return.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Aug 25, 2008)

I didn't mind the super kid, but I felt he could've been more super. Superman had a baby in some of those older Superman cartoons, and he was full of lulz.


----------



## Jimin (Aug 25, 2008)

But I like that they're gonna try to get each character a film. Thats a great idea. I would love to see Flash and WW on screen. Gl might be on screen soon too. However, Aquaman and Manhunter will have problems putting butts into seats. But a reboot is a good idea. Get Tom Welling. Thats a good idea IMO. Or stick to Ruth. Thats a better idea. We need a new "Superman" for this generation.


----------



## Even (Aug 25, 2008)

Rebooting the Supes story, eh?? I just hope they bring some good villains in, like Doomsday or Brainiac


----------



## Micku (Aug 25, 2008)

Vonocourt said:


> Watchmen, if handled correctly, should blow those two movies away.



I still need the read the Watchmen. Supposedly, one of the best comics that has ever came out from DC?



Even said:


> Rebooting the Supes story, eh?? I just hope they bring some good villains in, like Doomsday or Brainiac



No Doomsday, it's too early. Doomsday may be like the last villain of a trilogy or something because this villain is where Superman met his match. It's like the climax of a trilogy series. The death of Superman and stuff is like a climax ending. 

...what are the villains that could be in a superman movie?

Brainiac, Darkseid, Doomsday, Lex Luthor, Bizarro, Metallo, and General Zod?

I like Metallo being a villain, but I don't want Kryptonite being used. Darkseid is too epic and Doomsday is too early to appear in the first Superman reboot. But they have to start with a boom I think.


----------



## Arishem (Aug 25, 2008)

Brainiac is definitely my choice for the main villain. He represents everything you should fear about aliens, which would make for great contrast to the benevolent, Christ-like Kal-El. The renegade Coluan is a challenge for Superman on all levels; something Luthor is not. I can still see baldy playing a key role, though. In recent comics, Lex has been portrayed as being obsessed with xenobiology and xenotechnology, so he could be the one that contacts Brainiac and ends up drawing him to Earth.


----------



## Time Expired (Aug 26, 2008)

Doomsday.  Put him in a situation where he gets PISSED off or pissing down his leg a little.  Nothing like a fight where the other person is not going down to make it happen.


----------



## Castiel (Aug 26, 2008)

If they ever add in Bizarro, should they use the "Imperfect Clone" or  "Bizarro World" origin?


----------



## Even (Aug 26, 2008)

Bizarro would be pretty cool too  That's a villain with the same strength as Supes, giving him a run for his money


----------



## omg laser pew pew! (Aug 26, 2008)

Vonocourt said:


> Watchmen, if handled correctly, should blow those two movies away.



If someone of Nolan's calibre was behind it then I would agree with you.


----------



## Vonocourt (Aug 26, 2008)

Notice I said, "if handled properly."


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 26, 2008)

omg laser pew pew! said:


> If someone of Nolan's calibre was behind it then I would agree with you.



Ugh, I'm beginning to hate Dark Knight just because of the annoying fanboys.

If all the superhero movie directors were like Nolan, they would get old......

I presume you didn't like "300"? Watchmen is just going to be all style.....just like that one.


----------



## Adonis (Aug 26, 2008)

MartialHorror said:


> Ugh, I'm beginning to hate Dark Knight just because of the annoying fanboys.



Agreed.
...


----------



## Castiel (Aug 26, 2008)

the entire IDEA of hating something because of fanboys/girls is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard of, more than the idea of people liking Uwe Boll movies or people who eat their own fecal matter.


----------



## Emery (Aug 26, 2008)

I'm more concerned about who's going to play Superman than who the villain is.  I really can't think of a good choice.  I thought Routh was great, personally.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 26, 2008)

Kilowog said:


> the entire IDEA of hating something because of fanboys/girls is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard of, more than the idea of people liking Uwe Boll movies or people who eat their own fecal matter.



When a movie is being praised to an extreme degree, you find yourself getting annoyed of the movie.

Hell, TDK was a great movie....I rated it a 4/4 on my site, but for the love of God, fanboys need to shut up.

To a lesser degree, I felt the same way about "Hostel". I enjoyed that movie, it was a credible slasher. But too many mainstream critics were praising it as if it was something great.......while they were slamming other slashers which were just as good as "Hostel" was.

And it's not worse than liking a Uwe Boll movie....although I kind of like him apparently.why else would I keep watching his movies?


----------



## Castiel (Aug 26, 2008)

no, *I* find myself getting annoyed with the fanatics, to hate the actual film has never made sense to me. ever.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 26, 2008)

Well, I was exagerating.

I don't hate TDK, I'm just getting tired of it.....


----------



## Shoddragon (Aug 26, 2008)

shit, I remember the whole batman vs superman thing since back in I am Legend with the batman/superman logo at the movie's beginning.


----------



## Graham Aker (Aug 26, 2008)

Batman vs. Superman IS absurd.


----------



## Castiel (Aug 26, 2008)

so is DCU vs MK but go figure

anyways when people mentioned Bats vs Supes, I usually imagine that they really mean the idea of a team up movie, akin to the DCAU tv movie "World's FInest"


----------



## omg laser pew pew! (Aug 27, 2008)

Vonocourt said:


> Notice I said, "if handled properly."



I worded that badly. I wasn't disagreeing, just adding on 



MartialHorror said:


> Ugh, I'm beginning to hate Dark Knight just because of the annoying fanboys.
> 
> If all the superhero movie directors were like Nolan, they would get old......
> 
> I presume you didn't like "300"? Watchmen is just going to be all style.....just like that one.



You misunderstand me, I loved 300because it was such a sheer popcorn fest, visual spectacular and creator of a thousand internet memes. However, it wasn't very deep. I've read the original graphic novel and I feel that Snyder had focused too much on the visuals which made the actual story lose some meaning.

Watchmen is similar, it has soooooooo much meaning so my personal view it's impossible not to get some meaning and depth out of it because the book has so much. However, like V for Vendetta (I also liked that movie, mind you) it's going to to become a lot more shallow than what it's based off. Personally, I don't think a single movie will work, maybe two or so


----------



## Black Wraith (Aug 27, 2008)

Call in the guy from Smallville.

He's excellent as Superman before Superman and I bet he would be brilliant as Superman on the big screen.


----------



## Gaiash (Aug 27, 2008)

Black Fenix said:


> Call in the guy from Smallville.
> 
> He's excellent as Superman before Superman and I bet he would be brilliant as Superman on the big screen.


I do like the idea of using Smallville to cut down on the early origin of Superman. More time should be spent on the main story than his origin.


----------



## Castiel (Aug 27, 2008)

or they could do what Hulk did and just condense the origin to the intro credits, I doubt there's anyone on the planet who doesn't know Supes' origin


----------



## Even (Aug 27, 2008)

Tom Welling would do an excellent Supes  but then they'd better get Michael Rosenbaum to play Lex as well


----------



## Castiel (Aug 27, 2008)

oh yeah as much I dislike many parts of Smallville, I think this is the best luthor i've seen


----------



## Micku (Aug 27, 2008)

I like Smallville, a very fun teenage drama show. Dawson Creek with superman. 

Although, I don't wann'a take Michael Rosenbaum as Lex in the big screen. I always imagine Lex to be a bit bigger. 

Tom Welling....maybe. He has the built to be Superman probably, but I feel he needs a make over. Maybe it's my superman hate, but I still dislike the fact the ppl can't recognize Superman as Clark Kent. I feel having Tom Welling as Superman and Clark Kent in the big screen, it'll make it even more obvious. >.>

I want to see a good Superman movie of the morden age.


----------



## Chee (Aug 27, 2008)

I swear if they do a Superman Begins.....


----------



## Ennoea (Aug 28, 2008)

First of all a Joker x Batman FC, your kidding me right?

I liked Routh, he's probably the best Superman they can get as for rebooting it as a new darker franchise is stupid. Batman is the fucking Dark knight, Superman is a wholesome, family friendly Superhero, just won't work.


----------



## Chee (Aug 28, 2008)

Not kidding. 


xD

I'm for a new actor playing Superman.


----------



## Micku (Aug 28, 2008)

lol @ Superman Begins

Imagine a Batman cameo? Ergh...Superman is living off of Batman's shadow in the big screen.


----------



## Ennoea (Aug 30, 2008)

> Imagine a Batman cameo? Ergh...Superman is living off of Batman's shadow in the big screen.



Lets not go too far, if they make a great Superman movie then just like Batman people will flock to see it.


----------



## Castiel (Aug 30, 2008)

Ennoea said:


> First of all a Joker x Batman FC, your kidding me right?
> 
> I liked Routh, he's probably the best Superman they can get as for rebooting it as a new darker franchise is stupid. Batman is the fucking Dark knight, Superman is a wholesome, family friendly Superhero, just won't work.



it's been working for over 60 years now


----------



## Graham Aker (Aug 30, 2008)

> Imagine a Batman cameo?


Not necessarily a Batman cameo, but a Bruce Wayne one. 

Lois would certainly want to interview Mr. Wayne, especially if they made his visit to Metropolis something related to Lexcorp. And of course, Clark, doing his own investigation on Intergang or something, happens to stumble by the two.

Some small subtle trash talking between Bruce and Clark would be pretty good. Maybe ending with Clark hinting he knows what Bruce REALLY does in Gotham, at night. And Bruce would stare at Clark, as if trying to read his thoughts as he starts saying goodbye.


----------



## Ennoea (Aug 30, 2008)

> it's been working for over 60 years now



Read my post again.


----------



## Castiel (Aug 30, 2008)

worked in Dark Knight Returns


----------



## Micku (Aug 30, 2008)

Graham Acre said:


> Not necessarily a Batman cameo, but a Bruce Wayne one.
> 
> Lois would certainly want to interview Mr. Wayne, especially if they made his visit to Metropolis something related to Lexcorp. And of course, Clark, doing his own investigation on Intergang or something, happens to stumble by the two.
> 
> Some small subtle trash talking between Bruce and Clark would be pretty good. Maybe ending with Clark hinting he knows what Bruce REALLY does in Gotham, at night. And Bruce would stare at Clark, as if trying to read his thoughts as he starts saying goodbye.



That's pretty good, but it gets me sort'a hyped for a Batman vs Superman thing. Whatever it's animation (we had that already) or a movie. 

I just feel that Superman should try to stand on its on two feet on its first movie. I know that the Hulk did that for Tony Stark. 

Y'know, whatever. It could it work. Especially if they are planning to do a Justice League movie. I think it's too soon though.


----------



## Castiel (Sep 6, 2008)

Mark Millar (Wanted, Marvel Civil War) talks about his hypothetical Superman movie trilogy


----------



## MartialHorror (Sep 6, 2008)

I hated how Tony Stark cameos in The Incredible Hulk. It felt forced, tacked on, and INCREDIBLY cheesy.


----------



## Castiel (Sep 6, 2008)

I loved it, seemed like it was intentionally cheesy (I mean ross WAS drunk)


----------



## escamoh (Sep 6, 2008)

i just can't wait for a batman/superman crossover


----------



## Castiel (Sep 12, 2008)

a 2nd link that pretty much reiterates what the video said:





> *You mentioned finding Aaron Johnson was like finding Christopher Reeve. Speaking of whom, can you update us on your proposed Superman film project?*
> 
> The Superman thing is quite interesting because I wanted to do it my whole life and then maybe a few months back, maybe more, I sort of resigned myself to the fact that it's just not going to happen. I was like, you know what, I have a trilogy of Angelina Jolie movies, "Kick-Ass" is going to be at least two, possibly three movies, and I've got "War Heroes" getting set up plus "Chosen" and everything. And just all of these other things were happening for me anyway, so I was like "Get over it. Get on with your life and just do your own stuff."
> 
> ...


----------



## Darth Judicar (Sep 13, 2008)

I was content if they continued where the left off from Returns but a reboot sounds good too. Since we're starting over, we'll most likely see Lex as the main villain and that's fine as long as they don't turn him into the typical hollywood goon with cronies like in Returns.

My ideas for the reboot series:

First film: 
Shows us Superman's early years in Metropolis. As mentioned above, Lex Luthor will be the antagonist and their conflict will be the first major "Superman vs. Lex" story. Also, occasional flashbacks back to when Superman was young could be used.

Second Film: 
The villains will be Brainiac and Metallo. 

Third film:
Lex Luthor returns and creates Bizzaro to kill Superman. 

Fourth film: 
Covers the "Death of Superman" story and his eventual return.


----------



## Disturbia (Oct 10, 2008)

I'm really looking forward to this. I know it's going to be awesome. :3


----------



## Chee (Oct 10, 2008)

You know, why don't they just get rid of the superhero get-up all together?

I mean they want a more serious Superman, so why not just cut out the middle man and have him fly around in regular clothing? Its not much of a disguise in the first place. =\

FUCK LOSTY. We both want to bump this thread at the same time? Shit, we must be like mind twins or something.


----------



## Bear Walken (Nov 1, 2008)

Source.



> *Routh's Doubts Over 'Dark' Superman Franchise*
> 
> Superman Returns star Brandon Routh is against plans to show the comic book character's darker side in a new movie.
> 
> ...



That right there is the way the go. Either way, I'm just glad he's being considered for the reboot. He was the only decent thing in SR.


----------



## Chee (Nov 1, 2008)

I want a serious Superman, not a dark one. =\


----------



## Shade (Nov 1, 2008)

Problem with a darker Superman is that it's never been conceived before on film. People have known since the first Batman movie that there is a dark aspect to him, though it has never been elaborated on as much as TDK did. Superman has always been the red, blue and white striped hero of justice and standing for all good. Exploring a non-existent aspect of him (in film) seems harder to do than with Batman.


----------



## F.O.K. (Nov 1, 2008)

Bear Walken said:


> Not too sure if making it darker will work. It worked with Batman because the friend is the Dark Knight.
> 
> I hope they bring back Routh, who was pretty decent. Everyone else can eat shit though, especially the writers.



Wait, u like Sepernatural too?! I love that show!!!!!


----------

