I think it's ironic that the studio is ignoring Superman Returns just like Singer ignored III and IV.

Giant mechanical spiders are dark, so those would be pretty cool to see in the next Supes.

Interesting turn of events. I hope they keep Routh though. Most of the issues people had with him had more to do with the script and direction IMO than him as an actor.

Oh, and they better keep John Williams' theme. Get rid of everything else, make it "dark" or whatever but there is no one and nothing that can replace that march. Ever.

Hey, if your dark superhero film made $500m at the domestic box office, you'd be making the same plans as well.

I'm glad they're going to total reboot route. I really had no interest in another film with Bosworth, Superkid, Routh, stalker Supes, Lex Luthor's bad wigs and a flat story. I'm sure WB will go to great lengths to make sure this film is done RIGHT so they can have another massive franchise to milk for years to come.

And that's why Robinov gets paid the BIG bucks..

-ohbfrank-

I would like to see a Superman v. Superman angle - i.e. what they attempted to do in Superman III. The problem is that story was shoehorned into a 30 minute episode of a Richard Pryor movie. I loved the scene of Superman getting drunk flicking beer nuts and blowing out the Olympic flame - take that Rogge!

The problem is that the aforementioned article is still a bit vague. Reintroducing Superman doesn't necessarily mean a reboot, in the sense that all the principal actors and director are out. It also seems cowardly that WB would resort to such a measure when - as Shannon Nutt points - RETURNS did just about as well as BATMAN BEGINS.

The difference being Begins was enjoyed by the majority of fans while Returns was hated by many.

How is it cowardly? The production costs for Superman Returns was way higher than Batman Begins.
Superman Production costs, according to Boxoffice mojo:

From various Internet sources, I found Batman Begin's cost was $150 million. So even if you take out the $40 million in false starts (which I will do for the sake or argument) you are still looking at $70 million higher price tag. What did that buy? I mean seriously. One great action scene and then nothing.

So yeah thats a big difference.

And furthermore, where did each movie take the central character?

Batman had a solid lead with respectable acting chops (Bale) and had done the legwork of redoing the origin story that allowed the character to be an actual person not just a cipher.

Returns wanted to suck on the fumes of Donner's film, so it figured it didn't have to retell the origin story and instead make 2 or 3 lines about what Superman had been up to. Furthermore, the character was established IMHO as a stalking loser. The problem is of course is that Superman's alter ago has always been more boring than Bruce Wayne or Peter Parker. Donner, or at least the Salykinds, decided to go full throttle on the camp version of Clark Kent. Singer had Routh do Clark Kent just like he did Superman. Or maybe Routh can't act, entirely possible.

Maybe thats the problem with Superman. The origin story was done almost perfectly in Superman: The Movie whereas Burton's Batman origin story was presumably a bit weaker, especially when it tied the Joker in with it.

Yeah, I get that Rogue. I'm not an idiot. I know he's just trying to make as much money as possible. Who wouldn't? But I also don't want all comic book films to copy "Knight"'s dark blue print either. I'd be happy with any other Superman film with Routh quite frankly.

Exactly, and contrary to some people's arguments I'm sure that general notion is held beyond just "fanboys" or internet geeks.

Still, other movies being "dark" is kind of vague, but really, Superman should be no where near as brutal of a film that Dark Knight was.

[QUOTE=chanster;8890787]How is it cowardly? The production costs for Superman Returns was way higher than Batman Begins.
Superman Production costs, according to Boxoffice mojo:



From various Internet sources, I found Batman Begin's cost was $150 million. So even if you take out the $40 million in false starts (which I will do for the sake or argument) you are still looking at $70 million higher price tag. What did that buy? I mean seriously. One great action scene and then nothing.

So yeah thats a big difference.


[QUOTE]

Well, look, I'm not going to rehash the same love/hate arguments regarding the movie. I state that a reboot is cowardly on the part of WB for the following reasons:

(1) They hired Singer and approved his concept for SUPERMAN RETURNS after years of rumors, false starts and just plain bad ideas. I leave it to everyone else to uncover that sordid, pre-2006 history.

(2) Singer was the only creative figure to get the movie moving in a respectable fashion. He retained the original musical themes, paid homage to Donner's flicks, and went far and away from the disasters and bad tastes produced by III and IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE.

(3) The movie received overall very good reviews, and in some cases, exceptional notices. The movie made nearly $400,000,000 worldwide.

(4) WB announced a sequel, and supported Singer's ideas of "going WRATH OF KHAN" on the follow-up.

And now, two years later, they decide to go with a reboot. The studio doesn't want to live up to the challenge of continuing the series in its present direction, and instead will play it safe giving us another generic superhero movie. Singer may even be removed if he doesn't play ball. Suddenly they want to go dark because THE DARK KNIGHT is grossing a zillion dollars. Blah, blah, blah.

Doing a reboot seems like the easy way out, and will probably alienate those who enjoyed SUPERMAN RETURNS, and bore those who are being given yet another formulaic flick.

The crying of bitchy fanboys isn't representative of the general public.

I think you're being naive if you think only fanboys disliked or complained about how Superman Returns turned out. And honestly, I don't think fanboys alone would be enough to convince Warner Bros to go a different direction. I'd say Transformers is a good comparison as something that fanboys complained about but the general audience still had a positive reaction to. I don't get that feeling with Supes at all.

Fanboys complained about the new James Bond and Heth Ledger as Joker when they were picked. So fanboys unless it comes to STAR WARS stuff don't know jack.

Reading these post would make a person think Superman Returns is the worse film, yet only has a 6.7 rating on imdb.com.

For comparison, Superman II has a 6.6.

A lot of remakes/reboot. A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, Poltergeist, etc....

My sarcastically dismissive "-ohbfrank-" wasn't directed towards you. I was directing it toward the assclown executive that gets paid to come up with "ideas" like that..

Oh, sorry! :) And I agree. I mean, "Batman" is gothic, so dark makes sense. And the darker the better if you ask me. "Superman" is NOT! Sure, mix it up. Get new villains. Stop rehashing the older films. But please God don't turn it into "The Dark Knight".

Sorry, but there really wasn't anything wrong with "sucking on Donner's fumes;" Do you really want to re-hash his origins ot could they be done far better than has already?

Returns sucked because it was a "total" re-hash of the first two movies, not because of the continuation of the Donner Films. And Superman can have a dark story, but that doesn't mean the film has to be inherently dark. There should be more moments of heroism and levity than murder and mayhem but I guess that's more of a personal preference. While I'd like to see some things worked on, like Darkside, Doomsday, Brainiac, there should also be stories rooted in the idea that humans will create or do stupid things and thankfully Superman is there to pick us up.

They should have ditched the kid storyline. If they want something original and good they could make All-Star Superman.

I would like to know what Singer was thinking with Superkid. That just seems so out of left field that I can't imagine how it would go unless it was some storyline with his kid being kidnapped. But that's awfully predictable, right?

If this is a complete reboot does that mean a whole new (yawn) origin story? Or will they figure that everyone already knows the origin of Superman?

Personally, I would have given Singer & Routh another kick at the can. Fix what didn't work in Returns and make a better follow up.

Starting over again just seems stupid at this point.

And, how dark can Superman be, really, before you fundamentally change the character and the world he lives in?

This movie better be damned good otherwise you're looking at one hell of a crash and burn...

It'd be hilarious if they went with a Bobby Ewing style of introduction to the next film where it opens with the camera zooming towards a fogged up glass shower stall, then Clark pops his head out of the fogged up glass shower door and tells Lois he had the weirdest dream, where he left earth for 5 years, and then when he came back, Lois had a kid, and they had the hardest time re-connecting with each other, and Lex made his life miserable. Lois rolls her eyes, kisses him on the forehead, slaps Clark on his bare buttock and heads to the Daily Planet.

What do you mean by starting over again?
Returns was a direct continuation of superman 2.
They never started superman over. He really needs a fresh start.

I'm all for a reboot. The sooner Superman Returns is buried, the better.