Michael Bay’s Name Pushed Paramount To Settle Injured … 
Several More New Series In Recasting Mode; Returning Ones … 
‘G.I. Joe: Retaliation’ Moving To March 2013 To … 
Directors Fortnight Says It Must “Police … 
‘Chronicle’ Helmer Josh Trank Takes On … 
Big Media Chiefs Tell Cable Operators To Speed Up ‘TV … 
Will ‘Pan Am’ Take Flight With Amazon? 
EMMYS: Showtime Launches Free Weekend Promotion Targeting … 
TOLDJA! ICM Management Buyout Complete 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Dancing With The Stars’, … 
An Olympian Effort: NBCUni Plans 5,535 Hours Of Coverage … 
Netflix Exec Denies It’s Responsible For Nickelodeon … 
DESPERATE: HuffPo & Oprah Team Up Now 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Great Gatsby’ 
How Did Women Pilot Writers Fare For 2012? 
Disney Quits Snow White Film ‘Order Of The … 
Cannes Planning Surprise Screening Of Non-Fest Films; … 
Investors Unfriend Facebook As SEC Investigates IPO … 
Cash Windfalls For WME Agents, Assistants 
A&E IndieFilms Sets ‘Happy Valley,’ … 
Hot Cannes Property: Natalie Portman, Lynne Ramsay Team On … 
EXCLUSIVE: Warner Bros is trying to ready its DC Comics stalwart Superman to soar again on the Big Screen, and the studio has turned to Chris Nolan to mentor development of the movie. Our insiders say that the brains behind rebooted Batman has been asked to play a “godfather” role and ensure The Man Of Steel gets off the ground after a 3 1/2-year hiatus. Nolan’s leadership of the project can set it in the right direction with the critics and the fans, not to mention at the box office. Besides, Nolan is considered something of a god at Warner Bros and has a strong relationship with the studio after the success of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Though he wasn’t obligated to do so, he gave the studio first crack at his spec script Inception, and Warner Bros was able to buy it before other studios even got a sniff. While Nolan completes that Leonardo DiCaprio-starrer for a July 16th release, he’s also hatched an idea for Warner Bros’ third Batman installment. Now his brother and frequent collaborator Jonathan “Jonah” Nolan, and David Goyer who co-wrote Batman Begins and penned the story for The Dark Knight, are off scripting it. (See ‘FlashForward’ Showrunner Exits For Features).
Legendary Pictures will partner with Warner Bros on the next installment of Superman. Legendary also co-produced/co-financed Superman Returns in 2006. Legendary was partnered with Warner Bros as a co-producer/co-financier on the recent Batman films including Batman Begins and The Dark Knight and will be involved in Nolan’s 3rd Batman film.
Let us emphasize that Superman 3.0 is in the early stages of development. And we doubt Nolan would direct. This wouldn’t be a sequel to Superman Returns but a completely fresh franchise. As one of our insiders reassures: “It would definitely not be a followup to Superman Returns.” Nolan coming on board follows a hiatus period for Superman after that 2006 reboot as the studio tried to figure out whether or not to make a sequel to that version starring Brandon Routh directed by Bryan Singer. As recently as this summer, Warner Bros was still contemplating how to proceed. That’s when we were told that ”Bryan or Brandon are not completely out of it yet. But Warner Bros doesn’t have a handle yet on it, either. [Producer] Jon Peters is trying to make something happen since he stands to benefit financially. But they [the studio] need to hear a great story that makes sense.” Another insider explained to us, ”We know what we don’t want to do. But we don’t know what we want to do. We learned a lot from the last movie, and we want to get it right this time.”
Fans have long been yearning for Superman to finally get the big screen Nolan-ized treatment this classic superhero deserves.
Warner Bros clearly has learned from all five Superman movies. Superman: The Movie and Superman II starring Christopher Reeve and produced by Ilya and Alexander Salkind, were critical, fan, and financial successes. Their 1983 Superman III was mediocre. Then came a real dud in 1987, Superman IV: The Quest For Peace which continued wth Reeves but unfortunately was made by Golan-Globus’s Cannon Films in association with Warner Bros. The inbetween period between that pic and 2006′s Superman Returns was plagued by long delays and budget troubles and script misses. In 1997, original Batman director Tim Burton tried to make a Superman movie starring Nicolas Cage. Around 2004, J.J. Abrams wrote a film that was the first leg of a trilogy. Abrams wanted to direct, but had only directed episodes of his TV series (and wouldn’t make his feature directing debut until 2006′s Mission:Impossible III. McG and Brett Ratner separately were attached to that film. Ratner got closest, but Warner Bros was wary of a budget that swelled to $250 million, and which seemed risky after established star Josh Hartnett turned down the 3-picture deal that could have brought him $100 million in salary. After that, Warner Bros bosses didn’t embrace Ratner’s s choice of soap opera actor Matt Bomer to star.
Other prominent filmmakers were reportedly in the loop, but Warner Bros never pulled the trigger on the picture until Bryan Singer’s involvement. Singer’s Superman Returns was respectably reviewed for the genre. But it turned in only $52 million opening weekend, and $391 million worldwide gross. Problem was it cost too much (the budget was reportedly $270 million), and the promotion was lousy (Joel Silver was brought in at the last minute to inject macho into the marketing campaign). Worse, it left diehard fans only “meh“ about a sequel starring Routh. Singer fared better, but it seems doubtful he’ll be asked for an encore now. After all, Singer is now developing the spinoff X-Men: First Class for 20th Century Fox whose bosses were furious when he took on The Man Of Steel reboot instead of helming X-Men 3. But Singer and the studio subsequently made peace and he’s back in the Fox fold and on board.
The restructuring of Warner Bros’ business with DC Comics became Warner Bros Pictures Group president Jeff Robinov’s first priority since having his contract reupped by Time Warner last summer. Problems have plagued the DC Comics-Warner Bros relationship for more than a decade. But the biggest failure has been to leave the most valuable DC Comics characters in movie development limbo by chaotically starting and stopping development on the high profile live action pics. Most recently, Warner Bros and DC Comics are finally getting their act together as evidenced by the progress on Green Lantern.
Superman 3.0 would test Warner Bros veteran executive Diane Nelson, the head of DC Entertainment Inc, that new company founded to fully realize and integrate the power and value of the DC Comics brand and characters across all media and platforms into Warner Bros Entertainment’s content and distribution businesses. Nelson especially was charged with suping up Superman again because it’s way too valuable to leave dormant like this. Besides, the clock is ticking.
Attorney Marc Toberoff, who keeps suing Warner Bros on behalf of creative rightsholders, warns that, in 2013, the Jerome Siegel heirs along with the estate of co-creator Joe Shuster will own the entire original copyright to Superman — “and neither DC Comics nor Warner Bros will be able to exploit any new Superman works without a license from the Siegels and Shusters”. He’s also pointed out that, if Warner Bros does not start production on a new Superman sequel or reboot by 2011, the Siegels could sue to recover their damages on the grounds that the deal should have contained a clause in which the rights returned to the owners after a given time if no film was in development. The heirs of Siegel have already been awarded half the copyright for Superman. And in 2013 the heirs of co-creator Joe Shuster get the remaining half. After that, neither DC Comics nor Warner Bros will be able to use Superman without a financial agreement with the heirs. There are also stipulations on what parts of the origins story can be used in future Superman movies and which require re-negotiations with the creators’ heirs or estates.
At first, Warner Bros felt no pressure to rush out another Superman pic. As Warner Bros chairman Alan Horn told a court hearing about rights to Superman, he hoped to make another Superman movie but no film was in development, no script had been written, and the earliest he foresaw another Superman film released would be 2012. He told the judge: “We had hopes to keep the character alive and to once again reinvent Superman. Our hope is to develop a Superman property and to try again. What hurt us is that the reviews and so on for the Superman movie did not get the kind of critical acclaim that Batman got, and we have other issues with Superman that concern us.”
So Warner Bros is now bringing in Batman’s saviour. What Nolan would do with the Superman character and story is intriguing to say the least. And he has the experience necessary of prepping and pepping a played-out franchise. The 2005 Batman Begins grossed $373 million worldwide on a reported $150 million budget. And of course 2008’s The Dark Knight crossed the $1 billion worldwide gross mark on a reported $185 million budget (and Heath Ledger posthumously won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor).
Batman was rebooted according to Frank Miller’s film noirish take on Batman. But there’s a big difference between Superman’s cinematic incarnations and comic book version. Warner Brothers and DC Comics for a long time weren’t sure which version they liked better. The cinematic version has been squeaky clean, occasionally campy, and has more-or-less unlimited power except when confronted with Kryptonite. The comic book version has some limits on his powers, can be darker, and fights aliens a lot more. Shortly after Dark Knight hit it big, fans assumed that Superman would be taken to the “dark” side as well. That’s because Warner Bros mogul Jeff Robinov stressed post-Dark Knight that “we have to look at how to make these movies edgier”. One of our insiders interpreted this to say: “He meant more sophisticated.”
A more comic-accurate Superman seems like the way to go. No need to worry: Chris Nolan knows what he’s doing.
Loading ...
The ideas behind Superman Returns were good ones. Making it a sequel to the original was smart. The script, however, was not good. Routh was well cast. Bosworth was not. Supes needs a really strong Lois Lane. And how can you have Superman save the world and still have 20 minutes left? Hello, Superman saves the world and then flies off and waves at the camera. Not twenty minutes of will he live or die. Bleh.
Totally agree with this!!
I think the script has got be right – so just give it to Geoff Johns. let someone who has the runs on the board for scriptwriting help him out with dialogue, run it past Nolan if you have to.
But think the best way to look at the Superman Franchise is, Superman 1 and 2 are Chapter one
Superman Returns is Chapter two
Superman 3.0 will be Chapter three
That way they don’t have to waste time retelling the perfectly good Dick Donner origin story, but can go in a new direction
Not a big Superman guy, myself. I would like to see Batman kick his ass around the Batcave, tho.
I don’t have a take on who could play Superman…but Emily Blunt would OWN Lois Lane.
I was never an avid Superman reader, but I was a big fan and I thoroughly enjoyed the Death of Superman series. To see Superman at his lowest, most human point was thrilling. To see him lose was mind bending. The reviews as I remember them were positive because the story was strong. I can’t remember what happened afterwards, I think there was a Superman in heaven story or something fairly weak before he made his less than stellar return. But the Death of Superman illustrated a world without the man of steel, and it was a beautiful and sad story, full of stories of other hero’s struggles to cope without their figurehead.
Making a movie of the Death of Superman would sell. If it was done right. Which means he’s gritty, more of an everyman – strong but not unstoppable. We need to have our notions of him flipped around so that when he begins to lose, our hopes are broken and our hearts are sad. He’s the all sacrificing hero, after all. And Lois Lane needs to be worth loving, so that when they lose each other we feel our own lost loves. I’d see it as a time lapsed story, full of scenes of Doomsday but also cutting back to tell other stories from Superman’s life.
This comment is too long, but I think this is the story to tell and wanted to illustrate why.
I love this idea, but I think they need to do another movie first before the death and rebirth of Superman arc…
I think a Brainiac villain based movie, with plot seeds planted for Doomsday who could be created by Luthor with Brainiac’s technology.
Then maybe a JLA film where they allude to something coming for Superman. After the credits we get a shot of the inside of a cell door, as the seconds tick by the tension builds and then BAM! Doomsday’s fist wrapped in bandages punches the door just like in comics.
This would lead into the Death of Superman arc.
That’s the way I think it should go anyway.
It’ll be more like Superman III, unless WB moves beyond the reliance on Kryptonite to weaknen superman. There has to be some equally powerful external force to challenge Superman. That’s why the Doomsday storyline worked; that’s why the SM II storyline worked.
Donner/Lester Superman I & II are miracles of tone and execution.
3 & 4 are quite problematic, but the first two paved the way for ALL superhero movies to come. Before those late 70s Supes flicks, the cloest thing to a superhero movie was a big screen ep of the 60s camp Batman series.
Without Superman I & II there is no Dark Knight. No Iron Man. No X-Men. None of it.
or just rip off the superman vs doomsday stoyrline. cuz its good.
from evildeaddrew on youtube;
Here’s a novel idea instead? of making the lousy Superman returns make a superman trilogy starting with “The death of superman”, then “Reign of the supermen”, finally “The return of superman” This way people can see superman like they want and an awesome cgi doomsday.
The first two Superman movies were ok in their time but viewing them today they seem lame and dated. Superman needs a makeover that takes him him back to his roots. I agree with the idea of a period piece that takes the character back to the 30′s or 40′s. Lastly we don’t need a “campy” Superman with lame inside jokes or unwarrented humor. We need a serious Superman with all his powers and personality intact. The new creators should read old Man of Steel Superman comics not the new updated “Man of Metro-sexual” version. Put some toughness back into Superman.
I enjoyed the campy Superman movies just like I enjoyed the campy Batman movies. But Batman Begins, Xmen, Hulk, Ironman have shown the way to make these movies and Superman needs to get in line. Superman Returns was close, but Clark Kent is not a loser in the comic books, and Lex Luthor is a brilliant industrialist. Time to restart at chapter 1.
I agree about the first two Supes movies. Straight downhill from there on out. Superman Returns was, in my mind, downright silly — a case of adding false, soap-opera complications to somehow make the franchise more interesting? Guess what — you just need a good director and writer to accomplish that, even with what you’ve been given.
Plenty of good creatives have worked on the comic titles over the years and kept the character, supporting cast and milieu interesting. He’s not exactly the “big boy scout” Chris Reeve played…I think there’s room for a noble, heroic character who is trying to work out his place in the world, and cares about people and the world without being preachy or moralizing. And can still have a sense of humor. You know — an old-fashioned Hollywood hero. Remember those?
I agree regarding first two Christopher Reeve films. I’m not a film critic. I went to Superman Returns to be entertained and took my young son to see a hero he could look up to. Not mentally tormented Batman.
I felt Superman Returns delivered in spades. It was entertaining. I loved that actors from the old tv series were used. I thought Kevin Spacey was awesome. My son had a hero that wasn’t perfect but was a role model. Why does everything have to become dark and edgy. We have real life for that!! Ha ha.
Totally Agree with this dude.
I had a similar experience with taking my step son to see SR and thought it was good. not perfect, but there was definately plenty to build on…
Superman is about not about darkness, Superman is about HOPE
Yet more evidence that there isn’t a creative mind left in hollywood. The far left group think has sucked all the intellect and creativity smooth out of hollywood. It’s been obvious by the relative lack of success for the last 8-10 years of many films – very few true hits.
hollywood continues to marginlize themselves and isolate themselves more and more from the American people, whom they look down upon as too ‘ignorant’ or not ‘enlightened’ enough – you’ll have to forgive us if the intellectual musings of someone who pretends to be something they aren’t for a living doesn’t exactly sway, We, the people!
Can someone translate this screed please?
“far left group think”
Go back to Austria, Adolph.
What Nolan figured out for the Batman franchise, and what he will probably do for the Superman franchise is the development of the alter ego. The first two Batman’s, and Nolan’s Batman Returns, and The Dark Knight, and the first two Superman movies were so successful because the movies devote a respectable amount of time to the characters of Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent respectivly. Thats the big that that Superman Returns lacked, they just treated Clark Kent like a prop or a stand-in instead of the independent character you have to make him. If they examine the success of Smallville they will understand that better too, and I personally believe they could translate that mythology on to the big screen.
That is an insightful comment. Superman is as much human Clark Kent as alien demi-god. Part of the reason he’s been around for 70 years is because people are genuinely interested in Clark. He’s the classic hero of 40′s, 50′s and early 60′s film, the kind Hollywood doesn’t know how to make anymore. Clark is a good, decent guy, but tough and morally certain. He is a real old fashioned hero. Clark can be a breath of fresh air in this time of ironic Iron Man and dark Batman. People love the moral ambiguity and gray zones of the new superhero movies, but the films are all blending together. Superman has the curse and blessing of being able to really stand out in sharp contrast. As you say, Smallville gets to touch on this. Clark is at his best when being contrasted with the darker heroes that come on the show. It highlights the different approach between Superman and most modern heroes. His character will really shine if they ever get around to a Justice League movie.
Hey Oracle. This is an excellent observation. You are right.
And this is why if Nolan is involved… and by involved I mean really overseeing the new Superman film from start to finish… it will be great. People tend to forget that Nolan has made a lot of great films, not just the Batman films. He has made Insomnia, Memento, The Prestige, and that Inception film which looks wicked. Not a single bad movie so far.
Please, not another origin story. We already know Superman’s origin. Give us action. Don’t bore us with the details.
I think the concept of superman is captured in his name “Super” “Man” and that entails not only super powers but also super virtues, super character, and super personality. To pull that off you absolutely need character development. Brandon Routh’s depiction had none of these. Even the super powers part of “Returns” was all made possible by CGI, there was nothing “super” about Routh’s physique that would lead anyone to assume he had any special powers. Chris Reeve wasn’t that big, but for his time he was considered quite big. Routh looked like a soccer player. And that “dark crimson leather” take on the superman costume didn’t help either: just stick with the original and stop trying to make everything “a more dark and gritty version.” That completely does not work for Superman. His mass appeal was that he was anything BUT dark and gritty. People want to relate to men of virtue: just look at the overwelming popularity of Star Trek, Star Wars, 24, and Halo, all whose lead characters are men of high honor. Honor isn’t some outdated 80′s concept, it is timeless and it never ceases to amaze me how Hollywood doesn’t get that.
“Men of Virtue” and “Men of High Honor”
Now that is a great turn of phrase and completely captures the appeal of Superman.
I think you are right, and I think this is why the idea of a 1930′s period piece (discussed in the comments above) is so popular. Dark works great for Batman, it is not meant for Superman. Superman lives in Metropolis, which is New York in the daylight. Batman lives in Gotham City, which is New York at night. Maybe Batman is a little closer to the truth of the human condition, but Superman is the ideal for which all men secretly hope. We want there to be a man who is good and virtuous and invulnerable and fights for truth, justice, and the American way. I remember sometime after 9/11 somebody mentioned Superman in a conversation, and I started thinking, “boy that’s who we need right now.” Superman could have stopped 9/11, and wouldn’t that have been nice.
It is very difficult to write a story about such a perfect guy and have it be interesting. It’s also uncool to admit to wishing that there really was somebody like Superman around to solve your problems for you. This makes Batman movies easy– the character is automatically cool and interesting. A Superman movie, especially one in the present day, is harder. Superman is basically perfect, and there’s nowhere to go with that. Attempts to make Superman grittier risk becoming “Superman Returns” which, well, missed the mark.
Set Superman in the 30s, though, and the job becomes easier. That was an interesting time, one full of real-world villains and potential imaginary villains that more than make up for Superman’s inherent bland streak. Good was really losing ground in those days. Set a Superman movie in the 30s and he can be the good, virtuous man we all want him to be while still having an interesting enough story to be worth the celluloid.
Good article. But it must be pointed out that since the John Byrne reboot, Superman’s powers have slowly become as great now as they were before 1986. Aside from the teleportation and projection of multiple copies powers shown by Supes and the Kryptonian villains in Superman II, the film incarnation is really no more powerful now then he is in the comics (as far as I know, he never flew around the world to turn back time in the comics, but there does not seem to be any restriction on him doing so if need be). Honestly, the power differences are really negligible. And while there are dark moments in the comics, he is still one of the lightest, if you will, superheroes of all, overall. And as for the alien comment, Superman is, after all, an ALIEN. Five films at a total of eleven plus hours total does not leave much room for aliens all the time–and the enemy in Superman II were his fellow Kryptonians–aliens!
While I appreciate the journalistic effort to point out differences for the purpose of the article, ultimately a disservice is being done when the differences do not really exist.
One movie out of five he fought aliens who weren’t even comic book characters. Zod was created for Superman II. And later adopted into the comics. Five movies and their isn’t a Brainiac in one of them. I agree with this article. Superman is rooted in a lot of sci fi. Whether it be him fighting Aliens, going to Alien planets, fighting gigantic robots that his enemies create, Cyborgs like Metallo. Five movies and you do not see any of this. Besides Lex Luthor they haven’t used any villains or story points from the comic books besides the basic premise.
The first two Superman films are classics of the genre. And the first one will top the lists of many as the greatest super hero film of all time, to this day. The last two sequels are bad, the last one horrific, but, sorry, it really undermines the entire article to have them referred to collectively as “mediocre.”
Superman isn’t the problem…Clark Kent is. They need to make Clark Kent like the George Reeves version. A man and not a doofus. Also make Superman/Kent older (35ish). Lois needs to be hot and believable. Margot Kidder was not hot and Kate Bosworth was not believable. An make Lex Luthor just plain evil, no camp. What the hell, let me direct. Warner Bros. Call me.. or email me!
I love the old George Reeves series too — especially the first season with Phyllis Coates (best Lois Laine ever!). But Reeves’ portrayal of Clark Kent, while charming and sympathetic, always seemed too similar to Superman to be believable as an effective secret-identity.
Part of the brilliance of Christopher Reeve’s performance in the first movie was that he portrayed Clark Kent not as a bumbling fool, but as a man pretending to be a bumbling fool. It’s a very subtle distinction, but it makes all the difference in the world.
I love the old George Reeves series too — especially the first season with Phyllis Coates (best Lois Laine ever!). But Reeves’ portrayal of Clark Kent, while charming and sympathetic, always seemed too similar to Superman to be believable as an effective secret-identity.
Part of the brilliance of Christopher Reeve’s performance in the first movie was that he portrayed Clark Kent not as a bumbling fool, but as a man pretending to be a bumbling fool. It’s a very subtle distinction, but it makes all the difference in the world.
….anybody remember Kirk Allyn? His Superman revelled in his superiority. Every feat was done with energy and joy…a big grin
on his face. Check it out.
Margot was not hot!? Moron, she was super hot back in 70′s. You’ve never seen DePalma’s ‘Sisters’? Her Playboy pictorial? Her hot breasts in ‘Amityville Horror’? Her bathtub masturbation scene in ‘Peter Proud’? You’re a dilettante. You know neither of cinema nor hotness.
By SIII, she was not looking as good, and had upset the producers, who cut her part. Still, in SI and SII, Margot was perfect.
Some of you shouldn’t be allowed to watch movies. You have no taste.
Abso-fricken-lutely. I am so sick of loser-version Clark. He was never that much of a chump in the early serials, cartoons, comic books, George Reeves tv show, or Smallville. Only in the Donner version and it’s sickly child Superman Returns was Clark so pathetic. At least the Donner version compensated with a charming Superman. The Returns version had a pathetic Superman on top of a pathetic Clark.
Every one of David Meisner points were right on. JO
Suits!!! I swear they have no clue. The Dark Knight has a phenomenal, yes. But a large part of that was Heath Ledgers performance as well as his death. The movie itself wasnt that great. The entire part with Two-Face was irrelevant and couldve waited for the sequel. Batman Begins was a much better movie.
Now these suits just jump on anything that is a success and try to emulate it. Avatar is a success, lets make everything 3-D. That must be it. The Dark Knight is a success lets make everything darker. Well, Batman and Superman are VERY different. The formula for one may not take for the other.
The real secret is having a creator behind it that has a PASSION for the project. Why are James Cameron movies hits when Titanic couldnt be further from Avatar… because he has a passion for his projects.
Suits….stop trying to find the magic hit. Its simplefind the creators who have the passion.
You want a successful Superman movie? Try Mark Waid
If The Dark Knight wasn’t so great, then why did it make $1 Billion at the Box Office? Are you kidding me? The Dark Knight was a terrific film that is commonly recognized as the greatest movie based on a comic book ever.
Your assesments and comments are suspect at best.
to cameron tevis
“suits”?…quit trying to make yourself sound relevant within the realm of the movie business…your obviously quoting Entourage, the only source of information about the business you have received
You want to know how to reboot the franchise? Simple, GO READ – Superman Birthright – simple. Translate to film.
But how are you going to take Superman, a hero with near limitless powers, and have him spiritually guided by a director who’s done everything to AVOID those types in his Batman series?
Agreed. Birthright is excellent.
Nolan’s approach works for Batman because Batman’s a mere mortal. Superman is an extraterrestrial being from the planet Krypton. Nolan might be able to help craft a solid Superman story, but he’d have to step away from his Batman-style to do it… and that defeats the purpose of “Nolan-izing” the Superman franchise.
I completely, unreservedly, agree with harm on this one. SUPERMAN: BIRTHRIGHT is my all-time fave Superman story. It’s an “origin” tale but very different from other Supe-origin stories, and with loads of action. It also makes Lex Luthor both interesting and a formidable enemy. Would make an absolutely smash reboot story, to be followed by a sequel in which Superman actually takes on supervillains.
What Randall said. To call the first two movies mediocre is ludicrous and shows a blind contempt for anything that’s not hip and current. Superman The Movie is a classic, and Chris Reeve defined and was inexorably tied to the Superman persona for decades to come.
Don’t d*ck around, get Tom Welling. Just pay the man and make it go. Any of the writers from the last Justice League DVDs could make this rock. Just skip the backstory for once.
Yes, the Justice league cartoon and DVD writers! They could get Superman’s character down cold. But for some idiotic reason, studios refuse to trust the cartoon writers with a live action opportunity. Only Pixar has the understanding that a writer, is a writer, is a writer, regardless of format. If the writers understand the character (and the JL writers do!), then give them a shot at the live action version. Tom Welling has a supremely Superman look and attitude, so if they went with him, I’d be happy. If they went with someone else, I’d keep an open mind until I saw the new guy in trailers. Who plays Superman is important, but not as important as who writes Superman. The Justice League writers are already under the WB umbrella. Why not give them a shot?
“…the mediocre 1978-1985 quartet of movies starring Christopher Reeve and produced by Ilya and Alexander Salkind…”
Huh? The first two Superman movies are pretty well regarded as among the best superhero films ever made. The first blazed a trail that so many others have followed, and the second provided a template for how to do a big budget action adventure with tights. This is all in the 70′s, without the benefit of CGI. And they still hold up.
Of course, the 3rd and 4th showed directors like Joel Schumacher the way to screw up a franchise and run it into the ground by attempting to hard to be funny or campy, or losing sight of what it is about the character that is enduring.
I second the comment from Randall. The first Superman film set precedent on how to make a successful super-hero film minus the camp. It was one of the first of it’s kind and was very successful at the box office. Mediocre isn’t the word I’d use to describe it.
You know if they make Superman darker all you’ll hear about is how much everyone misses the campy Superman that no one really cared that much about in the first place. They should make Red Son.
Just look at superman the animated series by Bruce Timm and they will do ok. That is the man is really knows superman and how to tell a good superman story!!
I agree, call Bruce Timm or Paul Dini, they even had the perfect take on the villains in the animated series and justice league.
Like the third comment, I too have to take issue with the first two films being called mediocre. They both still stand up well and the series was ruined by the truly atrocious third and fourth films.
Nolan’s involvement can only be a good thing. I’m already groaning though at the onslaught of every sci-fi related forum and site being quickly filled with casting suggestions/Routh should stay/Routh should go/Welling for Superman etc etc type postings.
I’m sure Warners/DC will be looking at how Green Lantern develops very closely especially given the presence of aliens that lend themselves to both GL and Supes (and please please no more Lex Luthor related antics).