CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

HUGE Superman news: Supes to get Dark Knighted?

Sci Fi Wire wrote:Warner Brothers is going to try to reboot its Superman franchise yet again, but the big news is that they're enlisting the man who turned Batman into one of the biggest movies of all time: The Dark Knight director Christopher Nolan.

According to Deadline Hollywood:

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. ...

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."

It's well known that Warner was disappointed with the results of Bryan Singer's 2006 reboot movie Superman Returns.

Nolan is currently putting the finishing touches on his sci-fi mind-bender Inception, which debuts on July 16.

Meanwhile, news that David Goyer had left ABC's FlashForward fueled speculation that he is turning his attention to a third Batman movie, which Deadline Hollywood confirms:

Now [Nolan's] brother and frequent collaborator Jonah Nolan and David Goyer who co-wrote Batman Begins and penned the story for The Dark Knight, are off scripting it.

[font="Book Antiqua"][color="Red"]Col. Roy Mustang[/color][/font]

Bah! Superman will not magically become "better" because a "good" director helms the project. That was the exact problem with Superman Returns--they assumed that having Bryan Singer would make it awesome (because X-Men was awesome, right?) Although it was a pretty movie, it was pretty much your basic Superman movie with a twist in the end that makes Supes look like a jerk.

I dunno I mean people say that most (some?) of Smallville was pretty good meaning that just because it's Superman doesn't mean it's destined to be a failure. And I think another major problem with Superman Returns was it wasn't exactly a reboot, it still was sort of tied in to the first few movies. It might help if this time instead of erasing most of the whiteboard they erase ALL of it and start fresh.

Also X-Men sucked so bad so seriously I don't know why everyone thought having Bryan Singer would make it good because that meant it would at least suck as bad as X-Men if not suck more.

I agree. And don't make it darker. Superman isn't a brooder like Batman. Oh, and can we please have Supes fight someone different? I think Darkseid would be awesome! He's my fave DC villain!

I want to see Superman duke it out with someone that can stand up to him, and this fighting would cause entire neighbourhoods to be turned into piles of rubble.

Or they should make this into a movie.

Agreed. We need an interesting super-villain. I mean as riveting as it was to see Superman fighting an island...I think they can do better.

I'm all for a good Superman film. Whether or not they're going to make a good Superman film remains to be seen.

I actually thought the original from 1978 was great until like the last third or so, and then there was the jacked-up ending which just about ruined the whole thing. It could've been freaking epic if there'd been a decent villain.

The problem with Superman is writers treat him like a god. He's infallible in many ways. How the heck are you supposed to root for a guy who's hardly ever given a good old fashioned challenge?

That's why I say Darkseid would be good. He's a good way to make Supes fallible.

I gave up on Superman after Returns... It wasn't terrible... It was just blah. And that's what Superman is to me in general.

Of course, a villain other than Lex would be nice. I started to watch the alternate version of Superman II (the movie was basically made twice, with the alternate version not seeing release until after Reeve's death, if I was given correct info), and it looked like it was going to be interesting-ish. Lex is just... boring. I get it... A superhero possibly thwarted by someone with money and intelligence. There are more options than that...

The problem with this whole "Chris Nolan to do Superman like Dark Knight" thing is that, like many have said, Superman is not a dark character. Superman is a very bright and cheerful hero. He is not a flying Batman. However, because Batman is so big and makes so much money that people think all heroes will make that much if they are dark and brooding like The Dark Knight. There in lies the problem. Superman needs to have bright lighting, color, and story. We shouldn't be depressed because of Superman. He is the hero that everyone aspires to be. People may like Batman but no one who truly knows who he is and what he's been through would ever want to be him. I mean the guy watched his parents gunned down in front of him when he was like 8. So no one would want that. Superman, on the other hand, has always had a wonderful story. He is the embodiment of the American dream. An alien (by alien mean that both ways) comes to America lands a great job, marries the love of his life, and becomes a huge success. So to give him a film where he is dark and depressing is completely out of his character. Even in Superman Doomsday which was a pretty dark and brutal movie the scenes with the real Superman were always marked with happiness in the music, dialogue, and cinematography. So people need to actually take lessons from Superman 1 & 2 and make a film that inspires hope for that in a nutshell is Superman.

I'm gonna actually try a little advocating for the devil here. If we look back at The Dark Knight, yeah a lot of the film was based around dark color palates and dark moods, but the movie also had some interesting underlying themes that don't get as much play as the rest of the aspects of the movie: Hope in an individual, making the decisions you have to, and the strength and necessity of a symbol for people to believe in. These are themes that I feel Nolan (or the script writer, take your pick) did well. These are also themes which I could easily see applying to Superman.

I don't think Nolan taking on Superman immediately means we'll be getting a gritty "realistic" superman. Nolan's batman franchise worked because he created a world without superheroes. It became a film that was not about costumes and eccentric personalities. It almost became a franchise of police thrillers. It went back to the very meaning of the Batman Comics' original title: Detective Comics. It worked so well in Nolan's batman. It was about a man who was solving unconventional crimes in an unconventional means. It was about the people who were caught in the shockwave of his actions, and it was about how the world would react to such an individual - at least one potentially plausible look at it.

What I'm saying is... Perhaps the advantage of having Nolan take over Supes is not that he will make it all of these things, but instead that he will look outside the box that has been built around the character and that world, and craft something new and old at the same time. Something that makes you say "this is what it should have been all along."

I really really really didn't like the dark knight. I understand that there were some pretty good messages, but I think they were pretty hard to see through all the darkness. I normally will finish watching a movie nomatter how bad it is, because I want to see how it ends. but I couldn't finish this movie. I stopped caring how it ended, I just wanted to get away. I am a pretty sensative person, but rarely to this extent. I'm not trying to bash the movie or those who liked it (most of my family liked it) I'm just stating my experience with it.

ShiroiHikari (post: 1372918) wrote:The problem with Superman is writers treat him like a god. He's infallible in many ways. How the heck are you supposed to root for a guy who's hardly ever given a good old fashioned challenge?

Yes.

Superman's indestructible. He can't be corrupted, he can't be killed. The one time they did kill him he still turned out okay. His one weakness, Kryptonite, is the most arbitrary plot chip possible, which somehow everyone seems to be able to get their hands on. His inability to see through lead is at least interesting, but those same ridiculously well-stocked with Kryptonite bad guys never think to just coat everything with a thin layer of it, at least to my knowledge of the films, which is sparse. There is no real physical threat or challenge to Superman ever, not a legitimate one.

This is why if they want Superman movies to work, step one is to focus on chemistry between Lois and Clark.

Superdickery.com aside, it's clear Superman's supposed to have a thing for Lois, and therein lies the only real, genuine spark for conflict in any possible film. Superman cannot be hurt physically, but emotionally you could destroy him. Threaten Lois. Present Superman with a choice between Lois and someone else. Trap Lois in a Kryptonite lined-cell with the water level slowly rising unless Superman does the villains bidding in two hours. Something. Anything like that. Then, then maybe we'll have a decent Superman film.

Step two to a good Superman film is not turning back the Earth to save her.

A Superman film should be character based, and that's the reason I think Nolan could potentially do a lot of good here (notice I'm not saying will. I really want to hold off judgement until the product is in my hands). Like everyone says, he's pretty much invulnerable, so making an action film tense would take a lot of special work. You'd have to place in a badguy that is on his level in order to pull that off, and if it's a reboot we might have to go through the tedious retelling of his background again. Then again... A couple comics have done it well. Superman: Birthright is a good one to look at if you want the retelling to be interesting again.

Just as Batman needs to be a detective film, I think Superman needs to be a morality play. It -needs- to be a good versus evil, but maybe not in the traditional ways we do that. If you can't assault Superman's body, assault his psyche. Do something to him emotionally, poison his mind and try to turn him against the world he arbitrarily decided to protect. Do something there. The Supergirl comics when she was first re-introduced a couple years back went along an interesting line because they were about a girl who was essentially a god (Kara, in this telling, was supposedly even stronger than Kal-el) trying to fit in to a glass world. Her emotions were at play more than villains were. Stranger in a Strange Land would be an interesting way to go, but I think it only worked with her because she was already developed and cognitive when she arrived - Clark was raised here.

Another way to go would be the World of Cardboard route. This is a trope you can find on TVtropes.com originating from something Supes says in the Justice League Cartoons. Have the tension in the movie be because he's simply too powerful and has to struggle to adapt to not using all of his strength to solve problems, as it would easily make him a monster. Have him be fearful of hurting anyone with his godly abilities, and then give him the opportunity to take the gloves off on someone and really get in a good cathartic action scene.

Fish and Chips (post: 1374851) wrote: The one time they did kill him he still turned out okay.

I wouldn't say that... He came back with a mullet. Those are very hard to recover from...

I read through this thread and all I hear is "I don't like Superman because he's Superman."

Superman is basically a god. That's WHO HE IS. Batman even said once "It is a remarkable dichotomy. In many ways, Clark is the most human of us all. Then...he shoots fire from the skies, and it is difficult not to think of him as a god. And how fortunate we all are that it does not occur to him."

If you can't accept that Superman is all-powerful for the most part then you're not going to like Superman no matter what they do with him. In fact, HEY! That's why Lex Luthor is the PERFECT villain for Superman! Because Lex Luthor is a normal guy and Superman CAN'T just go all-out on him and beat him in two seconds! Now I admit the Superman movies so far have done Lex Luthor the wrong way and relied far too much on Kryptonite which is lazy writing. I admit that.

Darkseid would be nice to see, but I would say he shouldn't be used in a Superman reboot. Reason why, we'd probably have to go over origin story again, and set up Superman, and Darkseid is way too powerful and too cool to be put in as a 30 minute bad guy. Lex would actually be the perfect enemy for the reboot movie, but I fear the problem with using him would be that it would make it too similar to Superman Returns. In that case they should use another one of his enemies. Bizarro Superman, Solomon Grundy, or even Toyman. All three of these would provide excellent challenge for Superman, and don't need/have very large backstories so they would fit even if they showed up in the last 30-45 minutes.

Making a superman movie is like making a movie where Aizen from Bleach is the protagonist. He's so utterly hax that everything turns out lameeeee

Nate (post: 1374929) wrote:I read through this thread and all I hear is "I don't like Superman because he's Superman."

Superman is basically a god. That's WHO HE IS. Batman even said once "It is a remarkable dichotomy. In many ways, Clark is the most human of us all. Then...he shoots fire from the skies, and it is difficult not to think of him as a god. And how fortunate we all are that it does not occur to him."

If you can't accept that Superman is all-powerful for the most part then you're not going to like Superman no matter what they do with him. In fact, HEY! That's why Lex Luthor is the PERFECT villain for Superman! Because Lex Luthor is a normal guy and Superman CAN'T just go all-out on him and beat him in two seconds! Now I admit the Superman movies so far have done Lex Luthor the wrong way and relied far too much on Kryptonite which is lazy writing. I admit that.

Darkseid would be nice to see, but I would say he shouldn't be used in a Superman reboot. Reason why, we'd probably have to go over origin story again, and set up Superman, and Darkseid is way too powerful and too cool to be put in as a 30 minute bad guy. Lex would actually be the perfect enemy for the reboot movie, but I fear the problem with using him would be that it would make it too similar to Superman Returns. In that case they should use another one of his enemies. Bizarro Superman, Solomon Grundy, or even Toyman. All three of these would provide excellent challenge for Superman, and don't need/have very large backstories so they would fit even if they showed up in the last 30-45 minutes.

If I haven't said this already, I was totally intending to. All of it. lol

Basically yeah, I agree with the Darkseid thing, and for all the reasons you've cited. If they reboot, I really feel like they need to do Lex, but he needs to be approached differently. And as I've been saying before is that Superman presents a special challenge in that he's a walking Deus Ex Machina so you have to approach tension and plot from a different angle. IF Superman were done right, I think it could make exceptionally compelling viewing.

Edit: I'm gonna say this again. Part of the reason I am at least mildly interested in Nolan doing supes is that when he tackled Batman, he didn't necessarily make Batman darker (anyone who has read the comics and seen the first two Burton movies can attest to that), but that he approached Batman from a different angle than had been tackled. He didn't treat Batman like a superhero movie.

bigsleepj (post: 1372908) wrote:Or they should make this into a movie.

...

Can this please happen? Please?

XDD Anyways, I've never been a big fan of Superman because of all the reasons stated above (i.e. he's too perfect, too indestructible, not interesting on a character level, etc.), but if anything can make me even the slightest bit interested in anything about Superman outside of his role in Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, it's hearing Christopher Nolan's name in front of it. XD I'm open to seeing where this goes.

Radical Dreamer wrote:he's too perfect, too indestructible, not interesting on a character level, etc

Ha ha what.

Radical Dreamer (post: 1374991) wrote:XDD Anyways, I've never been a big fan of Superman because of all the reasons stated above (i.e. he's too perfect, too indestructible, not interesting on a character level, etc.),...

So, you prefer him as a creepy stalker-dad?

Radical Dreamer wrote:Anyways, I've never been a big fan of Superman because of all the reasons stated above (i.e. he's too perfect, too indestructible, not interesting on a character level, etc.)

Nate (post: 1375005) wrote:Ha ha what.

Etoh*the*Greato (post: 1374989) wrote:And as I've been saying before is that Superman presents a special challenge in that he's a walking Deus Ex Machina

Fish and Chips (post: 1374851) wrote:Superman's indestructible. He can't be corrupted, he can't be killed. The one time they did kill him he still turned out okay. His one weakness, Kryptonite, is the most arbitrary plot chip possible, which somehow everyone seems to be able to get their hands on.

ShiroiHikari (post: 1372918) wrote:The problem with Superman is writers treat him like a god. He's infallible in many ways. How the heck are you supposed to root for a guy who's hardly ever given a good old fashioned challenge?

All that to say, I don't understand what you mean by "ha ha what." Care to expound? o_O

BigsleepJ wrote:So, you prefer him as a creepy stalker-dad?

XD No, unless I'm missing some kind of Superman in-joke? XD I don't really follow Superman at all because I'm disinterested in him; I'm just posting in this thread because I love Nolan's films and am curious to see what he'll bring to the table as a director and storyteller.

Okay, well first, you say he's too perfect. I suppose this would mean I'd have to present examples of Superman messing up which would make him not perfect. Well the most obvious example of that would be Kingdom Come. In this, the Joker kills everyone at the Daily Planet as well as Lois Lane, is forced to stand trial, but is killed by a new "hero" called Magog. Superman is upset at the public supporting Magog, and retreats to the Fortress of Solitude.

This is a big mistake because without Superman to act as a role model and voice of reason, the remaining superheroes begin to fight among each other, causing massive property damage and loss of life, and eventually leading to Kansas as well as a few other states being basically completely destroyed.

So if Superman hadn't left, the world wouldn't have turned into the horrible state it did. Oops! That means Superman made a mistake! That's hardly his only mistake in his history, though I only needed one example to prove he isn't perfect.

Second, too indestructible? Superman has been killed. TWICE. If he's been killed even once that would make him not indestructible, let alone twice. And actually, the second time he was killed, the villain that killed him wasn't satisfied, so the villain (named Gog) went back in time repeatedly, killing Superman over and over in different ways. So Superman has actually been killed a lot of times. Far from indestructible!

Yes, he's strong, but he's got his weaknesses. Kryptonite is kind of a given, but Superman is ALSO affected by magic. He's not exactly weak to it, but magic affects him exactly like it would affect a normal human. This is a big deal when you have DC characters actively strong against magic like Dr. Fate, Hawkgirl, and Captain Marvel. In other words, Superman gets his steely butt kicked by the likes of Etrigan and Blaze and Satanus.

Further, remember how Superman gets his power from the rays of our yellow sun? Oh yeah, that's kind of overlooked, but if Superman gets too far from our sun, he loses his powers. This was actually the basis of a really cool Justice League episode where he's transported years into the future, the sun is red, and he has to fight a pack of wolves with a crude sword because he doesn't have any super strength. He also grows a beard, which is cool because Superman's hair cannot be cut nor can it grow while in Earth's atmosphere.

ANYWAY. Hardly indestructible. HARDLY.

Not interesting on a character level is more of a subjective thing so I can't really disprove it. I think he's an interesting character because of his influence on the rest of the DC universe, as well as his struggle to do the right thing even when it's difficult. His reluctance to kill actually has caused a lot of conflict within the superhero ranks, especially with Wonder Woman who doesn't have the same problem with killing people that Superman does (just to name one, there's a few others too). But like I said, that one's purely subjective so I can't say much about it.

So you would say that he's interesting as a symbol for the others. I would totally agree with that, actually. He acts as a paragon, which I think is something necessary for a Super Powered universe, but it can make morality plays boring. I think it's very possible to do a movie with him right, but I don't think it's been really done. Tackling Superman like you would tackle any other super hero or action movie is a mistake. I think he requires more than that.

Alright, I am going to add my two cents to this:

Superman stories can, on occasion, be awesome. Superman isn't about his powers or his villains, really. The best Superman stories focus on Superman as a paragon of morality. The people of Metropolis may never fly or shoot lasers out of their eyes, but they can become as great a man as Superman is. By following his shining moral example, they too will become great.

The stories should focus on his interactions with humankind, and on his choice to be a guiding light to mankind. There is no gritty tragedy pushing him to be a hero, it was simply the choice he made. This is what can make Superman a compelling character. His choice, and his continuing choice to live as one of them. As Lex Luthor has noted, why would anyone with his power choose to have a secret identity?

Basically, Superman's conflicts should be internal, with external battles to help illustrate and stress these inner battles.

I dislike Superman for the following reasons.

No 1: The outfit. It smells too much of 40s/50s cheesiness. It was fine for that time but it just feels downright dated now. (Spiderman and Batman's outfits>>>Superman's tights).
No 2: Too powerful. Sure he can be killed by magic and krypto, but beyond that he's the ultimate physical force. That gets old fast.
No 3: Paragon of morality. I hate characters like this. They're contrived and too much good ole boy.

Yamamaya (post: 1375172) wrote:No 3: Paragon of morality. I hate characters like this. They're contrived and too much good ole boy.

Jonathan Joestar would like to have a word with you.

Yamamaya wrote:No 2: Too powerful. Sure he can be killed by magic and krypto, but beyond that he's the ultimate physical force. That gets old fast.

Except both times Superman was killed, it was by villains that had no magic OR Kryptonite. Meaning that they killed Superman (gasp!) by pure physical force.

I thought that if he was the ultimate it would imply he was the best. If something can beat that, then it isn't the best...and therefore wouldn't be ultimate...right?

I think everyone is forgetting the Superman animated series, which, while not as good as Batman TAS, was still very much on par with that show. It and Smallville are the only two incarnations of Superman that actually made me interested enough to keep watching. I hated the movies. Lex Luthor with hair? Come on. If a character in a movie based off something in another form of media couldn't at least pass for their original counterpart in looks, it tends to really irritate me. But what really killed the series for me was Superman turning back the Earth to save Lois.

That was just beyond the most idiotic plot device I've ever seen in any superhero movie, EVER. It's such a freaking cop out. It means nothing truly bad can ever happen in Superman's life, because if it does, he just has a convenient back door out, which to my knowledge, is NOT a canon power he has in the comic books. I'd love to turn back time and bring my mom back, but you know what? THAT'S NOT FREAKING GOING TO HAPPEN. If they were going to kill Lois for shock value, then she should have stayed dead and Superman should have had to deal with it.

That killed any way I would have had of taking the movie series even remotely in any way seriously ever again. And after seeing the Nostalgia Critic's review of Superman IV, which was a far far dumber movie in every aspect, I'm glad I didn't keep watching the series.

But I've gone way off course of what I really wanted to say when I hit the reply button.

I'm looking forward to this reboot. I think that Superman has had an almost equal amount of hits and misses, and I'm optimistic that they stand a chance of giving the Superman movies a new rebirth and respect.

I want to see:

1) Superman being the Paragon of Morality.

2) Brainiac.

3) Brainiac trying to assimilate the world with Superman flying at full speed across the globe to save as many people as he can WHILE fighting off the attack.

4) Clark Kent being the biggest oaf in the universe.

5) Grant Morrison or Geoff Johns credited as the writers.

That is all I'll say for now.

Solid Ronin (post: 1376169) wrote:5) Grant Morrison or Geoff Johns credited as the writers.

I would jump up and down and scream bloody murder like tweenage fangirl at a Jonas Brothers (ugh) concert.

Incidentally, I just recently remembered this hilarious video of Kevin Smith doing standup about the Superman movie that he almost worked on but never got off the ground. Believe it or not, instead of Superman Returns, we almost got a far, far, far, far, far, far, worse film. (Against Kevin Smith's free will) There is some strong language in this video, so don't click if that offends you. The final punchline is especially hilarious. XDD

http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=gzdYcOiAJdY&v=vgYhLIThTvk