We've tried this before but didn't get very far because of all the in-fighting. I'm hoping we can get past all of it and truly brainstorm ideas on what the new Superman should be like.What villain(s) or antagonist(s) should be included? What should the plot be? Should it rehash previous stories from the comic, include today's problems of terrorism and economic turmoil, or a combination of both? Clark Kent, goofy or your average guy? Lois Lane, typical woman or typical Army brat with an attitude? Lex Luthor, main villain or plotting in the background for future sequel? Does Lois know Clark's secret? Does anyone know Clark's secret? Is Superman already established or should his origin be revisited or reinvented?
If we want to help save Superman, we need to figure out how to first.
I'd try to marry the Bronze Age and Byrne reboot together. I think those are the two strongest eras of the comics (yes, including today).
ReplyDeleteLex- Renegade scientist, with a side of Bond villain.
Lois- I like the Army brat version, myself.
Clark- Mild-mannered, yes; clod, no.
Superman- Superman
Brainiac- STAS/AI version.
I think the way to go with Superman is to get as far the hell away from realism as possible. It work (arguably) for Batman but Superman? No way. Create a world that supports, say, Lex Luthor driving a custom purple tank through downtown Metropolis following a bank robbery. These are comics! EMBRACE that, don't run away from it.
Get rid of anything Donner or Singer used. The entire point of a reboot is to shed the past. Yes, that means the Williams theme too. I love it as much as (if not more than) the next guy but it's time for something new. Did the Nolan Batman franchise reuse the Danny Elfman music? Come up with a new hero theme. Williams is good but the guy doesn't walk on water. A new theme can be found. Find it.
I'm really picky about the Fortress of Solitude. It should look like something straight out of the Pre-Crisis era, perhaps mixed with a little bit of All-Star Superman thrown in for good measure.
One idea I've seen thrown about is an origin summary. Similar to Fleischer cartoons, you could summarize Superman's basic origin at the top of the movie similar to the Fleischer approach and then move on to the main story.
Give Superman a physical opponent. When Superman saves the day, he must morally triumph over his adversary. A time-tested way (for everything EXCEPT Superman, that is) to drive his victory home is to externalize the conflict in a physical altercation. If that means inventing brand new villains for Superman to fight, do it! Or better yet, throw in Darkseid, Doomsday (sans Death of Superman storyline), Metallo, Bizarro or any number of other villains in Superman's rogue's gallery. He's got a few good ones.
Tell a story that respects the audience, respects the fans, respects Superman and his world and doesn't butcher the legend. Do that, and the audiences will follow. It's a simple formula and Marvel has it down pat.
Oh yes, and one other thing. Hire Tom Welling or skip him altogether but for crying out loud keep Brandon Routh of it!
ReplyDeleteWow, I really like all of those ideas! And I agree that Clark definitely should NOT be a clod. While I have a sentimental place in my heart for the Donner movies, I never really liked the idea of Clark being overly bumbling. Honestly, I think the Clark Kent Persona should be more or less who Clark really is. A shy, quiet farmboy who grew up in a small town in Kansas. The type of guy who never really interacts with anyone else at the office, the one who could work somewhere for year without too many people ever learning his name. That's what makes Clark Kent such an effective disguise for Superman, it's that he's so mild-mannered; he's "that one guy" who you work with, Mr.Kent, whose first name you can never seem to remember, who never really talks to anyone or has any friends. No one would think that he's Superman because he is completely and utterly an "average joe", the antithesis to Superman; he's hiding in plain sight. As for Lois, I too like the army brat persona, who stops at nothing to get a story, but still maintains journalistic integrity.
ReplyDeleteAs for the story, DITCH the origin story, all that's needed is a quick recap of the origin during the opening credits, beyond that dive straight into the action. I say, start the first movie off with Metallo. Lex Luthor could easily be worked in there; perhaps it's Lexcorp technology that creates Metallo in the first place. Future movies could stick to "smaller scale" villains like parasite or live wire, or go with the more galactic enemies like Braniac, or Darksied.
But whatever they do, please, NO ORIGIN STORY.
Some very nice ideas guys, i like most of what you guys have said. I have some ideas of my own i need to fromulate them before i post it.
ReplyDeleteGrr I just had this big post written up and tried to post it and it dissappeared. Ugh! I will rewrite it later. Right now I am too mad to do it.
ReplyDeleteI have an idea for a Superman film using Bizarro and Metallo as the villains, with an ending that would be like nothing seen before in comic-book film.
ReplyDeleteIt WOULDN'T suffer from the "multiple villain" problem either, as Bizarro is basically the "mute" clone from the Byrne Man Of Steel miniseries.
Ok I guess I will type this and copy it just in case it eats my post again.
ReplyDeleteAnyway I love the Lex/Metallo idea. Metallo was a difficult opponent for Superman due to the heart of Kryptonite. I think that a trilogy would be a good idea. After Metallo, go with the Doomsday sans death of Superman idea, then finally Darkseid.
Have Superman just starting out, just an average joe not really standing out in a crowd. Not some bumbling idiot. Keep the comic portions between Clark and Lois, more serious when investigating, lots of action when fighting enemies, and no dark Superman. Darkness should not be in Superman. He is a character that inspires hope not fear.
Lois as an army brat is great. Her never say die attitude, her fearlessness, her doing anything to get a story even steal it from Clark. They spend lots of time competing with each other.
As for the revisit to the origin, I don't think that it is needed or really wanted by fans of Superman. They already know all about him, but the GP don't so perhaps have him give a interview with Lois and have a few flashback type things with his story. Could be short and sweet.
Not sure what else at this point, and I forgot what I wrote in my other post so I will think on it some.
nice idea sharon. Personally i rather have some sorta or origins told/seen so we can have something totally different from past incartions and to be different then donnor's widely known origin.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I agree, I think that a quick origin montage is needed for the credits, if nothing more than to get "Brando-EL" out of people's heads. Don't get me wrong, Brando played his part excellently, but something different needs to be done with that character.
ReplyDeleteThose were good ideas...
ReplyDeleteMy idea consists of the following:
Synopsis:
There is a threat to humanity. A powerful hostile alien race decides they want to colonize the Earth by destroying everything in its path. Superman has to find the way fight the invaders who are very powerful. He may have to find help from an unlikely ally, his arch enemy Lex Luthor.
Main Characters Analysis:
Clark Kent/Superman: Age 33, A seasoned reporter for the Daily Planet. He portrayed as intelligent,well mannered man and laid back but professional. As Superman, he is portrayed as a strong,confidence, and caring individual. He would risk his life for humanity.
Lois Lane: Age 30, A strong independent woman who is not afraid to use her femininity to get the story she wants. She is infatuated with Superman but is somewhat attracted to Clark Kent. She admires Clark's optimistic personality.
Lex Luthor: Age 40, A CEO for LexCorp,a technology company which manufactures military weapons. He believes that Superman is a threat to humanity and is the cause of the invasion.
This is a sample of what I was thinking
I really like that idea. I think that it would work great as a second or third movie in a franchise; because while it is a given that Luthor hates Superman, the story would have a lot more emotional weight if the audience had already seen this version of Luthor trying to kill Superman. So great idea!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=20794
ReplyDeleteThis is not Superman related, but I thought you guys would like to see this. I liked Green in Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles. I don't know if he'd be good for the part, but I think he "gets" it.
Hmm. I was picturing vintage David Silver from the old 90210 days. But if that pic is how he looks these days... well, he's got the basic look for Hal.
ReplyDeleteThe movie should be about Guy Gardner or John Stewart though, bah.
well lets not get carry away with other dc things, like steve has stated we want to get back to Superman here.
ReplyDeleteI really think any sort of origins story, other than a simple recap, is unnecessary. Superman’s “S” is known worldwide, on ball caps, t-shirts, coffee cups, the entire world knows who Superman is! All that really that needs to be decided, which Superman era you wish to visit and as many have said, perhaps a combination of them are the way to go.
ReplyDeleteAs already stated, to believe in Superman you must suspend your belief system and not put Superman into our world, but the film should take us on a visit to his. He is not Jesus Christ, he is not despondent or angst ridden, he is the light of hope and decency! HE INSPIRES!
Archenemies are fine for follow up films, however for a new film he really needs to be confronted with something he has never been. Something that will cause the most rabid fan’s jaw to drop. Something that for the entire final act we do not really know if he is going to triumph over.
Yeah, I think that a combination of the various eras would be a good way to go. I still like the idea of Bizzaro as a villain, as created by Lex Luthor during an attempt to clone Superman. The idea of a twisted monstrosity who thinks that he's Superman. I think it'd be a good way to demonstrate just what could happen if Superman's power was misused. Perhaps a "plot seed" could be planted to cause the government to be more cautious about Superman after "the Bizzaro incident".
ReplyDeleteOpps, got cut off, directly after that last part after the "plot seed" sentence should have said: Now that they see how much death and destruction Superman has the capacity to cause if he wanted to, perhaps the last scene in the movie could some shady government/military type of person (maybe even take a cue from the current comics storyline and make it Lois Lane's father, who the world thinks is Dead, General Lane) enact a plan for the government to attempt to create their own "superman" to defend the world should Superman ever go rouge.
ReplyDeleteI like the ideas so far. Keep'Em coming!! This is what we should have been doing.
ReplyDeleteOK, I know this is probably wishful thinking, but IF WB would allow Superman AND Batman to exist in the same universe, just think of the potential wealth of storyline material they could derive from this?!
ReplyDeleteWasn't it in the Byrne reboot that Supes gave Bats a Kryptonite ring to use on him in case he DID ever go rogue? It didn't work on Earth-2 Superman, but that's another story. Anyway, whether they chose to go this route or not, there's still a WEALTH of material, I'm sure, that could be developed.
When we get 'Batman 3' it'll no doubt start off with Batman being hunted as a criminal due to the way TDK ended. It'll HAVE to! This is where we could use some of that 'distrust' towards Bats that Byrne used in his revision. Obviously Bats is no PHYSICAL match for Supes, but that doesn't mean we couldn't get one humdinger of a story. I know it sounds like Batman vs. Superman, but if they did it right, it'd probably bear no resemblance to that failed project anyway.
I mean, think about it! WB/DC NOW want their films to all be on the same page? Well, I say PROVE it! Put your money where your MOUTH is! And if you really think about it, this would be a very LOGICAL way to proceed with things. That is, unless they want to 'throw the towel' in to Marvel?!
A worlds finest Superman / Batman would be out of sight. Never been done in film, so the approach is fresh. The problem would be Nolan's universe with Superman unless it were a reboot. It still could work and the marketing hype would be tremendous. A Bale/Welling headline would flat move tickets especially internationally.
ReplyDeleteWB is retarded if this just isn't completely obvious to them.
I don't think we need another standalone Superman or Batman movie, they need to ratchet it up a notch.
Storm
I'm not even necessarily saying a 'World's Finest' film per se, at least in the traditional sense. Don't get me wrong. I read those comics back in the day & loved them, but we also know that they were 'pre-Crisis' & all of that, with Supes & Bats being best friends. I'd bet the film version wouldn't be as such, at least not to begin with.
ReplyDeleteMy reasoning is more along the lines of what WB say they want to do, i.e., follow Marvel's lead. So ALL these characters need to be in the SAME universe. Now I don't know how they'd put Supes in Nolan's universe, but let's not forget, Nolan doesn't OWN Batman, WB does. He's an employee, right? Maybe a VIP employee, but employed nonetheless. So WB, FIND a way to make it fit! I mean, we DEFINITELY have Green Lantern coming, which I believe they'll give the royal 'Iron Man' treatment to. Supposedly, CLARK KENT makes a CAMEO in that? So WB, 'grow' a pair & show us something relevant for Supes also!
Obviously Supes would HAVE to be a reboot to fit in THIS Batman's universe, but that's fine. I mean, at LEAST we wouldn't have to put up with BJ Routhman anymore! Now as far as the 'fantasy' aspects of Supes' universe, that also has merit, so I'm not saying it ALL has to be grounded in reality like Nolan.
I AM saying they need to figure out a way to make this ENTIRE DC universe work. With the current events in TDK, I can see where they could go with this. The thing is, does WB see this, or do they need to have a house fall on them?
I agree completely, they definitely need to make the entire DC universe work. And with DC this is easy, as Warner bros owns DC, therefore they have EVERY DC character at their disposal if they want. And I agree that Nolan's Batman could definitely fit in with The rest of the universe, if done so correctly, like you said. In fact, I think that in a JLA film, the more "realistic" aspects to Nolan's Batman, paired with the "fantasy" elements to Superman would be very interesting to see played off of eachother. And to see Nolan's Batman dealing with suddenly being in the company of all of these beings wich are so far outside of his realm, aliens and space-cops, and an amazon; to see how Batman deals with all that for the first time is especially interesting to me if it's Nolan's Batman.
ReplyDeleteOh, and so far as Superman goes, yeah, he definitely needs to be rebooted, because even if Singer had somehow managed made an amazing action packed Superman movie, it'd still be a part of the Donnerverse, and as much as I love those movies (though at the age I'm at now, it's more sentimentality than anything else), I just don't think that that world fits into the larger DC Universe.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the right story and done correctly nolan's realistic batman could work well with the more fasntasy background of the others. I would love to see superman/batman movie or a real jl movie happen one day.
ReplyDeleteAnd keep in mind, I'm not saying that the next Superman film absolutely HAS to play off of Batman. That's just a suggestion. Like Steve said, keep 'em coming!
ReplyDeleteThey could choose a different direction if they want to, & STILL make it work. The key there, though, is COMPETENCE. A Superman film NEEDS to work, bottom line. It is imperative! I'm sure we're also aware that a Supes/Bats film, in the WRONG hands, would be a disaster. We DON'T need a CAMPY Superman film that looks like Batman & Robin! On the flip side of that, the 'ultra-realism' of Nolan could get in the way too. Some 'meeting of the minds' is in order.
I'd also be open to other suggestions. I might even make some more myself. It just occured to me though that this would really be a logical way to pursue it & tie everything together. It also seems to stimulate the imagination as to where they could potentially go with this angle, but right now, I'll just take a Superman film if nothing else!
In my mind, the best way to get a Superman/Batman film is do it on "neutral turf". Bringing one or the other into a solo film... I dunno, I'm not nuts about that. A World's Finest flick is the way to go.
ReplyDeleteSay what you will about the Pre-Crisis WF stuff but it makes sense for a veteran Batman/Superman working partnership. The "tension" Frank Miller introduced worked in TDKR (when the two of them came down on drastically different sides of a major conflict) and when Byrne did it in MOS (when they were strangers to each other)... but seriously, if Superman still has philosophical problems with Batman and his methods after knowing him for years on end, he's a complete retard. That conflict might work in just one film (which is may all the market could bear anyway) but I don't think it should color their longterm professional opinions of one another.
As for Clark in GL, I hope and pray that it's anybody but "2006's Biggest Star" in the role. Cast someone new and use that as a platform for a Superman reboot, throw Welling in there since he's already identified in the role anyway, reanimate Walter Matthau and cast him, whatever, just keep BJ The Lifeless 2x4 out of it.
For 'Save Superman' to have any meaningful impact, we ALL must show confidence in the character himself.
ReplyDeleteSuperman cannot be a continuation of SV or SR or a cut-and-paste DCU show with 'guest stars.'
Do not look at The Man of Steel as the 70-year old' archtype of comic book superheroes' and declare "I know Superman!"
Instead, see the greatest hero in all of literature and ask, "Where's he GOING?"
If you want Superman to go BACK, he's going nowhere.
Tom Welling would indeed make for the best Superman in a Rebooted Superman. Some have said that casting Tom in a Superman reboot would be confusing to people if the movie was anything other than a big screen continuation of Smallville, but I don't quite buy that argument. The die-hard Smallville fans would realize that the movie isn't a big screen sendoff to Smallville, and the general audience who doesn't know much about Smallville other than the fact that Tom plays Clark wouldn't really know the difference.
ReplyDeleteALS...
ReplyDeleteI agree completely. I know many people who don't watch Smallville. Not because of Tom Welling or any other cast member, but because they know "Superman" isn't part of the show. If you put a movie in theaters that is of "Superman", they'd come see it. Period.
And fans of the show would be there because of Welling. Nobody would complain that the low tech FX are gone or that it isn't "Smallville the Movie".
I also agree that before a Batman/Superman film could be done, a solo film would need to have a cameo by the other hero in the end. Sort of introducing himself to the other. Then you could pair them in a World's Finest film. Honestly, I'd rather see World's Finest than I would JLA. But that's just my opinion.
Sorry, but the worth of Smallville is irrelevant. To BASE a new Superman film on a cable TV show or a cartoon series or comic book treatment would be a disaster. The film must stand on its own, not to simply please the fanbase, but to EXPAND it.
ReplyDeleteUnderstand that a new Superman must leave all that came before BEHIND, including all those who would cling to The Man of Steel's past.
I certainly understand the worth of what your saying, however newness just for newness' sake is never a good thing. The point of the superman reboot, and this site, is simple: To make an awesome superman movie. You seem to be getting a little bit caught up in hyperbole. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to start an argument or insult you, I'm simply saying this: It's perfectly possible to make a kick-ass an amazing Superman movie that completely stands on it's own, with Tom Welling in the title role. That being said, when I said "best" I was thinking from a financial standpoint as well: Tom Welling already has a vast fanbase,and therefore will bring a lot of people into theaters, therefore the chances of making money increase greatly. Long story short: If your trying to build a franchise, then Tom Welling is a much better bet than an unknown, in theory at least.
ReplyDeletethat being said, I think it would be very cool to see a completely new person as Superman (as long as he's given something to do that is). I found this picture on google recently, I have no idea who it is, but what do you guys think: http://img4.imageshack.us/my.php?image=potentialsuperman.jpg
Yea steve with all the mess that JL mortal was for a jl film, and the non status of films for other big names aquaman/ww/flash who knows if a jl film would ever get to happen in the near future. But if wb can get superman on its feet again and it is a sucessful film then yea a WF would be a safer bet to go with. As for Superman himself they need to think long and hard and make the right choices.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that Tom Welling or any other actor, 'name' or unknown could make or break a new Superman film is well, absurd. Sure, we all want a convincing, definitive portrayal, but please, Superman FIRST, minor items later.
ReplyDeleteThe talent they have in front of the camera is as big a part of the promotional angle as anything else. Until the movie opens, that is. Smallville: The Movie or not, there'd be a lot of interest in seeing Tom Welling play Superman.
ReplyDeleteRemember, the Salkinds wanted to use the likes of Robert Redford or Paul Newman to play Superman in Superman: the Movie, because of the star potential. Donner disagreed. Superman should be the star, & you're not gonna believe a 'man can fly' if you see Newman up there as Supes. So he found Christopher Reeve, then a relative unknown. The thing is though, it was perfect casting at THAT time, & it worked. Too bad the Salkinds had to be the kinda jerks they were in firing Donner. What a crock!
ReplyDeleteFast foward to the present day. Singer sought to emulate Donner TO THE NTH DEGREE, even using an unknown, but this time, it DIDN'T work. BJ Routhman, the supposed 'clone' of Reeve himself, was no such thing, but had more in common with a piece of wood. Thus, SINGERMAN was born, & we still haven't recovered!
So what direction should the reboot go in,as far as casting? That's a good question! I really don't know. The unknown worked in the past, it didn't now. So what do ya do?
This is possibly where we could ALL benefit from Welling. He's not a COMPLETE unknown & has an established fanbase, but likewise he's not such a big Hollyweird star as to be unbelievable in the role. This 'semi-known' known as Welling could pull off the role & it wouldn't have to be Smallville: the Movie necessarily, unless they choose to go that route.
The point is, Welling is in a position where it could please the 'already fans' & likewise appeal to the general public who may not have even watched Smallville in many cases. It sure beats an encore performance from 'Brenden Ruth' or anyone LIKE him!
Plus you probably wouldn't see Welling in a traditional Superman suit in Smallville (unfortunately) so when he appears on the screen he would appear like an unknown
ReplyDeleteRound and round savesuperman.com goes again, SV, SR, and DCU, gurgling once more towards the drainpipe of trivia.
ReplyDeleteTwo things that must be decided:
1. Are you SERIOUS about a Superman reboot?
2. If you are, are you willing to (Gulp!) WORK to make it happen?
In reading the comments on this website and others, it's all about what fans want, rather than actually exploring NEW possibilities.
My address is milkywaywriter@aol.com. If you have a NEW Superman story, script, or treatment, I will read it and tell you what I think, for whatever that's worth.
However, if you have an SV story, an SR sequel, or a DCU treatment, that's OLD Superman for last century's fans.
Talk is cheap. Without PRODUCT, that's all we have and no one will bother to care.
Milkywaywriter, I'm beginning to question your motives. You seem to be wanting to 'antagonize' kinda like someone else did not so long ago.
ReplyDeleteCoincidence, or not?!
Non-amos:
ReplyDeleteRemember when DC ruled the American fanboy universe? And GM ruled the US auto market? And the USSR rivaled the US?
Please, let's get over what used to be, and more importantly, OURSELVES. If you're 'antagonized' by the reality of the 21st Century and refuse to contemplate the very idea that Superman must leave the last century behind, then you're a fan of the 'Man of Yesterday' rather than the 'Man of Tomorrow.'
Not merely a comic book icon or the star of a string of TV shows, cartoons and movies, SUPERMAN is the greatest hero in all of literature. To think any less of him invites only more of the stale sameness too many of us have endured for too long.
Yeah, milkywaywriter, you may have a point about that, but there's TOO much an air of familiarity here.
ReplyDeleteAnyone here remember who that guy was back on the website who used to spam about every thread? Remember he had a signature that was always something about tomorrow or the future or something? He also seemed to get at odds with Steve & the members.
Anyone else thinking what I'm thinking?!
Oh, you mean it's NOT what's on the page, but who may have written it?
ReplyDeleteAre you going to rat me out to the Thought Police?
Isn't that the same lack of thinking that set this site back first time around?
http://www.strategicbookpublishing.com/TheMilkyWayMan.html
non-amos, it IS the same guy. I was going to post that last night too.
ReplyDeleteHey, Socrates, how about you post YOUR ideas again, for everyone to see? You know, where Superman is this pathetic little man, who the world CAN'T let know that "we know"? That he has such a FRAGILE ego, that it would "destroy" him if he found out? Peeeeyeeeeewwww.
Embrace the BEST parts of Superman's past, and MODERNIZE THEM for today's "audience". That's the way to go.
Rebooting SUPERMAN is the purpose of this site.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, you two would rather rant and rave than read and write and prefer wallowing and whining to working.
Do us all a favor: reboot YOURSELVES, then get back to us.
"Isn't that the same lack of thinking that set this site back first time around?"
ReplyDeleteGusy, isn't this a confession of sorts?
I've fallen in love with the Bronze Age in recent months and I'm kind of starting to prefer that over the John Byrne reboot but which ever you go with, Superman's not a tough nut to crack. Truth, Justice and the American Way. Lighthearted, fun, tons of action, no pretense and no Singerman crapola.
For those who might be interested, SV in general and Tom Welling in particular represent Superman to the younger generation. That's what they think of. Welling is not the only possible candidate who can play the part but why turn away from a popular candidate?
WB is a numbers business and SV and TW do NOT have them. It's really that cut and dry.
ReplyDeleteThe notion that the audience of a 9-year old TV show 'represents the younger generation' simply isn't so.
The world, and the market, is infinitely larger than a margainly rated cable TV show.
If SV had any legs, it would have moved up to bigger and brighter things. Unfortunately, it doesn't and hasn't.
Yeah...same crazy guy...you can change the name but the tone is the same. Did you really think it wouldn't be obvious.
ReplyDeleteThe cast is NOT a minor detail. Neither is the story, no one is saying that.
Now, speaking to the normal people here, I think the World's Finest is money. It has never been done on film. It would be huge. Imagine the trailers...
"WB is a numbers business and SV and TW do NOT have them. It's really that cut and dry."
ReplyDeleteUh, no actually it's not. More to follow.
"The notion that the audience of a 9-year old TV show 'represents the younger generation' simply isn't so."
If 9-year olds were the totality of the show's audience, I'd agree. But since they're not, I don't. Most people have some level of awareness of the show (even if it's just knowing that such a thing exists). I know quite a variety of people and 90% of them have seen at least one episode. Is that the ideal market penetration? I'll leave that to the marketing experts. However...
"The world, and the market, is infinitely larger than a margainly rated cable TV show."
SV's last episode garnered 3.74 million viewers in America. If we assume that every single one of those folks in the US bought a $7 movie ticket, that comes out to $26,180,000. In the US. Alone.
Of course, that assumes that they see the movie alone. Speaking only for myself, I've never gone to the movies by myself EVER. If we assume that only half of those folks bring a friend, that comes up to an extra $13,090,000. That makes for a total of $39,270,000. These are pretty conservative estmates on my part (where does one go for a $7 movie ticket anymore? Do THAT many people seriously have no friends? Etc). The actual number is probably higher but I'd be SHOCKED if it's lower.
"If SV had any legs, it would have moved up to bigger and brighter things. Unfortunately, it doesn't and hasn't."
Dude, Tom Welling is popular. Do a YouTube search. Welling brings up 10,000 hits. Orlando Bloom brings up 18,000. Tobey Maguire brings up 1,400. Elijah Wood brings up 2,000. Face it, Welling ain't nobody.
Check out the show's DVD sales. It routinely CLEANS UP. It's got a massive and dedicated Internet following. It's the top-rated show on its network (no small thing in any context).
Is it the ideal platform for a new Superman franchise? Perhaps, perhaps not. But arguing that it shouldn't be because of visibility (specifically the lack thereof) is absurd.
By the way, milky white, I haven't heard any suggestions from you as to how the movie should be done. I see you nit-picking Smallville, my Bronze Age suggestion and other stuff. Got any ideas you'd like to share?
ReplyDeleteWhat I think of SV is...So bleeping what! Nobody cares!
ReplyDeleteExactly - it is about numbers. Who wants to PAY to see Welling when we've been watching him for years for free?
WB is NOT going to base a SUPERMAN reboot on SV. Good decision or bad, all the blogs and clicks in the universe is NOT going to change things.
Enjoy SV for as long as it runs, but it's going nowhere but syndication and DVDs after it's done.
And it's too bad. Nine years ago, SMALLVILLE, as a 100-minute film, would have made a terrific opening for the SUPERMAN franchise, sparing us SR.
As none of that happened, let's move on.
Thecolorsblend:
ReplyDeleteMy address is milkywaywriter@aol.com
Drop me a line and I'll send you something. Feel free to stomp on it with both feet.
Fiar enough?
UH.. why not just post the ideas here??? Whats with the private emailing stuff??? lol Wierd guy...
ReplyDeleteIdeas are a dime a dozen. Does it make a STORY? I asked, begged Steve, to post my BRAVE NEW SUPERMAN, but it has yet to happen.
ReplyDeleteIf we are SERIOUS about having any IMPACT in rebooting SUPERMAN, let's post a STORY, not stray ideas.
Make any sense?
For me personally i would love to see new film series take more modern mythos elements brought in like from the bryne reboot/etc... I would like to see elements of bryne/STAS and some other elements maybe from some other eras. Mix and match the best elements and make a much better story.
ReplyDeleteGood, webhead.
ReplyDeleteNow get writing. What this site needs is STORIES to 'bounce' off rather than preferences or ideas.
However far away we are from impacting a Superman reboot, we've got to start somewhere.
Let's get over picking on each other and get to work.
"What I think of SV is...So bleeping what! Nobody cares!'"
ReplyDeleteWhat, your argument just went down the toilet so now nobody cares, right?
"Exactly - it is about numbers."
And like it or lump it, SV's got 'em.
"Who wants to PAY to see Welling when we've been watching him for years for free?"
Holy crap, it's a good thing nobody would ever be stupid to make a movie out of a TV show. I mean, can you just IMAGINE how awful a Sex & The City movie would do? Or Star Trek?
"WB is NOT going to base a SUPERMAN reboot on SV."
You're missing the point, sparky. Or you're changing the subject. It's not about what's realistic, what WB will/won't do, etc, it's about the popularity of SV as an established brand. I don't disagree, I doubt they will do it but it's nothing to do with SV's invisibility, it's because Hollywood is about egos, not what necessarily makes the most sense.
"Good decision or bad, all the blogs and clicks in the universe is NOT going to change things."
Well, at least you're not seeing Welling's a nobody anymore. You're still completely missing the point but, hey, I'm sure you're trying.
"And it's too bad. Nine years ago, SMALLVILLE, as a 100-minute film, would have made a terrific opening for the SUPERMAN franchise, sparing us SR."
It would've been DEATH. I'm sorry, nobody wants to see a 100-minute movie version of Clark tinkering around on the farm, going to school, etc. The franchise would've been dead before it even started. You're wrong.
"As none of that happened, let's move on."
Move on, progress, change. Who the hell are you, President Teleprompter?
"Fiar enough?"
No. The entire point of this discussion is to share ideas. Thus far you've whined about... well, everything, but you've contributed nothing constructive yourself.
Put up or shut up.
You misunderstood me. That nobody cares about what I think of SV was my point.
ReplyDeleteComparing SV to Star Trek or Sex in the City is, sorry, completely off base.
Holding hope that SV will serve as a launching point for a half billion investment for a NEW Superman franchise is your own business, but
not WB's.
"No tights, no flights, and no film in sight."
SV is what it is, but it's going to be nothing more.
Can we move on from there?
Milkywhite, you could give the Apologists lessons on how to dodge points, frame the argument, change the subject, etc.
ReplyDeleteSV is a Superman spin-off on a second-rate cable channel. You love it, you're loyal to it, fine.
ReplyDeleteSV is 90210 with DCU characters. Pretty young actors, may it run another 9 years, but it's not SUPERMAN and will NOT be part of a SUPERMAN reboot.
So let's move on.
Hey, guys, I remembered it:
ReplyDelete"He who DEMANDS the future, COMMANDS the future!"
That sound familiar, milky creamy secretions? ;)
Yes, and those who cling to the past have no future.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.strategicbookpublishing.com/TheMilkyWayMan.html
"SV is 90210 with DCU characters. Pretty young actors, may it run another 9 years, but it's not SUPERMAN and will NOT be part of a SUPERMAN reboot."
ReplyDeleteSee? It was never about facts, numbers, popularity or anything else. Not for you. The issue is that you don't like the show. It's that simple. You (badly) try to frame it as something more objective, you say you're looking towards the future, blah blah blah. You could give St. Hopenchange (the Patron Saint of Teleprompters) lessons. But the reality is that you're blinded by your biases, Milkywhite.
And you assume I am too.
Wow..I wonder what would have happened if Paramount thought that making a movie based on a TV show that was cancelled after 3 years?
ReplyDeleteNobody is saying that a Superman REboot has to be Smallville:The Movie. But, to diminish Smallville's popularity just because you don't like it is moronic. 40million dollars. That is the conservative estimate on how much Smallville fans would bring to the movie if you go by what the show brings in now. That's only if those 3.7 million only see the movie once(which if it's a good movie will not happen. Smallville fans will go multiple times). By the time the movie would come out the ticket prices would be higher and it more than likely would have a wide IMAX release, adding to its coffers.
Anyway you slice it, TW would be the perfect choice monetarily if they could do it. Underestimate Smallville's online fandom at your own risk.
That was supposed to be what would have happened if Paramount thought it was a bad idea...ooops.
ReplyDeleteTWMan .....Oh remember him....and I thought we heard the last of him
ReplyDelete"Now, speaking to the normal people here, I think the World's Finest is money. It has never been done on film. It would be huge. Imagine the trailers..."
ReplyDeleteStorm makes an EXCELLENT point here. Regardlesss of who or what about the reboot, etc., etc., isn't the name of the game MAKING MONEY?!
Doesn't WB like to make money? I'd say so after the 'billion dollar baby' called THE DARK KNIGHT. Now as Ric Flair or the 4 Horsemen or whoever said once upon a time, it's all about 'putting butts in the seats'.
The question is, though, does WB want another mediocre box office like Singerman Sucks, or would they prefer an unstoppable monster? I'd say the latter. And it makes sense in continuity also. The fans would go berserk & the general public would also supply the big bucks.
WB, WHAT are you WAITING for?!
(And don't YOU answer, 'Milk' Man.)
I don't believe you guys, clinging to a show that's always rated behind the network programs. You've got to be kidding. If you think that the future of Superman is going to be based, or even influenced, by a neverending DCU origin series played by minor league actors is beyond fantasy.
ReplyDeleteSuperman is an iconic property trapped in 'development hell' while you Smallvillers have this pipedream that your favorite teen show is going to make it to the big screen.
Back in the day, DC called that 'an imaginary tale.'
Don't they have an SV site for your kind of make believe?
This is a SUPERMAN site.
Notice how he tried to "disregard" my comments about his HORRIBLE "idea" for a Superman film? Telling me to "reboot" MYSELF, as if that means diddly-squat?
ReplyDeleteIf history proves ANYTHING, it's that people like this guy CAN'T help but to get themselves booted. Just a matter of time folks....
Passerby #1: "Psst, there goes Clark Kent. Poor fool, doesn't realize we know he's really SUPERMAN."
Passerby #2: "Shaddup stoopid! He got's dat supa-hearin'!"
Passerby #1: "Oh *@%#"
Clark Kent: "Oh, you awful, awful people! Mmmmoooommmmyyyyy"
Ext. Metropolis
Giant crater smoking, remnants of downtown Metropolis after Superman's super-tantrum.
Roll Credits.
AP-
ReplyDeleteYou want to make fun, fine. READ my work. Oh, I forgot, you'd rather rant and rave. Gee, that'll work for a Superman reboot.
milkywaywriter...
ReplyDeleteSend me YOUR story of Superman again. The email account for SaveSuperman.com is no longer active so I can't access what you already sent me. The new email is savesupermancampaign@gmail.com in case you don't have it.
I'll post your story here for everyone to read and comment on.
Hit a little close to home?
ReplyDeleteAnybody see any "ranting & raving" in my post, or did they see me PROVE how ridiculous this guy's "idea" is?
Oh, and that last comment was precious. Kind of applies to HIS "idea" 110%, doesn't it?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThat is a SPLENDID idea!
Anyone want to BET this guy dials the "shields" up to 11 when we start ripping it to shreds?
Fire at will, gentlemen.
ReplyDeleteHopefully, your constructive, professional criticism will encourage others to post stories.
After all, what would Superman do?
AP, don't forget for this version of Superman, where everyone's in on the joke but ol' Clark, let's not forget some other moron's viewpoint:
ReplyDelete"Wink wink, nudge nudge." ;)
Yeah, THAT'S what we need in a Superman film, eh, TMW Man?
Some learned storytelling rules:
ReplyDelete1) Never tell a story your audience already knows.
Skip Lara and Jor-el loading the rocket as Krypton is about to explode.
First appearance was done best in SUPERMAN - the Movie
SV backstory has been done 9 years over.
"Dance with the one who brung ya'," said Darrell Royal, the football coach.
Keep the unique origin, the iconic costume, the incredible powers, the Clark Kent 'secret identity' and his job at the Daily Planet. And his mission - fighting for truth, justice and the American Way.
To paraphrase my neighbor Herb Trimpe, "That which does not add to Superman TAKES AWAY from him.
Skip the private lives of the Planet staff, the machinations of supervillain assistants, and all around soap opera.
Go for it, Superfans!
"You want to make fun, fine. READ my work. Oh, I forgot, you'd rather rant and rave. Gee, that'll work for a Superman reboot."
ReplyDeleteYou want a fair critique? Post your story then, numbnuts.
"Ideas are a dime a dozen. Does it make a STORY?"
All that blather you wrote is just ideas (and poorly conceived ones at that; Bryan Singer made many of those same assumptions). And, as you so eloquently put it, ideas are a dime a dozen. Where's your story??
What I know of your "story" (if that's what we're calling it now) from the old days, AP is pretty much right on the money.
Okay, here's my basic pitch for a movie series (obviously it's not entirely fleshed out here). This all assumes that WB loses Superman in 2013 and there'll only be an opportunity for a trilogy.
ReplyDeleteBasically I'd adapt the Bronze Age comics from the early-70's to the mid-80's. I really feel like they captured something. It's not out of the ordinary if Superman sees Lex driving around in a customized tank and using gravity weapons and teleportation devices. It's a very sci-fi/comic book world, something we haven't seen tons of in live action.
Kal-El creates two separate personas to serve humanity. Superman is the front man, the guy who rights wrongs, saves the day and uses the powers. Clark Kent is the secret agent, the journalist/writer working towards a better world from within the system. Superman deals with the symptoms of humanity's problems while Clark actively works to diagnose and then fix the "illness" causing all the problems vis a vis his job at the Daily Planet and through his novels. Both identities are indispensible and thus each identity is subservient to the other at different times and in different contexts; neither are really "disguises", they're just different representations of Kal-El's basic worldview.
The take away lesson is that Superman will never let anyone know that he and Clark are one and the same... but if Lex *were* to discover the secret and actually pondered those ramifications, he'd likely drop his vendetta against Superman (whom he somewhat views as an alien menace interfering in human affairs).
Movie 01- The movie kicks off with Superman already being active. He's been on the job for about a year and Metropolis (truly a city of tomorrow) has largely welcomed him open arms.
The renegade scientist Lex Luthor has just escaped from jail and Superman has been preoccupied trying to find him.
Lex has a fair amount of sympathizers in the US armed forces, who don't entirely buy Superman's benevolence. They turn a somewhat blind eye to Intergang (with their hi-tech weaponry) and Lex (with his scientific genius) each going to war with Superman.
The various perils Superman faces activate the Eradicator, which travels to the Antarctic and begins creating the Fortress. This decidedly un-Donner FOS is straight out of the Silver and Bronze Ages. It's given to Superman at the end of this film.
***
Movie 02- The Eradicator takes the form of the Krypton Man and sets out to remake Earth in Krypton's image. While Superman finds the prospect of Earth becoming more Krypton like a desirable outcome, his position is that they must get there or not get there on their own. Eradicator says that if they cannot reach Utopia, Utopia must reach them.
So they fight it out.
The military sees this as just provocation and attacks both Superman and the Eradicator. They even send Lex (with battle suit!) in there as well as he swears he has a substance from Superman's homeworld that can kill him.
The Eradicator sacrifices himself to save Superman from Lex's Kryptonite rays and his robotic drones all "die" with him.
The FOS now has no Kryptonian intelligence; the technology in it is now governed strictly by Superman.
***
Movie 03- This is basically "Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow". I'd adapt it as closely as possible.
TheCOLORSblend wrote:
ReplyDelete“Basically I'd adapt the Bronze Age comics from the early-70's to the mid-80's. I really feel like they captured something. It's not out of the ordinary if Superman sees Lex driving around in a customized tank and using gravity weapons and teleportation devices. It's a very sci-fi/comic book world, something we haven't seen tons of in live action.”
In reading your synopsis, it’s not about the QUALITY of the story or whether or not I LIKE it. (As if I’m ‘somebody!) The bottom line is whether your trilogy pushes SUPERMAN forward or retells us what we fans already know and the movie-going market perceives as ‘been there, done that.’
Translated into a Hollywood tagline: Superman vs. Luthor in a futuristic Metropolis.
Does such a tale “Boldly go where SUPERMAN has never gone before”?
Therein lies our conflict. As a SUPERMAN fan, you want an action-filled, exciting battle between SUPERMAN and Lex Luthor. (Why is it so many fans see the two as inseparable, as if one NEEDS the other?)
While your story may indeed be well-constructed and even professionally executed, it does not take SUPERMAN forward or give us a new truth about The Man of Steel.
It’s not that I want to CHANGE Superman, but to change how we see him.
"Therein lies our conflict. As a SUPERMAN fan, you want an action-filled, exciting battle between SUPERMAN and Lex Luthor. (Why is it so many fans see the two as inseparable, as if one NEEDS the other?)"
ReplyDeleteA) Don't tell me what I want.
B) Lex is indisputably top dog among Superman's villains. Period, end of story.
"While your story"
It's not a story, chuckles. It's the roughest outline EVER.
"may indeed be well-constructed"
It's not, it's basically just an overview of a few things I'd want to see in a Superman film. Which, incidentally, have never been seen before in live action.
"and even professionally executed,"
It's not that either.
"it does not take SUPERMAN forward or give us a new truth about The Man of Steel."
A) That's not true. Among general moviegoers, it's fresh as daisies.
B) I don't see why "change" is an absolute. The established mythos has worked for over 70 years. Why reinvent the wheel now. Don't mess with the basics, just tell stories that work within the parameters set up by Superman's comic book history.
"It’s not that I want to CHANGE Superman, but to change how we see him."
Sparky, the issue here is that I *GET* Superman and you don't. Everything else is just a footnote.
You know hat I'd like to see addressed? Is the Daily Planet being a newspaper company. With all the newspaper bankruptcies goin on I think having Clark show up to the Daily Planet the day they stop doing newspapers might be a way to address how the world he's from is older... Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteYep, newspapers are dying. My way around it would be to make Clark an anchor for The Planet, a 24-hour news network (like Fox News or CNN). You could also make him a columnist for the online edition thereof.
ReplyDeleteThe world is changing. Given my druthers, he'd be a newspaper reporter forever more. But since print journalism is dying out (and not really being replaced by the Internet), why not make him a TV journalist?
well maybe they can have the planet be both a news paper company and also have a new media/television network too.
ReplyDelete"The world is changing. Given my druthers, he'd be a newspaper reporter forever more. But since print journalism is dying out (and not really being replaced by the Internet), why not make him a TV journalist?"
ReplyDeleteBecause then he would be too visible. Fooling Lois with the glasses is hard enough to believe, fooling everyone else is impossible. Make him an online columnist or something. That seems to be where things are headed anyway
Yea that is true being a tv reporter would make his clark kent identity known to much, compared to a regular paper reporter, and internet reporting is a growing biz. My communications professors talk about that all the time.
ReplyDeleteI believe that was brought up in the comics at one point. Lois took a position as an anchorwoman, they wanted Clark too, but he said no way. He worked behinds the scenes instead. I could be wrong. I can't remember where I read it, but it seems so clear.
ReplyDelete"Because then he would be too visible. Fooling Lois with the glasses is hard enough to believe, fooling everyone else is impossible. Make him an online columnist or something. That seems to be where things are headed anyway"
ReplyDeleteWe're already accepting that such a flimsy disguise fools the sharpest, most observant people in the entire world (the Daily Planet staff). I don't see how fooling everyone else is so much more unbelievable.
That was why he didn't go for the anchor route, he would just be too visible. I like the behind the scenes idea. You know like writing for the anchors, they still need ppl to investigate and write up the stories. You just wouldn't see it in the paper.
ReplyDelete"I like the behind the scenes idea. You know like writing for the anchors, they still need ppl to investigate and write up the stories."
ReplyDeleteOther than the fact that television/broadcast journalism has *NEVER* worked that way, it's not a bad idea.
You also have to consider that a TV reporter is suppose to be reporting news as it happens. It'd be a little difficult for him to slip off and save the day while he's on camera.
ReplyDeleteSomething behind the scenes would work, maybe a producer or something of the like, though it might disconnect him from the stories.
Giving Clark an online column could work even if it the internet isn't the #1 source of news these days. And in so doing it could be part of a subplot showing the evolution of the Daily Planet in the digital age, giving Perry something to grumble about.
Actually a lot of the news in the newspapers today are from the American Press. They don't even say who wrote them. So no news works that way much anymore.
ReplyDeleteExcept for those odd few who actually do that sort of thing. All those reporters who get killed covering stories. In war or disaster. So they are still out there even in this day an age of the electronic everything.
So being an investigative reporter would still work. IMHO
We actually pursued the angle of something other than a newspaper reporter. If you remember when I first posted my idea, we gave the Daily Planet a news channel much like Fox News. Lois was now an investigative reporter for that and had uncovered the corruption within the mayor's office. Clark was to replace another reporter (John Corben) who was killed while working in Iraq. Corben, as many know, is who becomes Metallo.
ReplyDeleteWe didn't change much in regards to Corben's back story either. He was originally a journalist, but also a murderer and a thief. He was killed in a car crash fleeing from a crime, but his brain was put into a metallic body. We just changed the location and time line. He still dies the same way and his brain is taken for Luthor's project.
As a three picture plan I always thought the first should be Lex's attempt to clone superman, resulting in Bizarro, with Braniac being a large presence in the background and the final battle for Superman in the movie. It's revealed that Brainiac had been captured by Lex Luthor, but had gradually taken control of LuthorCorp. Braniac's primary function may be to free Zod from the phantom zone and prepare Earth to be transformed into a second Krypton where Zod would rule and only those humans deemed suitable would live to serve Zod. A signal may be sent into space using the LuthorCorp technology, drawing Zod's phantom zone crystal to earth, which would lead into the sequel.
ReplyDeleteThe third movie I'd adapt the Death of Superman story line, as I imagine most Superman fans would love to see this in some form on the big screen, with a proper budget, opposed to Smallvilles toned down version. It wouldn't be plausible to fit the whole death and reign of Superman story lines in one movie, but I would have the resurrection of Superman in some form before the movie ends, simpy as I wouldn't want to see the reign of Superman as it's own individual movie.
If any changes were to be made and Zod wasn't to occur in the second movie, or a fourth movie was to happen, I'd hope for Darkseid.
As for the origin, the first movie shouldn't be an origin movie as such, but it should be in there in some form. I'd open the movie on Krypton, maybe have a five minute scene showing a very brief dynamic between Zod and Jor-El and the downfall of krypton. As Kal-Els ship flys off into space, Krypton explodes and the opening credits role. Then we should see Superman already established as a Superhero, fly into action to save the passengers on a sinking cruise-liner or defeat a minor villain ?(or something similar). He'd have been living in Metropolis with his dual identities for approximately a year. Although not in a relationship with Lois, the time has been there for some kind of chemistry to have developed. Maybe later in the movie have a very brief flashback displaying him being discovered by Martha and Johnathon Kent following the ships crash on earth, although that may not be essential.
Lois should be the army brat, self reliant and not the damsel in distress most female characters end up being in these superhero movies. She should still have her "romantic interest" in Superman, but on a realistic level knows that it wouldn't happen. There should be a growing chemistry between her and Clark. Lex should be head of LuthorCorp and man of power, not the crook he was made out to be in previous movies. In the sequel I'd like to see him take some political position, on the way to president but not quite making it. He should be a presence through the trilogy/4 movies, but not the primary opposition.