Thought this article was interesting. Seems they will make him darker though unfortunately.

Warner Bros. also put on hold plans for another movie starring multiple superheroes -- known as "Batman vs. Superman" -- after the $215 million "Superman Returns," which had disappointing box-office returns, didn't please executives. "'Superman' didn't quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to," says Mr. Robinov. "It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned." "Had 'Superman' worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009," he adds. "But now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman without regard to a Batman and Superman movie at all."
link

Don´t know but to me the dynamics of Superman is a being with godlike powers that wants to live a normal life, yet cannot escape the consequences and responsibilties of those powers.
How do you build a better world when you have the power to rearrange it as you see fit.Who are you to make those decisions? And the constant fear of being corrupted by that power. those are the things that fascinates me about the Superman mythos.
Superman, to me, is "warm" first and foremost, not a dark brooding zombie. He finds a real joy in seeing other people happy.

Wow. Interesting article.

I'm not sure turning on Superman's 'dark' side is a good thing, nor is focussing a movie entirely on Lex Luthor, as he isn't as interesting as the Joker. Superman has a lot of scope for interesting movies with high action and cliff hanging scenarios.. and interesting villains... while keeping him the hero he is without making him dark and brooding like Batman or pathetic and constantly uncertain like Spiderman. Superman isn't Batman... and I don't think the same formula of 'darkness' works for those 2 great characters.

I do believe they need to rethink Superman after what they did with Superman Returns. I think that movie has almost done more damage to Superman's reputation than Smallville.
*ducks quickly*

Well, sigh. I recently irritated a lot of people by saying that I miss the sunny and funny Batman of my childhood. And now they are going to do what they did to Batman to Superman, too? Change him from a warm, kind and caring man who wants to live a normal life with Lois Lane, but has to save the world all the time instead, into a dark, angry avenger who'll never stop battling monsters and villains and Lex Luthor?



Sigh.

Ann

My biggest wish (toes crossed!) is that they start going with the current mythology instead of the Silver age. I never did like Kal-El being the "real" person and Clark Kent being the disguise.

Interesting. I can't say I wouldn't mind a movie that complicates Superman although it's clear in my mind that he's not Batman. I wouldn't expect him to go out there vigilante style. Or to be angry, really. The trope wiki has a good page on "dark" that gets to the heart of what it means why it's taken wrong (even though they hate it ):

And I do enjoy cynicism in my entertainment, it's a nice change for me. The idea of working with his powers and the baggage that comes with them strikes me as fascinating through the "paved with good intentions" model (which is how I took the last movie and his faux pas with Lois). Exploring the invincible-but-not-infallible thing would be right up my alley. I don't dislike fleshing out Lex Luthor either, I've seen what fans in Smallville do with the character and it's pretty cool.

The thing is though, that I'm not sure that doing this because of Batman's success is that good a reason. It seems rather slapdash, but that's Hollywood for you.

I am, however, salivating over Watchmen at the moment. My goodness!

alcyone

Here are some interesting responses from people in the industry about it all:

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/08/2...mith-jeph-loeb-and-other-comic-creators/

I think Kevin Smith says it best:

“You always have to always keep Superman very distinct from Batman,” he related. “Batman can be brooding and bleak and dark but Superman — if you want to take a realistic approach to him that’s fine, but I don’t think you can turn him into an angry character. Superman is about the hope in people, the good in people, whereas Batman is about the more driven, hungry for justice angry side of us.”

I hate when movie producers decide to jump on whatever bandwagon is en vogue at the moment and don't mind totally screwing up established characters by doing so. They did it with Smallville when they decided they wanted to get on the angsty teenage dramas such as Dawson's Creek and the like. If they decide to make Superman darker just because that's what worked for Batman, I'd resent it. I loved the last two Batman movies, especially TDK, but I don't want a dark, pessimistic, brooding, lonely Superman. I want him to be about hope and about inspiring people. That's what's always separated him from Batman and other superheroes.

My 2 cents.

From the outset, I'm not at all opposed to the idea of making Superman darker (and even edgier ).

I think that every good fictional character has a potential for complexity and multi-layered explorations - and I think it could be especially interesting to re-boot a franchise which has been so clear-cut and straightforward in many respects (and so painfully bland in its last outing on the big screen).

There are several interesting starting points for Superman to develop a darker side.

Firstly, there's the whole Spidey "with great power comes great responsibility" thing.

Then, there's the outcast to society angle, him never belonging, maybe thinking that he's a freak of nature or being detested/feared/etc. by others.

Also, his inherent reflex to blame himself for everything he *cannot* do (quite often explored in this fandom, for example), could be used to make him darker, more self-reflexive, e.g. if he loses someone he really loves or can't prevent some horrible disaster.

And, if you decide to set the film in a quasi post-apocalyptic society (either simply post 9/11, similar to what they did in the Batman reboot or on a grander scale), pretty much all bets are off. You could have a lot of darkness, brooding, self-accusation spring from that need to always do the right thing and help everybody.

In my opinion, it really all depends on how they decide to handle the source material: how much does CK/S know about his origins, about the source of his powers; who knows what about him; how do people who know react; what is the world like he has to live and act in; are there other Superheroes and how are they treated and perceived; who are his adversaries and what are their goals and their ways of fighting?

If done well, I think a darker reboot could add a lot to the myth and help make it accessible and intriguing for new audiences and longtime fans alike.

And let's face it, after the disaster that was Superman Returns, fans can be called lucky that there will be another movie at all.

What does make me wary, though, is the fact that the reboot idea seems to stem solely from the wish to emulate the success of Chris Nolan's Batman.

I really hope that they'll hold out for a great script this time - and that they'll take the time and effort to find a great cast. I do believe that a great part of Batman's recent success is due to the fact that those films are so well cast.

In any case, it will be interesting to see how and when the new movie will crystallise. In the meantime, I'm also really looking forward to Watchmen

It's always interesting to me that people say it was a flop... especially when it made 20million more worldwide than Batman Begins did...

Superman Returns: 391,000,000
Batman Begins: 371,853,783


Um can someone explain that to me?

Once again, it's a case of TPTB not being able to see the forest for the trees.
If one looks at the successful comic book related movies that have come out in recent years the common thread has been that they all stayed close to the source material and respected the character as it had been written previously.

Superman didn't do that. It used another movie as it's source material, a movie that was fine for the time but has since lost touch with what the Superman mythos had evoled into.

Given that Superman has been around for seventy years one can find a myriad of different 'Supermen' over the years. But DC comics in the mid-eighties realized that their flagship character had gotten stale, and had lost touch with the audience.

The reboot was well-done. It gave the franchise a much needed new 'coat of paint' without sacrificing any of the core values and ethics which had defined the man of steel since 1938.

Lois and Clark is the only version of Superman that has embraced the basic themes of the comic book Superman that has existed since 1986.

No one expects a major motion picture to try and replicate the television series. They need to find a wider audience and be 'BIGGER'. The TV show was a romantic dramedy that went in with it's focus on the relationship between Lois Lane and Clark Kent/Superman (hence the title?). A movie needs to have more action and excitement to draw in the general audience.

It was always stated by Donner that to make the movie work you had to buy into the love story. That's true, with some qualifications. The Donner films, even with all his claims about the love story, didn't actually do a very good job with it. It (for me) was never really believable that these two people had any chemistry for each other. The need to force the issue didn't allow for any natural evolution of that relationship.

You cant' do the Lois and Clark/Superman love story in one movie. Lois and Clark had three years to bring it about and another year to mess with it. Even relying on what came before in an older, dated, movie, we still didn't see any real growth of the relationship between those two people (and the addition of the kid was just another gimmick to force the issue).

You need to have the the time to grow the relationship over time (like three movies). Each movie can have it's big, special effects laden, action plot, but allow the growth of the 'love story' be the subplot that ties the movies together and allows us to see the growth in the characters over that time.

Bottom line, you can't force a character into a mold because it was popular and successful with someone else. If you do, all you wind up with is an unsatisfying bad copy of the character you used as your 'new' inspiration.

Tank (who tends to get off on tangents when it comes to Superman and all the current live actions versions because he can't understand why it's so hard for Hollywood to get it right)

JoJo said:

That's an extremely good point. This is what I think.

To the film companies - Warner Brothers, Fox, whatever they are called - the important thing is how much money a movie makes during its first week or weeks in the United States. That is because the movie theaters have to give most of the money they make at the box office to the film companies, but that goes for the first two weeks after the film's opening only. Think of it like this. The most successful film ever is Titanic, or so I think at least. But Titanic was a slow opener, and its first two weeks were disappointing. But then it slowly gained momentum.
And just like Celine Dion sang in the movie's title song about her heart going on, the movie just went on and on and on. People kept coming to movie theaters to see it in the United States as well as abroad. But its success came too late for Fox and Paramount. In fact, instead of generating new romantic tragedies in a similar vein, the movie seemingly warned film companies off romantic movies! Not a single really successful very romantic movie has been made since that time! And there have been extremely few serious attempts to make romantic American movies at all since then. The 'wrong kind of success' for Titanic sank an entire movie genre!

Ann

Hmmmm. Sorry I have to celebrate myself for my post number 4038. You see, one of my favorite galaxies is NGC 4038:

NGC 4038

I'm being ignored on another board for saying this - but they're a good deal more rabid there. (Not the Big Apricot, BTW)

For some of us who kind of watch the film industry - it was fairly obvious early on that WB didn't really want a sequel to Superman Returns. It did well in the box office but it wasn't spectacular. But when the studio keeps raising the ante on how much it needs to make before there's a sequel, that's just proof they don't want one.

My personal opinion is that WB knew in 2006 they really didn't want a Singer sequel. They just wanted to see how the wind was blowing on Smallville and the Batman franchise reboot and wanted to hedge their bets in the event SR had serious legs in the foreign markets.

My bet is that the 'reboot' will be very Smallville-ish. A very angsty Anakin/Clark without the Emperor to turn him to the darkside. (Have I mentioned I don't much like Smallville? I managed to miss most of last season - except for the ep with Dean Cain of course.)

But only the future will tell - we may be looking at another 20 years for a good Superman movie.

I'm veering off topic here, but to be honest, I can't recall one hero movie which to my mind has carried forth a convincing love story. Don't get me wrong, the love story is always there for these superhero movies, but it's a vapid tack-on. It seems to me that "action and excitement" are to the detriment of fleshing out the relationship and presenting the women as more than just damsels in distress/ magic plot propellers. Even Donner's films are open to this sort of critique. I don't see a way around that without striking a blow to the foundation of these superhero myths in the first place.

So in this I don't blame the Superman franchise so much as the male-centered superhero genre and its conventions.

alcyone

I tend to agree with Alcyone. The superhero films really don't balance the 'love' story with the action. There have been lots of pairings.. but nothing that actually portrayed the emotion or chemistry of the situation.
With Superman... there is the scope to have the action, with Lois in the mix, and still have the romantic development there (with the conflict internally of Clark and Superman)... but I agree.. it would take more than one movie.
The other benefit Superman has is the whole 'let's kill you off in one movie and bring you back in the next' option... it worked wonders for the Star Trek franchise. It would also give a justifiable change in direction for Superman/Clark, and an interesting conflict for Lois to deal with.
I agree with JoJo that SR did financially well, despite everyone (including WB) saying that it flopped. However I think it's script let it down.
Can you imagine what it would have raked in if it had had a good script behind it? SR was originally toted as a continuation of the Christopher Reeve movies. But it is hard to believe CR's Superman would desert the planet, let alone Lois. So the story has changed to it's an 'alt-universe' version... even then... bringing a child into the mix of the Lois and Clark relationship in the first new superman movie is not what I would consider a bright move.
They had the opportunity to take away the 80's cheesiness and that "darn kiss" and bring something fresh to the Superman movie franchise. They still have that opportunity despite the SR story.

But who knows where our man of steel will end up next time around in the hands of these people.

Concerning the SR being a flop it' rather simple, WB doesn't compare it directly against Batman but against size of the brand. If I understand it correctly, the Superman market is several magnitudes bigger then that of any other superhero so they expect a Superman movie returns to be in a league of it's own.

personally, I wouldn't mind a movie with Superman more like the one in the comics. I never did like the way Clark was portrayed in the Chris Reeves movies. He is discribed as mild mannered, not clutzy.