Superman: The Man of Steel

[T!M]

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/1637/supermanyd6.jpg
Release Date: 2009
Directed by Brian Singer with a Returning Cast

Well, personally my wait will be shorter then what I waited for "Returns" :P That wait was like over ten years. Now that the sequel movie is a go the interviews start along with the anticipation. All we really know about the movie thus far is that the antagonist for our hero will be of "alien" origin. And to put your minds to rest it will NOT be Zod. We also know there will be a ton of action that is sure to please those who were disappointed in the recent movie. And also now that his ode to Donner is finished, he will attempt to make Superman his own.

Brandon Routh was recently interviewed by TV Guide and asked what villain he would like to see in "Superman: Man of Steel"

Brandon Routh: "Well, there's a lot of talk about Brainiac. Everyone wants to see Brainiac. But I tell you what, in the Superman Returns video game, you get to play as Bizarro. Bizarro's pretty fun; you can have some fun with that. So I would lean towards one of those. With Brainiac there's a lot of possibilities there. He's another mastermind villain so he can create any number of evil things."

[G-Nome]

total awesomeness, Brainiac all the way! One of my favorite Superman villains.

[Graphite]

"Put a bullet to the brain pan, squish."

I'm seriously tempted to see Catwoman just I can offically say Superman Returns is the worst superhero movie of all time. This is one movie I will not be seeing and would consider signing a petition to see Singer not direct it. He just does not know the character or his universe, just the crappy campy 70s movie. Of course, this is all just my own personal humble opinnion.

"Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice... a fooled man can't be fooled again."

[WingedAvenger]

I was disappointed by Superman Returns as well, but truthfully, it's nothing compared to Catwoman and Daredevil. Those two movies are easily the two worst superhero movies ever.

Edit: But anyway, in regards to the original topic (:D ), I'm up for another go around with Superman. I love the character and the setting, they just need to not repeat their mistakes of the past. Routh is right that the fans want to see Brainiac. Well, at least this fan does. I cringe at the idea of him playing the dual role of Bizarro however. The guy has all the acting ability of a Ken doll.

[Solario]

I'm cautiously optimistic. And I just saw Returns the first time today. Not exceptionally bad as much as exceptionally mediocre. Which doesn't really fit for a Superman movie.

I'd like a Bizarro or Braniac or Mongul villain. A small Kalibak cameo might be nice too.

[Meltman]

Well, I loved Superman Returns almost as much as T!M, so of course I'm looking forward to it. I don't really care what villain they use, so long as it's cool.

[Masked Revenger]

Well, I loved Superman Returns almost as much as T!M, so of course I'm looking forward to it. I don't really care what villain they use, so long as it's cool.

Werd.

Chris

[T!M]

:yoy:

http://img476.imageshack.us/img476/6020/bizarrowe7.jpg

[Seadevil]

I didn't really dig 'Returns', but i'll probably check this out regardless. Singer did a pretty good job with X1 and 2, so hopefully with him doing his own thing this will turn out better.

And hopefully they'll forget about 'Superbaby'. That was my big, big beef with 'Returns'.

[Solario]

The degree of irrespondsibility and arrogance on the part of the characters were mine.

[Noble]

I didn't really dig 'Returns', but i'll probably check this out regardless. Singer did a pretty good job with X1 and 2, so hopefully with him doing his own thing this will turn out better.

And hopefully they'll forget about 'Superbaby'. That was my big, big beef with 'Returns'.

yeah, superbaby was kinda dumb. Did Supes and Louis ever have a kid together that was a super kid in the comics?

[Solario]

I thought the Superbaby was alright, the murder of the thug with the piano and Superman's recklessness with the island leading to three more deaths was inexcusable.

[Gold Rush]

Man, I probably shoulda responded in the "Returns" thread. I didn't know so many of you folks were "eh" or "bleh" towards Returns.

What you got to realize is that this movie and the previous (2) movies is NOT purely related to the comics: It's its own world.

When I first saw Superman 2, although I enjoyed it immensely, I was ranckled personaly by a few things, most notably, Superman chosing to lose his powers and the sex scene. To me, this was NOT what Superman was about. Sure, he loved Lois, but to give up his powers? And then SHOW the results on screen. Okay, it was not a porno, but it kinda tarnished Superman's image in my young mind.

As a short aside, I will add I have never seen Supermans 3-5. I saw the preview with Richard Pryor in the theaters and much like Singer, I decided then and there the Superman story, cinematically was over for me. :chuckle:

So, growing up and now we have Returns. If you put yourself in the proper frame of mind, it does work. The seventies were a different time in cinema. You notice alot of story and character development. Many times this slows down the pacing of the movie; most folks explain it away as "have to tell the new uninformed generation about Superman and his world". Many interpersonal things I don't personally care to go over in detail; such things are probably best explored in a TV show ("Lois and Clark") but it does not mean they should be ignored.

I think if I was with some of you and had never seen Superman 1 & 2 in the theater, I would most likely think the same way you do: I'd hate the slow pace of the movie, it's interpersonal explorations, the neat cameos by the original actors who played Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane, and Superbaby. While Superbaby was, "meh", it was a good nod to what went on in Superman 2. In fact, it probably was needed. It was a warm touch and added to it's somewhat adult message that may be missed by younger audiences (or not cared for by younger audiences) the son into a father. I guess, with my past, as many older viewers of Returns, this was a nice and warm touch. Sure, I am not wild about Superbaby, but it is an element that is really needed in the movie and it works if you are among the ones that first saw Superman lo those many years ago.

Now, back to the topic. :)

=========================================

Gold Rush

[thebluecanary]

Catwoman and Daredevil. Those two movies are easily the two worst superhero movies ever.

Nick Furry: Agent of Shield. FTW?

[Gold Rush]

Did Supes and Lois ever have a kid together that was a super kid in the comics?

Yes, if you count some "alter-future" stories that suggested a possible future for Superman in the 50's run of the comics. :p


Next Super Villian in the movie

Based on what T!M has posted here with the sources, I would put my betting money on Braniac. He's never been done in a live-action show/movie. He's an alien.

They may throw in another villian or two (probably Lex makes an appearance), but the main villian would have to be Brainiac in my book.

I also think Superbaby will at least make a token appearance, but probably more than that, along with Lois. They may put him in danger again, but I doubt it. It will probably be another "mushy/feel-good" scene, where Supes gets to know his son and Lois tags along. It will probably be an extended scene they show in-between the villians doing their villianous plots.

========================================

Gold Rush

[Graphite]

[COLOR=Gold]Man, I probably shoulda responded in the "Returns" thread. I didn't know so many of you folks were "eh" or "bleh" towards Returns.

What you got to realize is that this movie and the previous (2) movies is NOT purely related to the comics: It's its own world.

In the 70s comics was in its adolesence. This was the time for Superman to grow up. And yes it would still be possible for him to do that while keeping an Iconic image. From that period people still view Bats as Wam Bam man and this was a missed opertunity to go beyond that.

Superman /= Gay Jesus Christ Icon
Clark Kent /= Ultra Lame Comic Geek
Luther /= Bald meniacal twat
Lois /= Damsel in Distress
Superson /= poorly done plot device
Chris Reeves /= Best Superman of all time

I could easily list 100 reasons that were wrong with this movie and 100 reasons it should not have been based on the 70s. Simply put though, I hate that era's image of comic heroes, though I recognize it as a neccicary step to today. For any who does not understand my gripe, go see Batman Begins and Casino Royal.

You say golden era from a childhood.
I say an era better left forgot.

[AfterglowNoMore]

The degree of irrespondsibility and arrogance on the part of the characters were mine. You mean like how they made Superman a stalker, a date rapist, and a deadbeat dad?

I didn't really dig 'Returns', but i'll probably check this out regardless. Singer did a pretty good job with X1 and 2, so hopefully with him doing his own thing this will turn out better.

And hopefully they'll forget about 'Superbaby'. That was my big, big beef with 'Returns'.From my understanding from reading Wizard interviews, The Bastard Child of Steel is going to be a big part of the sequel despite Singer knowing that the fans hate the idea of it.

I say bring in Ratner! :D He gave us the Danger Room that Singer said would never be done. He gave us Colossus, who Singer didn't want to use, and he gave us the The Fastball Special, which Singer said he'd never do.

[Dr Jack Wolfe]

You know I love Reeves superman, but the best ever may be Tim Daily from The Nine (boo hoo canceled) and Wings(how do you people not know wings?)

Tim was the Animated Superman :) although he didn't voice the best line ever.

"You see, I live in world of cardboard, always afraid of hurting someone. But you, big man, you can take it can't you? So I can show you just how powerful I am".

Or something like that. Maybe the will kill the kid? That would be good. Personally, if they really want to do a World's Finest with Routh and Bale they should just let Nolan direct both franchises till they meet up. I bet Nolan could go really big and four color with Supes and suprise us all.

[Graphite]

The true Man of Steel
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y121/Graphite/Post/superman_dvd_bg.jpg

The true Lex Luthor
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y121/Graphite/Post/joker_002.jpg

Personally, I would love to see a World Finest and a Darkseid movie.

[Maveric]

"Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice... a fooled man can't be fooled again."


please tell me you didn't just try to quote the leader of the free world...

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/fool_me.htm

[Gold Rush]

I totally agree with you, Graph. The new Animated Supermman works on a better level than the 70's and new movie. I do prefer it as well.

I am just going to throw out this info, although it answers some of Graph's points, it's not really directed at him; he doesn't like "Returns" movie. I can respct that.

Just to let you know, this is a bit long-winded. :p Hopefully it'll put things more in perspective of these films.

Actually, the 70's were not as adolescent as one may think. The 40's and the 50's were. If you look at many comics, especially from the sixties on, you do see a growing up. Many folks poke fun over what was on the cover of Superman comics in the 50's, but it is the 60's, where the "Dickery" site comes into it's own. Many issues were raised in the comics and Superman's usefulness was questioned. Lois became independent; a working woman. Many good stories were forming.

In the 70's, DC actually got many of it's cues from TV shows. If you've read any of those issues from the seventies and see what was on, you'd know what I mean. Things like, Batman solving cases and then facing readers and asking them if they solved the case before the final page where the answer would be revealed (as in the old Ellery Queen mysteries). There were also other influences, especially in the late seventies, as Superman came to be.

Although the Adam West Batman was very much on the hearts and minds of most comic readers, it was not on the majority of them. Many DID grow up with the show, but many did complain that it was too campy. When the seventies came around, there were many deep and dark stories for Batman and DC. Much of the horror genre had been revived (House of Secrets, Swamp Thing) and eerie stories were part and parcel of Super hero comics. Anyway, most fans, at this time, wanted a serious Batman movie. There was much talk about it, but all agreed the actor playing him should have "Svengali eyes". Hypnotic eyes that can grab your attention. It would be a serious Batman.

Actually, the air in the late 70's, as the original movie came out, for the Batman stories and the Superman ones, was strangely like a daytime soap opera. Now, I've only viewed a handful of soap operas but one thing they do is grab you with event after event and keep pulling you in. This was how many issues of Batman turned out; it was hard to put them down. Superman was much the same in a "mundane" sort of way. Yes, he did sometimes deal with intergalactic menaces but the stories mainly involved with treating/explaining his world as Clark Kent and how Superman operated in that world. You had many Soap Operatic things: Morgan Edge (a Kirby villian who was un-made into a good guy by DC honchos) had bought out the Daily Planet and merged it with his WGBS TV empire. Kent was the lead anchorman. In there, you had a few potential romantic distractions and compliacations such as Cat Grant, female reporter. Even Lana Lang was working there as a society reporter to give Lois a run for her money. You could say, the stories were a bit "ordinary", but they dealt with human interactions, even in a simple sopa operatic way.

Actually, Superman DID go beyond the previous Adam West Batman. It was more "true-to-life" as it were. Like I said, a soap opera. No crazy villians and campy theme music. Just emotions swelling. Doubt. Etcetera. A man can fly. A man can have failings. He can be "human".

Like I said, even I was a bit disappointed, but it works for me if I view it as an "Alter-Universe" Superman; not the one I know. I just take it on a surface level, even if I do see the deeper things they try and let an audience see. :)

In fact, the movie fairly SMACKS of things you'd see in a bad Daytime Soap Opera. Lois, being the working woman, chain smokes (and even has the voice to prove it). Clark is still being shown as his pre-John Byrne self. Where I would argue, he is sort of a reverse Batman. You know, the meek, mild-mannered geek that we all are and then we dream about tearing off our clothes and becoming Superman? :chuckle: Okay, maybe not so extreme, but that was how it was back then. Now, the image has changed. Yes, for the better, I'd say, of course you still get some complaints of people who cannot identify with Superman because of this. :shrug:

And did anyone catch Lois' culpability in Returns? Admitredly, it is weird to see someone chain smoke in such a fashion in "this day and age" of movies. I am a bit surprised they left it in. But they left in more than that. As a result of her smoking, Superson has asthma. Anyone pick that up?

The movies are about fallibilty and trying to overcome them. They are shown with faults. Almost too faulted. Hardly any true icon here. These are movies that should be seen as such. Actually, one of the big things I liked about Superman growing up was the fact he was a humble guy with the power of a god, but he just wanted a normal life. He could have ruled the world, but he chose not to. He chose to serve. These movies sorta amplify that for me, albeit a bit too much. Again, I agree, there probably is a better way to tell it, but I watch it, enjoy it on it's own terms. Like the wrapping up of past plot lines, but still think of it as not quite the true Superman (as with the sex scene in #2 :p ).

So yeah, I have to agree on many points about not being totally happy with it being a "true" representation or even a representation that got the "feeling" of what Superman is right, but it is just another side of the coin. Not quite Superman, but deals with things I can live with and like. :)

Sheesh, "date rapists"? :P She consented in the second movie! :P But yeah, the "stalker" element kinda freaked me out. He did do that too much.

Never see him do that in the comics or cartoons. ;)

Anyway, I do see your points, gents. :)


========================================

Gold Rush

[T!M]

Ya know...there is a topic about Superman Returns here...:rolleyes: Post opinions there please...if you don't mind.

[Meltman]

That would make too much sense, T!M.

[Masked Revenger]

http://www.pvponline.com/images/2939.gif

Chris

[Seadevil]

There you have it. Superman is a rapist.

[thebluecanary]

Wait if Superman gave up his powers and that when he got her knocked up, then why would superkid have any powers? He couldn't have passed on what he didn't have. Unless his powers where just blocked, and not really taken away. Then that would work.

And I enjoyed the movie. I never followed the comic tho, so maybe thats why I liked it. I used to watch the old Black and White Superman in the mornings when I was a kid. =) YES I am old. :shinner:

Green Lanter FTW.

[Solario]

Do you mean Fleischer's Superman series? Because that's Propagantastic. And really welldone considering how old it is.

And yeah Supes is totally a rapist now. And a murderer. And a stalker. Jesus, Richard White was an even better man compared to Supes than I thought previously.

[T!M]

BOMBS AWAY...take Returns talk to the other thread....please. :)
http://img447.imageshack.us/img447/6342/sdghxj7.jpg

[Solario]

Anyway, Alien villain that's not Zod = Awesome.

[Gold Rush]

Okay, "Stay on Target." So says the Rebel general during the X-Wing run on the Death Star. :p ;)

Anyway, Alien villain that's not Zod = Awesome.

While it *is* possible for Zod to re-appear, it would not be a wise or prudent move. So, I am gonna have to say as an alien ;so that means Earthers are have less chance at this than even the lowest alien pick, a choice of Zod would be near the very bottom of the list, in my opinion.

=========================================

Gold Rush

[Meltman]

Do you mean Fleischer's Superman series? Because that's Propagantastic. And really welldone considering how old it is.

I'm guessing he means the George Reeves one.

I wouldn't mind seeing Mongul, too. Especially if it includes Warworld.

[Dr Jack Wolfe]

Okay, "Stay on Target." So says the Rebel general during the X-Wing run on the Death Star. :p ;)



While it *is* possible for Zod to re-appear, it would not be a wise or prudent move. So, I am gonna have to say as an alien ;so that means Earthers are have less chance at this than even the lowest alien pick, a choice of Zod would be near the very bottom of the list, in my opinion.

=========================================

Gold Rush

We won't see Zod. Singer had Zod in returns and would/will only accept Jude Law playing him. He rewrote the movie because of that. I'm hoping for a Braniac/Doomsday treatment with Doomsday as the brains and Brainac as the brawn. :P Certainly no Kryptonians.

[Half Life]

While i definately disliked Returns, i wont write this one off. If Singer goes back and reads up on superman and how he is supposed to be (he does more than hold stuff over his head) and figure out how kyptonite is supposed to effect him then i'll probably see the sequel in the theatre, as long as it dosent focus on the stupid kid at all, i say barley mention him in the next movie.