Chris Nolan to produce Superman: The Man of Steel

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

the original Kirk was also a good 10 years older than Pine's and had been captain for years, not to mention that he had a completely different backstory with his father not dying before he was born. i think Pine did a pretty good job with it, there were enough things he did that made me think of Kirk, but with a more raw and aggressive approach (that someone younger without experience would do). it'll be interesting to see how he can mature the character a bit in the next movie

I had a problem with Kirk at first, but then I read 'Best Destiny' by Diane Carey while on vacation. And this was Prime Timeline stuff well before Star Trek XI and it had a teenage Kirk.

[Sr. Mints]

They need a strong villain, someone who can stand toe to toe with Supes, push him around, not a comedic bald man for the umpteenth time.

That's one aspect I thought was glaringly obvious after watching Returns. Stay away from Lex Luthor all together.

I've heard Brianiac mentioned as a villain, but I'd rather see a Superman movie with Darkseid. They may not be familiar to Joe Summer Movie-goer.... so make them familiar!

Make it a darker movie, take the subject matter seriously! A dark, gritty, intense movie with Superman as a shining beacon of hope.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Not very many anymore, everything is remade, but Superman...again??

Well there's good reason because there hasn't been a good one since 1981.

[trackercowe]

Rumor has it that Nolan, and Snyder will be bringing back General Zod for the new film. So those of you asking for someone to beat Superman down should be very pleased to say the least.

I am not necessarily enthralled over a new Superman movie, just solely based on the boredom/awkwardness of Returns; but if anyone can turn Superman into a masterpiece it is Christopher Nolan.

Then hopefully Darren Aronofsky will come aboard to direct Wolverine 2. That character obviously demands a more darker/violent approach, and I think Aronofsky can bring that.

If that comes to fruition we will have amazing prospects for Batman, The Avengers, Superman, Wolverine, and even the Alien prequels. Those should at least detract from the new Spider-Man, and probably X-Men: First Class which both sound terrible.

For anyone that knows, is Green Lantern the next prominent super-hero flick to be released?

[Hack&Lube]

Zod is a snore, just like Khan.

A cliched character that needs to be avoided for fresh enemies into the mythos.

I'm sure that if this is successful they'll want Doomsday into the mix but he makes sense for the 2nd movie (the Empire Strikes Back, the Dark Knight of the films) to kill Superman or something only to bring him back in the 3rd...so we need something else for movie 1.

[TylerSVT]

Im kind of sick of superhero movies..

The reason the Dark Knight was so good was that it was in a way believable, both the characters were mortal humans with no powers... it made it entertaining and relatable.

I dont think they can make Superman dark enough to stay good and not deviate from the premise that is superman...

Spidy would have been ok, i can see how they can turn up the darkness in that series but it will be VERY hard to top Spiderman 2.

I hope Nolan dosent start doing movies just because he can, Memento, Dark Knight and Inception are probably my favorite movies ever... just awesome everything.

[FlamingInfinity]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

For anyone that knows, is Green Lantern the next prominent super-hero flick to be released?

Or is it Thor? One or the other IIRC.

[trackercowe]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Zod is a snore, just like Khan.

A cliched character that needs to be avoided for fresh enemies into the mythos.

I'm sure that if this is successful they'll want Doomsday into the mix but he makes sense for the 2nd movie (the Empire Strikes Back, the Dark Knight of the films) to kill Superman or something only to bring him back in the 3rd...so we need something else for movie 1.

I for one would be against a picture with Doomsday involved. Sure the Death of Superman was uber-popular in the 90's, but even though Superman #75 was excellent, I thought the rest of the rest of the series for the most part (especially Reign of Superman) was a joke. Chalk it up to 90's comic writing I guess.

Also look at the many alterations they have done with Doomsday throughout television, and even the Death of Superman animated film. For the most part they have all been mediocre at best, and obviously writing an origin story for Doomsday would be near impossible. Of course the unexplained was what made Doomsday great, but I just don't see it working in a big screen picture.

Now if they decided to bring in Brainiac, or Darkseid I would be all for it. Both have played a much more prominent role, and I could see them doing big screen adaptations of either. Darkseid might be tough, because they would have to develop Apocalypse, but the animated versions have been well made.

The real question I have is whether they can "reboot" Superman and not have Lex Luthor as part of it. Unlike Batman who has no real arch enemy (Joker is obviously close), so they brought in Ras al Ghul, and Scarecrow for the origin story. But, for Superman Luthor has almost always played a prominent part in Superman's story, and is usually a must have when it comes to big screen versions. I could see them having Luthor create Doomsday in order to destroy Supes, but that would be very similar to Superman 2.

Just my opinion though.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Was never a huge comic book guy, was never a cartoon guy, but for some reason, I get super pumped for super hero movies. For those wondering if there were was anyone who liked Superman Returns, I am that person. Well, I wouldn't say I loved it, but I definitely didn't hate it like the rest of the world seemed to. I thought Routh was fine and reminded me of Reeve. He looked like him, he sounded like him. Bosworth and the kid were weak, but I got over that pretty fast.

The airplane scene was sweet, the rooftop robbery scene was cool and I liked the final sequence as well. I didn't hate the story either. Like I said, I wasn't a huge comic guy so I never opened a single Superman comic book, so I have no idea of the inner details of his character. All I know about Clark Kent and Superman is from the Reeve movies.

Keep in mind, Nolan is just producing this, he's not directing it, so it won't have the same feel as the latest Batman flicks, so don't get your hopes up for that.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

Then hopefully Darren Aronofsky will come aboard to direct Wolverine 2. That character obviously demands a more darker/violent approach, and I think Aronofsky can bring that.

I wouldn't get too excited for a uber dark, uber violent Wolvering movie. As much as the die hard ners would want it, no studio is ever going to sink the money(150-200 Million) into a movie that doesn't have the wide appeal of the last few Xmen and Wolverine movies did. They're not going to make a movie that parents can't take their 10-14 year old kids to. In an interview before the last Wolverine movie came out, Hugh Jackman said it was going to be darker and get more to the Wolverine roots. Based on reviews from the uber nerds, they didn't pull that off at all.

A Wolverine movie the way you want it will NEVER happen.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

I for one would be against a picture with Doomsday involved. Sure the Death of Superman was uber-popular in the 90's, but even though Superman #75 was excellent, I thought the rest of the rest of the series for the most part (especially Reign of Superman) was a joke. Chalk it up to 90's comic writing I guess.

Also look at the many alterations they have done with Doomsday throughout television, and even the Death of Superman animated film. For the most part they have all been mediocre at best, and obviously writing an origin story for Doomsday would be near impossible. Of course the unexplained was what made Doomsday great, but I just don't see it working in a big screen picture.

Now if they decided to bring in Brainiac, or Darkseid I would be all for it. Both have played a much more prominent role, and I could see them doing big screen adaptations of either. Darkseid might be tough, because they would have to develop Apocalypse, but the animated versions have been well made.

The real question I have is whether they can "reboot" Superman and not have Lex Luthor as part of it. Unlike Batman who has no real arch enemy (Joker is obviously close), so they brought in Ras al Ghul, and Scarecrow for the origin story. But, for Superman Luthor has almost always played a prominent part in Superman's story, and is usually a must have when it comes to big screen versions. I could see them having Luthor create Doomsday in order to destroy Supes, but that would be very similar to Superman 2.

Just my opinion though.

Doomsday's origin is perfectly fine the way it is. Kryptonian scientists kept sending a baby out to die millions of times in a hellish environment and collecting the DNA from the body and re-engineering his DNA everytime to pseudo-evolve the most powerful and undefeatable thing ever. Since he's Kryptonian too, you can hide hints of it in Superman's own origin story and so it loops together.

Lex works just fine if they respect the comics character who was a mad scientist and thus had great powers available to him (through science, manipulating aliens, controlling Brainiac, using Kryptonian power suits, etc.).

Lex doesn't work in the movies because for some stupid reason they keep making him a real-estate mogul and that's not what he's about. He's not about land grabs or money. He's a brilliant scientist (who is rich from his inventions and business acumen) believes he's the hero and savior of mankind and he is passionate about saving earth from aliens and that includes Superman.

Comic book movies do not need to be "dark". Was Iron Man dark? No. They are just fun and entertaining and a little bit uplifting. Dark works for Batman. It does not work for everyone and it does not need to be. They just need to treat the material with respect and not treat audiences like children like Joel Schumacher's Batman & Robin or Spider-Man 3.

[mykalberta]

Madmen John Hamm would be sweet. I want modern day superman to be a chainsmoking acloholic who sleeps with multiple women - sperm of steel

Seriously though, with a personal trainer for 6 months Hamm would be awesome.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Madmen John Hamm would be sweet. I want modern day superman to be a chainsmoking acloholic who sleeps with multiple women - sperm of steel

Seriously though, with a personal trainer for 6 months Hamm would be awesome.

While it would be funny to see Superman pounding chicks into the matress, and blowing their heads off with his super powered goo, the last thing that I would really want to see is the flawed superman.

While he was considered to be the perfect hero, Superman's alterhalf represented a vulnerability and innocent belief that mankind as a whole was good.

Suddenly having a bitter drunken superman flying around is also a little Hitchcock.

[CaptainCrunch]

BTW, I'm still entirely bitter over the superman dies con that they ran.

I bought all of those cartoons and a second copy of each as keepers. OMG Superman dies, this is as important as when Superman first came to being.

Sure enough the moron's at DC comics came back, with no only one superman but multiple supermans.

Bah