I want a 10 inch dick, doesn't mean I'm gonna get it.

Why can't Lex Luthor be the badass corporate villian he should be, or at least the brilliant mad scientist? Why does he have to obsess over stupid real estate deals???

Why does Superman have to be a stalker? (not saying he couldn't if he had those powers, but that doesn't mean he should)

Why does there have to be a comic-relief woman instead of a bad-ass/hot woman body-guard

By the way Moriarty, Superman: The Animated Series wasn't always perfect, but when it was good it was damn freaking good.

How could Superman lift up a giant island made of kryptonite without at least getting a "running start" by flying from China through the Earth, and then coming out under it? (yes, that's different than just going under it, and arguably cooler)

Why does Pa Kent have to be dead?

Why can't we have a more science fictiony villain? I would definitely even have Zod back, but come on, let's see a reallly villainous Brainiac

And that's all I got for now...

Either that or there is some insider Hollywood shit going on about people in talks to make a new Superman movie at this current time and this is Mori's Variety ad about why the Coens are best for it? I'm perplexed.

De Haven really gives a sense of Superman getting used to his powers, his strength, which I've never seen with Superman before. I did look at him in a different way, as you see him trying to figure out a way to use them properly and how it affects him.

There is a bit of an awkward transition though to harsh reality '30s New York to the [SPOILER] sudden introduction of the robots in that period.

However, I don't think WB would do this one-shot kind of movie. I don't think it fits into their current gameplan- a modern Superman that can tie in with the other DC heroes and their movies.

I also didn't like the Abrams revisions but I agree it certainly could've created an exciting movie, if you could handle the changes made to the old story.

Overall I'm not a big fan of Superman. I enjoyed the first movie, but didn't find it memorable. It's probably Superman himself I find irritating. He's got a tremendously good heart and wants to save everyone even with his godlike powers. That's wishful thinking if there ever was such a thing. Tons of people love Supes, I know, but he leaves me shrugging my shoulders. He's so powerful yet so good-natured that he bores me.

I think this is why "The Dark Knight" did so well. Obviously it was a well-written, well-directed film showing Batman is just as flawed as the rest of us. He's got crazy abilities and intelligence, but he sweats, breathes hard, and bleeds if you shoot him. He's more sympathetic than Superman because he's human.

The thing Superman needs is a more powerful and terrifying adversary, one he can't beat with his powers. Harry mentioned Darkseid in his last piece. Human threats are never a match for Supes, thus there's always little to no drama with those. Bring on Darkseid and let the mind-wiping and explosive violence commence.

Finally, I personally don't want the Coens directing the next Superman. They offer so much more with their original or personally adapted stories. I don't want them wasted on a superhero film.

But thanks for your opinions, Mori. Always cool to hear what you have to say.

Heck I even wrote a sequel script (which I then started rewriting...and then stopped when the "reintroduction" comment was made) that still had Superman's son but also had more Superman doing what he does best.

Mori, you were right to say what you did about the Abrams script. But Superman Returns was infinitely better than anything Warners had been planning over the last couple of decades.

It had problems, all of which could be easily resolved in a sequel. But the biggest problem was that Warners expected Star Wars or Spider-Man.

The truth is, that Superman Returns made $391 Million is actually very good considering that it opened near the biggest film of 2006, that it had a staggered release, which resulted in huge piracy of the film, that the biggest sporting event in the world was taking place and the time and that frankly, Superman wasn't very popular at the time.

People forget that Batman Begins made less money than Superman Returns and it went on to have a record breaking sequel. People forget that the critics were largely positive about the film, that those who actually went to see the film liked it for the most part.

Forget us, forget the geeks. We are a very small minority. The movie going public, the casual viewer, they are the ones that Warners need to impress.

And those people simply weren't interested in a Superman movie. But the film was still moderately successful and Warners now has a foundation to build upon.

Their best option is to bring Singer back, with some good writers this time, and continue the series. A reboot at this stage would result in an Incredible Hulk-like return with no real significant improvement at the box office.

The Dark Knight has shown that building on the moderate success of a first film can work. People like Routh, most of those who actually saw the film liked it. A reboot would alienate those people.

The best option for Warners is to press ahead with a sequel with Singer at the helm. He delivered a great sequel with X-Men 2 and there is no reason to think that he couldn't do the same with Superman.

There is also a lot of buzz surrounding Valkyrie, there's even talk of Oscars. Singer will become one of the most sought after directors in Hollywood once more but Warners already have a contract with him to do a Superman sequel.

Superman doesn't need a reboot. It just needs some good writing. Everything is there....a LexCorp Luthor can be easily done, an alien menace, more action etc etc. Everything that is needed for a kick ass Superman movie has been set up in Superman Returns.

And after 70 years of Superman, the character of Jason provides something that has been missing for a long time, a fresh approach. I can think of a few ideas off the top of my head that would involve Jason without him becoming "superboy" and if I can do it, surely some good Hollywood writer can too.

As far as Mark Millar goes, I think he should be kept far away from Superman but that's just me.

Imagine a Superman movie that has a bit of Fleischer, a bit of the world of Timm, the epic feel of Donner, the fantasy realm of the comics and the grounded reality of Returns...in a sequel. It could be amazing.

The Coens are on a roll right now though I'm not sure they would be right for Superman. Warners have a director in Singer who has shown he can deliver the goods, a popular Superman in Routh and the potential for a kick ass sequel.

A reboot right now would be a disaster for Warners and Superman on the big screen. Returns managed to get people interested in Superman again...now it's time to take it to the next level. Batman did it...and anything Batman can do, Superman can do better.

Also, Warners, if you're out there...I have a pitch for a Lobo movie and a Booster Gold movie. Call me :P

Why can we not just drop new actors and such into new stories without reintroducing them or reimagining them and whatnot?

The public knows the character. He knows the origin. We don't need a "reboot." We need new talent behind everything, but let them plunk us down in the middle of Superman's "career" - fighting new villains we haven't seen before.

Or am I overestimating the general public's already low intelligence level?

Remember that thing about bridges and how it's not wise to burn them.

The Coens are beyond Superman. They really are. It would be a waste of their time. What your suggesting sound like a Bribe Job to net them into making a film they probably never cared to make.

Your 'e basically saying "Hey WB, offer the Coen's this movie for lots of money and promise them the right to make as many films as they want with all the freedom in the world if they do so"

It's not like they woke up one day and said "Yeah man, lets make a Superman flick!". No!

Your telling someone to ring their agents and beg them to do it- Not even knowing if it's something they are into. Your thought process is all about their style and wit, and what they could possibly do with the material----- but what does it fucking matter, when they don't even care, and they are only doing it for more money and the promise to make as many films as they want with absolute power.

That's the wrong way to make any film. The people who make it should have wanted to make it since day one. They should have an unhealthy obsession with the material.

I guess you finally saw a few people show you up. Thinking the stake was taking hold and they were over you gave em a what, being pretty classy about it too. Now they rise in power beyond expectations. It's that "I've been here a long time- you need proof of my nose- read my reviews. I've seen so many films. I'm a Master Critic!!! and I know what's Best!" Ego that's fucking Burning the Bridges.

I hate seeing people kick a man when he's down. And in a way you could say you've done that quite a few times. But it's funny when there's wit tossed in right!!! (not being serious at all)

Critics think too much of themselves now-a-days they really want to control things. It's rants like this that sorta show it. Ego is a mutherfucker.

If another Superman story gets made, I'm a hundred percent for a reboot. I don't want to see Routh, I don't want to see whatever-her-name was as Lois Lane, I don't want to see Kevin Spacey as Luthor. Because seeing these actors as their characters would remind me of the first film. And I really don't want that.

WTF?! How is that a good decision?

Brilliant idea Moriarty, but why don't you offer your services to write a spec?

Go back to sleep and refrain from posting until the fever breaks, mmmkay? kthxbai!

STEPHEN SOMMERS!!!!

and starring...

ALEC BALDWIN AS SUPERMAN!!!!

with...

DAVID KOECHNER AS LEX LUTHOR!!!

See Mori? We can all spout off excellent (in my case, fucking genius) ideas. We are all movie nerds here and it's loads of fun. The only difference is I don't think my fun little imaginary dream story will actually infleunce anybody. It's cool to share great ideas like that Mori, and I'm glad you did, but do you have to be so arrogant. Cool your jets bro. You had a nerdgasm from your own idea and had to post it. It doesn't make you the all-knowing Critic who can ruin the production of an entire movie with one decently-written paragraph of snark and smugness.

That being said, your idea is one of the coolest Superman movie visions I have ever heard, and if it ever happens (hmmm...) I will definitely go.

I just wish you weren't such a cocky bitch every time you post this personal shit to the talkbackers.

Nope. I checked. Not that you yourself still made claims that your influence was there. So it IS possible after all? Stick with a story man.

And I'm not getting on you for posting an idea. It's a REALLY COOL idea, and your thoughts concerning the directors and the tone of the book are spot on. It's not that I don't care either. I respect your love and knowledge of cinema a great deal, and if I wanted to hear someone's thoughts on a film, I usually check in here to see if you have any. What I was trying to tell you is lately, a majority of these personal type articles (the Buzzkill articles and such) just seem to be opportunities for you to share with us lowly TBers your tremendous gift of common logic and your influence over the film industry. It's bored, and it makes you seem really stuck-up. It's also just something to consider when interacting directly with the patrons of your site. It's usually good PR to not be an arrogant jackass. Share the movie love of course. Keep that stuff coming all day. But leave the personal, holier-than-thou bull shit at home. I'm not bitter or anything. Just tired of sifting through the muck to get to the good stuff.

Now we just have to figure out who would be talented enough to direct such a Superman flick?

Then again, the creation of a film is also dependent on the movie companies with the big executives huh? Guess it's up to us to tell them The Dark Knight worked because it was dark and gritty and that's what Batman is, the next Superman movie will be good if he is bashing a big monster and being a general do-gooder to all because that's who Superman is. Now get out there and get busy movie fans! And believe this: there are way more fanatic movie critics and fans in this country than you think. People are capable of asking for intelligent, cohesive cinema, and all we have to do is get loud and tell them what we want to get it.

I hope a Coen bros Superman gets made, i'd really prefer someone to do Grant Morrison's All-Star Superman run, it would be out of the park, but i fear this talkback will be best remembered for your little turn of phrase just now.

Have you seen Bruce Campbell lately? He's not exactly sporting a superhuman-esque physique. I would still love to see him in some big movie shit, but not as Superman.

What about Kerry Conran? The guy responsible for Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

More people liked Superman Returns than those who didn't. As I've said already, the biggest problem was getting people to actually see it. Superman just isn't popular.

There is absolutely no reason to reboot, none at all. So some of the hardcore fanboys didn't like it. No offense but so what? The movie wasn't aimed at them.

We are a minority. The so-called geeks I mean. The majority liked the film...more people just needed to see it, that's all. Rebooting now would be the worst thing Warners could do and thus far I haven't read or heard anything that has convinced me that starting again is the way to go.

Comic book fans bitched and moaned about Superman having a son. Now I'll admit, the way Jason was introduced wasn't ideal, but the concept of Superman having a son opens up a lot of possibilities.

People are sick of Luthor as the main villain so that rules out "That's Superman." What the next film needs is a bigger threat. Something that will push Superman to the limit of his abilities and beyond. Everything that's needed is there from Superman Returns.

Routh is the most popular Superman since Reeve. Losing him would be a disaster. Singer has a potential Oscar winner on his hands with Valkyrie and Returns did something that Smallville, the comics or the animated series failed to do. It gave Superman to a new generation.

People cheered when Jason threw that piano. The geeks may not like it but the casual movie goer did. Singer also got a standing ovation at Comic Con after the movie came out.

It's not like everyone hated the movie it's just that the minority has a louder collective voice.

Look what happened to Incredible Hulk. It made a little more than Ang Lee's film but nowhere near enough to justify the reboot. Superman doesn't need a reboot. It's numbers were solid if not spectacular, Routh is a good Superman and the movie was well liked by those who saw it.

Warners should be trying to build on that. Starting again from scratch could prove to be a disaster.

For those people, here's a friendly tip:

Warners looked at the box office numbers and thought they were disappointing. And they were when compared to Pirates or Star Wars.

But that's the problem right there. Warner's expectations were far too high. At the time, Superman simply wasn't popular. The movie was released during the World Cup and Pirates 2 came out a week later and broke records. There was no way that any Superman movie would have made $500 Million+ at the time.

Warners failed to realise that the interest in Superman simply wasn't there. Singer's film has changed that. People are interested in Superman again and now Warners want to throw that out and start again? Does Not Compute.

Don't get defensive, I'm genuinely interested in knowing how much you and aintitcool has affected big productions over the years, so Snakes On A Plane doesn't count in my eyes - if we really had any affect on that at all.

As for "Now we’ve made amends" - Love to hear what the Coens think about that. Do they know?

I'm glad that Abrams' version was never made and I'll be glad when they "reintroduce" Superman after Singer's version. There's nothing wrong with scrapping everything and trying to get it right. Those versions didn't work so you move on.

Hmm. Anyone else? I like the Kerry Conran suggestion, but he hasn't gotten a chance to show any of his stuff since Sky Captain. He needs a few more things under his belt first.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Gil Kenan has done with City of Ember.

I think we need someone optimistic with a good grasp on wonder, and yet they can do a level of realism as well.

"So you want a realistic down-to-earth show that's completely off the wall and swarming with magic robots?"

"And also, you should win things by watching!"

We need a villain who Superman matches physical strength with, not wits.

Zod has been the best villain in the film franchise so far, not Luthor. When an evil genius surrounds himself with dunderheads who are stumped by a child safety cap, they lose their worth a credible villain.

Superman needs someone he can punch full-on. It's just that simple.

And the really galling part is he has a roster of suitable baddies from Darkseid to The Parasite to Metallo to Brainiac that could fill the bill nicely.

But, yeah, they need a full-on reboot. Just pretend that Singer debacle never happened and move on with an entirely new cast, writer, director, etc.

Rule number one for a new Superman movie:

ENOUGH WITH FUCKING LEX LUTHOR ALREADY!!!!!

Get a villain or invent one that's actually a menace -- preferably an at least somewhat physical menace so that we can see Superman, well, being super.

We DO need a reboot of the franchise. Just be sure to skip the kid subplot. Other than that, keep it classic.

At this point I actually wouldn't be disappointed if they did announce Michael Bay as the next director. Most of you folks wouldn't be either. Go on, admit it.

I could even see a trilogy. First, Superman becomes a savior for the world. Second, an Alan Moore "whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" soul searching sequel, and a Kingdom Come type final movie where superman finds his comfortable place in the grand scheme of things.

If it could be done seriously in the same way Christopher Nolan has presented Batman, it would become the most iconic super hero movis ever filmed.

Just like its fun to imagine what could have been if Spielberg had directed Return of the Jedi

Or how fun it is to imagine what it would have looked like if Lucas had somehow captured the whimsical fun and insanity of Pirates, and translated that into the Star Wars universe.

Or remember the old notion Harry brought up that none other than Kane hisself, Orson Wells had once considered Batman? The mind wanders with such cinematic tall tales.

Think about it, he did one savior figure already, why couldn't he do another one. And this time he could attempt to make a means with the Tribe, by not getting bogged down in the Christ-allegory nonsense, but by structuring the story more closely to the icon its creators were really thinking about, MOSES!

Little baby sent in a raft (space craft) to a far away world that is not his own, only to find that he must rise up as a leader of men, someone who can inspire, etc. Sure there really isn't that much similarity between Supes and the Mose after that, but one can imagine.

Also you know that Supes would get beat up reals good in a Gibson style blood bath. Not only that but Mel does shoot some gorgeous looking flicks, and he gets scope, he gets the visual medium of film and how to tell a story through light, sound, and emotion, which are all things that Supes would need.

Okay realistically, no way does WB ever hand the reigns off to that nutbag, but its fun to imagine what could be.

superman LEAPING in the air like in the Fleisher cartoons.

and METALLO! he is a godzilla / kaiju sized threat, a guy with a homemade supereltromagnet powered by kryptonite as an artificial heart, who has artifical limbs, heart, who injects electro charger needles into his eyes so that he can see any video feeds. who becomes an electromagnet that attracts any metal in the area till he looks like this:

http://tinyurl.com/6baj3x

http://tinyurl.com/6xo43c

as for writers and directors, chan woo park.

jim caviezel as superman.

a POWER FANTASY concept revolving around a MOSES origin with a CHRIST character.

I rest my case. Er wait, I thought that was just a figure of speech, what I meant to say was, CASE CLOSED, heh heh.

GIVE ME BACK MY SON!

This just gets better and better.

The reason TDK worked so well, is because it wasn't another start-up. We NEVER once heard about the parents, or any of that shit. We all know it drives him, we don't need a scene showing the shooting or him at the graves crying. We know all that already, lets get to character work. Superman would be WAY better as a future story. Make him older, give him a past. Everyone knows how he got here, where he's from and what happened when he was a kid. We do not need to see it again.

Villians are also important. Another thing TDK got right. Superman has a pussy rogues gallery, but there are a few good ones. Lex done right would be good, but everyone is so tired of him. Darksied works, but it would be a lot of work to build him up. Braniac is money. He can be held responsible for Krypton, and is extremely powerful. A Braniac controlling Lex story, with Lex getting the last laugh (like TAS) would work well. Alien stories will work, Superman is an alien, so it's not like people will think it's not realistic or something.

The Coens are an odd choice. They would make a quirky Superman film, and it would probably be well acted, but it's tough. If they go more Hudsucker and less Lebowski/Burn After Reading it could work. I would perfer someone who would be radical like Fincher or someone safe like Brad Bird.

Seriuosly - I think you got that script, and saw an opportunity to play "super secret script spoiler" and an opportunity to get your update linked across the whole world, and you just dove into it feet first. Like I said, other than the stupid plan for bringing Superman back to life (which as a concept I dont mind, but the execution was rather silly), the script really looked great. I agree that the Naboo parts needed to be one single sequence that covered all of that drama and doesn't keep ping-ponging back to it, but I really enjoyed the entire rest of the script.

You need to seriously stop putting ad impressions ahead of common sense.

And if I did miss your giant rant about how the Coen Brothers were planing to make a really crummy and really lousy 'reimagining' of The Odessy then please link me to it. Otherwise, you're just an opportunistic impression-whoring fanboy.

To the idiots who say a Superman movie won't work because the character is a boy scout who is invulnerable. Are you serious? First of all, Superman isn't invulnerable. Kryptonite can weaken him and be used to kill him. He also has plenty of villains (Brainiac, Dark Seid, Doomsday, Zod, etc) who are capable of going to toe to toe with him and putting him in real danger.

Lastly, there are plenty of interesting places you can go with a character with a boyscout complex. You simply do what they did to Batman in The Dark Knight. Put Superman in a position where no matter what he does, there will be serious and horrible consequences to a whole bunch of innocent people and/or people that he has some personal attachment to and you make him choose. Unlike Batman, who tried to save the woman he loved in The Dark Knight, Superman would be inclined to make the opposite choice and that would be a very interesting dynamic to explore. What choosing the welfare of the masses over the welfare of somebody that he personally cared a lot about would do to the character. There are plenty of places you could go with something like that. Batman does what he does out of a very personal need for revenge. Superman is the complete opposite of that and that can make for just as interesting and compelling a story as we see in The Dark Knight if it's explored properly.

I actually liked Superman Returns in some ways - they did a good job with the godlike figure angle, yes Luthor and the entire threat sucked and the kid thing was unnecessary, etc etc etc. But the tone was right for that take on the character, for a nigh-omnipotent man. But ultimately you are not going to get an exciting movie out of that character.

Take his powers down a few notches. No more heat vision, at least. It makes no sense. Bulletproof, but not artillery-proof. And hell, maybe even make him leap instead of fly. It's worth a try. Enough with the Jesus stuff. He's an immigrant. And ... begin.

Superman is dead. They will make another film. And it will do moderate business. But the only way they will ever have a serious return is if they figure out a way to make a Supes film for 50 million. Its just not that interesting of a story.

Sign them to an NDF- Sends them all the scripts they've collected. Don't any info in regards to who wrote the scripts. I wonder how many nobodies without a single film to their name submitted Superman Scripts to Agents to send to WB and simply because the names where not known the scripts where trashed! WB shouldn't be concerned with the writers name on the screenplay it's about the material.

If WB can do this and somehow control leaks. After all these fans won't know the script that wins and if any info leaks they have 50 people they can polygraph and charge with a crime for breaking a contract.

If they do this they will get an honest review and reaction and decision from true fans to what possible directions they should (not could) take with the franchise.

Also they should ask these 50 fans to tell them what they would like to see, not before they get the scripts, after. You have to ask after because these fans might feel like you didn't listen to them if they don't see those things in the material you send them to review.

Take all this data. Mull over it, and make a choice. Bring that winning Writer in and Clean it up.

Do not let the director rework the screenplay. This time respect the Writer. Tell the director that he can point the camera any way he wants- Hire who ever he wants. But the written material stays as is.

I said it an I agree with some of the other people. This site really wants to control and influence the system. Say all you want. This isn't a "What if Posting" This is a "Listen to me Now, and Believe me Later" post. Who doesn't want the credit to say "See what I made them do!" Just like Mori's rant on what the Joker should be like before the film was in the can, and then him basically saying "They listened to me". Delusional Egomaniacs The whole lot.

Here comes a nice crisp Ban Card for me. I'll be back. To call you on your bullshit behind a new handle. Been here since 1996- even owned the same PC Harry did, Yeah I read your book. Can't believe it's the same person. The type style in the book is very intelligent and well thought out and it doesn't pander down to live on quipy catch phrases. I Ain't going nowhere anytime soon. This place is my WWF, and you guys are the Mean Wrestlers I come to yell at. Strangely, sometimes I like you and I agree fully with your insight and critique of the moment. sometimes I think you say great things but you play evil and mean better than most. Know that two of you have some serious issues with one side of you family, makes me wonder about your value systems. I don't blame you for that anger, but You can see the pain very clearly when something displeases you. You know where that vile retaliation stems from and how it got so good at being so vile.

Too bad Garth's site never adopted a Talk Back.

Nope. Not aimed at you.

And to those who might respond with a "hell yeah" to that notion - let's switch you from Ritalin to Lithium. And castrate you as well. Your genetic material should stay inside your crusty gym sock under the bed and nowhere near a girl who might end up pregnant with your worthless spawn.

Thank God for DARK KNIGHT and even IRON MAN - two summer movie FX flicks that actually remembered that you CAN tell a decent story between explosions.

she is covered in dense fur, thats one.

Wolfman Jack!

hes an alien.

he neither owns a gun, nor a pickup.

John Hamm would make a perfect Man of Steel. (And I don't even like Superman...)

If that is any indication of his level of IQ and storytelling then that's the only thing I will ever read by him.

Twice used toilet paper has better writing than that rag.

As for who should do Superman NOW as big and BoLD and Fun as it needs to be I can't think of anyone except possibly The Guy That did Ironman John thingy, He got the fun and FX right. As much as I thought Hancock was a bit cock it had some bigger destruction and stuff than Singers effort, Who else... I can sort of see why McG (god that's still so embarrassing to type!)woul dbe concidered as Charlies Angels 2 or 1 or whatever one I saw was big and Bold but Brash and silly. So no-one has ALL the Elements Oh! Waite maybee Peter Jackson coz he can handle the Scale or maybee Del Torro in a few years but i would happily waite til folks caught up after practicing a bit more unless of course Nolan would do it coz that guys is the only fricking 100% dead on cert for a Superhero movie these days and there's only one of him!

Anyway not everyone is just posting without reading. Doesn't that make you feel better?

Personally, I've never really much cared for Superman or any DC heroes. The only vision of Supes that I've ever bought into was the one in Miller's Dark Knight Returns--of Superman as a hypocritical alien with god-like powers who plays the part of a weapon for the US military so that we don't destroy him. OK, bring that story on with Mickey Rourke as old Batman, and I might be interested.

That said, is anybody else just tired of superhero movies by now? They're all basically the same structure: big villain + conflicted hero = big fight at the end. For all the apples in Gluggenhaggen, there'll never be a superhero movie better than the comicbook. (Zack Snyder prove me wrong!)

Looking back at that old article, it's funny to see people slamming Warners for being out of touch with characters and Fox getting praised for the upcoming "Dare Devil." If they remake Superman, it should be a complete overhaul that turns a very blind eye to Donner's movies. If they're looking to make a franchise - and assuredly they are - they should introduce Brainiac into the destruction of Krypton. It'll add to his background when he comes to destroy Earth. Doomsday could be introduced, but I don't think he'd be an ideal nemesis for the first movie. I'm not a big fan of Superman or his villains, so it's tough to pick out a good one for a set-up reboot movie. I've never been a big Lex Luthor fan, but it's mainly because movie producers just don't get him or his motivations. I think the best-written Lex Luthor - and the only one that I've ever thought was a halfway decent archenemy - I've read (and I say this as someone who barely reads Superman, so forgive me if I'm off-base) is Mark Millar's Red Son Luthor. I could completely understand Lex from Millar's writing. I could understand why he hates Superman, why he feels so driven to destroy him, and the sort of mastermind nemesis he was for Superman. I love the idea of an archvillain who can push the hero to his limits, just like Joker did in TDK. While Superman is unfortunately limited by his limited rogues' gallery, a well-written Lex could be a sufficient archenemy for a first film.

Otherwise, should things be as I suspect (because I'm a cynic), and decisions don't get made because of things written on websites, then this Superman article, the "I'm not going to write about Star Wars again" article, and any other such articles that aren't reviews or interviews are really just stuff for Moriarty's blog. Why doesn't he post it there?

I agree that Superman needs a great villain, but I don't know that he really has any that would make much sense in the context of a reboot-setup film. Introducing the likes of Darkseid or Doomsday would allow too little for their development and story arcs because so much of the origin has to focus on Superman. Those are characters that deserve due development on their own, and not a cursory, superficial treatment. Superman's rogues gallery is somewhat limited with only a couple of really cool bad guys that I'd like to see on screen, and like I say, Lex Luthor usually doesn't make my list of great supervillains. However, the portrayal of him in Red Son was absolutely brilliant, and I think that version of him would work well in a reboot/origin movie. Also, if done well, there could be multiple branchpoints to launch a franchise (introduce Brainiac with Krypton's destruction; involve Lex with Metallo's creation; and so on).

"F@*# You! I've got a hundered other guys who can give me that special Coen Brothers feeling!"

The man has been kicking @$$ left and right with his work on ACTION.

Like or loathe most of the critism leveled against it went like this "waa, waa its not Batman" or "waa, waa the director is a gay, so that makes the film gay too, waa, waa there was not enough explosions", fucking tools.

They need to cast a big MAN who is no younger than 35 years of age. He should look authoritarian-- Superman should look like the ideal 1950's dad turned into a flying, fighting, red & blue-clad demigod.

He should NOT look like an emo kid. He should NOT look "hip" or "young" or "cool". He should NOT look "cute", but he can most certainly look handsome (there's a huge difference). He should look rugged, like a guy who you'd damn well better listen to. He should also have a build that says, "I'm an athletic fellow."

Lois should always be a saucy, spunky, firebrand. Kate Bosworth wasn't Lois in Superman Returns-- Parker Posey was much closer to what we expected Lois to be. Margot Kidder had it down, too. The chick on "Smallville"? Not so much.

Lex Luthor is a bastard. He should come off as a smug, rich, powerful sonofabitch. He should be somewhat rugged-looking, and shouldn't be a comedy device; He should be MENACING. He should make the audience's skin crawl with hatred when they see him. He should feel like the CEO of a Very Bad Company, and he should seem like he's so damned smart that he's someone not to be trifled with.

Oh, and Superman's voice had better be LOW and powerful, but he should also be charismatic. No high-pitched boy voice, please. When he says something, people should feel compelled to listen.

"Hudsucker Proxy" is a vasting underrated film. Excellent choice with the Coens.

My point above is te same grief I have with Batman, and why I think Keaton's was the best casting choice. Not necessarily because he looked much like Bruce Way, but because he didn't have the sunken fish faced look like Kilmer or Bale.

http://www.gamaniak.com/video- 2822-presto-pixar.html

This brings me back to the days of Warner Brothers cartoons and good ol' Bugs Bunny. I miss those days.

And for the record, the Wachowskis suck at everything. They are a worse choice to direct than either the Coens or Ratner.

I would like something new, thanks.

Is there still money to be made from Superman?

Has our desire for nostalgia eclipsed our want for novelty and new experiences?