Superman is a relic of early and mid 20th century. The Dark Knight Returns kind of killed the character, or at least created an accurate portrait of the more modern standing of the values he embodies.

Sure there is Kryptonite, and I suppose that helps, but it seems to me the real drama and story arc really shines during the origin story and if there is a death.

Constant fucking remakes of every movie released in the past week are also.

Supes: Lois, oh my gawd, she has got A GRRRRREEAT ASS!!!

Millar wants to start 1000 years ago on Krypton and I have an awful feeling that he wants to have Krypton under a yellow sun, with Kryptonians flying around, then the sun turns red and they all lose their powers to tie in with how he wants to end it with Superman alone on a red sun Earth with everyone else dead.

Warners would never go for a back to back trilogy which is what Millar wants, they would never go for his story as it means that they couldn't do any films beyond those three and Millars idea has already been rejected by them once.

Millar is an overrated prick and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a Superman movie.

My preference is for a sequel to Superman Returns, I think there is a lot of potential there. But if there has to be a reboot, just do the origin like the intro to the old Fleischer cartoons at the beginning of the film as a kind of recap of who Superman is, then straight into the action.

I like Millar's concept, but it almost seems like a series idea as opposed to three movie set-up. Thanks Moriarty for turning me and many others on to this great book.

Now get in the talk-back and back me up! x-)

Metallo fails of course and Brainiac takes matters into his own hands, bringing his Skull ship down over Metropolis...a cybernetic copy of Brainiac fights Superman, who wins of course but Brainiac sets off a series of disasters across the planet to keep Superman busy while he takes Jason.

After saving the day Superman goes after Brainiac, defeats him, rescues Jason and Brainiacs ship flies into the sun but not before he issues a warning that a dark force is coming...

The final scene takes place on Apokalips with DeSaad reporting to Darkseid about what was happening on Earth. Darkseid orders him to prepare his forces for invasion..we go outside where we see thousands of parademons and warships, setting up the third movie...end credits

We got good story with the originals and good graphics with Return. But I haven't seen a Superman origin story that knocked my socks off, and we should have one darn it! It's freaking SUPERMAN! Superman movies should be as good as LOTR!!!

I'm seriously probably the biggest Superman nerd here and looked forward to Superman Returns only to have my expectations dashed by a re-hashed 1978 landgrab scheme and a bastard child.

Give the fans what they want, WB. We want a Superman story that has an epic villain, someone that no other hero could hope to defeat; someone like Darkseid or Doomsday. Cut back on the Lois/Clark romance (all seasons of Lois and Clark are available on DVD is there are seriously people interested in that). There don't have to be any underlying themes or social commentaries/parallels...just a solid plot, good cast, good direction and I promise you that you may not make Dark Knight money, but you won't be scratching your heads the way you were after the last of the Superman Returns receipts came in.

it would win Oscars, and not just the technical awards like sound or f/x.

A superman movie needs to be: Superman stops crime and saves people, then a big threat comes. Lois is in danger (and almost puzzles out Clark's identity), Perry White rants, and then there's a huge knockdown fight that Superman almost loses... but triumphs because Right makes Might.

I was happy when Mark Millar was hired to write the the next Superman. I still basically am. But I think he needs to reduce the scale of his film, can the orgin story, and focus on other elements to craft a badass Superman film. In all honesty, I'd like to see him throw out the past-looking Richard Donner aesthetic and go for something more violent, dramatic, and large-scale.

But not epic. Not like the Corleones.

I say start with Superman (NOT Brandon Routh, please!) as a man with a secret identity who works at The Daily Planet, and go from there. There are hundreds of crafty, badass tales to tell in the present without involving the past.

I totally agree with this. It seems like Superman could be very easily manipulated by sociopathic humans presenting themselves as do-gooders. There's no gray area with Superman. There's only "good" and "evil" and "I must stop the evil guys!" Which makes him a chump in most ways. Sociopathic corporate CEOs would have a field day manipulating Superman to unwittingly do their bidding.

Superman is perfect, yes. Which makes him a chump, makes him naive, and makes him dangerous to humanity.

Actually, that's the film I'd like to see!

Keep Lois in the background...Hell...bring Spacey back as Lex and let him partner with the super baddie.

Just don't spend an hour of this movie back on Krypton...that's NOT what makes the Supes mythology interesting.

Move forward, Millar...not backwards.

I don't want him anywhere near the Superman reboot.

See, if Singer's film was even ten percent compelling, there wouldn't have been a reboot. The studio would've just started a continuation of Singer's mess.

But it was a mess. Not only that, it was an expensive mess that underperformed at the box office (though it didn't lose money) and drew savage criticism.

If they're going to make a Superman film, I agree that a reboot is the best approach.

And a "pussified" Batman? Which movie did you watch again? Because Batman did some crazy ass stunts in "The Dark Knight." Crazy shit. He broke into that Asian bank, incapacitated a top-notch mafia security system, beat the shit out of several highly trained guards, grabbed the financier of five American mafia-owned banks, and busted out by painstakingly hooking onto a night-flying jet, remember? And that was only in the first hour of the film.

I absolutely disagree that Batman was pussified in "The Dark Knight." So would most people, I'd venture.

sheesh!

I SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO do not want to see another origin story for a LOOOONG time. The best way to tell the origin story is the way Donner did it with Lethal Weapon - As a REVEAL in the SEQUEL! Not an epic long sequence but a simple climactic "holy shit!" MOMENT - and move on...

Considering what he did with Wanted, Millar should understand this.

Silly Millar...

There, that's not so difficult, is it?

I don't deny that Millar loves Superman, but so should ANYONE who is involved with a Superman movie. I'm sure Singer loves Superman...

It is any coincidence that the only 'human' hero (Batman) has the best villains?

Either a god has to fight another god and that's just boring because unstoppable forces meeting immovable objects doth not a good movie make, or it has to be a god taking on the entirety of something - an entire civilisation, planet etc., etc., etc.

Most people on this site seem wary of an angry god Superman, but look at the 'hero' movies being mass-consumed at the moment: The Dark Knight (all darkness and anger); Wanted (dark 'heroes' and anger); Watchmen (nuff said). The public will lap up a darker vision of Superman, and it is to these people that the executives kowtow.

Okay, Iron Man was pretty fluffy stuff, but could one person in a thousand on the streets of anywhere name any of Iron Man's 'foes' in the comic books. Really? They simply haven't crossed over into the public consciousness like others (Joker, Catwoman - human, human). It's the same for every Superman villain bar Lex Luthor (again, the only human).

Smallville and the original Superman movies made sure Lex Luthor was a name that resonated, so he was bound to be the featured villain, but where to go from here? Screw Darkseid. What about Doomsday? Possibly...that issue did sell one or two copies, but it was the death of Superman itself rather than the instrument of that death which dominated the headlines.

Aliens, monsters? Boring, boring, boring. The problem with many Superman fans is that they have what they think is the perfect film in their heads and any deviation from that is seen as sacrilege.

I think I had a point at some point...discuss.

Singers version, though technically well done, was utter crap. Once again, the culprit was 'autuers' who wanted to put their stamp on Supes, and disregard why people really want to see an action advenure movie. Action. Yes, you need a very good story, with compelling characterization. See: X2. Simply having Supes fight Doomsday, will not work. But, you must let him fight Doomsday while building a credible storyline. Never again use Lex Luthor as the primary villain. Do not reinvent a history that the entire world knows about. Ignore the Singer version as if it did not happen. Give Supes the characterization of the first two movies, without the baggage of an origin. Start with Lois and Superman (with Lois knowing who he is) and build from there. Put the world in danger, and let Supes do what he does best. Sure, put Lois in danger as well, but never forget the audience for action adventure movies based on superheros want ACTION and adventure.

Millar would be very, very wrong.

It's like saying to somebody who found a lost wallet, "you're probably so lame you'll return it." The person you are criticizing will probably smile and say "yep." Who's actually the lame one?

Authority in itself, does not mean justice or good. But Superman has proven time and again, that just like a good ol boyscout, he will defer to that authority, even to the detriment of his friends. What is 'right' does not always mean what is lawful. Laws are made by men. Laws can be changed by men. As in the above referenced Dark Knight, in which Frank Miller did a brilliant job of showing just how much Superman would defer to authority, the laws outlawed people like Batman - who did just as much good in his own way that Supes did. And Supes obeyed that law and would have 'brought to justice' Batman.

It is that unthinking, reflex 'boyscout' behavior that makes Superman a tool of authority, even when that authority is morally bankrupt.

Now, that would make a damn good story!

Simple question.

Superman represents is a wonderful hero. I enjoy Superman comics, but I was answering the question that Toonol posed about why 'Big Blue Boy Scout' is a pejorative.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Do we REALLY want to see ANOTHER film with LEX LUTHOR... again??

Batman would never, ever countenance slavery. Never. But Superman, while I truly believe he would be revolted, would also be torn by his self appointed duty to uphold truth, justice and the American way. Clark Kent might have against slavery, but Superman would not have lifted a finger to stop it. Why? Because he is trapped by the thing that makes him great. His nobility. He could be the ruler of the planet. He could right mosts wrongs. He could feed the hungry and provide water for the thirsty. He could stop wars, and cure disease. He could (almost) be all to everyone. But he puts limits on himself. He does not attempt to alter human destiny. He supresses his true feelings and desires, and supplants them with his submission to authority. He would never lift a finger to stop slavery.

Batman, would have moved heaven and earth to stop it. Batman would have respected his own humanity. His own humaneness. Batman would not have been conflicted.

Superman's greatest weakness is not kryptonite, it is fear that he will alter human destiny (regardless of how benign his motives are), and enjoy it, and continue to do so without restraint.

I think this would make a fascinating story - but it still needs some kick ass action!

Throw out the 1939-1940 story's because he was a nascent superhero, written by a nascent comic book writer. So of course he would have been a more violent (and criminals did die as a result of their encounters with him) and reactionary/vigilante type. Yes, Supes as a vigilante. What else do you call a man who decides on his own to fight crime? But, even then, he was different. He embraced the American ideal. Even if he and his writers were not quite sure just yet of what that meant beyond the superficial.

But almost from the beginning you can see that he would never oppose the rule of law. Laws are made by men, and men are fallible. Batman knows this, and acts - even when the laws lag behind true justice and fairness. Superman knows this, but is afraid to act, because he does not want to be percieved as the alien dictating to humans. He will not alter human destiny. He is a good man, a great man. But he alieness, his Godlike powers, and his truly noble belief that he must not act in ways that contravene human authority, will always be uppermost in his mind.

Consider, Superman is known as a virtuous and selfless superhero. A paragon of such. But he is not the only one. If I may borrow a fantasy cliche: There is another. Captain America.

Certainly, Superman is the better known, but within the comic book community, Captain America is just as virtuous and selfless. Captain America defers to authority - but with major exceptions. Cap has the same sense of values that Superman does, indeed he was created during the same time period, but he has shown on multiple occasions that when confronted by inequality, or injustice, regardless of whether or not the law or authority does anything about it, he will act.

Cap has even turned his back on such authority altogether: See his Nomad days.

But the key difference - outside of the cultures of Marvel (being more realistic) and DC (being more fanciful - at least in the not too distant past) is this: Leadership.

You mentioned that Superman follows the mores and attitudes of the prevalent culture. He is afraid to step beyond those rigid boundaries. But leadership, true leadership, see's beyond what is popular or prevalent, or safe. Leadership, allows one to make decisions that go against the grain. Batman is a leader. Capain America is a leader. Superman, will forever be a follower. The Big Blue Boy Scout.

Being virtuous does not mean that you must also be so deferential to authority that you are subsumed by it. Captain America is just as virtuous, but he is also a leader.

As I wrote in a previous post, Superman's alieness, and his fear of imposing his Godlike powers, even in a benign fashion, are his greatest weaknesses.

I also agree with your assertion that Batman, although a great leader, does not inspire as much as Cap or Superman.

I would write more tonight, but I am getting sleepy after watching the Texas, Texas Tech game.

I have enjoyed this dialogue.