Movies
We Should be in Motion Pictures
Date: June 2004
An Elseworlds look at the next Superman movie if the Superman Homepage Staff were in charge of Warner Bros.
You sometimes have to wonder whether the people in charge of beloved and profitable franchises know their property as well as the common fan. With the case of the sometimes pending, sometimes scrapped new Superman movie, we don't have to wonder. We know that a great multitude of mild mannered fans could plot, script, envision conceptual art, and darn-well near direct a Superman movie better than some of the people at Warner Bros could. But could any of us finance the thing? Of course not, and there's our problem.
I realize that I'm probably painting the folks at Warner Bros. either a bit too evil and/or ignorant. I'm sure there must be some bright, white lights over there, but they just don't seem to be in any positions of power. Don't believe me? Here's just a short list of some of the 'wonderful' ideas proposed for the film:
- Lex Luthor as an alien.
- A homosexual Jimmy Olsen.
- Superman in a robot suit, largely to have a good toy to sell.
- Ashton Kutcher as Superman.
- Beyonce Knowles as Lois Lane. (Don't worry everybody, perhaps filmmakers just want to revisit a 'classic' story)
- A latex/rubber type cape akin to Batman's.
I object to Lois Lane being played by Beyonce Knowles for the same reason that I object to Ashton Kutcher as Superman. It's because they can't pull off those characters as we know them. I must admit that I'm conflicted, because I believe that actors should not be constrained to play only parts within their race, gender, and age. But you know what? I tend to reserve that kind of freedom for Shakespearian stage actors.
If we had a black Lois Lane, I'm pretty sure that not only would the white populace find it odd, but every person of every race and culture would find it an unnecessary change. You know, the funny thing is that the makers would figure the general public wouldn't see through their clever bit of casting. But just like Supes' using his X-ray vision, it would be really apparent to us that the move would be all about getting star power and making a silly attempt at political correctness. Hey, I have a novel idea if you want to be diverse! Why not, instead of messing around with iconic characters, how's about using the already established characters of other races from the comics! Better yet, quit being lazy and make some new ones (just make sure you don't have a reference to their race or culture in their superhero name, like Black Lightning or the unfortunately named Marvel hero, Black Panther). Oh, and just to try redeeming myself, I would actually prefer Beyonce playing Lois Lane as opposed to say, Pamela Anderson. Yes, Beyonce is of a different race, but I genuinely believe her physique and acting style (notice I didn't say 'talent,' though) would present the character more accurately. I'm not a bigot, honest. I'm just nitpicky.
I didn't go into those last few paragraph just to share my feelings with you. It kind of illustrates every fan's frustration with most of the new Superman movie news. We're all capable of saying what we want for a Superman movie, or sometimes even better, what we don't want. We each have our own Superman stories we could tell, and they're probably running in our minds like a movie reel as opposed to the stationary shots of a comic book. Heck, when you read a comic, don't you fill in the movement with your imagination that's not present on paper?
This got me to thinking that if I have ideas rattling around in my head as to what a Superman movie should be, what are the guys at the Superman Homepage thinking? They are, presumably, some of the most hardcore Superman fans on the planet. Or maybe they're just the most hardcore ones with internet connections.
Let's take a trip down Elseworlds people. What would the next Superman movie be like, as designed and directed by the folks at the Superman Homepage?
Cast and Crew
Terminal Gaffer - Neal BaileyNeal Bailey writes novels, comics, reviews, poetry, and pretty much anything else he can think of. Neal lives in Tacoma, Washington, but he is never really there, not in his head at least. Neal enjoys working with his hands, be it typing or building.
Director - Jason Larouche
Jason Larouche lives in Ontario, Canada with his family. Jason is an artist and writer, and is studying to become an English teacher. He was referred to the Superman Homepage by superherohype.com and has enjoyed his tenure ever since. Another Superman-related activity he is doing is trying to finish his own Smallville novel, a two-year-old project this September which centres on the gap between season two's episodes 'Vortex' and 'Heat.' He hopes to finish it by summer's end.
Quote: "Just hope no one beats me to using that gap."
Consulting Producer - Nick Newman
Nick Newman is twenty years old and a senior at UW-Madison studying Mechanical Engineering. He started collecting comics when he was nine with the 'Death of Superman' (marketing gimmicks aren't always bad things) and intends to continue until he is old and grey. Nick has been writing Mild Mannered Reviews for the Superman Homepage for the past five years and doesn't plan on stopping that any time soon either.
Walking Man #1 - Michael O'Connor
At the Superman Homepage Michael O'Connor currently reviews the books 'Justice League Adventures' and 'Superman/Batman' as well as the occasional miniseries, and has contributed critiques of all four Christopher Reeve Superman films and the Supergirl movie. In his spare time he likes long, romantic walks across landmine-infested beaches around the South Pacific, clogging, and Satan worshipping.
Quote: "No, but seriously, what was the question, who are you, and what have you done with the princess?"
Creative Consultant - Steve Younis
Steve Younis is a Graphic Designer/Web Designer by profession. Steve took over the Superman Homepage back in 1996 when the original owner (Andrew J Gould) passed away. Who knew that a hobby like this would lead to such a wonderful and fulfilling experience!
Documenter - Ross May
The interviewer for this article is Ross May, a student at the University of Saskatchewan. Due to the exchange rate of the Canada/US dollars he cannot afford, let alone review Superman comics regularly, so instead he likes to do research and write about Superman, as well as other essays and works of fiction. In the 'movies' section of the Superman Homepage you will find an essay on the 1940's Fleischer Studio Superman cartoons written by him.
Pre-Production Meeting
Why do you think this movie isn't getting off the ground? From what we've been hearing, should it even go into production in your opinion?Neal Bailey: I think the movie isn't getting off the ground because everyone involved is afraid of tampering with an American icon. I believe they are not confident in their product, from the suits to the director to the writer to the actor. No actor, no working script that people approve of (the internet armchairs), no constant director. I also believe that the movie isn't getting off the ground in large part because of public favouritism for more violent anti-heroes. X-Men, Hellboy, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Daredevil, Blade. So it just makes more business sense (though I resent it) to go with Batman first to test the waters.
Should the movie go into production? From what I've been hearing, NO. Adamantly no. But do I want a Superman movie? Yes. Nothing can beat Reeve, but it certainly makes sense to constantly re-imagine, provided too much of the mythos is not lost to the whim of fair weather fans.
Jason Larouche: I think the real reason why the movie's not getting off the ground is not because of lack of vision or special effects. It has to do with the story; Superman's origin has been told for countless generations, and each time it was done it was both original and stayed true to the comic. The fact that there have been so many revisions to the story is a testimony to how timeless the character is, and how important it is to present a plot that redefines Superman for this generation without losing the elements that made him great in the first place. I am not aware of the particulars of the current script that McG's focusing on, but I hope that he bears in mind the weight of that responsibility, or his film will crash and burn like "Batman and Robin".
Nick Newman: I blame 95% of the failure on WB executives not having any clue what they are doing. Between Warner Brothers in general, Smallville, and DC Comics they have access to a plethora of talented writers, directors, producers, actors, and everything else you could possibly need to make a movie. Instead of turning to DC Comics for a script they are trying to get one from some big Hollywood name. They don't realize what Superman is and therefore have no idea how to deal with him.
Michael O'Connor: It's certainly been a mess, hasn't it? Since the beginning of the this whole debacle (which, really, should be traced back to when Tim Burton was looking to adapt The Death of Superman storyline), nothing has gone right. Directors have come and gone, scripts have been tossed around, revised, or thrown away, and the most glaring issue has been that the studio has been incapable of finding their Superman. All the actors considered for the part have either been rejected or turned down the offer.
So, why is all this happening? I think it's actually pretty simple: there are too many cooks in the kitchen. Everybody's arguing over the direction they want this project to go. There was all that talk of Jon Peters and Brett Ratner getting in screaming matches and of the 'suits' at Warner Bros throwing wrenches into the works by demanding a big name actor for the role of Superman. WB needs to find their director and then let go: give him artistic and creative reign, but they're not going to do that until they feel confident enough that the director can deliver the goods; they won't invest in something as big-budget as Superman if they think the project's going to flop. Clearly, the board has had some trust issues with the director and producer, or things would at least be moving somewhere by now.
So, should it go into production? I think I echo the opinion of my fellow Superman Homepage Helpers and the Superman fan community at large when I say that it should only be made if it's going to be done right.
Steve Younis: I think things have stalled because the right people haven't been appointed. I can wait... I'd much prefer waiting a few years for a great Superman movie, then have them rush it and stuff it up.
What is the craziest idea you've heard for the movie, even if it was just a rumour?
Neal Bailey: A close tie with Beyonce Knowles as Lois and Jimmy being gay. Those even beat the rumours of a surviving Krypton, at least for me. I mean, my best friend is gay, and Jimmy, though his wardrobe is dubious...he just doesn't fit the bill, from what I know from personal experience. There's progressive casting, then there's stunt crap.
Jason Larouche: The craziest idea for the movie was making Jimmy Olsen gay. It doesn't do the character justice because he's always been heterosexual and traditionalists will feel uncomfortable at this point seeing him with a Sam Lane instead of a Lucy Lane, lol. Another is recent, in that the costume would be armour-like. That would eliminate the homespun element to Clark Kent's alter ego because it would diminish Ma and Pa Kent's role in his life.
Nick Newman: The worst I ever heard was of a script where Superman was killed, Lois became pregnant, gave birth to a reincarnated Superman within a matter of days who then grew up in days to beat the bad guy. You've really got to wonder about those Hollywood types.
Michael O'Connor: Beyonce as Lois Lane!? Wha!!!??? It's these kind of harebrained ideas that make me concerned about the project. Nothing personal against Beyonce, but c'mon! She's a pop singer, not an actress, and she's NOTHING like Lois Lane. And I don't just mean in physical appearance.
Steve Younis: I think at one stage Jon Peters said he didn't want to see Superman fly in the movie. (!!!) Stupid, stupid, stupid!
Jon Peters, who produced Batman and Batman Returns, is attached as producer for this film. He's said to be one of the major pushers for a movie that would generate bigger toy sales. Is this the right man or woman for the job?
Neal Bailey: Giant spider man? Hmm....let me see. NO! Put him in charge of the hair.
Jason Larouche: I've never heard of Jon Peters, but I hope that he's well aware of the difference spectrum-wise for Superman.
Nick Newman: The first two Batman movies were definitely the best of the bunch, but from everything we've seen so far Peters does not strike me as the right guy. He doesn't seem to understand Superman at all, and I don't think a movie produced by him would succeed.
Michael O'Connor: Well, I don't know Jon Peters, but I've heard the rumors like everyone else. It's not really my position to say one way or the other. If he is the root of all evil and is only in this for the money, I wonder how much of a difference it makes. The producer certainly has an important part in the creation of a movie, but, usually, he's supposed to control the business side of it and not as much the creative half. And, as you pointed out, he was on board for both Batman (1989) and Batman Returns, which were both very good films and fairly faithful to the Batman mythos. I think that tells us that as sinister as this guy may be, his presence on the crew probably doesn't have a direct correlation with the quality of the finished product. Having said that, the very fact that this movie has been stalled for so long and he's been attached to it, suggests that a large part of the fault for the development hell may be his involvement.
Steve Younis: No, no way!!! Get rid of him!
If you have any preferences for a producer, who would it be?
Neal Bailey: Either me, because it would mean I was rich enough to produce a movie (and that would be fun), or M. Night Shayamalan. The man knows comics, he could supervise and make sure the source material was correct, and you know the movie wouldn't take the rush to knowledge we all get dumbed down with in normal comic films.
Jason Larouche: I have no preferences for a producer, but I think either Al Gough or the other guy from Smallville would be a good fit.
Nick Newman: It seems natural to me to give the role to Jeph Loeb. He's been a producer before and I think Jeph's writing captures a version of Superman that would be perfect for the screen.
Michael O'Connor: No preference, really. Again, it's the business side of the equation, which I, and most fans, really aren't as interested in. We want the film to be good, and a competent producer is definitely advantageous in getting things going and running smoothly. If he does his job well, then we shouldn't even think about him, should we?
Steve Younis: Anyone other than Jon Peters. I really don't have anyone in mind... Whoever it is needs to trust in the creative people they employ and let them do their job. The role of the Producer is generally NOT a creative role.
McG's name keeps on coming up as a director. Has he got what it takes?
Neal Bailey: Let's compare. Donner? Goonies, Radio Flyer, Radio Flyer, The Toy...great flicks. Okay, so some came after Superman. But then McG, according to IMDB, has Charlie's Angels one and two, Hot Wheels (?) coming soon, and a Korn video. I understand the need for unknowns, but given how tasteless and pet project feeling the Charlie's Angels movies were (despite magical hoo has), I would say no, not by the evidence I've seen.
Jason Larouche: We have to wait and see if McG has the right vision. As mentioned before, he has to take all of the elements that made the character great and present it in a format that is original, imaginative, and not too out of this world.
Nick Newman: Definitely not.
Michael O'Connor: I'm skeptical. Let's look at his credits so far. Two Charlie's Angels movies and some music videos. That's not very inspiring, especially since the Angels movies were pretty mediocre. I'm not sure that we can count on McG to deliver the goods. Truth be told, I was more confident about this whole thing when Ratner was on board. All he had to his credit were the Rush Hour flicks and Red Dragon, but, even though Dragon got bashed by the critics, a lot of that criticism resulted from comparing it to Michael Mann's Manhunter, which the movie was a remake of. And as we all know, critics don't like remakes, so it didn't really matter who did the film, the critics were ready to trash it. Personally, I thought Dragon was a solid film that was competently executed and had great performances. That's a credit to Ratner and suggests that he could have brought the same to the Superman production. Plus, he had Anthony Hopkins on-board to play Jor-El, which would have been great.
Steve Younis: In my opinion, no. Superman is much bigger and more important than a "Charlie's Angels" movie.
Who's your ideal pick for a director? Could be anyone, like your friend down the street that's more of a Superman fan than you are.
Neal Bailey: Honestly? Who would I want doing it? M. Night. M. Night ALL the way. It would be slower, there would be less action, and hopefully he could do away with his twist ending for one movie, but I tell you, I STILL get chills at the end of Unbreakable, my absolute favourite comic-book movie ever. He's got the knowledge, he's a great director, and though you may think it's not his style, look at Burton transitioning from beautiful films to Batman. Some people hated the first two Batmans, I happened to like them. I'd say M. Night is perfect, at least for me.
Jason Larouche: It's hard to say which director I'd choose.
Nick Newman: I don't really have anyone in mind. There are lots of good directors out there, but I don't know which of them would be good for Superman.
Michael O'Connor: Steven Spielberg or M. Night Shyamalan, who was rumored at one point to be in the running for the job. I think both directors have the artistic sensibilities for a Superman film and wouldn't just focus on the big-budget action spectacle that I feel McG is going to latch onto. Plus, both are self-professed comic book fans and talented, established filmmakers. Obviously, Spielberg has proven himself time and again in just about every genre there is, but especially in science fiction, where he has brought a humanity and an optimism that would really sparkle in a Superman film (think Close Encounters or E.T.). Shyamalan, meanwhile, has already made a great superhero film- Unbreakable- and brought out some amazing performances in his actors and given us fantasy stories that actually address and explore humanity and character.
Steve Younis: M. Night Shyamalan. I'd love to see him tackle this movie. He's a comic book fan after all and is a great director.
Here we go - casting call! Who are your picks and why?
Superman
Neal Bailey: Tom Welling. Perhaps he has a wooden stature at times, but if you put in the big budget, let the man have a chance, we'd be in a really good way. I don't like Jude as Superman, though he looks the part in the face, and I'm not a huge fan of Nicholas Cage. ;)
Jason Larouche: Tom Welling (with a few extra pounds of muscle he'd fill out the role perfectly; he's proven that he has the right mix of farmboy naivete and mild-mannered demeanour)
Nick Newman: Ideally I'd like an unknown actor to play Superman. I don't want to look at Superman and say, "Oh, that's the guy from that movie", I want to look at him and think he's Superman. Therefore, I really can't answer this question.
Michael O'Connor: I'd have to say that I'm with most fans on this one. I really want an unknown. I don't know if any actor will ever embody Superman as well as Christopher Reeve, but I do know that no actor in Hollywood today reminds me of the Man of Steel in either physical appearance or characteristics. And as much as I like Tom Welling, I have to say that I'd prefer they cast the net into the unknown pool and see what they find first. The transition from television to film is not an easy one for most actors, and I'm of the opinion that Welling may not hold up as well on the big screen as he does on Smallville. Having said that, I'd rather see Welling up there than, say, Brendan Fraser.
Steve Younis: They need to cast an unknown actor in this role. Someone who (A) Can Act, (B) Looks the part, and (C) Wants the part.
Lois Lane
Neal Bailey: Maggie Gyllenhall. I've thought about this a lot, and Lois is supposed to be smart-sexy, and I do believe, based on seeing Maggie in Secretary and in Mona Lisa Smile (which stank, but you see her acting), she's got the ability, that quiet, unspoken beauty of a woman who can suddenly turn and be assertive when you least expect it.
Jason Larouche: Selma Blair (She's proven she's got the spunk and personality that Lois is famous for; hell she's even obsessed with getting the part so why not grant her wish?)
Nick Newman: No one really sticks out
Michael O'Connor: My vote goes to Catherine Zeta Jones. She's got the Lois Lane spunk to her. Other runner-ups would include Scarlet Johansson (she's a bit young), Salma Hayek (physical resemblance isn't quite there), or Jennifer Connelly (she's already Betty from the Hulk).
Lex Luthor
Neal Bailey: NOT Jim Carrey, NOT Billy Zane. My pick is actually a really strange one, and it's been the same for a long time. The evil dad from Mallrats. I already got to see him bald, he's got a flair for cynical megalomania, and he's got some ACTING talent. Check out Dreamcatcher if you want to see him in a more testing role. I think if you take the comedy out of Mallrats, that actor could be really chilling. I'd also go with either Rosenbaum or Glover, but that might confuse people, so they'd never go for it. Just take him seriously and I'll go with anyone.
Jason Larouche: Kevin Sorbo (it'd be a cool twist considering he was up for the role of Clark Kent on "Lois and Clark"; he has the right voice that is both sinister and persuasive)
Nick Newman: Depending on the background used, Michael Rosenbaum would have to be Luthor. His Luthor on Smallville is still a little too good, but if he is capable of truly having a dark side like I think he is, in three or four years he'd be perfect for the job.
Michael O'Connor: Well, you just need a great character actor for that role, and then shave his head. My recommendations would be Kevin Spacey, Johnny Depp, or Edward Norton. They're all fantastic actors and would knock Luthor out of the park, regardless of whether the script calls for him to be a mad scientist or a corporate villain.
Others
Neal Bailey:
The Kents: Ma- Margot Kidder, Pa- Gene Hackman. Just because.
Lana Lang: Ooooh, oooh, Julianne Moore, you hot chick you!
Jimmy Olsen: Beyonce Knowles. Nah, not really. The OLDER Pete from The Adventures of Pete and Pete. He was just in 40 Days, I recall.
Perry White: R. Lee Ermey. Imagine him shouting at the staff...and he looks the part to a good degree.
Jason Larouche:
Jonathan Kent: John Schneider (he IS Pa Kent in my opinion)
Martha Kent: Annette O'Toole (Ma Kent's gotta have at least some sex appeal, come on)
Jimmy Olsen: Seth Green (he's the right size to play Big Blue's pint-sized pal and has the personality to match)
Perry White: James Garner
Jor-El: Ewan MacGreggor
Lara: Uma Thurman
Nick Newman: I'd give the Kents to John Schneider and Annette O'Toole. Both are fantastic and I'd love to see 'Lana' in another Superman movie. I'm not sure on Jimmy (although he should be like the Jimmy of the comics). As for Perry, I was going to say Lane Smith until I saw the sad news about his illness, so instead I'll take this opportunity to say that my prayers are with you Mr. Smith.
Steve Younis: As for Lois or Lex or any of the supporting roles.... I don't really have a favourite for each role. They can cast high profile actors in these supporting roles (as they did in "Superman: The Movie") as long as they can act and fit the part... i.e. No Beyonce for Lois!!!
Just focusing on whoever plays Superman, should he be a real hulk of a man, or a smaller, kind of all around great athlete?
Neal Bailey: A cross between the two. No padding. Tom Welling is about perfect.
Jason Larouche: As to Superman's physique, I think the bulky look only works in the funny pages, so I'd rather see Superman as a physically fit athlete, maybe the same body type as Stallone.
Nick Newman: The all-around athlete, much like Christopher Reeve was, would just work much better. Superman is supposed to be big, but he shouldn't look like a body-builder.
Michael O'Connor: I don't think it matters. They can always do a little bodybuilding once they've chosen the actor. Reeve actually always looked just a little too skinny for the part, but on the whole, I don't think it matters. The face, the characteristics, and the acting ability are first and foremost to me.
Steve Younis: I'd say slightly more muscular than Christopher Reeve was... but not too bulky. He should definitely be tall. Superman needs to come across as an opposing figure but not unapproachable.
Getting off topic for a second, what do you think of the fabled Superman actors' curse?
Neal Bailey: I think it's a coincidence. I would play Superman with no fear.
Nick Newman: Just coincidence, nothing more.
Michael O'Connor: Nonsense. I'm a fan of conspiracy theories, but this just isn't a very good one. What about all the other Superman actors that have lived long, healthy lives? If you want to, you could say there's a Reeve(s) curse, but not a Superman one.
Steve Younis: It's a bunch of hooey! And if any actor is stupid enough to use it as a reason for not accepting the part, then they don't deserve to play Superman.
Back to the casting questions, how would you feel about transplanting the actors of Smallville into a Superman movie? Forget about what the actors or their bosses have said. If you had the choice, would you want that cast for a movie series?
Neal Bailey: Not Lana, but Rosenbaum and Welling, yes. Not the Kents, though they perform just fine. I would like Rosenbaum or Glover for Lex, as I said above, but Welling is REALLY good for Superman, at least for me.
Jason Larouche: With the exception of Tom Welling, John Schnieder, and Annette O'Toole, I think adding too much of the Smallville television series to the Superman film would eclipse the title character. The only appearances Pete and Lana would make would be in photographs, but maybe down the line I'd have Kristen Kreuk make a guest appearance. However, story elements from the series would greatly fit into a grand scale epic on film if added to the plot. Merging the two genres together would both promote the series long after the show's gone into syndication, and answer questions that may be left when the series finale airs.
Nick Newman: Tom Welling is, to me, in the same category as Dean Cain. Cain made a fantastic Clark, but his Superman just wasn't that great. I think the same thing would happen to Tom, he would be great in the glasses but he just wouldn't look right in the suit. However, given some of the horrible choices that have been rumoured, I would definitely take the whole Smallville cast in a movie. And as I said above, regardless of who played Superman I'd love to see a few of the actors from Smallville in a movie.
Michael O'Connor: As I said before, the transition from television to film is a tough one. The only time I've ever really seen it work was with the X-Files series (I suppose one could argue Star Trek as well, though I'm not really a fan). I also feel like the story and the characters of the film are going to be different enough from the focus of Smallville that putting those actors on the screen just wouldn't fit. It's a different monster, really.
Steve Younis: I'd be happy to see Tom Welling as Superman. Same goes for John Schneider and Annette O'Toole as the Kents. And I personally don't think we've seen a better Lex Luthor than Michael Rosenbaum.
Regardless of whether the Smallville cast would be in the movie, should the film borrow anything from the Smallville series? Should they be so coherent that they can exist in the same 'universe'?
Neal Bailey: All or none. I actually think Smallville should be its own universe. People will be hip to the jive if they use the same actor but a different story.
Nick Newman: My ideal movie would be the classic Superman origin, like the original movie used. However, if WB wanted to use the Smallville back story then I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as Lionel wasn't in the picture and the villain wasn't a result of Kryptonite.
Michael O'Connor: Not necessarily. There are a lot of good things about the Smallville show - Luthor growing up with Clark being the predominant of these - but that doesn't mean that the movie needs to make sure it stays in continuity with the show. Rather, it needs to be its own thing; if it tries too hard to be the TV show or even the comic book, it isn't going to work. It should take everything from all the different incarnations of Superman and come up with its own version, while still staying true to the original concept. No easy task, obviously, but a vital one, nevertheless.
Steve Younis: If it fits the story they're trying to tell in the movie. Sure... Why not?! I like the meteor shower accompanying Kal-El's rocket ship to Earth... Makes sense in this day and age of satellites and other tracking devices which would spot a lone craft entering our atmosphere. They can borrow from "Smallville", the comics, TV shows... there's 65+ years of history they can borrow from if they want... Whatever works to make a great movie.
What about the new 'Catwoman' and 'Batman Begins' movies? Should an effort be made for these movies to fit together, probably so that we can have some teamups and a JLA movie in the future?
Neal Bailey: Catwoman, I do believe, will be such a colossal failure that it will stop production of the next Superman movie, because that's the way producer minds work. If CATWOMAN doesn't work, Superman won't, because she's a superhero, and her movie failed! Or at least, that's how suits think. Batman Begins I do believe will not spawn any sequels and will be scorned by mass audiences, but the fanboys from comics will love it. I think the movies should be kept apart. We don't need crossovers unless there are very distinct universes in existence and everyone's on board. For instance, if the Batman series and the Superman series had happened in the same time period, MAYBE a crossover would have worked, but there's just so many ways it can fail, and most hero movies have enough time focusing anyway.
Neal Bailey: I don't think that "Catwoman" and "Batman Begins" should be released at the same time because the fans already disapprove of Selina Kyle's departure from the film genre and want to eventually see the romance between her and Bruce Wayne's alter ego later on in the Bat-sequels.
Nick Newman: Well the Batman Begins movie looks like it is finally taking the franchise in the right direction. I don't see any reason to actually tie to two together though, as not mentioning it at all would still leave the door open for future team-up movies. The Catwoman movie is crap and shouldn't even be considered.
Michael O'Connor: No, not at all. I don't see how Catwoman would have any bearing at all on the Superman movie anyway, since it's taking such a significant departure from its source material and because Superman isn't likely to be in the same movie as Catwoman. As for Batman Begins, I think both movies can operate on their own without worrying about one another. When the time comes to make Batman vs. Superman, which I believe could be a very good film, it would be nice if the actors fro the Superman and Batman franchises were selected to star, but it wouldn't be absolutely necessary.
Steve Younis: Personally, I don't really care. I'm not a Batman fan, so it doesn't really bother me what they do.
The Smallville series and 'Superman: Birthright' have both recently reintroduced the Silver Age idea of Clark and Lex knowing each other at a young age. In your opinion, is this a good or a bad idea?
Neal Bailey: It depends on if they reconcile it with continuity. It's not that big of a plot point to me, because there is no Superboy comic book, and we already have Smallville. It seems very redundant to me, a pandering trick to try and please Smallville fans and make them become Superman comic book fans. It's failing.
Jason Larouche: I think reintroducing the Clark-Lex friendship works in the sense that they make their association a tragic event. Smallville does this magically because you see the transition both characters face, and it deepens the remorse as to the road Lex winds up on.
Nick Newman: In Smallville it is a fantastic idea, it's Lex that makes the show. In the comics, it's a horrible idea, as anyone who has read my Birthright reviews knows. In the movie, either would work for me.
Michael O'Connor: Well, I like it a lot in the comic books and the television show, but in the reality of a two-hour movie, it may not fit, and it may not be necessary. I will tell you, however, that I like it a lot better than this rumor going around that, in the film's script, Lex Luthor is a Kryptonian.
Steve Younis: If it works for the story they're trying to tell. I don't mind it... although it does beg the question, if Lex is so smart how come he doesn't recognize Superman as his boyhood friend Clark Kent?
Despite Superman being in production hell, word of a new Supergirl movie has already been suggested. What actress would you pick for Supergirl, and which version from the comics would be the basis for the character?
Neal Bailey: I would not like a Supergirl movie. The first one was all right, but it's like a Catwoman stand-alone. She's just not a very defined character in a lot of ways (well, maybe David's, but few know that version). I'd say make 5 Superman movies and have her in one of them. Actress? I don't know.
Jason Larouche: The role of Supergirl would have to go to Elisha Cuthbert. She's proven on both "24" and "The Girl Next Door" that she can hack the strong female leads and has the right combination of beauty and charisma to approach Kara Zor-El. As for which version, I'd prefer the recent Supergirl appearing in Superman-Batman because it's a deeper story to it; Kara was sent to Earth as a teenager to look after the infant Kal-El, but fate stepped in and placed Kara in suspended animation while Kal-El grew up alone on Earth. It would be the story of a girl trying to find her place in the world after discovering her intended role has been reversed to her needing the protective care from her older cousin.
Nick Newman: While a Supergirl movie is a horrible idea, if there was to be one it would have to be the classic cousin of Kal-El from Argo storyline, which also means that a Superman movie would have to come first. As for an actress, I really have no idea.
Michael O'Connor: I think another Supergirl movie would be a terrible idea, especially if it came out before Superman. For the film to work, Supergirl pretty much has to be removed from the context of the Superman mythos, like what they're doing with the Catwoman film (taking it out of the context of Batman)... and that's likely to make us comic book fans none too pleased. Otherwise, if the film is made to be loyal to the characters' origins, it will have to either include Superman (which then takes the emphasis of the film off Supergirl) or it has to address why Superman isn't in the film, which is likely to involve some lame explanation (he's on another planet fighting aliens). Regardless, the inner fanboy in me thinks Naomi Watts would be great for the role.
Steve Younis: Again, I don't have anyone particular in mind... as long as she can act and looks the part. As for which version: I'm quite liking Jeph Loeb's new Supergirl from the "Superman/Batman" comic books... Her introduction makes the most sense of all the ones I've seen.
Any desire to make Superman and his costume edgier? Would making changes really make non-fans think Supes' is cool or just alienate everybody else?
Neal Bailey: No desire at all. I like the classic. The changes might bring in fans, I'll admit, but it's not worth trampling on the icon.
Nick Newman: Not at all. Take a look at the hugely successful Spider-man movie. They followed the comic almost exactly and people flocked to see it. Superman doesn't need an update, or a new costume, or any of the other gimmicks that comic companies used during the 90s to boost popularity. The movie just needs a solid story with a good cast.
Michael O'Connor: Minor costume changes? Okay. No problems there. Over the course of 65 years, Superman's costume has been tinkered with, but the important things- the red and the blue, the shield, the cape, have all stayed the same. Maybe make the colors a little less bright, like Jim Lee does when he's illustrating Superman. But there's no need to put Supes in a leather jacket or dress him all in black. Changing the costume too radically would serve no purpose and not only alienate the fans but also just the casual viewer who wants to see one of the world's greatest icons looking like he's supposed to.
Steve Younis: Do NOT change the costume!!! They have to keep the classic look. They can make minor adjustments, but Superman has to wear a blue suit with red trunks over the top, a yellow belt, red boots, a red cloth cape. No mask, no leather, no vinyl, no utility belt, no rubber muscles with nipples, no gadgets... Superman is not Batman. Superman doesn't need gadgets... I don't care how many action figures they want to sell!!
How do you envision Metropolis? Is it just some miscellaneous metropolitan city as the name suggests, a place filled with 1940's architecture and style, or a city always on the cutting edge of technology and capabilities?
Neal Bailey: I think Metropolis is basically New York. That's what it's always been based on in the comics, for the most part, and it's fitting. I think it should be a city on the cusp of technology, but with buildings that reflect post-war sensibility. I know, tough one.
Jason Larouche: I envision Metropolis a mixture of New York and Toronto, but also with a touch of it being the "City of Tomorrow". You want to see Superman soaring between the skyscrapers and flying over the world's tallest building, but you also want to see overpasses and elevated railways. "Superman: The Animated Series" pulled this look off beautifully, and I see this translating onto film with the same amount of ease.
Nick Newman: Metropolis, to me, will always be the late-80s and early 90s version used by Roger Stern, Dan Jurgens, and the bunch. It was a relatively modern city, but the buildings had a nice classic feel to them, with a lot of brickwork. That also worked very well to contrast with the steel and glass tower of Lexcorp.
Michael O'Connor: This can be played with. Personally, I like the Bruce Timm version the best. Or perhaps the Steve Rude version from the three issue World's Finest miniseries. It's a little more technologically advanced, and a little brighter and shinier than most cities. It's not an alien world, but it should encapsulate that art nouveau feel from the 1940s with touches from the World's Fair.
Steve Younis: Metropolis should be a futuristic looking city... on the leading edge of modern technology. Just as Superman is the brightness to Batman's darkness, so Metropolis should be to Gotham.
Now for the real fun stuff. Who would be your pick for the villain(s) of an introductory Superman movie? Would it be a straight Lex Luthor opposition as it was for 1978, or would you throw in more evil doers?
Neal Bailey: Lex Luthor, definitely, but not in a direct way until the end of the movie. Have Luthor send stuff after Superman. Metallo, a Doomsday maybe, a Brainiac he's discovered, and then ultimately have it be a straight battle of wits and tests Luthor throws at Superman and Superman fighting to Luthor, making Superman have to best Luthor mentally to succeed.
Jason Larouche: In the first Superman movie, I'd definitely have to go with Lex Luthor. But it can't be like the 1978 hero-villain story because it seems too hollow these days. Include the Smallville angle of he and Clark being friends and first, then throw in the "Birthright" element of their falling out and Lex's plot to discredit the new protector of Meteropolis.
Nick Newman: I would vote for Luthor in the background scheming, with the main villain as either Brainiac or Darkseid, as the alien invasion storyline would work very well. As the movie would also need to introduce Superman to Metropolis, you could also throw in a few short battles with others as brief sequences. These would have to include Metallo, Parasite, and maybe a few brief cameos of villains like Toyman or Bloodsport.
Michael O'Connor: I think for the first one, you have to have Luthor there. You might also include one of Superman's second string foes to provide the physical conflict (perhaps Metallo?), but for the first film, we all want to see Superman vs. Lex Luthor.
Steve Younis: I'd like to see Lex, but as the mastermind of a plan that involves some other major villain (be it Brainiac, Metallo or whoever).
If you could create the plot for the movie, write a synopsis for it in around four sentences.
Neal Bailey: Clark Kent in Smallville realizes he has super powers, realizes his heritage through Jor-El, and heads to Metropolis. In Metropolis he meets Lois Lane and gets his Planet job. Luthor buys the Planet and starts screwing everyone, and Superman starts finding a trail of crumbs leading to Luthor including super-villains and tests of weakness. Superman confronts Luthor, saves the Planet in both senses, and we close with the battle of wits.
Jason Larouche: "After being sent to Earth as a young infant, Kal-El grows up under the moniker of Clark given to him by his adopted parents, the Kents, and discovers he possesses powers and abilities that set him apart from other humans. Vowing to use his power for the pursuit of justice, but still longing for a normal live, he and his parents create a double identity: he conceals his alien heritage under the guise of a mild-mannered reporter for the Daily Planet, but in times of crisis changes into a caped uniform that people soon associate with the name, 'Superman'. However, problems arise when a figure from his past threatens to expose his alien heritage in an attempt to discredit Clark, all an elaborate distraction from a plot that threatens to encompass the population of Metropolis."
Nick Newman: Superman is sent Earth, found and raised by the Kents before the story leaps forward to Metropolis. Clark gets a job at the Planet, meets Lois, and Superman reveals himself to the world. Luthor hates him and spends the movie behind the scenes scheming about how to kill him while Darkseid shows up on Earth with the forces of Apokalips. A big battle ensues, with Superman triumphing and saving the world.
Michael O'Connor: My version of the film would open in media res. Superman has been in Metropolis for only a month and people are scared out of their minds. Can he be trusted? What does he really want? Luthor is playing off the public's fear and feeding it, not because he's an evil man, but rather because he's as scared as anyone else by the possibility of an alien being who could enslave the human race. Luthor sees himself as a savior of the people by going after Superman, but every action he takes causes him to slip further into madness and evil. His actions turn him into what he has feared Superman is- a mad despot with an aim to control the world. A turning point in Luthor's madness is his manipulation of a friend or co-worker, who he has transformed into a weapon against the Man of Steel- Metallo. But when Superman triumphs against the odds, Luthor suits up himself in a war-suit and takes the fight straight to the Man of Steel.
And yeah, I know. Way more than four sentences. What I think a story like this would convey is who we are in the world right now- afraid, angry, ready to strike out at anyone and everything- just like Luthor. And the more we let ourselves succumb to these emotions, the more trouble we ultimately cause. The tragedy is the loss of Luthor to the "dark side," but the message of tolerance and hope arises from Superman, someone who is genuinely *good*. The first movie of any superhero series always struggles to explain why the hero is a hero; but Superman's origin was already done by Donner and Mario Puzo and it's not going to be improved upon; it will either be regurgitated or the screenwriter will try to do the exact opposite of everything Puzo did. The point is that maybe Superman doesn't *need* to be explained. In my movie, Superman is a mirror to hold up to ourselves. He's Atticus Finch and Jean Valjean and, hell, Jesus Christ. And us? We're Luthor.
Steve Younis: I'm no writer... but I'd like to see a brief introduction to Superman. Show a sceptical world where Truth and Justice are just words, and nobody really believes they can make a difference. Along comes some major catastrophe or threat, something only Superman can deal with. After a major battle, he wins the day and wins the hearts of the world.
Take another four sentences to explain what you would do with a series of Superman movies headed by you. You can give anything- how Lois and Clark's relationship would progress, what villains and allies would appear, etc.
Neal Bailey:
A: Movie one: Superman vs. Lex. (per my synopsis)
B: Movie two: Death of Superman (per comics minus JLA)
C: Movie three: Return of Superman (per comics minus Green Lantern and Supergirl)
D: Our Worlds At War (HERE we bring in the other heroes, united against Imperiex)
Jason Larouche: If I were to head a series of Superman movies, the kind of villains I'd use would be a mix of both home-grown metahumans and extraterrestrial menaces. After the first movie with Lex, I'd move on to a revamped version of The Parasite, then another with Darkseid, and finally capping it off with Doomsday, which would set the bar for the resurrection in the fourth film. As for the human aspect of it, I'd develop his relationship with Lois more and complicate the Clark-Lois-Superman triangle a little by having Lana Lang come back into his life.
Nick Newman: The first movie would establish Superman in the world and begin a Luthor sub-plot. Lois would start out as the stubborn reporter and grow to love Clark by the end of the last movie, but this would definitely be a sub-plot. The second movie could bring in Brainiac and, like the animated series did, have Brainiac from Krypton. Maybe the Eradicator could be factored into this as well. The third, and last movie, would be Luthor against Superman using Kryptonian and Apokaliptan tech that he picked up during the previous two movies.
Michael O'Connor: The relationship between Lois and Clark would develop very slowly over the course of the films to keep the tension between the two of them intact. In the first one, I think there would probably be very little of Clark Kent, truth be told, and that most of Lois' scenes would be her pursuit of the truth- is Superman good or evil? As for the other films, I think Brainiac would be a great movie villain, especially in his incarnation as a gatherer of data/destroyer of worlds. Darkseid would also be cool, Manchester Black perhaps (I'd love to see What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way adapted), and maybe even the Cyborg; he was a decent villain before they overused him in the comic books. I would probably leave out the Phantom Zoners; it's already been done to near-perfection in Superman II. As for allies, I'd rather keep the focus on Superman himself, so just the supporting cast: Lois, Jimmy, Perry, etc.
Steve Younis: I'd like to see following movies show some more of Superman's rogues gallery... A Mxyzptlk movie might be fun and just imagine the special effects needed :) I'd like to see a version of the match up between Superman and Manchester Blacks' "The Elite" story line from the comics to show the world that Superman's ideals and morals are still so important and relevant to today's society.
Any final comments?
Neal Bailey: I think that folks need to give Hollywood a chance, and realize that we really have no control other than griping over what's going to happen. Realize that the movie will either happen or it won't, it'll suck or it'll rule, but nothing can take away the character we have in our hearts.
Jason Larouche: 'Nuff said.
Nick Newman: Just that I really hope that this movie eventually does get made, and gets made right, That, and if Warner Brothers wants a consultant for the movie I've got plenty of free time.
Michael O'Connor: I do have a suggestion: calm down, people. We're all fans and we all want to see the Superman film done right, but sometimes, it's better to just *not* worry about it. What will happen will happen, and there's not much we, as individual fans, can do about decisions being made in a locked boardroom in Hollywood. Wait till the film comes out and then judge it, but at least give it the benefit of the doubt. And remember that when you hear a detail from the film that shows a departure from your understanding of Superman (either through the comics or Smallville or the original films), consider for a moment that the change may end up being a good one once it's seen in the context of the entire film.
Personally, I don't mind when the movies make some changes along the way, and that's because I don't want to see a movie that is a regurgitation of everything we've already seen with Superman. I want to see a new story and a slightly new take on the character, and before you start dubbing me an infidel, consider this: all the great superhero films have always done this. The original Superman was a fairly radical departure from the comic books of the time, yet it kept enough of the elements of the series to keep the fans happy. That's what's really important: do they tell us a new story while keeping the big things the same (the origin, the costume, the powers, the characters, the duel identity)? If so, we're probably in for a good experience.
Oh, and one more thing: don't trust all those crazy rumors. They'll drive you insane.
Steve Younis: Nothing I can think of...
Ending Credits
Wow, you know I think our panel has accomplished more for a Superman movie than Warner Bros. has in about three years. Let's recap a bit:- Just say no to Jon Peters and McG.
- M. Night Shyamalan is the overall favourite pick for director. Read up on the man if you don't know much about him.
- An unknown actor for Superman seems to be the ultimate preference, though Tom Welling has plenty of first choice support and even more as a second choice. If an unknown is chosen, they need to be in excellent shape but can't be too buff. Keep in mind that while comic artists can actually transform a muscle-bound Superman into a smaller, weaker Clark, an actor must try to convey both identities in one body.
- Further Smallville-to-movie connections besides just Tom Welling are acceptable, but perhaps not preferable. After Welling, Michael Rosenbaum playing Lex Luthor tops the list of good things that could be transplanted to the movie.
- Getting a series of Superman movies done in their own right is more important than hooking him up with other DC characters.
- A Supergirl movie is a bad idea.
- Costume changes are another bad idea.
- Metropolis needs to be bright and marvellous. Most votes went for it truly being the city of tomorrow, with a few mentions of keeping some of the 1940's design look.
- Lex Luthor needs to be pulling the strings in the first Superman movie, and there is a desire for another villain to be his pawn squaring off against the Man of Steel. Completely by accident, most of the panel came up with Metallo as the number one choice for this opponent, with Brainiac also being widely considered. Parasite, Darkseid, Doomsday, and Manchester Black are some of the other names mentioned, mostly in conjunction with sequels.
For those of you who don't know, the new Catwoman movie is totally unrelated to the DC character. This Catwoman will have a different civilian name, different motives, and possess super powers granted to her by mystical forces. You'll note that in every other incarnation, she has started out as a cat burglar with no super powers.
The new Batman movie, while to this point receiving mostly good fan reaction, feels the need to explain why Bruce Wayne would become a vigilante by having him use a high-tech battle suit designed by his company, similar to the story of Norman Osborne absconding a war suit and glider to become the Green Goblin in 'Spider-Man' (but for 'Spider-Man' that explanation was actually present in the Marvel comics, whereas Bruce Wayne decided to become the Batman because he's determined to fight crime and is psychologically weird). The Batmobile will also be a departure from any of its previous incarnations.
What does this all mean? That Warner Bros. is in a serious tweaking mode. The Superman movie being on hold may well be a blessing in disguise. Let's hope that if/when it does go into production, someone listens to the likes of our panel today.
I would like to thank Neal Bailey, Jason Larouche, Nick Newman, Michael O'Connor and Steve Younis for speaking with me. Keep up the good work gentlemen!