Superman is tired, let’s give him another 15-20 years to cool off some more. He battled Gene Hackman in 1978, Terence Stamp in 1980, himself in 1983, Gene Hackman again in 1987 and then Kevin Spacey as Gene Hackman in 2006. Don’t you think 2011 may be a bit too soon to bring him back?
As fanboys got their quick fix of stock tips they also skimmed through the online version of the Wall Street Journal and came across an article by Lauren A.E. Schuker discussing the future of Warner Bros. and their hope to have eight big budget films a year by 2011. A staggering number if you ask me. Apparently a bulk of those films will be occupied by superheroes as they have finally figured out that every 14-year-old in the world will go see a comic book movie even if Nic Cage is in it. On top of that, if you actually make a good movie people over the age of 14 will go see it as well, and they will see it multiple times.
The Dark Knight and its soon-to-be $500 million domestic box-office tally is obviously the reasoning behind this epiphany, but it seems Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk helped pave the way as they hint at a superhero merger of sorts with a planned Avengers film in 2011 that will bring superhero properties such as Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and others together in one movie. Yippe-ki-yay, it’s an orgiastic feast of metal men running around with guys with wings on their heads. This is great!
WB scoffs at the idea that this could be singularly exclusive to the world of Marvel, which spawned the likes of Spider-Man, Iron Man, Hulk and other misfits of superhero lore. Warner Bros. owns the rights to the DC Comics side of things, a hand-painted source of folks such as Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, Flash, Wonder Woman and then some. An idea for a mash-up of the heroes called Justice League of America fell through earlier this year. The writers’ strike was to blame, but the fact that they cast a bunch of tweens couldn’t have helped along with the outcry of hatred from an online fan base that didn’t want the film to exist in any form it seemed like. I would say the distaste for the film was not the idea per se as much as it seemed to be the feeling that it was coming together as a rush job, an obvious complaint since you don’t want to bury the characters before they get their fair shot, and fair shot they shall get.
Along with a third Batman film (duh), Warner Bros also aims to be working on a reintroduction of Superman (more on that in a sec) as well as two movies focusing on other DC Comics characters. Which two exactly is not known, but movies featuring Green Lantern, Flash, Green Arrow, and Wonder Woman are all in active development. The goal of each is to copy The Dark Knight in tone, keep it dark and keep it brooding. “We’re going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it,” Warner Bros. Pictures Group President Jeff Robinov says. That goes for the company’s Superman franchise as well.
Yup, instead of Superman Returns 2 With His Super Son we are going to get Superman Goes Dark. There is no telling of when exactly the Superman restart will take place, but it certainly sounds like it is in active development and I would definitely expect it no later than 2011 since that seems to be the year Robinov expects his new experiment to be running at full-steam. However, that means it’s only going to be five years between Superman franchises, which is a bit different than a few years between sequels.
The quote Robinov gave the WSJ says “the plan is just to reintroduce Superman,” which makes me believe Brandon Routh would not be back as Clark Kent/Superman and everything we saw in 2006 is forgotten. Doesn’t this sound a bit like the Incredible Hulk franchise at Universal, which went five years between original to reboot and only managed to score $2 million more at the box-office, while spending $13 million more to make the second flick? Not exactly winning numbers. On top of that I don’t think the problem with Superman Returns was that it wasn’t dark and disturbing enough, the problem was that it was long and boring. The first Christopher Reeve Superman in 1978 wasn’t a dark tale and it was good, the sequel was even better. The problem was the script and the story and the Super Son should have been the clue that the film had problems. Then again, at least it didn’t have a giant spider at the end. Right, Kevin Smith?
Maybe I am the wrong one to comment because I have never been a huge fan of Superman in the first place. My problem exists around the fact that he is Superman; he’s unstoppable unless you get a bit of Kryptonite or are simply bad ass, a la General Zod. In Superman Returns he took a bullet to the eye for crying out loud, which still makes me wonder why he had such a hard time stopping that plane. I do enjoy the 1978 and 1980 Superman flicks so I am interested in seeing more, but I think it is one hell of a hard sell to general audiences unless you can find an actor such as Christopher Reeve to really connect with the audience. I thought Routh was fine and the story failed him, maybe give him a second chance, but can you really do that with a reboot and if so what do we do with that stinking kid?
As for that Kevin Smith remark a ‘graph back take 19 minutes out of your day and watch the following video, and that fake poster I made is just below the video.
