How would you reboot Superman?

[JAK]

I see what you're going for with the GA approach. That is indeed an intriguing way to go and it's something that's never been seen.

Thanks! It's something I'd love to figure out how to do at some point, if video tech ever gets there for fan-filmers with no budget, lol! Honestly, that visceral nature of the Golden Age fight for justice is something that would resonate just as well today as it did in the 30's - even more, in some ways. I'll share one other thing that a friend of mind and I cooked up for first film: when he's first found, he's an alien (though he looks human) and his body isn't used to the germs so he starts off very sick, even bedridden. So they keep him inside (not much sun) for much of his time at the orphanage. There, he sees caregivers treat the other children well, and he sees some treat them very badly - and he couldn't move to help if he wanted to. This helps to instill a strong sense of urgency when he sees people in need, and also explains why the few people he stops to talk to are kids (with adults, he does his thing and is gone) Someone else on here (sorry, I can't remember who, but happy to share credit when I talk about it if I find out) had this next idea around the same time we did and I love it: once a year the circus comes to town and the kids all get to go. With him being weaker, he looks up to the strongmen as symbols of power and the ability to do anything - which will lead to him liking the aesthetic later on, and even entering a strongman contest (problems ensue, he keeps the suit).

I'm a big proponent of taking elements from the comics that have never been utilized on the big screen in a Superman film instead of WB's "Clark Kent is the problem" attitude. That's one of the reasons I borrowed a lot from Morrison's take in my reboot idea. A Superman who is only leaping tall buildings and doesn't start off with the classic uniform, a Luthor who uses his genius to try and study Superman instead of kill him or make land grabs, and Clark not yet at the Daily Planet and sparring with Lois.

Agreed! That "the character is the problem" crap that has permeated WB has driven me nuts since the early 2000's. And Morrison's take is great to pull ideas from - even as someone who hated that DC took the time to spit on "my" Superman (or what was left of him, at that point) to prop up the New52 version, I actually read and enjoyed Morrison's story there. It's organic and dynamic, with a very "earthy" feel to much of it, something I appreciate more as the years go.

Too bad that people no longer use romance in all its other meanings, besides "boy meets girl."

romance noun (1)

ro·​mance | \ rō-ˈman(t)s

, rə-; ˈrō-ˌman(t)s \

Definition of romance (Entry 1 of 4)

1
a
(1) : a medieval tale based on legend, chivalric love and adventure, or the supernatural
(2): a prose narrative treating imaginary characters involved in events remote in time or place and usually heroic, adventurous, or mysterious
(3): a love story especially in the form of a novel

b : a class of such literature

2 : something (such as an extravagant story or account) that lacks basis in fact

3 : an emotional attraction or aura belonging to an especially heroic era, adventure, or activity

4 : LOVE AFFAIR

5 capitalized : the Romance languages


romance verb

romanced; romancing

Definition of romance (Entry 2 of 4)

intransitive verb

1 : to exaggerate or invent detail or incident

2 : to entertain romantic thoughts or ideas

transitive verb

1 : to try to influence or curry favor with especially by lavishing personal attention, gifts, or flattery

2 : to carry on a love affair with


romance noun (2)

Definition of romance (Entry 3 of 4)
: a short instrumental piece in ballad style

Romance adjective

Ro·​mance | \ rō-ˈman(t)s

, rə-; ˈrō-ˌman(t)s \

Definition of Romance (Entry 4 of 4)
: of, relating to, or being any of the languages developed from Latin (such as Italian, French, and Spanish)

The whole Superman story is one big romance (an extravagant story).

You have the tragic romance of Jor-El and Lara Lor-Van. The inspiring romance of Jonathan and Martha Kent. The sentimental romance of Kal-El and Krypto. The fantastic romance of the Legion of Super-Heroes. The bucolic romance of Smallville. The inverted romance of Clark and Lex. All before the romantic journey to Metropolis.

That's pretty cool! And true!

As for the "boy meets girl" romance of Clark and Lois--what fuelled that story originally was the "will they won't/won't they?" dynamic. If Lois is a foregone conclusion--if getting married and having a kid to replace him is a foregone conclusion--then where's the dramatic tension?

If a "reboot" is going to follow the already established road map, then it's just going to go through the motions and have no surprises for anyone.

That he gets powers and a costume is also established, as it Krypton, etc - but we don't talk about those not being there. Honestly, it's not the destination, it's the journey. If all people cared about was the destination, Smallville and Gotham would never have existed, or "The Hobbit" movies, etc. Time, technology, and changing perspectives make new (and sometimes old) approaches relevant to a new age and era. Not that it all has to be new, just a fresh set of eyes on it.

[manwhohaseverything]

Actually i think of romance as core aspect of superman.It just ain't gonna be about ships and whatnot.It would be of the Ghibli movies kind...with flyinging islands,misteryous walking fortresses,giant sentient robots,...etc.The action comics is the biggest romanctic tale ever.A guy falls from sky in a ball of fire,takes the world by storm.. It's a new mysterious frontier.

[Kirk Brent]

Thanks! It's something I'd love to figure out how to do at some point, if video tech ever gets there for fan-filmers with no budget, lol! Honestly, that visceral nature of the Golden Age fight for justice is something that would resonate just as well today as it did in the 30's - even more, in some ways. I'll share one other thing that a friend of mind and I cooked up for first film: when he's first found, he's an alien (though he looks human) and his body isn't used to the germs so he starts off very sick, even bedridden. So they keep him inside (not much sun) for much of his time at the orphanage. There, he sees caregivers treat the other children well, and he sees some treat them very badly - and he couldn't move to help if he wanted to. This helps to instill a strong sense of urgency when he sees people in need, and also explains why the few people he stops to talk to are kids (with adults, he does his thing and is gone) Someone else on here (sorry, I can't remember who, but happy to share credit when I talk about it if I find out) had this next idea around the same time we did and I love it: once a year the circus comes to town and the kids all get to go. With him being weaker, he looks up to the strongmen as symbols of power and the ability to do anything - which will lead to him liking the aesthetic later on, and even entering a strongman contest (problems ensue, he keeps the suit).



Agreed! That "the character is the problem" crap that has permeated WB has driven me nuts since the early 2000's. And Morrison's take is great to pull ideas from - even as someone who hated that DC took the time to spit on "my" Superman (or what was left of him, at that point) to prop up the New52 version, I actually read and enjoyed Morrison's story there. It's organic and dynamic, with a very "earthy" feel to much of it, something I appreciate more as the years go.

I was not happy about the New 52 at all. The only thing that got me reading was Morrison on Action Comics. After JLA, DC One Million, and All-Star Superman, he's earned an automatic try from me. He made the characters and mythos seem fresh in a way that didn't deconstruct it; it was a very cool blend of the Golden and Silver Ages with some modern touches. I hated that it was largely ignored by Perez's Superman run (which wasn't his fault, as he has said Morrison/editorial never talked to him) and the rest of the DCU at large. I think the biggest misstep of that era was that the New 52 and Earth One were competing with each other. I still feel that all of the New 52 takes should have been a separate continuity, either an "Ultimate DC" or something like Earth One. That said, I loved JMS and Johns Earth One stuff. It just didn't seem quite as fresh given what was happening in the core books.

I also agree that "our" Superman was largely gone by that point. Though the pre-2000 era had run its course, that didn't mean the continuity needed to be tossed out. Once they began messing with the origin, Superman became a "damaged character" and hasn't recovered fully since.

I also like your ideas about baby Kal-El's weakness (reminds me of Jason from Superman Returns) and the origin of the suit/why Clark helps people. Great stuff!

[JAK]

I was not happy about the New 52 at all. The only thing that got me reading was Morrison on Action Comics. After JLA, DC One Million, and All-Star Superman, he's earned an automatic try from me.

I can definitely see that. For me, it was that shadowed image of what was then being called "Bruce Springsteen Superman" lifting the boulder. It was fresh and still iconic enough that it was good enough for a look.

He made the characters and mythos seem fresh in a way that didn't deconstruct it; it was a very cool blend of the Golden and Silver Ages with some modern touches. I hated that it was largely ignored by Perez's Superman run (which wasn't his fault, as he has said Morrison/editorial never talked to him) and the rest of the DCU at large. I think the biggest misstep of that era was that the New 52 and Earth One were competing with each other. I still feel that all of the New 52 takes should have been a separate continuity, either an "Ultimate DC" or something like Earth One. That said, I loved JMS and Johns Earth One stuff. It just didn't seem quite as fresh given what was happening in the core books.

Agreed! And also agreed on Perez's run. I had a chance to interview him about it and that's when I learned about all those things. It just told me what I already knew: fresh branding can't fix an upper-management team who clearly has no idea what they're doing, and the hits that *did* come were more about luck and a few folks down the chain who cared about everything.

I'll never forget the total feeling of schadenfreude at the "Rebirth" announcement with Johns, Lee, and a noticeably more quiet Didio. lol

I also agree that "our" Superman was largely gone by that point. Though the pre-2000 era had run its course, that didn't mean the continuity needed to be tossed out. Once they began messing with the origin, Superman became a "damaged character" and hasn't recovered fully since.

Absolutely. Everything up to that point had a solid foundation and a rich lore that could have been mined with the right people. But too many writers just didn't want to bother knowing that history, and the line suffered for it. Funny enough, I absolutely loved "Superman: Lois & Clark" because, although it was "supposed" to be the Pre-Flashpoint Superman, Jurgens was absolutely writing Triangle-Era Superman. It was such a breath of fresh air, I'll never forget it. And even with the "Reborn" changes, it's clear that Jurgens is the man when it comes to the heavy-lifting of sorting continuity problems.

I also like your ideas about baby Kal-El's weakness (reminds me of Jason from Superman Returns) and the origin of the suit/why Clark helps people. Great stuff!

Thanks! I thought you might enjoy that. And you know, I hadn't thought of Jason in that scenario, but you're right!

[Ascended]

Actually i think of romance as core aspect of superman.It just ain't gonna be about ships and whatnot.It would be of the Ghibli movies kind...with flyinging islands,misteryous walking fortresses,giant sentient robots,...etc.The action comics is the biggest romanctic tale ever.A guy falls from sky in a ball of fire,takes the world by storm.. It's a new mysterious frontier.

Totally agreed. Romance has been a core part of Superman from the very first issue. And not just Lois, "boy-girl" romance, though that's obviously one of the mythos' keystones. It's the wonder and the excitement of new and strange things. I don't have the word for it right now (it's late and I'm under caffeinated).

[Kirk Brent]

I can definitely see that. For me, it was that shadowed image of what was then being called "Bruce Springsteen Superman" lifting the boulder. It was fresh and still iconic enough that it was good enough for a look.



Agreed! And also agreed on Perez's run. I had a chance to interview him about it and that's when I learned about all those things. It just told me what I already knew: fresh branding can't fix an upper-management team who clearly has no idea what they're doing, and the hits that *did* come were more about luck and a few folks down the chain who cared about everything.

I'll never forget the total feeling of schadenfreude at the "Rebirth" announcement with Johns, Lee, and a noticeably more quiet Didio. lol



Absolutely. Everything up to that point had a solid foundation and a rich lore that could have been mined with the right people. But too many writers just didn't want to bother knowing that history, and the line suffered for it. Funny enough, I absolutely loved "Superman: Lois & Clark" because, although it was "supposed" to be the Pre-Flashpoint Superman, Jurgens was absolutely writing Triangle-Era Superman. It was such a breath of fresh air, I'll never forget it. And even with the "Reborn" changes, it's clear that Jurgens is the man when it comes to the heavy-lifting of sorting continuity problems.



Thanks! I thought you might enjoy that. And you know, I hadn't thought of Jason in that scenario, but you're right!

I try not to blame just one person for the mismanagement at DC in the last twenty years, but it seems that DiDio (and Harras) were a huge part of the problem. I would love to one day find out why Rebirth, which was extremely well-run and received was cut off at the knees by WB so that DiDio and Lee could come back and undo all the goodwill and momentum it created. DiDio must have had some friends at the top who were finally tossed out themselves when the firings began. I maintain to this day that had Johns remained in charge, Doomsday Clock would have finished on time (or closer to it) and the new DCU would have been much like the pre-Flashpoint DCU but with the added bonus of characters like Jon Kent.

I also loved Lois and Clark. I need to go back and re-read that series. Jurgens did a phenomenal job, along with Tomasi in Rebirth. It still stings that they're gone...

[Restingvoice]

Ultra-Humanite. It's kind of a mystery as Superman tried to track down the body jump. He started as original mad scientist in the cold open as Superman destroyed his operation, he spent most of the movie as Delores Winters with Clark Kent and Superman tracking down the mystery, before entering the final fight as the albino gorilla...

Actually, that's the problem... I imagine most of the tone to be espionage, just with Superman, but somehow it ends with a sci fi superhero fight... although that's because I haven't seen an ape humanite design that I like. They all look kinda silly.

That said... if we make this a period piece and then using the aesthetic of King Kong movie for Ultra gorilla final battle, I think it can work, and we can even keep the red trunks.

So... maybe not a reboot but a standalone movie

[JAK]

Ultra-Humanite. It's kind of a mystery as Superman tried to track down the body jump. He started as original mad scientist in the cold open as Superman destroyed his operation, he spent most of the movie as Delores Winters with Clark Kent and Superman tracking down the mystery, before entering the final fight as the albino gorilla...

Actually, that's the problem... I imagine most of the tone to be espionage, just with Superman, but somehow it ends with a sci fi superhero fight... although that's because I haven't seen an ape humanite design that I like. They all look kinda silly.

That said... if we make this a period piece and then using the aesthetic of King Kong movie for Ultra gorilla final battle, I think it can work, and we can even keep the red trunks.

So... maybe not a reboot but a standalone movie

I love that idea! And the great thing about Superman is that a period piece can still lead into a larger reboot, you just have to know how to plan it out.

[Johnny Thunders!]

I don’t know how I would reboot Superman. I am reading the complete Invincible and I am amazed how much it reads like an homage to classic Superman. I think I would reboot by hiring a bunch of creative teams and let them each have a 4 issue out if continuity run. I would turn both Superman-books into an anthology series. I would do a team up series and a book aimed at young readers. Maybe I would do four books, Superman and Lois, The Adventures of All Star Superman, Superman and the Authority, and Untold Tales of Superboy and the Legion.

[Vordan]

Enjoyed reading this article about how to make a Superman set in the world of The Batman.

Only major disagreement is the idea of Clark being inspired by Batman, hard no to that.

[DochaDocha]

Only major disagreement is the idea of Clark being inspired by Batman, hard no to that.

Why the bleep do so many people go this route? We just witnessed one of the most successful franchises in Hollywood history unfold, and it's not like Thor decided to re-appear on Midgard because some tech billionaire genius decided to make a flying battle suit.

Maybe the article was written by a Batman fan who doesn't consciously think about how fans of other heroes don't like it when their origin stories are directly tied to Batman. Or maybe the point of the article (which I stopped reading when it mentioned spoilers for the movie; I'm waiting to stream it on Monday) was to use The Batman as a direct catalyst. But this line of thinking needs to stop.

[Jim Kelly]

Can't read that article because I haven't seen THE BATMAN yet.

I think if Superman was to be set in a more grounded world, it would have to be a bit like UNBREAKABLE. In my head, this story starts out with Clark Kent being a regular guy who is working at low paying jobs and keeping in the shadows. He has some low level 1938 powers, but he doesn't use them out in the open. One night Lois Lane is following a lead on a story at a restaurant and she pursues a gangland character through the kitchen, where Clark is the dishwasher, and out into the alley where she's nearly shot and killed but Kent saves her life without revealing himself. However, like William Hurt in EYEWITNESS, he becomes fascinated with Lois Lane. Long story short he helps solve the gangland case and gets a job working on the Planet so he can be near Lois.

As the movie series would progress, the Man of Steel would keep levelling up. The movies would ease into the more fantastic elements of the Superman story, with each sequel, and circle back to his origins, which are a mystery even to him, by the end.

Not that this is what I'd want done with Superman. It's just a mental exercise that I worked out years ago, when I was thinking of how to fit Superman into the Nolanverse. To be honest, rebooting Superman is not a high priority for me. Like Johnny Thunder, I'd rather see stories that use the classic adventures--but with the advantage of modern storytelling techniques.

[Vordan]

Why the bleep do so many people go this route? We just witnessed one of the most successful franchises in Hollywood history unfold, and it's not like Thor decided to re-appear on Midgard because some tech billionaire genius decided to make a flying battle suit.

Maybe the article was written by a Batman fan who doesn't consciously think about how fans of other heroes don't like it when their origin stories are directly tied to Batman. Or maybe the point of the article (which I stopped reading when it mentioned spoilers for the movie; I'm waiting to stream it on Monday) was to use The Batman as a direct catalyst. But this line of thinking needs to stop.

It’s so stupid, the justification is always that having Superman come first “diminishes” Batman but
1. I don’t give a **** if that’s true
2. The idea of Superman having to contort himself so as not to overshadow Batman is why he has fallen so far down over years, why the hell are Superman projects taking Batman into account in any way? They never return the favor so Superman projects should start out pretending he’s the only one and do their thing without having to care about others
3. It’s utterly idiotic and makes no sense.

The only one where I think it makes sense to have him be inspired by other heroes is Barry. But the notion of having Superman the actual first hero who literally inspired Batman’s creation be the one who is inspired by Batman is idiotic. Article overall though is pretty, very much in line with my own thoughts for a reboot but that one aspect rankled me. It’s why I personally am a-ok with stuff like S&L or MAWS not referencing other heroes, let Superman stand on his own.

[Lightning Rider]

Enjoyed reading this article about how to make a Superman set in the world of The Batman.

Only major disagreement is the idea of Clark being inspired by Batman, hard no to that.

I think this could work. I'd dig a Golden Age/Morrison social crusader route for sure. The "not-an-origin-but-not-fully-developed" vibe would work well too I think. Interesting how they suggested Detective Pikachu meets Akira for the Metropolis aesthetic. I loved Steel's inclusion as well.

As much as I love Brainiac though I think he'd need to come in when Superman is farther along.

[Ascended]

It’s so stupid, the justification is always that having Superman come first “diminishes” Batman but
1. I don’t give a **** if that’s true
2. The idea of Superman having to contort himself so as not to overshadow Batman is why he has fallen so far down over years, why the hell are Superman projects taking Batman into account in any way? They never return the favor so Superman projects should start out pretending he’s the only one and do their thing without having to care about others
3. It’s utterly idiotic and makes no sense.

All this. And it's not just Clark suffering from the Bat ceiling, it's the entire DCU. When WB/DC actively hold down their other IP so Batman's superiority and popularity isn't challenged, all it does is hurt the entire roster. It is immensely bad business.

Just look at where we are in the comics now; DC's Bat obsession has rendered the rest of the line persona non grata and nobody can sell a comic despite the general quality being higher than it's been in years (at least among the books I'm reading). I guess the company can only make other heroes bend over for Batman's enjoyment so much before fans decide those other heroes aren't worth following. You can't treat 99% of your line like a bunch of incompetent sidekicks, always in need of Batman's sage advice and help, before fans stop giving a damn and abandon the characters.

I actually liked Batman before DC started writing him as an emotionally stunted, abusive little prick (hard to believe given how I write about him, I know) and started writing everyone else fawning over him. If WB makes a Superman movie where Clark put on the cape because he was inspired by Bruce, I'm out. I'll avoid the film and everything connected to it. I don't care if it's the best Superman film ever made, if Batman is Clark's inspiration that shows the company has learned nothing and they'll just follow things up with more Bat wanking.