Discovery Wants To Revitalize Superman

[Vakanai]

The problem is that WC/DC don't like the character. There have been stories that the suits are embarrassed by Superman. The red trunks had to go and they did. The resulting suit is dark, little more than a jumpsuit in S&L. Superman's suit once was among the best superhero suits while now - meh. The Marvel character suits mostly put Superman's suit to shame.

If your corporate owner does not believe in you then you won't get a good script. The owners won't go looking for such a script. They are out there; they can be written. The new owner likewise seems uninterested. Zaslav is all about Batman, BA, WW, Aquaman but seemingly indifferent to Superman. The new boss is just like the old boss.

Eh, I agree with them on ditching the trunks - problem is that they've darkened it down for some reason. You don't need the trunks, but the brighter colors feel essential to me.

[Jeffrey2]

Eh, I agree with them on ditching the trunks - problem is that they've darkened it down for some reason. You don't need the trunks, but the brighter colors feel essential to me.

The dark Superman suit is often filmed in nighttime or indoor scenes. I have to reset my DVD features when watching the S&L DVD as it is so damn dark. Same for MOS and BvS and JL. The Superman suit essentially becomes featureless in a way. To boot, the end of Snyder's cut has Superman in an all-black suit. If there had been a JL2 and 3 that suit would have been a big problem for me and, laughingly, only reinforce "dark" Superman which moviegoers rejected immediately in MOS. To this day I believe Snyder is not a Superman fan. And it shows in so many ways including using the black suit.

[manwhohaseverything]

Gotta agree with Kirk.

People love Superman. It's in our DNA as a culture, if not a species. We don't love *bad* Superman stories, but every time there's a new Superman show or film, people show up for it in droves. Bad reviews, bad word of mouth, bad people in front of or behind the camera, that stuff can and has ruined a project's performance, but people still show up for the next effort. Every time. They showed up for MoS despite the painful failure of Returns. They showed up for that CW show despite the failure of the Snyder films.

Make a new Superman film, and the only thing standing in the way of success is itself. Did the trailers look cool? Did the actors hype it enough in interviews? Doesn't matter how many films and shows failed in the past, people will always give the next one a chance.

And if the movie is actually great? If WB actually knocked one out of the park? People are so starved for quality Superman WB might actually choke to death on the accolades.

While it might be true for the americans or western audiences.Not I mate,i am from different culture with different guys in our dna.. Superman sometimes fits that bill.(i mean,the guy wearing phantom like underpants suit is why i followed the charater..)but,superman made me realise how much i love the monkey king archetype.why the archetype is so great.I was bored by it.But,supes made me realise we need characters who punch gods(i would include the buddha in that..the original journey to the west was pro buddhism due to reasons).Challenging a culture's very base notions is what the monkey king does..he is the ultimate rule breaker.His "good" is untainted by societal norms or conditioning.he probes dogmatic belief to see if there is something true,moral and worth keeping in there (i been getting dogmatic and a little serious myself regarding superman).I am not into stone written rules or moral authorities that tell people what to do.Monkey king pokes fun(even at himself) .it uses humour.That's how he operates.I am glad that tradition is still going.

"No idea is beyond question or beyond reproach"

[Jeffrey2]

what if the new superman is nicholas cage?the rock vs nicholas cage?anyone?

As big an issue as finding a great script is finding a great actor. My impression is most actors don't want to touch the role. Some producers don't want to touch the project. Shazam's producer basically said of helming a Superman project that it's not worth the grief.

The only news to come out of Discovery/WB re: Superman will be an official separation from Cavill. The leak about his being too old (kind of silly when you think of The Rock) is IMO to get Cavill to make the break. Sort of saving face if he chooses to walk away rather than WB having to drag him to the exit door. Don't know if Cavill will choose to bow out gracefully. His antics re: the role are inexplicable. I get the feeling he likes to dig it to WB and the Superman fanbase - many and probably most of whom didn't like him in the role.

[Kirk Brent]

Gotta agree with Kirk.

People love Superman. It's in our DNA as a culture, if not a species. We don't love *bad* Superman stories, but every time there's a new Superman show or film, people show up for it in droves. Bad reviews, bad word of mouth, bad people in front of or behind the camera, that stuff can and has ruined a project's performance, but people still show up for the next effort. Every time. They showed up for MoS despite the painful failure of Returns. They showed up for that CW show despite the failure of the Snyder films.

Make a new Superman film, and the only thing standing in the way of success is itself. Did the trailers look cool? Did the actors hype it enough in interviews? Doesn't matter how many films and shows failed in the past, people will always give the next one a chance.

And if the movie is actually great? If WB actually knocked one out of the park? People are so starved for quality Superman WB might actually choke to death on the accolades.

Well-said, my friend.

The first weekend MOS BO numbers were great. With good word of mouth and a normal week to week attendance falloff MOS would have crossed 900 million. Close to the billion WB expected. Those were the early projections based on the weekend's numbers. Trouble was the word of mouth was awful. The movie plunged to second place on its second weekend. So yes, a well-received Superman film can make a billion. WW almost did, Aquaman and Joker did, and BA is likely to. After MOS made just 668 million (factoring in inflation in ticket prices about the same BO as SR).

The old regime did not believe Supes can do a billion at the BO after two major disappointments in SR and MOS. I see no sign that Zaslav and the new suits feel any different. Hence there doesn't seem to be any particular interest in Superman unlike Batman, Aquaman, Black Adam and Joker. The stories say Discovery execs see those as models for going forward including rapid turnarounds in getting out their sequels.

The word of mouth was awful because the movie was awful. It had merits as a generic superhero/sci-fi movie. It has almost none as a Superman movie outside of casting (other than Cavill and Adams, IMO) and special effects. There was no one to root for or get behind. The "hero" of the story lets his dad die, snaps his enemy's neck, and then makes out with his girl against a 9-11 inspired backdrop of destruction and human remains floating in the air. I'm still astounded that this movie was made almost a decade later.

As big an issue as finding a great script is finding a great actor. My impression is most actors don't want to touch the role. Some producers don't want to touch the project. Shazam's producer basically said of helming a Superman project that it's not worth the grief.

The only news to come out of Discovery/WB re: Superman will be an official separation from Cavill. The leak about his being too old (kind of silly when you think of The Rock) is IMO to get Cavill to make the break. Sort of saving face if he chooses to walk away rather than WB having to drag him to the exit door. Don't know if Cavill will choose to bow out gracefully. His antics re: the role are inexplicable. I get the feeling he likes to dig it to WB and the Superman fanbase - many and probably most of whom didn't like him in the role.

Cavill is vastly overrated. I'm not quite sure what the appeal is. I know that many found him attractive and enjoyed seeing him shirtless. Others have said he "looks the part." Is that all that's needed to play any character? Every actor that's played Superman has respected the role both on and off the camera. Cavill has said some things (likening playing Superman to having sex is one) that you'd never hear Reeve, Routh, Daly, or Cain say about the character. I never liked the guy in the role and I hope we get someone far better. If it was up to me, I'd go with Routh as a slightly older Superman who is married to Lois or with an unknown in his early to mid-twenties.

[Jeffrey2]

Well-said, my friend.



The word of mouth was awful because the movie was awful. It had merits as a generic superhero/sci-fi movie. It has almost none as a Superman movie outside of casting (other than Cavill and Adams, IMO) and special effects. There was no one to root for or get behind. The "hero" of the story lets his dad die, snaps his enemy's neck, and then makes out with his girl against a 9-11 inspired backdrop of destruction and human remains floating in the air. I'm still astounded that this movie was made almost a decade later.



Cavill is vastly overrated. I'm not quite sure what the appeal is. I know that many found him attractive and enjoyed seeing him shirtless. Others have said he "looks the part." Is that all that's needed to play any character? Every actor that's played Superman has respected the role both on and off the camera. Cavill has said some things (likening playing Superman to having sex is one) that you'd never hear Reeve, Routh, Daly, or Cain say about the character. I never liked the guy in the role and I hope we get someone far better. If it was up to me, I'd go with Routh as a slightly older Superman who is married to Lois or with an unknown in his early to mid-twenties.

Cavill is obviously very vain. Many actors are but Cavill doesn't hide it. I feel he is overrated as well but he does have a huge female fanbase. But there they are drawn to his looks and bod and acting is secondary. It is interesting that Cavill didn't do a Superman photo or whatever for Superman Day on his social media. I don't think he respects the character and so he tabs jabs at Superman as in that comment. The way he went through women at one time makes me not respect him. He even had to apologize once around that. That comment about playing Superman and sex is just crude. Tells you who the guy really is. When Zaslav and Discocery formally break with Cavill I and many others won't shed a tear.

Gerard Christopher as well would never say anything about the character as Cavill did. He continues to be a superfan and worked years to get the Superboy DVD out. Don't forget, WB blocked the series from going into rerun syndication which cost GC and the other stars a boat load of money. They never got residuals. Yet GC and others have maintained a respect for and loyalty to Superman despite being screwed by WB.

As to MOS that the suits allowed it to come out without asking for big changes is stunning. It's as if folks were afraid to admit the film had problems. After the release and its financial more or less failure (it made a very small profit - much less than any of the other DCEU film have) some of those WB execs were let go. Immediately they brought Affleck in to save the day in pat as some execs felt Cavill couldn't carry a Superman film on his own. But the studio was still under Snyder's spell. They should have stepped away from the MOS world, dropped Cavill and done something different. There was no way to fix the mess which the studio didn't get until the poor performance of JL.

[Jeffrey2]

Should WBD decide to reverse WB's decision and not erase Superman the best path forward, presuming that means WBD is going to do another Superman film, is this:

Plan on a trilogy of films. All those films taking place in Superman's "world". No extended universe. Give us 3 Superman-centric films that feature Superman villains. Like Metallo or Myzptlk or Brainiac. A villain not done before in the films - which, tongue in cheek, is basically all of them. Metropolis centric. Lois and Clark youngish so they can grow their stories over a trilogy. Just to name several "desirables".

The films don't have to take place in an explicitly distinct universe as the Batman films do, just don't reference any universe. Produce Superman films that are Superman films.

As we wait to see if Zaslav erases Supes or not, what do you want Zaslav to do if he keeps Superman.

[Ascended]

While it might be true for the americans or western audiences.Not I mate,i am from different culture with different guys in our dna.

Ha, true enough! I suppose I should have been clearer that I was talking about American, and to a lesser extent, Western audiences. And we'll always come back for a new Superman.

One thing I have noticed, bit of a tangent here, but one thing is that when Superman is done right, his appeal is universal. *Everybody* loves a well written Superman. Other cultures around the globe just aren't as willing to keep coming back over and over again, hoping WB/DC gets it right for once.

As we wait to see if Zaslav erases Supes or not, what do you want Zaslav to do if he keeps Superman.

I'm hoping he wraps up the trilogies worth wrapping up (Wonder Woman, Shazam, Aquaman) and otherwise dumps the DCEU completely. No big Crisis movie. No big anything. Don't bother with Flash 2 or Batgirl 2 or any of that. Just a fresh start, with fresh people behind and in front of the cameras. Focus on getting each movie right, not how it all connects in a wider narrative, because otherwise you'll get a bad movie and nobody will give a damn about the wider narrative anyway.

Oh, not including The Batman here, since it's self-contained. They can do a sequel to that, and any other worthwhile stand-alone film. But the shared universe experiment of the DCEU is a failure. Time to move on and try a new approach.

[Kirk Brent]

Among the many ideas I've had for a long time regarding DC on film is to put some distance between the Justice League/modern era and build a historical foundation for the DCU as a whole. This would begin with a JSA trilogy, featuring recognizable names like Flash and Green Lantern. JSA sees the emerging mystery men and women drafted into helping defeat the rising Nazi threat under the codename "Justice Squadron." A larger team, now known as the JSA, divides its time between protecting the homefront and fighting overseas. The third film sees the U.S. hearings on meta-humans and the disbanding of the team as most refuse to unmask and sign up with the government.

Assuming a third film is made, the final scene jumps ahead to the modern day. A tall young man and his father look out on fields of wheat awash in the red-gold of the setting sun, talking about the young man's future. Jonathan Kent tells his son of the "Mystery Men" his grandfather told him about, suggesting a way that Clark can use his powers to help humanity while also retaining a private life.

A Superman film would follow with Clark seeking out members of the JSA to interview as a journalism student in college, though he's really seeking inspiration in creating his own heroic identity. The modern era films could include characters and concepts from the JSA era and provide a sense of scale to a new DCU on film. Spin-off films set after the war could continue the stories of those heroes who chose to work for the government.

I think the period setting with recognizable names would be an effective means of taking the focus off the current heroes and providing a new universe for the general audience to get to know. This could lead to a new, shared DCU that would take its time in developing individual characters. Unlike Batman Begins, we could actually see Bruce Wayne traveling the world and training, learning fighting techniques from Ted Grant and perhaps running into Alan Scott upon returning to Gotham.

[Vordan]

Not a fan of Clark being inspired by anyone else to be a hero. He’s the first superhero he should get to stand on his own. Especially not the JSA, those guys are the real life losers of history, the heroes who weren’t popular enough to carry forward like the Trinity. I don’t find them particularly interesting.

[NaVi]

for a Superman movie to work, it has to put the symbol/icon aside and focus on the character, a clear example is MoS, Lois's presence is totally artificial, 5 minutes were enough, her role was for MoS 2, but since Lois is, she has to be yes or yes, Zod is another example, it's a lot for Clark / superman rookie, Metallo would have been much better. do not put characters because yes, that they make sense.

[JAK]

Among the many ideas I've had for a long time regarding DC on film is to put some distance between the Justice League/modern era and build a historical foundation for the DCU as a whole. This would begin with a JSA trilogy, featuring recognizable names like Flash and Green Lantern. JSA sees the emerging mystery men and women drafted into helping defeat the rising Nazi threat under the codename "Justice Squadron." A larger team, now known as the JSA, divides its time between protecting the homefront and fighting overseas. The third film sees the U.S. hearings on meta-humans and the disbanding of the team as most refuse to unmask and sign up with the government.

Assuming a third film is made, the final scene jumps ahead to the modern day. A tall young man and his father look out on fields of wheat awash in the red-gold of the setting sun, talking about the young man's future. Jonathan Kent tells his son of the "Mystery Men" his grandfather told him about, suggesting a way that Clark can use his powers to help humanity while also retaining a private life.

A Superman film would follow with Clark seeking out members of the JSA to interview as a journalism student in college, though he's really seeking inspiration in creating his own heroic identity. The modern era films could include characters and concepts from the JSA era and provide a sense of scale to a new DCU on film. Spin-off films set after the war could continue the stories of those heroes who chose to work for the government.

I think the period setting with recognizable names would be an effective means of taking the focus off the current heroes and providing a new universe for the general audience to get to know. This could lead to a new, shared DCU that would take its time in developing individual characters. Unlike Batman Begins, we could actually see Bruce Wayne traveling the world and training, learning fighting techniques from Ted Grant and perhaps running into Alan Scott upon returning to Gotham.

I'd reverse that, honestly: going back to my movie trilogy for Superman that starts in the 30s and goes until basically modern-day, when Superman goes into space in the 2nd film (his Silver-Age inspired space adventure), the JSA are inspired by him, not the other way around. That would also give good cover for why Superman isn't really remembered when he reappears in the 80s (govt cover-up, etc). I hadn't thought about that setting up a universe before, but it could work well!

for a Superman movie to work, it has to put the symbol/icon aside and focus on the character, a clear example is MoS, Lois's presence is totally artificial, 5 minutes were enough, her role was for MoS 2, but since Lois is, she has to be yes or yes, Zod is another example, it's a lot for Clark / superman rookie, Metallo would have been much better. do not put characters because yes, that they make sense.

Yeah, character has to be the driving force. Anything else doesn't work because there's no reason to care (as the last movies have basically shown).

[Jeffrey2]

for a Superman movie to work, it has to put the symbol/icon aside and focus on the character, a clear example is MoS, Lois's presence is totally artificial, 5 minutes were enough, her role was for MoS 2, but since Lois is, she has to be yes or yes, Zod is another example, it's a lot for Clark / superman rookie, Metallo would have been much better. do not put characters because yes, that they make sense.

I agree that Lois had too much of a role in MOS. More lines than Clark/Supes. The film centered almost as much around her as Superman. Superman mostly grunted and grimaced through the film while Lois got more character development. Lord knows what Snyder had planned for MOS 2 but after MOS severely underperformed WB hit the panic button, brought in Affleck and shifted the focus to Batman and WW. If there had been an MOS2 that is where to build her role and relationship with Clark. Let MOS3 show the endpoint of the relationship. They become a couple - or not.

[DochaDocha]

I'd reverse that, honestly: going back to my movie trilogy for Superman that starts in the 30s and goes until basically modern-day, when Superman goes into space in the 2nd film (his Silver-Age inspired space adventure), the JSA are inspired by him, not the other way around. That would also give good cover for why Superman isn't really remembered when he reappears in the 80s (govt cover-up, etc). I hadn't thought about that setting up a universe before, but it could work well!

I also would love a Superman series where it starts in 1938 and goes into the Silver Age and then to today (thanks to space-time hijinks), but I'm afraid it overlaps a little too much with the Captain America and Wonder Woman movies. But ideally, you could make a movie however you'd like, not avoiding what other movies did.

Lois' screentime and general importance in MoS was fine IMO. I would've changed a handful of things, but I don't agree with what the internet collectively has bashed about how Lois shows gets dragged into everything. I think it made sense in the context of the movie: she should be on the gunboat because she's the only one who actually got instructions from Jor-El, and the Phantom Zone Kryptos knew she had insider info on Supes so she was pulled in for questioning. If anything, maybe the PZKs should've brought in more people for questioning.

[JAK]

I also would love a Superman series where it starts in 1938 and goes into the Silver Age and then to today (thanks to space-time hijinks), but I'm afraid it overlaps a little too much with the Captain America and Wonder Woman movies. But ideally, you could make a movie however you'd like, not avoiding what other movies did.

Yeah, I definitely see the comparison - but I think having the Silver Age space movie makes it different. We see Superman's journey, and at first the JSA is just doing what they do to pick up the slack until he returns. We don't know that he's not coming back until the end of Superman's 2nd film, where he uses a wormhole or something to get back, makes it back to Earth and only then realizes it's the 80's/90's. So that makes the 2nd film both continue Superman's story and not just jump time without him, *and* moves the whole timeline forward for that universe in general.

Lois' screentime and general importance in MoS was fine IMO. I would've changed a handful of things, but I don't agree with what the internet collectively has bashed about how Lois shows gets dragged into everything. I think it made sense in the context of the movie: she should be on the gunboat because she's the only one who actually got instructions from Jor-El, and the Phantom Zone Kryptos knew she had insider info on Supes so she was pulled in for questioning. If anything, maybe the PZKs should've brought in more people for questioning.

I'm fine with much of Lois's being there, too. I think the reason people come to that conclusion (or one reason they might) is that Lois feels like a more active character than Clark does, so she draws attention in that way. For me, she's not the problem - he is.