The "rule" of two.

[Azrael]

Well, this darkness that is so much talked about is more of a fairy tale, night fairies, dark elf, goth club, Edward Scissorhands, Addams Family, Count Dracula-flavor. Theatrical, fanciful, a larger than life and harmless kind of darkness. Like Phantom of the Opera. Dark by comic book and superhero standards. Dark in the Halloween sense.

I'm still puzzled about the backlash BR received simply because it had DeVito covered with nasty make-up spewing bile and a Dominatrix-looking Catwoman, or Batman killing off some thugs in a humorous way.

There is some "darkness" in there that has to do with the subject matter Tim Burton is very fond of, his obsessions about wearing "masks", being something you are forced to be, mistreated outcasts and and how ruthless and stupid society can be (the "masses" in Batman Returns are totally stupid and as dangerous as the villain due to their stupidity), but I don't think this classifies as social commentary the children can "get". It goes over their heads anyway. More like the icing on a tasty cake.

The Dark Knight has a similar kind of "movie cool" darkness, superficial and more like a pose than anything. The film backs off every time there's going to be violence, in a true PG friendly manner.

And this reaction in a country where the current trend is to show as much violence and gore as possible in so-called "horror" (splatter pornography I'd say) films.

[thecolorsblend]

I'm no fan, believe me, but isn't ROTK generally regarded as a worthy LOTR film?

In order to please fanboy *****ing, they just give up and restart these days. That didn't happen with the original Superman franchise. III sucked, but what did IV do? It didn't restart continuity. There was no need to mention anything from III. So don't. Problem solved. Theater-goers generally don't care about how the previous film's mistakes matter. They mostly care about what's up with the film they're watching right at the moment

In fairness, the reluctance to reboot in the 80's likely stemmed from (A) such a thing being a foreign concept, esp in so short a time and (B) any reboot would likely have to jettison Reeve, which NOBODY was willing to do.

Besides, Superman III sucked, that much is true, but it hardly screwed the franchise.  You could've just as easily had a Superman IV that exceeded even the mighty STM.  Hell, we very nearly did!  You could deliver a follow up to SIII that made everything okay.

No such follow up is possible for the Singer movie.  Keeping the kid means irreversibly altering the mythos.  Killing the kid means irreversibly altering the characters.  Eliminating the kid (via a "warm reboot") irreversibly confuses the series; the Singer movie was a loose sequel/remake with "vague continuity" to STM... and it's followed by a loose sequel with even "vaguer continuity"

This, of course, before we even start talking about the Singer movie's myriad other problems.

Give us the Superman reboot we should've gotten back in 2006.

[phantom stranger]

The one thing that can't be overlooked in all this is studio pressure. Once a sequel is a megahit, they immediately go into overdrive to push for another one asap. I guess I can't blame them. I want a new Batman movie to come out every year!

But great stories need time to develop. Now I'm not a studio insider so I can't vouch for any of these rumors but they certainly sound true:

-- Spider-Man 3: Raimi wanted to use Sandman but Marvel Studios told him that the fans wanted Venom and that's who he needed to use. So rather than pick one, he used both and the film's story suffered greatly as a result.

-- X3: Singer never got along with the execs at Fox but he was still hard at work on both X3 and X4. Then WB stole him for Superman (wish they hadn't...but I digress) and pissed off Fox. Rather then put the project on hold, they rushed it because it "needed" to be released before Superman. Matthew Vaughan was actually supposed to direct but he left the film shortly before filming and was replaced with Ratner, who apparentl always wanted to do a comic book film.

In both cases, the films ended up being megahits. But if people were disappointed with either (and they were) it might affect their decision to see the next installment. I believe one of the reasons B & R did so poorly is because a lot of average filmgoers weren't too impressed with Forever so they just decided to wait for the rental. I'd also go so far as to say it affected the box office take of Batman Begins, at least with respect to the "average filmgoer." We'll see what happens with the Wolverine prequel...

As for a third Nolan film, I think he certainly has the chops to do another great film but only if he doesn't let the pressure overwhelm him. The Joker is incredibly hard to top, which may be why the rumor (prior to Heath's death) was that he would be featured in the third film as well.

[DocLathropBrown]

I'm no fan, believe me, but isn't ROTK generally regarded as a worthy LOTR film?

In order to please fanboy *****ing, they just give up and restart these days. That didn't happen with the original Superman franchise. III sucked, but what did IV do? It didn't restart continuity. There was no need to mention anything from III. So don't. Problem solved. Theater-goers generally don't care about how the previous film's mistakes matter. They mostly care about what's up with the film they're watching right at the moment

In fairness, the reluctance to reboot in the 80's likely stemmed from (A) such a thing being a foreign concept, esp in so short a time and (B) any reboot would likely have to jettison Reeve, which NOBODY was willing to do.

Besides, Superman III sucked, that much is true, but it hardly screwed the franchise.  You could've just as easily had a Superman IV that exceeded even the mighty STM.  Hell, we very nearly did!  You could deliver a follow up to SIII that made everything okay.

No such follow up is possible for the Singer movie.  Keeping the kid means irreversibly altering the mythos.  Killing the kid means irreversibly altering the characters.  Eliminating the kid (via a "warm reboot") irreversibly confuses the series; the Singer movie was a loose sequel/remake with "vague continuity" to STM... and it's followed by a loose sequel with even "vaguer continuity"

This, of course, before we even start talking about the Singer movie's myriad other problems.

Give us the Superman reboot we should've gotten back in 2006.

I will agree that if they aren't going to follow up with the kid, a restart is necessary. Anything else would confuse the audience.

But really, ANY reboot will confuse Joe Q. Public that ain't in-the-know on the 'net. They either need to wait until memory of SR fades and reboot, or make a sequel if they're gonna make a new film soon. Any kind of rebooting now will only confuse the older audiences who haven't a prayer of knowing for sure that it's a reboot. THAT crowd will expect to see what goes on with the kid, the continent flung into space, Lex on the island, James Marsden's character, etc...

I think that because it isn't the film you wanted, that doesn't mean that it's completely devoid of merit and should be banned to Hell. Was the film a misfire? Absolutely. Maybe if Singer hadn't been so busy partying, he could have been more coherent. We needed a proper prologue to establish what the history exactly IS, for one thing. The original "comic read by kid" (a'la STM) opening would have been perfect for it. Explain to the audience if Superman II IS or IS NOT in-continuity.

I found that STM is only in the "vague" history as far as the time period of STM's happening  has been changed. Otherwise, it's events happened. SII? Not so sure. There's a kid, so they slept together. Lex has been to the fortress before. Lois doesn't remember: thus, the superkiss. But no mention of the Zod gang incident? Pretty big event to just go unmentioned, right?

See, it was sloppy. Material that was NEEDED (Lex revealing that he fabricated the reports of Krypton being intact, to trick Superman into leaving Earth, Clark revealing that he didn't realize the trip would take 5 years) was left on the cutting room floor.

But... alter the mythos? Who cares? It ain't the comic book continuity. As far as I'm concerned, if they want to add an element for a good dramatic reason, I'm okay with that. Movies always change SOMETHING. It's just alteration of continuity like what "Smallville" does that bugs me. At this point, there's no way Clark can become Superman on that show without everyone knowing who the Hell he is already.

Anyway, according to the time period of S:TM....

Krypton explodes in 1948.
3 years in rocket ship to Earth -> 1951.
15 years later, Clark leaves Smallville for the North -> 1966
12 years of studying under Jor-El at the fortress -> 1978 (year that STM took place originally).
Superman II: 2 years later (Lester's, at least) -> 1980.
Superman hears of Krypton being intact, leaves for 5 years -> 1985 (year that SR takes place, in original time-frame)

Adjusted for Singer's new continuity:

Krypton explodes -> 1969
3 year trip -> 1972
15 years later, leaves Smallville -> 1987
12 years with Jor-El -> 1999 (Year that STM now takes place)
2 years later, SII, tkaes out Zod gang (?) -> 2001
Leaves for 5 years, and Superman Returns -> 2006 (year of film)

See, I don't think Singer even mapped it out THAT much. Would have been nice.

[thecolorsblend]

I will agree that if they aren't going to follow up with the kid, a restart is necessary. Anything else would confuse the audience.

But really, ANY reboot will confuse Joe Q. Public that ain't in-the-know on the 'net. They either need to wait until memory of SR fades and reboot, or make a sequel if they're gonna make a new film soon. Any kind of rebooting now will only confuse the older audiences who haven't a prayer of knowing for sure that it's a reboot. THAT crowd will expect to see what goes on with the kid, the continent flung into space, Lex on the island, James Marsden's character, etc...

Your whole response was good, man.

Anyway, I disagree.  For example, BB didn't have the box office it maybe might've had largely (I think) because B&R sucked, not because people couldn't figure out that it was a reboot (although some apparently struggled with it).

I think retelling Superman's origin, introduce him to say Lois for the first time, Lex for the first time, etc, will tell audiences what they need to know without the director pausing the movie and shouting "this is a new thing, forget the past".  A new cast, new costume and set designs and the right script will tell audiences that this reboot has nothing to do with the past.

Besides, if the trailers look good, people will see it.  They won't say "durrrr, I just don't get it, it doesn't make sense, I'll stay home until I figure it out".

I think that because it isn't the film you wanted, that doesn't mean that it's completely devoid of merit and should be banned to Hell.

It wasn't what a LOT of people wanted.  One of Singer's many mistakes was assuming that STM had achieved the same cultural status of Star Wars.  Among the geek community, it has.  The two are roughly equal in some circles.

But among the filmgoing public (any blockbuster's bread and butter) they might remember Reeve wearing the outfit but the finer texture (plot, subplots, characters, etc) of the first two Reeve films are hazy at best.  And that's for the over 30 crowd.  For the under-30 crowd, 10:1 they've never even seen the Reeve films.  Singer requires a decent recall of STM (and S2) to follow his movie's plot.  Had he made that same movie in the mid-90's, things might've turned out better for him.  But this ain't the mid-90's.

Was the film a misfire? Absolutely. Maybe if Singer hadn't been so busy partying, he could have been more coherent. We needed a proper prologue to establish what the history exactly IS, for one thing. The original "comic read by kid" (a'la STM) opening would have been perfect for it. Explain to the audience if Superman II IS or IS NOT in-continuity.

Agreed.  The film opened with text anyway so why not throw in "following his defeat of Zod and his followers, Superman left the earth in search of other Kryptonians"?  Referencing Zod gives Superman stronger motivation for thinking other Kryptonians could be out there somewhere.  It's still a wild goose chase no matter how you look at it but at least making a reference to Zod gives it slightly more plausibility.  It was a big event, as you say.

But... alter the mythos? Who cares? It ain't the comic book continuity. As far as I'm concerned, if they want to add an element for a good dramatic reason, I'm okay with that.

Problem.  Lois is a tenacious investigative reporter.  That's who she's always been, partly to drive the plot forward and to provide exposition.  She often risks her life in doing her job (ie, to give Superman someone to save).  Putting her into a position of motherhood means all that has to change.  It would be selfish for her to continute putting herself in harm's way when she has a child depending on her.  Bringing the kid along would be even worse!

The kid?  He's just the beginning...

Movies always change SOMETHING. It's just alteration of continuity like what "Smallville" does that bugs me. At this point, there's no way Clark can become Superman on that show without everyone knowing who the Hell he is already.

I can overlook that.  Glasses would never fool anyone anyway.  It's a convention of the character, and it either works for you or it doesn't.  Just like nobody could dodge a bullet but we accept that Batman does it hundreds of times night after night.  Smallville is doing their own thing with the legend, often with unsung resonance to the comics.  If nothing else, the show has erred in giving us something new, which Singer largely made no effort at.

This is coming from someone who doesn't think comics fidelity is the end all, be all.  The spirit of the comics should be adapted but the letter of them is not an absolute in my book.

See, I don't think Singer even mapped it out THAT much. Would have been nice.

Agreed.  There was one interesting thing though.  9/11 would have likely happened after he left.  You don't want to mix too much reality with fiction but imagining the world Superman left (maybe in the summer of 2001) and comparing it to what he came back (maybe the spring of 2006) heightens his shock at how much things changed while he was away.

Singer's non-timeline doesn't work anyway.  The script CLEARLY calls for veteran characters.  Late 30's Superman and Lois, late 50's Lex, mid 60's Perry, late 20's/early 30's Jimmy, etc but the casting skewed toward the "comics ideal", where everyone is about the same age as Singer's cast.  The cast should have been about ten or so years older than they were as the script OBVIOUSLY demanded... unless you're trying to tell me Superman came on the scene at age 18.

[phantom stranger]

The one thing I don't criticize SR for is the continuity errors with the first two Reeve films. Singer was clear that the film used those movies as a "vague history". So that pretty much lets him get away with having a Lois that looks like she's 16 and other timeline discrepancies.

But as for the rest of the movie, well, he's got no excuse.

He is a talented guy, though. I'm sure if he actually spent some time developing the movie we might've been able to see something special.