Pajiba

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG BATMAN 3 OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG HOLY SHIT OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG CAME IN PANTS OMG OMG OMG OMG PERSON NEXT TO ME IS LOOKING AT ME FUNNY OMG OMG OMG WHY DID I READ THIS IN LIBRARY OMG OMG OMG *TEAR OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG THERE IS A GOD AND HE DOES WATCH MOVIES OMG OMG OMG SUCK IT CAMERON OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG LOOKING AT KERMIT BALE TO PSYCHE MYSELF UP OMG OMG OMG OMG *PASSES OUT*

He’s been asked by Warner Brothers to consult on a Superman reboot.

So this is the reboot reboot?

Just do 'Superman vs. Batman' you idiots, and get it over with.

There is no "Batman vs. Superman", because Bruce continuously kicks his boy scout ass.

Plus there's no way Nolan would do that, he won't even put Robin in Batman's world, you think he's gonna accept some glory hog from f'ing Krypton?

Batman vs. Supes is what happens when Nolan/Bale/etc. are done, and you get a nice studio-produced piece of garbage starring RPatz vs. Paunchy Leonidas directed by McGism.

At least it’s not another reborquel.

Patent pending!

Finally!! Some good news to break up this awful day. I swear I have never longed for sunlight like I have this winter. It's like its never going to stop! And I am tired of my snow boots! But then comes the ray of hope that is Batman 3 news and I believe in spring again. That is the power of the Nolan!

Ok. Ok. Is there anyone acting today that could play a good Superman?
Stroke of Genius!- Get Dolph Lundgren to play him in a big screen version of Red Son. Boom. Money now! *grabbing motion*

Serious question: Did you watch Superman Returns?

Most people haven't and piss on it anyway.

Also, maybe the lack of DARK is why I never got into Superman/Spiderman

Well maybe if you grew a heart, ya uppity scum!

I think you're probably right about Superman Returns, Jay. It was no Batman Begins but it was pretty much on par with your average Spiderman movie and a hell of a lot better than most other superhero flicks. I can't really figure out why it failed. I think I'll blame Kate Bosworth. Get matching eyes, you harlot!

I agree that there is no need for a 'dark' superman. The best version done so far was Superman: The Movie from 1974 and there was nothing dark about that movie.

Superman Returns would've been alright if only they hadn't cast a Ken doll as Superman. That dude looked so plastic he probably had his underwear etched onto his groin.

The best part of “Superman Returns” was him getting shot in the eye in slow motion, other than that it sucked walrus nuts. If I were a studio head I would give the Nolan brothers a boat load of money and get out of the way.

Darker, no. Superman is inherently neither dark nor gritty.

Someone hasn't read the Red Son series.

No one wants to watch a movie where Supes is the only person with a moral center, JustBill. And a mass market movie with a Superman budget can't present you a world where doing the right thing invariably makes things worse. They won't make back squat on that investment. Besides, it is possible to make a movie that touches on moral dilemma without making it "dark" in the Hollywood sense.

In other words, there is a great deal of room between Superman: The Movie and Sin City where stories can lie. You can make an engaging story that is far closer to the former. Heck, look at some of the things they pulled off in the Justice League cartoons, which were very much in the Byrne vision of Superman. Incidentally, I would argue that the best analysis of that Superman is "Just wants to be Clark Kent, can never stop being Superman."

Also, you can't make a Superman movie where being Superman is superfluous. Sure, it's an interesting one-off comic book where the problem at hand can't be solved at all by Superman's powers, and it might make an interesting low budget niche fan-film, but it would shoot audience expectation in the head in a regular movie theater.

I second the Jesus Christ. But also, would pay damn good money to see a film with ties to the Nolans, Goyer, where Superman fights giant fucking robots.

@ZombieScientist, I'm curious where I said in my comment that Supes is the ONLY one with a moral center. The big complaint about him in the modern age is that he's TOO moral, so it's my contention that the path to a "dark" Superman movie is a plot that puts him in a situation where his moral center (i.e. his humanity) is directly affected.

It's my opinion that the way he saves Lois in Superman: The Movie is morally ambiguous. And the cry of anguish he lets loose when he finds her dead used to chill me growing up. Superman II had some shades of moral ambiguity as well, with Supes relinquishing his abilities (and therefore his ability to be Earth's protector) for the love of a human woman. These are "dark" paths for Superman because both directly pit his Kryptonian abilities against his human desires. His desires might have been noble in the micro (wanting to save/have a life with Lois), but in the macro he's making a selfish choice.

How about a film in which all his memories of being Clark Kent are somehow wiped and replaced with Kryptonian thoughts and emotions? By all accounts, the Kryptonians were a bastardly race of people, so imagine Supes with none of the moral checks and balances brought to him by his human upbringing. You have a godlike character with nothing to stop him from reigning supreme, and with no compunction about harming humans. There's all sorts of dark alleys that could travel down (it would be similar to the Red Son idea that a couple of others have mentioned). That way you could have all his powers in full display for the 'splosion lovers (maybe more so than we've ever seen, since he always restrains himself), and still examine what it is that makes Superman who he is.

@Nadine, I think the title of "hero" applies because he chooses to be steadfast in his beliefs. He could EASILY shrug off any constraints and just do whatever the hell he wants, but instead he chooses to use his powers to help people. I think that makes him a hero of the first order. It's not about whether he's in danger or not, but about how he chooses to exist on Earth.

I'm actually a little concerned about both of these things. Superman Returns was hardly a disaster of a movie, but it didn't reinvigorate the franchise like WB and a lot of us had hoped. The problem is not in the actors or directors or even the writers, but in the source material. I know he's iconic and all, but let's face it - Superman is simply not very compelling.

He's totally invulnerable (except for his one weakness which will astonishingly show up every single time), he is virtually omniscient, and the scope of his powers always seem to meet exactly what the circumstances require. He's got the personality of a ZIP code in Smallville, Lois Lane is as annoying as hell, and doesn't really do anything but get herself into peril so he can rescue her, no villainous plotline short of world domination/destruction is ever worth his time. One or even two movies would be good (which is why the first two Superman movies are still the best), but there's only so many times Lex Luthor can bust out the unobtainium- er, kryptonite, and still make it compelling.

The Batman sequel worries me simply because it has an awful lot to live up to. I simply don't think it's possible to just re-cast the Joker, and yet is there really another villain in the Rogues Gallery that isn't going to feel like a letdown? I guess I can just have faith that the whole team will be back to do the next one. Still, they've set the bar awfully high for themselves, and I don't want another Spidey 3 in this case.

Superman is just boring, but he could be spiced up: Man of Steel + A raging libido = fantastic character portrait. Do an origins story, but make it about SM's struggle to get his rocks off without killing anyone. And the film's climax? I think you get the picture.

So clearly people have a real problem understanding Superman then, huh?

Know what "dark" Superman gets you? "Gay R2-D2". Batman gets to have an unbreakable code, but Superman's boring? Have you ever seen him get angry? It's terrifying. And he does get angry. Now, if they end up combining things there's a whole wealth of material one could use from Bruce and Clark's relationship. Bruce is a real smartass, but he respects him. Clark's sometimes afraid of his power, afraid of what's expected of him, and that makes him retreat rather than wreak vengeance, because...well, that wouldn't be Superman. But he's a leader, and he's not an idiot. He sometimes needs coaxing, but he can bring the righteousness and it's not wimpy. And what's so funny 'bout righteousness?

Nadine, Leftylad & JustBill-

Again the John Byrne version of Superman addresses his previous god-like invulnerability and "de-powered" him quite a few notches. Not to mention that invulnerable or not, a 200lb man will still be thrown if he's hit with a mortar shell. Depending on what he was hit with he could still feel the force behind it. He got tired after a while, could get injured by things other than the green stuff (it might take a nuke in his face- but still) He still needed to recharge via food, rest and absorbing solar energy. He still needs to "work out" to stay in shape, and he still needs to breath air (eventually). It was amazing how just bringing down the level of superpowers gave him just a slight amount of vulnerability. He now had to put some effort into lifting bigger objects and he had to think about things for a moment before charging into battle. He was still superhuman, but there could be conceivable consequences.

Gone was the "God Man" mentality and replaced with a hero without a guaranteed win. If he was still going to have the day, he was going to have to both think things through and he was going to have to work for it. As such the line between Superman and Clark Kent was blurred that much more. I would like to see someone tackle how Clark has to pick and choose what crisis to intervene and which ones he has to let go. Despite all his power, he is still only one man and cannot be everywhere at once. If he was constantly helping, even just the major crises- he would burn himself out. I would like to see him cutting out clips from the Daily Planet; not of the saves he makes (his Mom can do that) but rather the ones he can't get to. He can use it as motivation for always striving to be better. And if he's stopping to save a treed kitty, that means somewhere there's a bus plummeting to its doom or a family dying in a fire. How Clark deals with the heavy responsibility of picking and choosing who he can save would be an interesting struggle. Can you imagine how Clark might feel if while helping people in one part of the world, a disaster like 9-11 went down in Metropolis? And no "turn the world back" cop-out either. For all of his ability, Byrne's Superman is still just as helpless as we are at times. Yes, he could overpower the world to his will, but to do so would cost him his humanity. And although he is the world's ultimate immigrant, he want's to belong with us. To do so he holds himself as our equal (albeit gifted with abilities) rather than above us.

Also, the other characters got a major personality adjustment, many of which have become accepted now- Lex Luthor went from mad scientist to power-mad corporate industrialist, Lois Lane went from lovesick damsel-in-distress to ballsy Army-brat reporter who didn't need anyone (including Superman), The Kents were alive & well and provided Clark with moral support, and Superman's rouges all got upgrades so that Lex wasn't the only one to give him fits. Many of these upgrades were adopted into the animated series of the mid-1990's, and it was better for doing so. So regardless of what this movie turns out to be, perhaps you'll enjoy reading collective back issue of the late '80's comic.

Anyone who says Superman needs a "darker image" needs to be repeatedly punched in the face by midgets. Why midgets? Because why the hell not!?

Superman does not need a darker tone, I tell ye.

Okay, I have to admit, that kinda gave me chills. Too bad DC doesn't have the same foresight as Marvel.