WB and the man in the red reboots.
By Burbanked on Aug 22, 2008 in Development Heck, Movies, Newest | 1,071 views |
I just want to make sure I’ve got this straight: Just two years ago, Warner Bros. gave us Superman Returns, a reboot of a dead franchise. Now in 2010, according to a number of sites, the studio will reboot the franchise again because the last one “didn’t quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to”.
So the last time they did this, they spent about $270 million, developed the property for a number of years, burned through a host of directors, screenplay drafts and leading men, hired a talented director and gave him the keys to the candy store, delivered an embarrassingly dull yet expensive-looking and ultimately empty film that all of the yes-men at the studio probably knew “didn’t quite work as a film”, yet still shoved down our throats as we handed over our money, happy and stupid, to the tune of nearly $400 million.
And they’ll do it again. Likely by trying to tap into Christopher Nolan’s Magic Bag of Superhero Film Tricks.
And we’re supposed to be excited by this news?
© Copyright
Megan | Aug 22, 2008 | Reply
Yeah, I think you’ve got it pretty straight.
Adam Ross | Aug 23, 2008 | Reply
Haha! Beautifully stated. This borders on self parody by Warner Bros.
Saint | Aug 23, 2008 | Reply
I not only liked Superman Returns, I loved it. I saw it in IMAX numerous times.
One reason people don’t like Superman as much as other superheros is that he isn’t human like, say, Batman. But Superman Returns brilliantly portrayed that it was not despite, but because he wasn’t human that humanity was more important and had a greater impact on his life.
What I liked was that it went out of its way to not be like all of the other superhero movies. And I know I’m not alone.
Burbanked | Aug 23, 2008 | Reply
Saint: I thought Returns had a lot of good stuff in it; I just wish Singer had found some new material instead of doing such a straight-up homage to Donner’s film. I kept waiting for something new and exciting to happen and although the film looked great, it felt pretty pointless. I just think it’s hilarious that WB is both admitting that they made a mistake…and pretty much telling us that they’re going to go ahead and do the same thing all over again.
Saint | Aug 25, 2008 | Reply
Agreed.
On a side note, do you think you could give me a projection on when you think they’ll stop making comics/80’s TV shows/graphic novels into films?
I’m praying it’s some time before Captain Planet and the Planeteers.
Burbanked | Aug 25, 2008 | Reply
Sorry, Saint. I’d guess “never” is probably a good guess. But now it seems as though “remake” isn’t even the hot word anymore. It’s “reboot” where they take something not all that old, missed or forgotten and make it all over within a few years. The hilarious thing is that studio folks seem to believe that they can develop these properties on the cheap because they’re pre-existing, yet something like Superman Returns ends up taking multiple years, a handful of writers’ deals, development costs, and jillions of dollars never represented in the movie’s final budget.
james ford | Aug 26, 2008 | Reply
SUPERMAN RETURNS is no more a reboot than INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL. you have to seen the earlier films to understand the story. kryptonite, luthor’s imprisonment, the land swindle, the love child conception are never explained or understood had you not seen SUPERMAN & SUPERMAN II.
the second you want to make a sequel to 27 year old movie, ignore the last two sequels and pick and choose the elements you want to keep, you’re in a very dangerous place. after the ten+ years of development, wb was so excited an a-list director was interested they let him do whatever they wanted and unlike X-MEN, the changed here mattered.
SUPERMAN II ends with him telling the president he’ll always be there and SUPERMAN RETURNS starts with him having abandoned earth. superman is literally on a roof top macking on lois stealing someone else’s girlfriend. once more for the cheap seats, richard white is getting his girlfriend taken away from him by superman. what a jerk. he follows her home and watches her through the walls and eavesdrops like some alien stalker. and they gave him a kid who’s superpowers manifest themselves and he KILLS someone. a six year old kid kills someone. read (ironically) richard donner & geoff john’s SUPERMAN LAST SON comics from last year and you can have superman with a son and make it work but this isn’t how. and had there been sequels, you can’t ignore there is a kid with superpowers and you can’t kill him because that leads you to dark, brooding superman in mourning which doesn’t work.
clearly this was not thought through.
http://www.jamesford.wordpress.com
Burbanked | Aug 26, 2008 | Reply
James Ford: Agreed, the SuperKid was probably the biggest downfall of Returns; it provides an unneeded complication in the first movie and causes way too many problems down the franchise road. I really think that this movie, much as you say along the same lines as Crystal Skull, simply had way too much money thrown at it by the time the studios had to either pull the trigger or admit how off the rails everything had gone, storywise. At that point, the decision always has to be to try and make the movie and hope to recoup the investment.