Superman Will Return...But With A Different Cast And Direction...

I was just surfing the 'net and discovered that Warner Bros has confirmed that there will be no sequel to Bryan Singer's Superman Returns. Apparently, Singer's take on the Man of Steel didn't capture everyone's imaginations, as studio execs were disappointed by the movie's performance at the box-office; it earned somewhere around 215 million dollars, but it was still way short of even recuperating the money spent to make it which, reportedly, cost 300 million dollars! If it had done well at the box-office, then we would have seen a new Superman movie last December of '08 or some time this year.
Instead, Warner Bros will now be taking its cue from the recent Incredible Hulk (which I read also underperformed, raking in 'only' 112 or 115 million dollars; the movie cost $150 million to make), and the next Superman movie will be a "reboot" or "re-imagining" of the franchise, and will recast the role of the Last Son of Krypton with an actor who does not look anything like the late Christopher Reeve (awww, poor Brandon Routh). According to the studio, "Superman reboot" will serve to "(re-)introduce the character to a new generation".
I feel a little terrible about this bit of news, because I'm one of the few who actually did like Superman Returns. Although I do like the fact that Kate Bosworth will be replaced; I've always felt that she was miscast, that she didn't do the Lois Lane character justice. But, besides Routh not coming back, I also feel bad that Kevin Spacey will not be reprising his role as evil genius and Superman arch-enemy Lex Luthor; like Gene Hackman, Spacey was terrific as Luthor. Too bad.
Besides the perfect casting of Routh and Spacey, I loved how Bryan Singer remained faithful to the original 1978 Superman movie (starring Chris Reeve, Gene Hackman and Margot Kidder - it's probably the movie that everyone is mostly familiar with when it comes to the Man of Steel) -- and I don't just mean with the Routh casting, but also with the film's score, using the John Williams theme. Heck, even going as far as to having the whole Superman-flying-out-into-space-with-the-Earth-serving-as-background to extro the movie. You could also sense Singer's love for the Superman character and its mythology (e.g. cameos of the actors that played the original Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane, the scene that pays tribute to the cover of the comic book with Superman's first appearance), so it is such a shame that we won't get to see a continuation to the events or story set in motion by Singer in Superman Returns (maybe one that features a battle with Doomsday, resulting in a tragic and cliffhanger ending ala-X-Men 2, leading up to the next Superman movie).
Frankly, it's Warner Bros' fault for shelling out such a huge amount to make Superman Returns. Just imagine, if they had spent 150 million, then they would have made back their money and then some!
But here's the real kicker : after the success of The Dark Knight, Warner Bros says that the next Superman movie will also have a "darker tone" to it. I'm "iffy" about this plan. As much as I loved Christopher Nolan's dark treatment to Batman, not every super-hero movie should be grim/serious/gritty. It depends on the comic book character (that you're going to bring onto the big screen). Sure, make the movie more "adult", but not necessarily "dark" just because it worked on The Dark Knight. "Batman dark" is not Superman.
According to some reports, the studio says that the reason why Superman wasn't a "hit" was because the title character is too much of a boy scout, and is unrelatable to most people. Seriously, who can really relate to an alien from Krypton with superpowers? Hello! Superman is imaginary! I don't think that's the problem. It just takes a good story (which the movie had), care and respect to and love for the character(s) from the director (and Singer had that), and to not get carried away with the amount of money they'll spend to make the movie (which I'm sure Warner Bros has learned in regards to the Superman franchise); stick to a more "realistic" budget (with "realistic" being around 150 million dollars these days to make a special effects-laden movie like Superman).
Well, I certainly hope their plans for the next Superman movie works out.











And also...
Warner Bros will be following in the footsteps of rival company, Marvel Entertainment, and has shelved their plans to make Justice League of America for now. Thank God, because the idea of George Miller (known for the Mad Max movies) directing, didn't sit well with me. Instead, they will be concentrating on stand-alone movies of the DC comics characters (The Flash, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, etc) that they own (the rights to), and possibly even have a "web of continuity" with their next batch of super-hero movies that are in the works, ala-Iron Man and Incredible Hulk, which they hope to build or lead up to a Justice League of America movie (which is what Marvel started with said two films, and is supposedly doing with their next batch of movies, beginning with Captain America : The First Avenger, and so on, which will lead up to the much-anticipated Avengers movie).

'Nuff said.

Watchmen...

WATCHMEN
It's been a "slow year" in movies for me for the most part; meaning, there hasn't really been a whole lot of films that have excited me all that much. 'Til now.
I can't stop gushing as to how incredible this movie is! I've actually never read the graphic novel. I've got a copy of the trade paper back edition that's sorta been gathering dust for awhile now; it's just that I refused to read it, ever since hearing about the plans to make a movie oh-so-many-years-ago, until I got to watch the movie. Watchmen has been languishing in production hell for the longest time. But, finally, the movie is here!
Is it any good? I believe I already answered that question. Is it worth the more-than-two-and-a-half-hours-running-time? Heck, yeah!
300 director Zack Snyder has created a truly superb film with this one. I'm still not sure though just how faithful he remained to the graphic novel (since, like I said, I've yet to read it). The written material came out way back in the 80s, truly ground-breaking for superhero books at the time, and is considered to be one of the greatest graphic novels of all time. I honestly don't know who could have helmed the movie any better (and give it the respect and care it needed) than Snyder. And, in a somewhat ironic way, I'm also glad that Watchmen languished in limbo for as long as it did, and that it only materialized on the big screen just now, because I think it would have not made as of much of an impact (at least for me) as it does now (with the current technology, advancement in special effects and the style or changes that film making has gone through the past couple of decades).
I'm hoping that the movie-going public will be smart enough to appreciate Watchmen for what it is...a good movie. And not just another superhero movie without any stars attached to it. The only way I see this movie not becoming a hit is that if it gets seen by people who are, shall we say, "close-minded" when it comes to the superhero genre; people who only go for superhero movies if it is (a) Batman, Superman, or Spider-Man.
Watchmen may not have any characters that are well-known (unless you've read the graphic novel, then it is a safe assumption to make that most people have never heard of Rorschach or even the Watchmen), but that is probably the best thing about it; you don't have any "imaginative restrictions/expectations". What I'm trying to say is that with, say, Superman, there is only so much you can do with the mythology of the character. He is, without a doubt, a very well-known (comic book) character. And because of that, most people already have an "image" of who he is and what he's about. For example : even though Superman did have sex (check Superman 2), you will never actually get to see the Man of Steel in the act of having sex. With Watchmen, and not just because it actually happened in the graphic novel, you get to see heroes having sex. Like normal people. Even going as far as having "performance problems". Like some normal people. You have "heroes" that are psychopaths and would-be rapists. You don't usually get to see super-heroes with these kinds of attributes. And that's because Watchmen is not your typical super-hero movie. Again, that's one of the things that makes this a great super-hero movie.
Watchmen is not for the kiddies. So for the adult movie-going public who have longed for a very mature super-hero flick, well this is it!
So who watches the Watchmen? I certainly hope that it would be you.
Now I gotta find the time and read my Watchmen graphic novel.
A

'Nuff said.