Rebooting the Superman Film Series

On June 26, 2006, after nearly twenty years of absence, Superman returned to the big screen. The film, Superman Returns, continues in the spirit of the Superman movies from the late 70's and early 80's, being a direct sequel of sorts to the first two films. Returns retconned the third and fourth films from that seris (to the delight of many fans who felt those two the worst additions in the franchise - of which I am one), replacing them as essential canon.

The film was a success. It earned just below $ 400 million worldwide and was generally well-received by ciritics. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a "Certified Fresh" ranking. For me, Returns was the best it could have been, given the circumstances. It was nearly twenty years between films. Christopher Reeve and Marlo Brando had both died. Pretty much all of the original cast was gone, retired, or unreachable. Obviously, it couldn't hope to match the previous films with its look.

But it was mostly good. The plot was nothing grandiose, but the film focused on Superman and his return. I don't expect a deep plot in that case. The characters quite surprised me. Brandon Routh is certainly not Christopher Reeve. I honestly feel only one actor can play both Clark Kent AND Superman (and he's dead now). Not only that, but the actor looked significantly younger than Reeve did in the first film. That's interesting. We had George Reeves (the middle-aged Superman), Christopher Reeve (a younger Superman), and now Brandon Routh (an early 20's Superman). Supes is getting younger! But I look at the bright side. It could have been much worse. They could have picked George Clooney.

The other actors are so-so. Kate Bosworth puts in a good performance here. But I really wasn't sold on her being Lois Lane. Sorry. I just wasn't. She's a good actress, but for me she's not Lois. Kevin Spacey, on the other hand, shoots the curve. He impressed me the most with his portrayal of Lex Luthor. Gene Hackman captured the more comical aspects of Lex, while still keeping his nature as a villain. Spacey makes Lex purely egotistical, just downright evil. He atones for my lack of confidence in the other actors.

Kryptonite also returned. It made for a great plot device, again. Honestly, they need to get off the rocks. We've seen five Superman films, and the Man of Steel has only fought a supervillain once, and that was in the worst one! Certainly, we could do it and do it right. But all that aside, the plot wasn't all that bad. I particularly didn't like the final twist. So Superman is an illegitamite father? Whoop-de-doo. What? Does he want a cookie? I feel it added nothing, NOTHING, to the film. No depth of character, no rise in responsibility, nothing at all.

But even given all my complaints, I enjoyed the movie. It was fun, just certainly not the best. The opening sequence was outstanding. Director Bryan Singer knew what to do and who to call. The film enjoyed a good theatrical run, followed by good sales in the merchandise department. It more than made back its budget. And almost as soon as it was all done, talks about a sequel materialized.

Of course, rumors are just rumors. But after twenty years, Superman deserves more than just one movie. He's an American icon, and in many ways, emblematic of American culture. Surely, there's a sequel in the works? Well, Warner Bros. announced a sequel four months before the release of Returns. Tentatively entitled Man of Steel, the film would again feature Bryan Singer in the director's chair, with most of the Returns returning. No pun intended. Singer stated his intention for more action sequences and possibly multiple villains. Brainiac and Bizarro were mentioned, as well as a possible return of the New Krypton landmass from Returns. (They just can't stay away from the rocks!)

By the end of 2006, some work had come together on the film, with filming slated to take place in mid 2007. Well, Singer shelved the projected in favor of Valkyrie, but he kept Man of Steel in mind. He just delayed production until 2008. Then the Writer's Strike threw more crap in the mix. But in March, Singer released that the film was in pre-production. Brandon Routh made comments hinting toward a 2010 release. Joy of all joys! Then the unthinkable happened.

In August, Warner Bros. announced that the franchise would receive a reboot. So forget about Bryan Singer, Superman Returns, and whatever was put together for the sequel. They want to start over from scratch and reintroduce the character. Well, Singer was still wrapping up work on Valkyrie. So not too much work had been done, physically, to Man of Steel.

The reason for this move was quite simple. Returns just didn't do as well as hoped. In that, I agree. The film made just below $ 400 million worldwide, but the budget was roughly $ 178 million. Executives were hoping for a $ 500 million profit, and with a franchise like Superman, that is certainly possible. The decision was made, believing Returns did not place the character where he should be to build a franchise off it. A reboot would have helped better.

In this, I also agree. The film itself was fine, but that's just it. It's fine. Not great. Not spectacular. Just fine. Do you build a franchise off a "fine" movie? You could, but it's certainly riskier. But I do hesitate to say the reboot is a great idea. It hasn't always worked in the past. Sure, The Incredible Hulk proved an audience is willing to overlook, but that may not work every time. Will it work for Superman? I don't know.

I look forward to the reboot film. It's Superman. I'll always watch Superman on screen. They'll get some money from me, either way. I just want to know that it's done right. Returns was decent, but it couldn't have been any better given the twenty-year gap. A reboot won't have a gap, but can it succeed? I don't know. I can't say anything at this point. We'll all have to wait and see.