Board 8 > Scarlet Fixes The Comic Book Movies: Dawn of Just Us

(+) Yeah! (+)

tag

I went back and watched Superman II recently and was surprised at how much I disliked it. It did not age well at all imo, so much of it was contrived and nonsensical and there's like five minutes of things just moving away from Zod right before the climax. But it seems like most people still regard it fairly highly as comic book movies go. Your version does sound better.
---

Superman III (1983)
Nominated by: Anagram

This will be the first opportunity to really play off of the major changes I made in a previous iteration of a series, and I'm going to use that opportunity to completely overhaul this film.

In this movie, we open with Robert Vaughn going about the daily routine of a normal person up until the point that he enters a military base and attacks a variety of soldiers on the way to claiming a piece of kryptonite. As he picks it up, a soldier attacks him and claws at his face, revealing metal beneath it. Robert Vaughn is Metallo, the robotic minion of Luthor from Superman II. He opens his chest, placing the kryptonite inside, and leaves the base.

Most of this movie deals with the fallout from Zod. Lois has no interest in Clark, and Clark is reeling from being fired in the opening scenes - after all, he failed to show up to work during the biggest news story of the century. After Lois publicly announces that she's dating sports writer Steve Lombard, Clark packs his bags. As he's ousted from his job, he finds himself a new position at the Daily Star across town. Run by a mysterious magnate named Morgan Edge, Clark is offered a position by the Star's George Taylor due to reasons known only to Edge. Clark's first big project is to determine where Lex Luthor has been since the Zod incident - something Clark would like to find out himself. He's also assigned a partner, Steve Lombard (played by Richard Pryor).

As Lombard and Kent search for Luthor, Lois Lane is investigating the holdings of Lex Luthor, and she stumbles upon information that suggests Morgan Edge has been buying up LexCorps holdings. Eventually, Kent and Lombard stumble upon a mysterious South American LexCorp laboratory, where they find that not only is it ransacked, but that it contained failed clones of Superman. Lex Luthor steps out of the shadows and he gets in a shouting match with Clark, revealing he is aware of Clark's identity. Lex has known for some time now, but what Clark doesn't know is that this is an android version of Lex left working on a project since the time between Superman I and II, and that it's automated to commence a self-destruct sequence. Without any real lead on Lex's whereabouts, Clark is forced to reveal his identity to Steve Lombard. Afterwards, he tries to use the special lipstick to mindwipe Lombard, but Lombard recoils from this advance and eventually convinces Superman that he won't reveal his identity.

Meanwhile, Lois finds out the location of Morgan Edge's secluded island home, and she meets him - played by Robert Vaughn. Lois and Jimmy Olsen tour the island and after significant suspicious incidents, Lois learns that Edge is dying, and he has been buying up holdings in the attempt to find at least one of LexCorp's holdings where genetics and cloning are being studied. Edge has been replacing parts of his body with robotic pieces in order to survive, but after he was forced to replace his heart with a battery to power his mostly metallic housing apparatus, he only has a short time to live until he can functionally perform a brain transplant. The doctor involved in these procedures is named Emil Hamilton.

Morgan Edge's behavior leads Jimmy Olsen to use his Superman watch, and when Lombard sees that his girlfriend Lois is in trouble, he coerces Superman into letting him come along and attempt to save both Jimmy and Lois. This is all part of Edge's plan - he wanted Jimmy to lure Superman so that he could expose him to kryptonite and use the weakened body to house his brain. Ultimately, it's the dumb luck of Lombard that frees Superman so that he can go toe-to-toe with Metallo, and he eventually wins. In the end, Lois clearly still has feelings for Superman, but Superman recognizes that despite his bluster, Lombard is the right man for her, and he leaves to search for Lex once more, asking if Steve wants to join him.
---

That's a massive shift from what the film originally was - and for good reason. The original film is completely skippable, totally uninteresting in every way except for the occasional interaction between Pryor and Reeve. Making this a bigger piece of the Superman mythos is what I think ties this film and the other two previous iterations altogether.
---

Sounds like the buddy stuff with Clark and Steve could be pretty fun!
---

I can't fully appreciate the write-up as I haven't seen Superman 3, but that is the kinda stuff I was hoping for so pretty cool. Sounds like an interesting watch vs the original which there's kind of a reason I haven't seen it.

From reading I feel like you could make that the plot of the third movie regardless and not change much because it has weak-no continuity with the series to begin with-- but it just has a stronger tie in with your changes to Superman 2 intact, hence the reason for a lack of any distinction between the series/individual movie write-ups here, yes?
---

Lopen posted...

I can't fully appreciate the write-up as I haven't seen Superman 3, but that is the kinda stuff I was hoping for so pretty cool. Sounds like an interesting watch vs the original which there's kind of a reason I haven't seen it.

From reading I feel like you could make that the plot of the third movie regardless and not change much because it has weak-no continuity with the series to begin with-- but it just has a stronger tie in with your changes to Superman 2 intact, hence the reason for a lack of any distinction between the series/individual movie write-ups here, yes?

Yes. I think it ties stronger to 2 as a whole, but you could still make it as is and it would work.
---

I like this for a lot of reasons the key of which is that it gets Lois and Clark separated again which is exactly what both characters need. They have chemistry and tension all of which dies a death if they're in love.
---

I think quest for peace is next, right scarlet?
---

Nope!
---

Howard the Duck (1986)
Nominated by: JONA

I think I'll keep this simple, as there's no reason to make any bones about it: there is nothing redeemable about Howard the Duck. It's a bad movie. This consensus is clear, and one of the biggest issues is that making Howard the Duck in 1986 was one of the hugest issues involved. I could recast this movie, rewrite this movie, and bring in a new effects team, and I STILL won't make Howard look really terrible on the big screen. That's just a bridge too far. Lucas was overreaching when he took the single greatest special effects team of its generation and attempted to make Howard. I don't often say this, but there are times when you need CGI.

There was no CGI in 1986, and that kills the potential for a successful Howard the Duck movie as Lucas envisioned.

Instead, I would hand the Howard concept to an animated studio. After all, when you look at Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (which released only a couple of years later) it's clear that animation was the best remedy for characters who were naturally cartoonish in appearance. That alone would assist in making a Howard film much more palatable. Don't go for realism; go for stylistic interpretations that are aesthetically pleasing.

Of course, George Lucas' oversight still remains an issue with this film. The script is awkward, creepy, confusing and terrible. The characters are all dull fools with bizarre motivations, and really nothing about this film works. Much like I did with Swamp Thing, I would overhaul the entirety of this movie. I would hand the film to Ivan Reitman first and foremost, a snappy director who excels at creating the sort of strong dialogue that puts a character over with the audience. I'd also recast Howard's voice with Bill Murray. Allowing Howard to seem more detached from the world gives him more credibility, and the breezy, almost disinterested way that Murray acts would be pitch perfect for the character. At that point, I would sell an extremely dark, disturbing threat (like Morbius or Ghost Rider) as the opposing threat in order to create a humorous dichotomy.

And of course I'd cut the weird duck sex situation from the movie completely. This is a movie that would recognize its absurdity and embrace it. It's about being cool more than anything else. And I think that might just be enough to serve as a blockbuster summer 80s film.
---

I object. This movie clearly hinges on the naked duck boobs.
---

Anagram posted...

I object. This movie clearly hinges on the naked duck boobs.

Clearly this man gets Howard the duck...

Duck tits woo hoo
---

Superman IV: Quest for Peace (1987)
Nominated by: Xeybozen

Widely considered one of the worst superhero movies ever made, I can't possibly make this one worse, so let's skip over what doesn't work on this movie and try to make something click.

I actually like the idea of nuclear nonproliferation driving the narrative of this film, so I'm going to go in a very weird direction. The film opens with Clark still working for the Daily Star, now owned and operated by George Taylor. The Star has recently purchased WGBS-TV, and Clark's old flame Lois Lane has been offered an investigative position on the coveted primetime news hour, which she accepts, bringing Jimmy Olsen with her to the paper-turned-news-station so she can be closer to Steve Lombard. Clark, meanwhile, has been confiding in Steve for months. The two have been investigating the status and fate of Lex Luthor.

Superman has never worked closely with a nuclear-powered object, and for the first time, he is put to the test when a Soviet space vessel armed with a nuclear core ruptures in space. While attempting to save the pilots, he is exposed to the core and is weakened. Suddenly, another superhuman arrives to rescue both Superman and the cosmonauts. This character lands on Earth to a sudden surge of news attention, and introduces himself as the Nuclear Man (played by Michael Biehn). Superman actually experiences a bit of jealousy as time has caused people to take him for granted. Nuclear Man, claiming to be an alien from a world destroyed by nuclear war, clearly comes to Earth with a goal - he wants to end the construction and proliferation of any nuclear weapon. People begin to flock to his doctrines he presents after he demonstrates some miracles of technology that help end drought and famine in third world countries.

Lois, too, seems enamored with the Nuclear Man. This causes jealousy to also boil in Steve, and he convinces Superman to investigate the Nuclear Man's claims. Instead, Superman finds that maybe Nuclear Man is a better hero than he. He certainly has a wider variety of powers, and if the world is going to be left in better hands with Nuclear Man, perhaps he should work with him. They develop a tenuous relationship as Steve tries to investigate further. Superman publicly has an argument with Nuclear Man, calling his attitude "fascistic" before publicly flying away. After weeks with no public Superman appearances, Steve discovers a very small serial number on one piece of technology Nuclear Man uses to create a miracle in the Sahara Desert. As world leaders begin to turn over their nuclear arsenals to Nuclear Man, Steve discovers that the serial number traces back to technology from Morgan Edge's island. On the island, he finds Nuclear Man being given injections by Morgan Edge's personal doctor, Emil Hamilton. Hamilton kills himself rather than reveal his motives, and the island begins a sequence of chain reaction during which Steve is barely rescued by Superman.

After a tussle with Nuclear Man where Superman is clearly outclassed, Superman begins to have doubts after Nuclear Man provides a couple piercing insights into Superman's own history as a Kryptonian. Superman believes Steve, and they try to convince Lois that Nuclear Man isn't what he appears. Lois has been working as a glorified PR rep for Nuclear Man, and Nuclear Man has made romantic overtures to her, and she just doesn't believe them. But in an intimate moment, we see Nuclear Man becoming more erratic. His eyes glow green and his skin flakes off a little bit on his hands.
---

Eventually, investigating Nuclear Man reveals that he wasn't just in league with Emil Hamilton - Hamilton was a geneticist who previously worked at LexCorp (as hinted in Superman III), and Lex Luthor himself has used DNA from Superman's escape rocket to recreate Jor-El in clone form. Nuclear Man becomes more and more unhinged, but Lois refuses to believe that this modern messiah is anything but what he originally appeared. When Steve decides to break into a live WGBS broadcast and reveal what he knows, Nuclear Man flies through the studio and breaks Steve's neck live of the air. His body is angular, white and jagged now, and he has clearly lost it. Nuclear Man threatens to use all of the weapons he collected on Earth itself unless the leaders of Earth kowtow to his demands. Lois is in shock, but Jimmy notices a small earpiece in Nuclear Man's ear and determines that there is a signal being broadcast. He traces the signal to a LexCorp satellite thought previously deactivated. Superman realizes that Lex is alive.

Superman follows the signal and goes to confront Lex in Antarctica, where Lex has constructed a fascmile of the Fortress of Solitude, where he freely admits to Superman that he is behind everything. Nuclear Man arrives and begins to duke it out with Superman as Lex casually follows behind the fight, explaining that Superman (in Superman II) had given him a mandate to help fix the world. Lex admitted that Superman had been right: the world needed them both. And Superman needed Lex to help end the nuclear arms race. The Man of Steel needed to be a paragon of virtue, and he couldn't get his hands dirty. So Lex simply went out and "bought himself a new Superman". Lex demonstrates a slight disappointment in the failure of his Nuclear Man as the mind was clearly becoming "feral and visceral" without treatment from Emil Hamilton, a regrettable but necessary casualty once Superman's cronies caught wind of the plans. Superman also learns that there are several other malformed clones of Jor-El at Lex's disposal, and he dukes it out with about 20 of them, cleaning the board.

Superman eventually watches the original clone of his father die in front of him, and the clone dies speaking of pride in his "son". Lex himself is grabbed by Superman and pressed against a wall, where Superman demands Lex to release and the warheads back to the governments of the world, but Lex says that he has already detonated them during the fight. "Even your super-senses can be distracted from time to time."

Lex turns on TV monitors to reveal that Nuclear Man's Sahara paradise has been destroyed by nuclear armageddon, killing hundreds of thousands. The body of "Nuclear Man" (in reality just another clone) is found at the heart of the blast, and one by one, world leaders vow to permanently dismantle their nuclear plans and come together after witnessing the horrors of nuclear holocaust to prevent this type of atrocity from ever happening. There is also regret from world leaders at letting Superman abandon them, and a call for his aid.

Lex and Superman have an intense debriefing at this point, and Lex leaves the ball entirely in Superman's court. "I did what you could never do. I brought about world peace. This entire planet was poised at the brink of destruction, and I did what Lex Luthor can do best. I did what Superman couldn't."

Superman lets Lex go and steps outside, listening to the radio and TV broadcasts with super-hearing. He takes a deep breath, and launches himself into space. The credits roll, and over them we hear time passing and voices acknowledging that Superman appears to not be coming back. We also hear the reports suggest Lex is no longer in hiding and providing aid and relief in the Sahara. The final line in the credits is "Thank god for Lex Luthor."
---

Obviously, this goes in an extremely different direction than the previous Superman IV. It's a close-out of the series in a way that I think would work great in the Cold War era in which the film was released. Using a very light homage to Watchmen and a template borrowed also from "Must There Be a Superman?", I think this ties up the story of Superman completely. Superman wrestles with his own heritage, the changing values of humanity and the faith they put in Superman, and it turns Nuclear Man into a character with having. Granted, that character is Bizarro.

It also gives Lex Luthor the win, which I think is extremely important for something else on this list, which you'll see later.

Ultimately, I recognize that this might seem convoluted, and I am coming up with this as I write it out, so there is room for some improvement, but I feel like this is the magnum opus that Superman could use. The Quest for Peace concept is subverted completely thanks to Lex's brutal tactics, and the fact that Superman might even believe Lex, in the end, especially when his own words are turned against him from earlier, make this a perfect way to make Superman alien once again to his own world. And, let's be honest, the death of Steve Lombard is probably the only death that would matter at this point, given that Steve is the only person in whom Superman can confide. Ultimately, I like this patchwork quilt made from several of the great DC stories of the 80s, and I think it caps a series with a surprising amount of depth.
---

I like your version of Superman IV a lot, but it's way too complex and morally gray for a superhero film from the 1980s. I do like the Watchmen-esque aspect of it, though.
---

Anagram posted...

I like your version of Superman IV a lot, but it's way too complex and morally gray for a superhero film from the 1980s. I do like the Watchmen-esque aspect of it, though.

It absolutely is not too morally complex if you, you know, watch movies from the 70s and 80s. Nor is it too morally complex for a world in which those comics are selling as the top comics to hundreds of thousands of people at the time. Watchmen was less valuable in 2009 than it was in the 80s when it would have really mattered.

Let's also not forget that it's coming fourth in a series that has been MOSTLY optimistic, but trending towards a darker tone very slowly. Viewers are already being trained for this in the series.
---

Superman IV came out in 1987. I know there are plenty of complex and dark movies from the 70s and 80s, but the first superhero one was Batman 89. That's right around the same era, admittedly, but it's the movie that proved superhero movies could be dark. Before Tim Burton, this is the full list of superhero movies:

Superman and the Mole Men
Stamp Day for Superman
Batman 66
Superman
Superman II
Swamp Thing
Superman III
Supergirl
Superman IV
Return of Swamp Thing
Captain America
Howard the Duck

I've actually never seen Swamp Thing and Return of Swamp Thing, but otherwise no one had taken that chance, and I don't think anyone would try it with the fourth entry in Superman.
---

Everything listed is Superman except for a TV show adaptation. And a Captain America movie that was widely lambasted. We already had widely-popularized dark films. Academy Award winner Platoon from the year before, for example. There was a commercial passion for these more brooding films at this time. Not to mention comics themselves were selling at a peak with Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns, Alan Moore's Watchmen, Crisis on Infinite Earths, and even at Marvel you had Daredevil's Born Again, and X-Men's God Loves, Man Kills. TV was also trending in a darker direction with the very popular Homicide: Life on the Streets, Hill Street Blues, and other shows.

I don't think you can say the appetite for this type of film wouldn't exist. In fact, I think you're doing a disservice to people to think that they wouldn't like this kind of movie. Tonally, I think one of the big reasons this movie was so lambasted was because it took a serious subject and tried to make it family-friendly. It was terrible for a lot of reasons, but if you're going to play with the most serious subject of the era, you gotta do it with some weight.

And let's be honest, the only morally complex part of the movie is the very end.
---

I don't even know why I'm so passionate about a movie that doesn't exist.
---

It's because your fake movie is so much better than not just the real movie, but than most superhero movies in general.
---

It's probably going to be better than 90% of the crap I come up with.
---

scarlet hittin us with some mainstream historical knowledge

he's not just about comic books, folks
---

I think this isn't a great direction, but not because it couldn't sell - but rather because it's not Superman. The overwhelming, defining characteristic of Superman is that he's a hope bringer. He's there to remind us that we can be more, that we can be better people. A movie that ends with Superman getting Ozymandias'd is a movie where Superman is proven wrong, and consequently where the message we're given is that we as a species are too flawed, too stupid, too morally weak to move past our failings without destroying each other. That's not the tack a Superman movie should be taken - you shouldn't darken Superman, not because it's impossible, but because it's precisely why the DCCU movies turned out so poorly. I don't think this would go better.
---

I take it you've never read the most well-regarded Superman story of all time, Kingdom Come. Or Must There Be A Superman. Or Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow. Or What's So Funny About Truth Justice and the American Way. Or Red Son. Or The Dark Knight Returns.

KanzarisKelshen posted...

That's not the tack a Superman movie should be taken - you shouldn't darken Superman, not because it's impossible, but because it's precisely why the DCCU movies turned out so poorly.

Let's also not forget that I'm taking this tack after three lighthearted Superman movies so that I can close out the tenures of Reeve and Hackman. Both are done after this movie, and I won't get Superman again until 2006. To me, this is the right way to set up the hiatus. I'm also letting him bow out before I start a Batman series, which will go in that darker direction.
---

By the way, I do appreciate the discussion a lot. I was worried I would have posted that to silence.
---

I think this is the most anyone has ever talked about Superman 4!
---

I think it's because Michael Biehn is now in it.
---

Id just like to say that, while Im not commenting due to a lack of comic book knowledge, Im enjoying your write-ups.
---

Snake5555555555 posted...

I think this is the most anyone has ever talked about Superman 4!

The greatest tragedy of superhero movie is that Superman IV isnt even the worst Super- movie, though no one nominated Supergirl for some reason.
---

It might not even make top 5 of the worst Super- movies, there are an incredible amount of bad ones.
---

Every live action Superman movie is ass except Superman and Superman II, including the ones where he just shows up like BvS and JL.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

I take it you've never read the most well-regarded Superman story of all time, Kingdom Come. Or Must There Be A Superman. Or Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow. Or What's So Funny About Truth Justice and the American Way. Or Red Son. Or The Dark Knight Returns.

KanzarisKelshen posted...

That's not the tack a Superman movie should be taken - you shouldn't darken Superman, not because it's impossible, but because it's precisely why the DCCU movies turned out so poorly.

Let's also not forget that I'm taking this tack after three lighthearted Superman movies so that I can close out the tenures of Reeve and Hackman. Both are done after this movie, and I won't get Superman again until 2006. To me, this is the right way to set up the hiatus. I'm also letting him bow out before I start a Batman series, which will go in that darker direction.

None of those are All-Star Superman, which IS the best regarded Superman story (much as I love Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow in particular).

But seriously though...there's a fundamental difference between the comics you cited and this angle and I think it can be summed up with one quote:

"Why don't you just put the whole world in a bottle, Superman?"

I think giving 'classic' Supes a sendoff is good. I think a resolution that involves more than being punchy-kicky at a bad guy is also good. I think maturity in Superman is good. But I don't think 'murder hundreds of thousands to scare people straight' is the right tack for this sendoff, because it implies that a certain number of lives is an acceptable sacrifice on the path to becoming a more noble species. I think what I'd do is have both Superman and Luthor help humanity become better by example. For example, if the Nuclear Man went crazy because he was an unstable clone, set up a nuclear apocalypse, and Luthor hadn't planned it (beyond wanting to outshine Superman by 'buying himself' a new one he could control and showing how much more he could do than him) but died saving the world when Supes and the Nuclear Man double-KO'd each other, and this inspired people to put an end to nuclear proliferation, that'd feel 'in theme' for a Superman story, proving that even in the worst of men, there's a spark of goodness. I think that'd preserve what you wanted to do here, while providing a more thematically resonant sendoff.
---

Well, I'm playing the long game with the list and considering what is actually popular in the 80s. In the 80s, it was already considered that Superman is passe. With a large stretch of darker, brooding films, shows and especially comics, giving Lex the win so that in Superman Returns, I can have Superman actually return in a big way... I feel there's something there.

I'm not really interested in telling All-Star Superman in an era where no one wants All-Star Superman. All-Star Superman comes out of the reconstruction era of comics, and you can't get to that point without 9/11 and What's So Funny? trumpeting Authority. In its time, this is the right call. We're sending Superman off on a thinker's note. We're playing up for an Oscar here, giving Hackman his shot at Best Supporting, and playing into WHAT IS CURRENT AT THE TIME. Which is where I think you are really missing the point.

The DCCU movies played poorly in their time. Sure, there are other corrections you can make, but people also don't want to see grim 'n' gritty right now. Real world superhero movies tend to follow the trends of comic books pretty closely. Look at DC's popularity with positive superhero stories in comparison with the movies being rejected in darker storytelling now. Then look at 1989's Batman being very well-received in a time when darker projects are definitely being well-received. By 1987, which is Superman IV, the pulse of the people are trending towards a darker, more complex hero. The big sellers are Platoon, Untouchables, Lethal Weapon... people aren't looking for Superman at that point. So by following the trends in comics, I'm actually hitting the vein of what is working in pop culture.

And, again, I'm playing the long game. The reason Lex winning is so ESPECIALLY perfect in this situation is that, in 2006, I get to do Superman Returns, a direct sequel to the series.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Let's also not forget that I'm taking this tack after three lighthearted Superman movies so that I can close out the tenures of Reeve and Hackman. Both are done after this movie, and I won't get Superman again until 2006.

Or was it just that they stopped making Reeve/Hackman movies because III and IV were so bad? Maybe they would have kept going if there was better reception for them. Or maybe the actors were just done with the characters either way, I'm not sure.
---

Cybat posted...

scarletspeed7 posted...

Let's also not forget that I'm taking this tack after three lighthearted Superman movies so that I can close out the tenures of Reeve and Hackman. Both are done after this movie, and I won't get Superman again until 2006.

Or was it just that they stopped making Reeve/Hackman movies because III and IV were so bad? Maybe they would have kept going if there was better reception for them. Or maybe the actors were just done with the characters either way, I'm not sure.

Well Reeve is going to definitely be done with the character whether he wants to be or not.
---

Well, sure, but that was still eight years after IV came out.
---

Wow, is it that long? I figured it was early 90s.
---

87 and 95, according to my extensive research. But yeah, I don't know if it was more of a Raimi Spider-Man situation, or a Nolan Batman situation.
---

Look at DC's popularity with positive superhero stories in comparison with the movies being rejected in darker storytelling now.

I don't keep up with comic sales numbers a lot tbf, but wasn't the Injustice comicbook super popular for instance? I don't know that I'd say it's only positive comics that have sold in recent years. Can you point me to some examples?

(Fair enough on playing the long game though. My thinking was strictly limited to 'how can this movie be the best it can be on its own' - if we assume linking it to Superman Returns is in play, that's a different story.)
---

Cybat posted...

87 and 95, according to my extensive research. But yeah, I don't know if it was more of a Raimi Spider-Man situation, or a Nolan Batman situation.

They planned a Superman V but the financial bombing of IV made it impossible. Then you get into that dark era where WB tries to buy the rights back, eventually dies, and someone tries to put a giant spider into Kevin Smith's Superman script.
---

KanzarisKelshen posted...

Look at DC's popularity with positive superhero stories in comparison with the movies being rejected in darker storytelling now.

I don't keep up with comic sales numbers a lot tbf, but wasn't the Injustice comicbook super popular for instance? I don't know that I'd say it's only positive comics that have sold in recent years. Can you point me to some examples?

(Fair enough on playing the long game though. My thinking was strictly limited to 'how can this movie be the best it can be on its own' - if we assume linking it to Superman Returns is in play, that's a different story.)

Actually, Injustice numbers are very medium. It's gained a weird Youtube popularity though. It just hasn't translated to the actual sales figures at all. I think part of it is because, at this point, the story has become very maudlin and complicated (not complex, just full of bad backstory). It was actually the best selling DC title for a year online, but that was when it was exclusive to online sales. Then it dropped.
---

I tend to agree with Kanzaris on this one, more or less. I think it's a good story to be told but I don't think it's a good way to end something for 19 years, I guess? It feels more like the type of thing that would work well as a season finale for a Superman TV show like Lois and Clark or something, or something you could maybe do if Superman Returns came out in like 1991 and not 2006. Even then I'm skeptical as I think the dark transition needed to be a bit more gradual, like you can say Superman III telegraphed it but it still feels very abrupt. Maybe as a Superman V or VI with another movie or two of gradual tone shift.

I suppose if Superman V was planned and in this hypothetical world it actually went through it's a bit more viable, but maybe ambitious for the scope of this project since we're not inserting a Superman V into the mix and actually waiting the 19 years.
---

Lopen posted...

Even then I'm skeptical as I think the dark transition needed to be a bit more gradual, like you can say Superman III telegraphed it

Superman II telegraphs it. Superman I telegraphs Superman II and IV actually. If you think about it, the series is all about setting up Superman IV.
---

tag

this is a great topic idea, and i like your writing style and thought process
---

I think the big issue with Supes IV pitch is it sounds like an amazing pitch nowadays, but I think the darkness of the ending would offset the trajectory of Superhero movies.

I think a big reason we have some of the best superhero movies that we have was a desire for something darker. Take Batman for example, it worked so well, because we had to corny series in the 60's then we have the hopeful Superman films. So adding some edge after that is the next logical step.

I also think the darker comics at the time benefited from the fact that they had all the campy build up from the golden and silver ages first before jumping into the darker stories.

I think this version of the movie would wind up being a great cult classic, which is still much better than it's current legacy
---

Batman (1989)
Nominated by: Lopen

Batman is definitely the most well-regarded superhero film of the 20th century, so I know I'm treading on very thin ice when I make changes to this movie. There are actually a lot of aspects to this movie I really dislike. For example, I think Jack Nicholson isn't a particularly thrilling Joker - I think he COULD be, but the movie at times lacks some the killer instinct he displays in films like The Shining. But I'm not going to recast one of the most iconic movie roles in the genre. I'm going to recast the other role.

Michael Keaton is a phenomenal actor. He's a truly excellent Batman, and a very interesting Bruce Wayne. He also disappears after the second movie, and the acrobatics WB goes through to keep recasting the character only served to hurt the franchise's chances. Since every Batman film was nominated here, I'm playing an ever-so-slightly longer game and I'm picking another relative unknown like Michael Keaton, only skewing a couple years younger: Keanu Reeves.

For a long time, I've thought that Keanu Reeves is good-looking enough to be a Bruce Wayne, and dark and gruff enough to be a Batman. We'd also be kicking this Batman off as a new, fledgling hero. That works so much better with a very young character, and I think he has the chops to be distant, isolated, hard-to-read Bruce Wayne.

I know that's going to get me booed out of the building, but, gun to my head in 1989, I would pick either him or Harrison Ford. I'm sure as hell not picking Keaton, knowing what comes later.

For the rest of the film, I wouldn't change too much else. I would put a higher premium on Billy Dee Williams' role, but I'm not changing anything else. Keep it simple. Recast Batman, and let's roll forward to the next movie on the list.
---

I agree the plot pieces had been telegraphed I just don't agree the tone had been sufficiently telegraphed. They've got some dark edges and nuances here and there, but the tone still reads as generally light in 1-3.

The MCU equivalent is as though we (vague MCU spoilers) had Infinity War without Civil War. I think Civil War existing is very necessary for Infinity War to work in terms of tone as it's kind of a midpoint between that and the likes of Avengers. If you went for Infinity War directly after Ultron I don't think it would've worked nearly as well
---

You guys are really underestimating the tonal shift I made in the plot of Superman III.

And also underestimating the fact that this movie still has a huge chunk of Richard Pryor.
---

No mention of the Joker shooting down a plane with a revolver?
---