New Superman Movie: No Thank You
Written by Craig Byrne - KryptonSite Webmaster

Any Internet enthusiast with access to such great sites as Comics2Film has surely read about Warner Bros.' plans to make a new Superman movie, to be directed by Brett Ratner (at least those are the plans this week) and to star Jude Law, Josh Hartnett, Ashton Kutcher, the guy from Mutant X... you take your pick, no matter which way you boil it I'm underwhelmed.

The Warner Brothers film people in their infinite wisdom (insert sarcasm here) think that because Spider-Man did big business last year, that the time is right again for a new Superman movie on the big screen. They seem to be forgetting many big things. Among them:

1. It's been done before. Part of the appeal of Spider-Man was the idea that Spider-Man had *never* been done well in live action before. Sorry, Electric Company and the Nicholas Hammond "guy in a Spider-Man costume" movies really don't count. 1989's Batman did well because a dark Batman done seriously also had never been done before. By Batman and Robin, it was old hat. In this case, Superman has been done well in live action many times in the past 25 years. Do we really need it done again?

2. Superman done right. While I'm sure someone like J.J. Abrams could put together a nice story, what's the point in retelling or redoing the Superman origin story when it was already presented so well on October 16, 2001? I still have yet to see a review that says "Smallville changed so much, it sucks!" Rather, the opposite. I see that Smallville made Superman cool to another generation. So why have this alternate version?

3. Two at once. Do we really need two versions of the Superman origin and history floating around at the *exact same time?* Why not work together and have Smallville reflect the movie, or vice versa? Or, why not get the powers that be who put together the show to do a "Metropolis" movie as soon as the show is completed? After all, if the show follows a five year plan, Tom Welling will be 29 around that time, and how old did is Clark Kent supposed to be? 29? What a coincidence.

4. Talent. I just touched upon the fact that I would indeed want Tom Welling to star in a Superman feature. One can't give the "he's too young" argument because if you look at it, Josh Hartnett and Ashton Kutcher are even *younger,* and do we really need a Superman who looks like an idiot? (No offense to Ashton, he does idiot very, very well in That 70's Show). Even in one year Tom has begun to even look more and more like the Man of Steel. The hair's getting shorter, the bulking up is happening. Not to mention that for the past nearly two years now people are used to Tom being Clark Kent. Say Smallville has 10 million regular viewers per week. I don't know if that number is correct, it's theoretical, but that means those ten million people would very likely go see a Superman big-screen picture starring Tom, and possibly numerous times. Hey, *Christopher Reeve* seems to like Tom. That's enough reasoning right there. Then there's the creative talent. Smallville creators Alfred Gough and Miles Millar were tapped to write the Spider-Man sequel at one point. It would perplex me that they -- the folks who are experienced with the character and probably have the best prereqisites for the job -- would be passed over in favor of the guy from Alias. Uh, yeah, Felicity's ratings were huge. Either way, with the Spider-Man gig, apparently somebody out there in Hollywood thinks Al and Miles have it (just apparently not the Warner Bros. movie division), so why not get them to write the big screen feature? On the rest of the production side, Tollin-Robbins has had several hit movies, most notably "Varsity Blues" starring good old Dawson himself. Surely they'd also have a lot to bring to the table.

5. It could hurt the show. Back to the whole "two versions of the story at once" thing. If the storyline is so drastically changed from Smallville, fans are going to view Smallville as "old school" and might not care to watch anymore. That is, if the show is even allowed to continue. A fantastic pilot script for a young Bruce Wayne was passed over years ago because the movie division was doing "Batman: Year One." Just think. We could have had a Smallville/Bruce Wayne night, but no, we've got to wait for the movies. Smallville is the biggest hit on the WB television network -- a network that was worried about not having anything left once Buffy left. If their strongest link is damaged, what is the point, really? Not to mention the folks who will have put years of time and energy into making Smallville such a hit -- cast, crew, even webmasters who devote a lot of time to it -- is it really fair to say that what they did didn't matter, and that a movie would be *so* much better? The Warner movie division might argue that the profit of a movie may surpass the TV series. I doubt that. And also, mark my words: The Smallville first season DVD set is going to break records. Do they really want to miss out on the potential profit of DVD collections?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe both can co-exist. And maybe I'm being selfish. I just don't think the powers that be know and understand that we're happy with the Superman we have, and that sometimes rushing to get your new big hit or franchise out could hurt other people and things. I was a Superman fan before all of this. I've enjoyed the comics, I even loved Lois & Clark. I'm open to new interpretations of a character. Just not when it can potentially damage the character and program that I like. But I can say this -- they can put as many fancy special effects on the film as possible, and get the "most amazing actor" to play Clark (but sorry, Warner Brothers, I really don't think that "Kelso from That 70's Show" qualifies), but I really don't think I'll be supporting such a movie if it gets in the way of my favorite leafy little hamlet.

Craig Byrne created KryptonSite in February 2001 after it was a Smallville page as part of a Lois & Clark site. He realizes that this column was full of a lot of babbling, but he really felt the need to rant. No offense is meant towards J.J. Abrams either, and this column is pure opinion; meaning, it could be completely mistaken and I'll have egg on my face sometime. Note: The views of Craig Byrne don't necessarily represent the thoughts and feelings of everyone at KryptonSite.