With all the recent talk about Mark Millar and JrJr's KICK-ASS going into development with big money Nic Cage on board, I cannot help but be excited. For the comics industry. For KICK-ASS 4 in stores today. Not excited about Mr. Cage in light of what he did with GHOST RIDER. The man certainly loves his comics, and I salute him for that. Actually, I sincerely hope the KICK-ASS movie works out for Cage. The universe owes him one. Lest we forget lil Nicky's vested interest in making a Superman movie (pre-SUPERMAN RETURNS), I will remind you that we (you, me, Planet Earth) sidestepped potential disaster when Cage dropped out of the project, leaving us with a very kosher (i.e. ham-free) Superman flick (if you don't count Parker Posey). Thanks, universe. Now toss our boy Nic a bone!

Speaking of the Man of Steel on the big screen, loudmouths and blowhards are declaring SUPERMAN RETURNS (2006) a monumental failure. Was I watching the same movie as these naysayers? The bald guy was Keyser Soze, right? Apparently, Warner wants to make a darker Superman film to reboot the franchise, because that's obviously the formula for CHA-CHING given the success of THE DARK KNIGHT. I think Warner Bros should take a cold shower and think rationally about why THE DARK KNIGHT was good. About why IRON MAN was good. Take time to filter out the insane internets yakity yak and the OMFG hearsay. Deep breath, boys.

Back to KICK-ASS, If you've been following the press on the internets, you probably know everything that's gone on in issues 1-3. Basically, what if someone got dressed up in a superhero costume and decided to fight crime in the real world, in age of myspace and youtube. Also, it prominently features a whole lot of blood and violence being dealt out by little kids. It is brutal and hilarious at the same time. I haven't finished the inaugural story arc so, I am not quite sure where this is headed. Is it a commentary on our society's huge boner for violence and how it affects the young? I'll tell you if I ever figure that out. Needless to say, it is a fascinating and curiously gripping book.

Eco-friendly actress Cameron Diaz (What Happens In Vegas) is apparently also animal-friendly. The 35 year old blonde airhead took in an injured lost dog over this weekend, and reunited him with his owner, even going to the trouble of later visiting the pet at the vet's.

Diaz, despite being one of America's highest paid actresses, is believed by many to be one of the least deserving, most untalented, annoying and ugly A-list actress out there, with people nicknaming her "Pizzaface", "Joker smile", or simply "hag", but I on the contrary think she's a knockout and one of the most talented actresses in Hollywood. So, what does that say about me? All I know is I'm glad her heart matches her looks (or according to some people, transcends them).

Cameron Diaz will next be seen alongside James Marsden (27 Dresses) and Frank Langella (Superman Returns) in the science-fiction thriller The Box, written & directed by Richard Kelly (Southland Tales) and based on a short story by Richard Matheson (I Am Legend).

Source

Nonostante i quasi 400 milioni incassati worldwide, gli execs della Warner Brothers, infatti, non devono essere rimasti troppo contenti dalla performance di Superman Returns, l'ambizioso kolossal diretto da Bryan Singer (X-Men, X2 e I Soliti Sospetti) che avrebbe dovuto riportare in Auge l'Uomo d'Acciao. Forse sarà stato il budget troppo alto (200 milioni per un film senza grandi scene d'azione), forse le aspettative troppo alte, sta di fatto che qualcosa non deve aver funzionato se, in una recente invervista al Wall Street Journal, il presidente della produzione della WB Jeff Robinov ha palesemente parlato di pellicola che "[...]non ha svolto il suo lavoro". D'altronde il film di Singer non ebbe vita facile sin da subito. Annunciato come evento cinematografico del 2006, finì con l'essere umiliato al botteghino dal secondo capitolo dei Pirati dei Caraibi. Gli stessi numerosissimi fan dell'Azzurrone, in spaspodica attesa da ben 20 anni di un nuovo film dedicato al più grande dei supereroi, si trovarono divisi di fronte all'opera di Singer. Complice anche la contemporanea messa in onda del telefilm Smallville con protagonista Tom Welling, molti non riuscirono ad accettare lo sconosciuto Brandon Routh come nuovo Superman. A complicare le cose una sceneggiatura fin troppo reminescente del Superman di Richard Donner (in alcune parti sembra di assistere ad un remake), la presenza di un'unica sola, anche se fantastica, scena d'azione, e la controversa introduzione del figlio di Superman, per molti vero e proprio insulto al personaggio dei comics.

Nonostante il fallimento di Superman Returns, Superman, però, non mancherà troppo dagli schermi: insieme alle critiche rivolte al film di Singer, Robinov ha infatti annunciato l'uscita entro tre anni di una nuova pellicola che rilancerà l'Uomo D'Acciaio. Sarà un completo "reboot" come nel caso del recente "The Incredible Hulk" o semplicemente un "revamp" come il famigerato "Batman Forever"? Ancora non ci è dato saperlo. Ma forse non dovremo attendere molto: nello stesso articolo viene detto che verrà rilasciato entro la fine di Settembre un comunicato stampa contenente la "release schedule" dei progetti cinematografici dedicati ai personaggi della DC Comics. Secondo le indiscrezioni la WB mirerebbe a rilasciare 4 film dedicati ai propri supereroi entro il 2012. I film sarebbero il terzo capitolo di Batman, la reintroduzione di Superman e due pellicole ispirate a personaggi "secondari" come Wonder Woman, Flash o Lanterna Verde. Speriamo di aggiornarvi presto sugli eventuali sviluppi della vicenda.

Short term bad news. May pay off long term with better movies.

-------
-------

The reboot idea has become more and more popular after franchises such as Batman in 2005 and James Bond in 2006 successfully exceeded themselves with their respective re-imaginations of their characters. This year alone, we’ve had two more franchises follow the reboot angle, with Hulk and The Punisher (soon to be released in December), and now as the last character announced to follow the same treatment, Superman.

Why do reboots happen? Well, the reasons are simple: you either a) become a box-office failure, to the point that the studio passes you by without redemption, b) you become a failure from the fanbase, to the point that future films are without interest, or c) you become a mix of both. For director Bryan Singer’s Man of Steel, it was the third option, as it was announced by WB the other day: 

Warner Bros. also put on hold plans for another movie starring multiple superheroes -- known as "Batman vs. Superman" -- after the $215 million "Superman Returns," which had disappointing box-office returns, didn't please executives. "'Superman' didn't quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to," says Mr. Robinov. "It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned." "Had 'Superman' worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009," he adds. "But now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman without regard to a Batman and Superman movie at all." 

2006’s SUPERMAN RETURNS had a grand direction from Singer as a slightly more mature themed film in comparison to other superhero films, but it was a rather dated take on a character that needs to be introduced to a more modern time. Faults such as the recreation of the cartoonish Lex Luthor version (though Kevin Spacey improved it over Gene Hackman), a repeated generic plot and an excessive romantic narrative are points that just add to the problem, however talented Singer might be. All of which makes a depressive point considering the potential and nobleness from the good-but-not-great film.

In result of the failed reception, we’re then left with the typical development hell phase when the studio struggles to maintain a team behind the project that’s able to unite fans and the public alike. A re-imagination that is able to learn from those pasts criticisms, and amplify their features. The question then arises, what is the follow up for these restarted franchises? Mr. Robinov answers: 

Like the recent Batman sequel -- which has become the highest-grossing film of the year thus far -- Mr. Robinov wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as "The Dark Knight." Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.' DC properties. "We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," he says. That goes for the company's Superman franchise as well.

Batman, James Bond, Hulk and The Punisher have all followed the “dark reboot” path. And all of them deserved it, since their source material has a darker edge to begin with. Batman’s dark tradition on film was revamped with director Christopher Nolan and actor Christian Bale; James Bond returned to more rough routes with actor Daniel Craig; actor Edward Norton decided to involve himself with Hulk and turn the character to a more action oriented, darker portrayal; and The Punisher’s upcoming film will make use of the character’s source foundation and make the Saw films look like Disney pictures with director Lexi Alexander on the helm. That said, however, how can a darker reboot work on Superman, of all people?

If we may learn from the diverse successes from Iron-Man and Batman this past summer, is the fact that superheroes touch upon different mythologies in our culture and are never placed on one dynamic. From the tragicness of Batman, to the energetic material of Spiderman, to the violent and brutal fabric of The Punisher, to the entertainment aspect of Flash, all these characters work on different levels. If we may celebrate an aspect of the genre, diversity may be it, not redundancy.

For the sake of fairness, of course, Mr. Robinov said “to the extent the characters allow it,” not a forceful application on all of them in the same level. Perhaps, if we may take a page from Bryan Singer’s book, some of his adult themed portrayal of the character may be a good option: in one of his most glorious moments (from both Singer and the character), Superman (Brandon Routh) stands still in space and time. He’s a savior of the people, able to exceed men’s awe when they see him fly by the streets, but yet stands outside their lives in exile, looking on for the normal life superheroes hope for.

The character is in the exterior as an outcast, unable to come in and be human with Lois Lane's (Kate Bosworth) family as an avarage person. He rises gracefully to his solitude, connected and absent from the world at the same time, hearing the world but never in it. When we hear composer John Powell's strong score and withhold Singer's presented moment, we see the character's greatness and loneliness all with a single defining image. The audience is in a sense admiration and compassion for the hero, as Singer draws the lines of an impeccable-being and emotional humanism from the character. The picture of a God and an outsider who is alone in space. 

Indeed, a profound sense of great thematic points can be traced within Singer’s work, and the one on the conflict from an inhuman hero might very well be continued. For all the excessiveness in romanticism and a lackluster plot, the threats and ideas presented from Singer could lend themselves off for a good continuation (sans the kid, I imagine), where the heroism of the character and his dynamic face conflicts of more interest, from his inhuman elements, to how he's regarded by the society itself. In other words, the "Does the world need Superman?" dilemma.

“You wrote that the world doesn’t need a savior” Superman tells Lois, “but everyday I hear people crying for one.” He's flying, observing and hearing with Lois Lane the society below who scream for his help. Even at the beginning of the film, Clark Kent surfs through various channels in his TV, and authentic images from our difficult times are presented while he watches in despair on how cynical things have become. Comparable to the 9/11 world that searches for heroes in order to resolve current crisis, Superman’s need is fittingly put into question here with a profound crisis to explore between the hero and the cynical times, all with a great interest. But, as great as that topic of "Does the world need Superman?" echoes itself in our minds, the moment then shifts the attention of itself to the romantic interests of the characters (again) and repeats another Donner moment, exemplifying the film itself and its problems.

In an attempt to revitalize the character further, perhaps a wider global scope in terms of Superman’s role as both an alien and a God-type person of the world, similar to how Christopher Nolan has explored Batman’s social importance with his vigilantism, could be a welcomed theme for the character. From “elseworld” tales of a Soviet Union Superman, to the role of Lex Luthor as corporate elitist or politician, the mythological adventures of the character have always endured a certain dynamic with social problems as much as his love problems. And in the wake of wars, political leaders' abuses, and social problems in general, a narrative between the world and Superman's role seems natural. Of course, let's do it without the Wall Street Journal journalists writting about it, shall we?

Kristen Bell em Widescreen

Pra começar essa é para os fãs da série Veronica Mars, que passava na TNT. É muito provável que seja feito um filme do seriado. Sim sim. Parece que muitas coisas viriam na quarta temporada que vai acabar nas telas do cinema. Aparentemente Kristen Bell (a personagem principal da série) tem se encontrado com o criador do programa para resolverem direito essa questão. Deve sair um filme muito bom ein.

Madre? É a senhora mesmo?

E um filme sobre Madre Tereza de Calcutá está sendo realizado pelo diretor indiano T. Rajeevnath, e sabe quem vai ser a protagonista? Megan Fox! É, aquela do filme Transformers mesmo!

O que? Não gostou da escolha? Imagino que você saiba quem era a primeira opção não?

O filme deve estrear em 2009.

Superman 1, de novo

É isso mesmo. Se você esperava a continuação de "Superman Returns" então vou logo te desanimando. A Warner Bros não só cancelou "Superman: Man Of Steel", como ainda decidiu refazer toda a franquia. Desde o primeiro filme sim! Esqueça Christopher Reeve. Vai tudo do zero de novo. Dessa vez num tom mais "sério e sombrio", segundo o site Cinepop.

Acho chato porque não gosto de histórias pela metade, mas já que é o jeito né. Vamos nos divertir pelo menos. Espero.

Story: The character has to be re-introduced in a more modern setting. Anything from the Donner-Singer-verse is out the window. Krypton will benefit from being presented as a different society from the Donner movies. You can incorporate android-like Brainiac to make him  in the movie a threat to the world. An alien technology based kryptonian being designed to run krypton to finalize their dreams of Utopia (Jor-El  would be the one opposed to this type of Alien AI that would ultimately be the cause of Krypton's demise). He can find Kal-el and proceed with a plan to colonize Earth to keep the Kryptonian legacy alive. Superman can see it as his responsibility to stop him in order to protect his new home and as a curse of the Kryptonian legacy. Plus, they can both go at it for a nice action fight sequence. Lex Luthor should not be in this movie, but in pure joker fashion, he can be mentioned for a future film setup. How about the mention of the incredible stock rise of LexCorp in this movie to introduce Lex later on? The only thing I can mention is that the people involved in this project should be professionals that are fans of the character. The success Nolan had with the Hardcore fans was because he did deliver a real Batman that was still Batman.

Tone: That has been set from WB's comments. It will be Darker. Doubtful that it can go all the way to where The Dark Knight went, but a modernized Superman is a must so a more gritty Superman story has to come to effect.

Look: The director will have full freedom to use his visual style in order to distance themselves from the previous template. The character designs should reflect the current times. Not the daily planet of the 1930s.

Costume: This needs a nice big redesign. The cape should remain(look at 300 for nice cape ideas), and a big S would be nice. Not a traditional one though. Do away with the red underwear. Get rid of the yellow. Maybe even combine or use one of these two:

Cast: Big name actors have to be used. An up and coming star should be considered for Superman. Louis Lane has to be a sassy reporter with spunk. Someone that looks nice and classy like Paola Turbay would be nice.

Score: BRAND NEW!!!

Movie franchise Setup: The idea is to establish a franchise that can go on a long run. The possibilities are limitless and seeing a Death of Superman saga as a trilogy later on would be incredibly interesting.

The limits on this do not exist. Many ways to go around but I think we all agree that the best way to approach this is to deliver a modernized Superman and not a hero archetype of ages ago.

Personally, I'm all for it.  Bryan Singer is a superb director, but I'm not sure he, nor the script, understood the essence of Superman.  Now, I want you to know, I'm no die-hard Superman fan, but even I have some basic needs that must be satisfied when dealing with the Man of Steel.

Superman needs to be courageous, noble, charismatic, and respectable.  Superman Returns gave us a Superman that was a stalker, an illegitimate father, and a deadbeat dad with an unhealthy messiah complex.  Furthermore, Superman Returns basically offered the same real-estate plot as the original Superman when it came to his foe, Lex Luthor.

I loved the Christopher Reeve and Richard Donner Superman - loved it! - and it will forever have a soft spot in my heart, but its time is over.  We still have it on DVD; let's begin anew with our cinematic Superman mythos.

The Superman reboot should NOT rehash his origin - we all know it.  Let's pound straight into the action.  Let's have Superman with a worthy opponent such as Brainiac, Mongul, Metallo, or, what the heck, how about the daddy of all baddies: Darkseid.  Please, please, please don't fall into the cliche of the "opposite hero" such as Bizarro and if Lex Luthor must be present, let it only be peripherally such as on advertisements and in headlines.  Save his actual appearance for a later movie; make him something we dread.  In other words, build him up as the ultimate villain and not a rabid real-estate developer.

Along with big action and giving something super for Superman to do, give us a love story where he and Lois Lane actually seem to like each other.  Half his appeal is the love of an equally super woman.  I don't care if she knows Clark Kent is Superman or not (it seems kind of insulting in this day and age that an award-winning journalist couldn't put that little ditty together), the dynamic could work either way.  Just have them actually be in love for this old romantic. 

Superman is the best of our fictional super heroes - he is the beacon of light in the sea of despair.  He is the one who never gives up on his morals, his belief system, who always strives to do the right thing.  Please don't darken him and make him "grim and gritty."  What works for Batman does not, and never has, worked for Superman.

Finally, sorry Brandon Routh, but in my opinion, you just don't have the spark in your eyes necessary to play the Man of Tomorrow.  When we look at Superman, we should see confidence, strength, intelligence, and ironically enough, humanity.  I'm afraid Routh never looked comfortable in the role.  Reeve had those things.  Finding another actor to so perfectly fill those red boots will be difficult, to be sure.

I'm excited about the reboot.  I'm excited to see a fresh approach to Superman that isn't tied down to past continuity.  Again, I loved the old Reeve movies, but it's time to do something different.

Just remember, the "S" on the chest isn't what makes Superman so super, it's all those things he is that each of us admires and aspires to become.

Hace unos días les comenté los rumores que ponían en la cuerda floja a Superman: Man of Steel del director Bryan Singer. Ayer, Jeffrey Robinov, Presidente de la Warner Bros., le confirmó a The Wall Street Journal que, dentro de la estrategia de producir menos películas, pero de mayor calidad, la secuela del Hombre de Acero de la DC Comics no verá la luz del día, sin embargo, eso está lejos de poner una lápida a la historia de Superman en la pantalla grande. De acuerdo a lo indicado por Robinov, la franquicia de Superman será reiniciada desde 0, borrando del mapa a lo hecho anteriormente por Bryan Singer y las versiones anteriores, a las que Superman Returns hacía referencia. Esta decisión se debe a la decepcionante desempeño comercial de la película, que puso a Brandon Routh en el rol del Hijo de Kryptón. Los ejecutivos de la Warner esperan que con un reinicio se logre llevar al superhéroe alienígena al sitial que este merece. Robinov también indica que historias que unan a distintos superhéroes, como el espantoso proyecto Justice League: Mortal de George Miller o una supuesta futura película que junte los destinos del héroe de Metropolis con el de Ciudad Gótica, no verán la luz de momento. Los comentarios del presidente de la Warner, a continuación.

"Superman no funcionó como película como nos hubiera gustado. No posicionó al personaje como necesitaba ser posicionado. Si Superman hubiera funcionado en 2006, habríamos tenido una película para Navidad de este año o el 2009. Pero ahora el plan es re-introducir a Superman sin preocuparnos en absoluto por una película de Batman y Superman juntos." Y añadió, respecto del tono que se le daría al nuevo reinicio del personaje que "intentaremos hacer [una película] tan oscura como el personaje nos permita hacerla".

No es criticar por criticar, pero una película oscura de Superman no se entiende mucho. Batman es un personaje oscuro, debido a la historia que lo rodea, sin embargo Superman, en palabras de Batman "es un boyscout", un tipo con sonrisa permanente y trato afectuoso. Es de esperar que la fiebre de los millones, desatada por el éxitazo mundial de The Dark Knight, no lleve a la Warner a cometer errores difíciles de reparar en cuanto a historia. Poco a poco se le va dando la razón a lo comentado por Mark Millar, el autor de "Superman Red Son" ("Superman Rojo" en Chile), que indicó que estaba en contacto con ejecutivos y "un importante director" para reiniciar la historia del personaje. ¿Será posible ver en 2011 una historia que se asemeje a Superman Rojo o que al menos, se base en parte en su relato? A sentarnos y esperar...

Just as I predicted in my column the other day, it appears that Warner Bros will say goodbye to director Bryan Singer and any plans he had for a sequel to his SUPERMAN RETURNS. According to comingsoon, the studio has laid out plans for their upcoming DC film schedule and the next man of steel movie will RE-INTRODUCE Superman... meaning there will be no sequel to Superman Returns. I’m not surprised as I believe that it will be much easier to re-energize the fan base with the promise of something totally fresh but I feel bad for actor, Brandon Routh, who did a good job in Singer’s movie. It’s also probably the only chance he will ever get to be a big name in Hollywood. There’s little doubt in my mind that the studio heads learned a lot by the huge success of THE DARK KNIGHT. Today’s fans want a little edge to their superheros and I believe that’s what we’ll get when the next film in the franchise eventually goes into production. While I like Superman Returns, despite its flaws, I’m happy Warner Bros is going in a new direction. It really has to if it wants Superman to be a really viable franchise going forward. DC films and Warner Bros also have plans for big screen versions of The Green Lantern and The Flash.

According to themovieblog website Paramount pictures will re-release its classic films, THE GODFATHER ONE & TWO, into theaters across the country sometime in September. Director Francis Ford Coppla has spent the last year and a half re-mastering the 35mm original prints of the two films and says they have never looked better. I just love the idea. Why studios don’t re-release other great movies in their libraries is sort of surprising since all they have to pay for is the cost of marketing. Actually, after George Lucas re-released STAR WARS a few years back with a few digital corrections and the film grossed over a 100 million, I really thought it might develop into a trend. With all the garbage the studios dumps into theaters in January, February, September and October, I really think they should explore this idea more. I know I would like it and don’t think I would be alone!

Fox’s new comedy THE ROCKER, starring Rain Wilson (The office), bombed in its first day of release Wednesday. It grossed an anemic five hundred and seventy seven thousand dollars, placing tenth of all films currently in release. Link to Box-Office

However, I don't think this is the solution for them. Honestly, Batman is their darkest character (aside from their Vertigo titles) and he's still not as dark as he could be. Adopting Marvel's strategy is a good idea... as long as they stick with keeping the same actors in the roles of the characters they are playing. Rather than making all the characters dark though, they should portray the character as they were meant to be portrayed. For Superman, I would introduce him much like they introduced Batman in Batman Begins with flashbacks shown between an present storyline. Instead of making him dark though, I would show him as someone who has grown to love humanity with an overwhelming desire to protect it. Superman Returns really just portrayed him as a two dimensional character who could do neat stuff. Oh, and could we get someone for him to pound on? And, while I like Jonathan and Ryan Nolan's scripts for the Batman films, I would make them darker still and invite either Frank Miller or Allen Moore to write the third one. What about this title: "The Goddamn Batman?"

The Registration for the San Diego Comic-Con 2009 is open. Tickets are available here.

The release of the upcoming Watchmen movie is in danger, due to a copyright infringement. Apparently Fox had the rights for the Watchmen franchise at the moment that WB decided to do the movie and now they want a piece of the big cheese. Read all about it here.

After the mediocre Superman Returns movie, Warner Bros. plans to once again reboot the franchise in the hopes of riding the success wave of The Dark Knight. More here.

For all of you who can't wait until the Fall TV season starts we have found a preview into Smallville's next season: Reinventing Smallvile with Slavkin & Swimmer.

And finally, the new Lucasarts game Star Wars: The Force Unleashed gets its own comicbook.

Following months of rumors, Warner Bros honcho Jeff Robinov has finally confirmed that Bryan Singer's Superman Returns sequel has been cancelled, and that the company is now planning to relaunch the franchise...again. The Wall Street Journal has the details:

“Superman [Returns] didn’t quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to,” said Robinov. “It didn’t position the character the way he needed to be positioned. Had Superman worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009. But now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman without regard to a Batman and Superman movie at all.”

Robinov goes on to say that Warner is hoping to have eleven big movies a year starting 2011, two of those based on DC Comics properties. No word on when we can expect the new Superman movie and who will be involved, but annoucements should be made within a month or so. Also, following The Dark Knight's mega success, they're looking to make Superman (and possibly other superheroes) darker.

I thought Superman Returns (which took a freaking 13 years to see the light) was a decent movie, but it was still somewhat disappointing and did have its share of silly (*cough*Superkid*cough*). It's too bad that Singer and team won't get to follow through with their vision, but in Caesar's words alea jacta est. As a Superman fan, all I can hope is that they get the franchise on its feet. Earlier in the year, Wanted creator Mark Millar has expressed interest in rebooting the franchise, though Warner will probably want to look at several pitches before taking a decision.

What I really wonder is what this means for Brandon Routh? Logically, if they want to sever ties with Superman Returns, Warner will have to let him go, which is a shame since he was simply perfect casting. If a new actor has to be found, could Tom Welling be a possibility? With Smallville's forthcoming eight season rumored to be its last, the new Superman film franchise could follow-up. I'm convinced this could be very interesting, what do you think?

Source

Warner Brothers has, in so many words, finally announced today plans to reboot the Superman franchise completely - meaning a sequel to Bryan Singer's Superman Returns has most likely been scrapped, instead  (hopefully) initiating an entire reboot/re-imagination of the franchise ala Batman Begins...

.

As a quasi-sequel/homage to the original Richard Donner Superman films (starring Christopher Reeve), I enjoyed Superman Returns for what it was - an emo, introspective, supervillian-less look at the character and what he may or may not mean to our present-day world.  It was well made, beautifully shot, and featured what I thought to be a phenomenal score (or expansion of John Williams' score, rather) from composer/editor John Ottman.  Though, by film's end - and echoing the Daily Planet article by Lois Lane, - we ultimately discovered exactly "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman."  At least Bryan Singer's version of him.  In many ways, Superman Returns felt like a bunch of kids playing dress-up, re-enacting the original '75 Donner film with a slightly modern twist.  Kate Bosworth's Lois Lane, though decently-acted, was much too Young, the "updated" Superman threads, filled out by a Christopher Reeve-mimicking Brandouth Routh (though still great in the part) were somewhat laughable, and Singer and co definitely painted themselves into a corner with the whole "super-kid" thing.  For an audience ready to look forward to what the king of superheros could truly be (via today's story telling and technology), Superman Returns was nothing more than a retrospective look back at what had already come.  It re-introduced the original Donner films to a new audience, rather than the character of Superman himself.

It appears as if Warner Brothers has finally realized their misstep and is ready to completely re-imagine the Superman franchise. From an extensive article in today's Wall Street Journal (covering Warner Brothers' tentative plans for all DC comic characters), President Jeff Robinov had this to say about a possible new Superman franchise...

.

With "Batman vs. Superman" and "Justice League" stalled, Warner Bros. has quietly adopted Marvel's model of releasing a single film for each character, and then using those movies and their sequels to build up to a multicharacter film. "Along those lines, we have been developing every DC character that we own," Mr. Robinov says.

Like the recent Batman sequel -- which has become the highest-grossing film of the year thus far -- Mr. Robinov wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as "The Dark Knight." Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.' DC properties. "We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," he says. That goes for the company's Superman franchise as well.

The studio is set to announce its plans for future DC movies in the next month. For now, though, it is focused on releasing four comic-book films in the next three years, including a third Batman film, a new film reintroducing Superman, and two movies focusing on other DC Comics characters. Movies featuring Green Lantern, Flash, Green Arrow, and Wonder Woman are all in active development.

.

From what I'm hearing, if Brayn Singer wants to be a part of reintroducing the character, he'll definitely be considered. However, I'm betting they'll most likely go with a completely new team, and probably even recast Superman himself.  As for the other prominent DC properties mentioned, if I had to take an educated guess at release dates, here's what we're tentatively looking at (including Marvel's upcoming slate for comparison):

.

SUMMER 2009:

- X-Men Origins: Wolverine (May 1) - MARVEL

.

SUMMER 2010:

- Iron Man 2 (April 30) - MARVEL

- The Green Hornet (June 25) - NEITHER

- Superman (reintroduction/re-imagination) - DC/WB

- Wonder Woman - DC/WB

.

SUMMER 2011:

- The First Avenger: Captain America (May 6) - MARVEL

- The Avengers (July) - MARVEL

- The Dark Knight Sequel (July) - DC/WB

- Green Lantern - DC/WB

.

SUMMER 2012:

- Spider-Man 4 (though, possibly much earlier) - MARVEL

.

Again, if there's no date next to the title, it's anyone's guess. We should have a much better idea in September when Warner Brothers will (apparently) announce their upcoming DC slate, much like Marvel did after the release of Iron Man last May...

.

.

.

This time around Warner Bros. Pictures Group President "...wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as 'The Dark Knight.' Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.' DC properties."-comingsoon.net. By "DC properties" I think he meant making a good plot for the movie ;) (You know like Marvel movies do except for that horrible horrible X-Men 3 movie where Cyclops got killed in the first 30 seconds for no good reason besides the fact that Brett Ratner wanted him to. I betcha Bryan Singer wishes he didn't drop it to make Superman Returns now, but I digress.) How the heck do you show Superman as evil?
I'm betting they're gonna:

A. Copycat The Dark Knight by killing off the love interest Louis Lane
B. Find some red Kryptonite like in Smallville and make sure it gets stuck in him somehow

Wasn't Superman emo enough in Superman Returns? I guess not. I'm gonna look for some Kryptonite razor blades to give them so he can go cut himself to make the movie better this time around.

It's dead.

Goodbye, Brian Singer's Superman, and good riddance. The best riddance, in fact.

There's going to be another Superman movie.

And it's going to be a reboot.

Which is awesome news for me, because I think that Superman Returns is not just the worst Superman movie ever, but one of the worst films of ANY kind ever.

You can review my review here.

Here's the article bearing the good news:

The Wall Street Journal: Warner Bets on Fewer, Bigger Movies

First relevant passage:

"'Superman' didn't quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to," says Mr. Robinov. "It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned." "Had 'Superman' worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009," he adds. "But now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman without regard to a Batman and Superman movie at all."

(Mr. Rubinov is Warner Bros. Pictures Group President Jeff Robinov.)

Second relevant passage:

The studio is set to announce its plans for future DC movies in the next month. For now, though, it is focused on releasing four comic-book films in the next three years, including a third Batman film, a new film reintroducing Superman, and two movies focusing on other DC Comics characters. Movies featuring Green Lantern, Flash, Green Arrow, and Wonder Woman are all in active development.

Life is very, very good.

I do, however, feel bad for poor Brandon Routh, who went above and beyond the call of duty to deliver the best Superman he possibly could given the film's despicable script and pathetic story.

Brandon recalled all the best elements of Christopher Reeve's Superman while giving it his own spin.

Unfortunately, it's difficult to be heroic when your direction is like this:

"Okay, Brandon, in this scene, you're trying to seduce Lois on the roof of the Daily Planet because you ran away from Earth for five years without telling anybody, to find the planet that you knew was gone anyway, and you didn't just buy a telescope, and you didn't tell Lois goodbye because you thought it would be too hard to say goodbye, which was selfish because look what it did to Lois, but that doesn't matter to you, and you know she's engaged, and that she has a kid who's exactly old enough to be yours from before you left, and it is your kid, but you don't care about that, and you don't care about the good man she's engaged to who thinks the kid is his, because she's a lying whore who's allowed him to believe that, and you just want to get into her sexy, sexy pants, and don't exert yourself too much in this scene because later we have to film the part where you're a creepy weirdo who talks to the kid while he's sleeping, and ... ACTION!"

See what I mean?

Brandon, you were an awesome Superman and you did the best you could given the circumstances. Thank you for the hard work you did.

It's time to cast Jim Caviezel as Superman.

Superman should be a man, not a teenager. If you want to see a young, inexperienced Superman, that's what Smallville is for.

I want to see a Superman movie where SuperMAN is doing SuperMAN things.

Get Carla Gugino as Lois Lane, Clive Owen as General Zod, Carrie Anne Moss as Ursa, and Michael Clarke Duncan as Non, and then have Geoff Johns write a new take on his Superman: Last Son story that just came out in a lovely hardcover edition.

Or whatever.

As long as it's a good story.

The real trick is going to be making a movie that's infinitely better than Returns, rather than just crapping out another one that's just as bad in a different kind of way.

They need to find writers and a director who will respect and understand Superman as deeply, as completely and as capably as Christopher Nolan respects and understands Batman.

Bring it on.

Before I can get into what's wrong with the current Superman franchise, I need to give some background on the older anthology to indicate where the problem lies.  So first, the "original 4":

In 1978, Richard Donner directed a film and a half(Superman The Movie, and 1/2 of Superman II), that took the "comic book movie" genre and made it matter to the rest of the world.  1978's Superman the Movie did that and a good bit of other things.  It showed people who didn't read comic books who Superman was, created a national sensation, and and piqued the studios interest that made other franchises appear lucrative to them.  Christopher Reeve became a star virtually overnight, and was affiliated with the role his entire life.

Naturally, the success of the movie warranted a sequel.  It was a good sequel, some even say it is better than the first.  Superman II humanized Superman, and was a direct follow up of the events happening in Superman the Movie.  It had all of the things that the first effort had: action, a good story, good villains, and good music.  They should have stopped with the franchise there for a little while.

Superman III and IV were not only  box office failures, there were a disasters of movies.  They are both so bad, I'm not sure which one is worse.  I will put it to you this way, I know a good bit of Superman fanatics.  I do not know one of whom will look at me and tell me that Superman III or IV are good movies.  They simply had terrible story lines, weren't directed well, and overall lacked the magic of the first two.  Even the posters need work.

With the basic understanding of the original 4, I can now delve into the problem with Superman Returns and the state of the current franchise.

With 2006's Superman Returns, the goal was to create a Superman for the new century that would generate box office revenue, but would also revitalize the franchise to demand more sequels.  Warner Brothers hired Brian Singer, fresh off success with X-Men and X-Men 2, who had a very unique approach and idea for the series.  Unfortunately, it is within this idea that the movie suffered.  Singer, a long time fan of the Superman movie series, never liked Superman III or IV.  He decided to come up with a script that called for those movies not to exist in the Superman canon.  His idea was that Superman, the same character of the original movie and its sequel, to go away for awhile to "find himself" then return to save the day.

This is too much for the normal audience viewer to assume.  So, Superman I and II happened, but III and IV didn't?  How could the studios ever go for something like this?  Don't get me wrong, Superman Returns is a very good movie.  It is just not a necessary one.  Brandon Routh was perfect as The Man of Steel.  Kevin Spacey was pretty good as Lex Luthor.  Kate Bosworth?  I'm not too sure about that one, but the movie itself worked.(given as to what we are supposed to assume)

Its hard to look back and say, we should of done this or that...  But let's do that. What the studio should have done is a good old fashioned reboot a la Batman Begins or Casino Royale. Both these movies were very successful and ignited the franchise fire that is apparent with The Dark Knight and the upcoming Quantum of Solace. There would be nothing for the audience to have to understand before the movie, everything would be fresh. This movie, being about a superhero, would naturally have great action sequences, and a storyline that could somehow connect to viewers both new and old.

It's actually not too late to do a reboot.  There are some studio talks of that nature.  Marvel's done it twice:  2003's Hulk and 2008's The Incredible Hulk.  The Punisher(2004) and The Punisher: War Zone(2008).  Singer has said and is contracted to do another one, if they will let him.  The questions are: Will it be a sequel of Superman Returns?  Will it have more action?  Will they let him reboot the series again? Will it be any good?

Updated: August 25th, 2008:  Looks like the studio has indeed decided to reboot the series and try to make it more "realistic".  Look for a new Superman movie in 2010 or possibly 2011.

La Warner y Bryan Singer están al borde de iniciar una confrontación por la realización de la secuela de la espantosa (ok, no tan espantosa, pero mala de todas formas) Superman Returns, la cual se titularía Superman: Man of Steel. Por todos es sabido los problemas en cuanto a recaudación que tuvo este film, además de las críticas de los fans, a quienes no les gustó la historia presentada por Singer y compañía. De acuerdo a lo indicado anteriormente por el director, su plan es hacer una cinta mucho más oscura y retratar a un Superman maduro, lo cual a muchos les gustaría, sino fuera porque se trata de una secuela a una película bastante sosa como la anterior. Según lo comentado por Variety, el estudio estaría ahora dispuesto a reiniciar la franquicia desde 0 y se encuentran en busca de un director que pueda tomar las riendas de la producción, lo cual significaría dejar de lado a Singer y, por ende, pagarle una indemnización. Sin embargo, las riendas aún las tiene Singer y en el estudio indican que no tienen problemas que el haga la siguiente película, siempre y cuando tome en consideración todos los requerimientos de la Warner. En definitiva, ¿habrá secuela de Superman Returns?, ¿la historia comenzará de nuevo? o ¿veremos a Mark Millar cumplir lo que había prometido en Julio?, es decir, contar con un director estadounidense de primera línea para llevar a cabo su visión del Hombre de Acero. Habrá que sentarse a esperar.

Ya, we'll hear something again next week.  But for this week we get something new from the Superman brain game.  Here's this bit of sweet pie pimple juice thanks to Mania via Variety:

They too believe that the last movie didn't break the mold and wound up in some kind of middle limbo. Today I was told that it is a priority at the studio to find the right direction and if Bryan Singer is willing to do that, fine, but if he gets in the way, he may not stay on the project. There are no writers working on a Superman script now. The studio wants to figure it out. "It might be better to start from scratch," one exec admitted.

Director Singer has confirmed a few times over the past year that now that the character has been reintroduced, audiences can expect more action in his sequel and executives have been confirmed as saying they want more action in the upcoming sequel as well. This latest introduction into the ongoing struggle between Superman and development hell suggests that all may not be well in the world of the man of steel for Warner Bros.

Here's what I think, and my thoughts rule.  Give the job to Kevin Smith.  He was originally slated to write Superman way before Bryan Singer was involved and he even wrote a script and showed it to the producer.  I get the feeling that we may see this happen again.  In fact  REIGNERS - Do you think that if the on again, off again thing could butcher the next Superman?  Add to that, do you think that this may be in the same category as the Hulk is?  Ang Lee's vs. Louis Letterier's?  Let a brotha know.

What a mess. I think I hear Alan Moore chuckling somewhere off in the distance...

-------
-------

Sin embargo, todos las ganas de ver esta interesante propuesta se fue a pique cuando sin ninguna razón en especial el proyecto fue dejado en el aire. Una pena para todos los que nos habíamos entusiasmado con ver dos de nuestros  superheroés, que luchan contra el mal, librar una interesante batalla entre ellos mismos.

Pero no todo ha sido malo. El reciente estreno de la película, ''Batman: The Dark Knight'', ha sido respaldada por la crítica y ha sido excelente para los que ya hemos tenido la oportunidad de verla, e incluso contó con la actuación magistral de fenecido actor, Heath Ledger, y se une a los éxitos cosechados por ''Batman Begins'' y ''Superman Returns'', esta última un poco más discreta en taquilla y en crítica que las dos anteriores. Además, en una escena de la película ''I'm a Legend'' de Will Smith, podemos observar un póster con la imagen de Batman Vs. Superman utilizados en los cómics en un Times Square vacío e incluso con una supuesta fecha de estreno: 15 de mayo, 2010. Esto despierta aquel deseo de años atrás, aunque los ejecutivos de Warner Bros. (quienes poseen los derechos de ambos personajes), han dicho que no tiene ningún sentido en particular. Aunque, considero que viene como respuesta al éxito que está teniendo Marvel Cómics (rival #1 de DC), en taquilla con el estreno reciente de ''Ironman'' y ''The Incredible Hulk''. Incluso, Marvel tiene planes de estrenar en 2011, "The Avengers'', que es una especie de ''Justice League of America'', y para esto tiene en marcha nuevos proyectos como: ''El Capitán América'', ''Thor'' y ''El Hombre Hormiga'' , a estrenarse antes del 2011.

Ahora bien esta información es solo una pequeña introducción de lo que de verdad trata este post, que nace a raíz de las múltiples comparaciones que se han hecho entre ambos personajes, tratando de situar cuál de los dos es el mejor: ¿El Hombre de Hierro o El Hombre Murciégalo? Veamos.

Personalmente, si tuviera que elegir entre ambos elegiría a Batman por razones que explicaré más adelante, sin embargo, superficialmente Superman lleva una ligera ventaja en el público en especial entre los más pequeños por ser un personaje popular en su medio y con un gran carisma. A continuación presento algunas comparaciones idóneas entre ambos personajes:

1. Niñez: Superman, cuyo verdadero nombre es Kal-El y posteriormente, Clark Kent, en nuestro planeta, proviene de un planeta llamado Kriptón, que cuando estuvo a punto de destruirse sus padres lo mandan a través de una nave espacial a La Tierra, donde lo encuentran dos granjeros que llevan una vida muy humilde: Jonathan y Marta Kent, quienes después de adoptarlo legalmente los educan como hijo propio, en una granja en pueblo llamado Smallville. Por otra lado, la niñez de Batman fue algo más complicada, porque a pesar de que ambos pierden a sus padres biologicos dramáticamente, Superman adopta como sus padres a los Kent, a pesar de saber de dónde viene. Continuando con Batman, cuya verdadera identidad es Bruce Wayne, es hijo de Thomas Wayne, un destacado adinerado de Gothic City, que con buenas obras trata de persuadir a los demás ricos de dicha ciudad a hacer un esfuerzo para erradicar la pobreza y vivir en un lugar más equilibrado. Su intento falla, cuando es asesinado en el callejón de un teatro junto a su esposa delante de Bruce.

• Diferencias: Bruce tuvo una niñez triste y solitaria, y se fueron desarrollando en él durante su crecimiento sentimientos como la venganza, el rencor, el odio (nada saludable) siendo un niño, acompañado de su mayordomo, Alfred, que funge en él como su tutor y mejor amigo y la persona que le inteta guíar por el camino del bien, mientras que , Clark fue perfectamente educado con valores como la bondad, la humildad y solidaridad con lo demás, además con todo el amor y la compresión de sus padres.
  Por otro lado vemos que ambas historias se desarrollan en lugares totalmente diferentes: Smallville o Villa Chica es un pequeño pueblo que refleja la paz y la tranquilidad de los típicos pueblos norteamericanos, mientras que Gothic City o Ciudad Gótica refleja el avance tecnológico y el poder económico de las grandes ciudades desarrolladas de Estados Unidos, como explicare más adelante.

• Similitudes: La únicas similitudes que existen a mi entender son: la pérdida de sus padres biológicos y que, auque es irrelevante por eso no lo mencioné anteriormente,  el primer amor de cada uno, son amigas de sus infancias como Lana Lang, por parte de Superman y Rachel Daws por Batman. Además estos amores no fueron fructíferos debido al deber de ambos.

2. Nacimiento del Héroe y superpoderes: Mientras Clark va creciendo descubre poco a poco sus superpoderes como: volar, superfuerza, visión microscópica  de rayos x y láser, superoído, velocidad y  aliento. Otro atributo que no descubre pero que está presente es la inmortalidad. Cuando se convierte en adulto, decide mudarse a Metrópolis para estudiar en la Universidad y consigue un trabajo como reportero en el Daily Planet. A su vez, se da cuenta del bien que puede hacer a la sociedad utilizando sus poderes para erradicar el mal y el crimen y se convierte en Superman, y es adorado por toda Metrópolis como una especie de guardián y salvador. Luego se enamora profundamente de Lois Lane, viviendo una especie de otro amor imposible.
Por otro lado, existen diferentes versiones de la juventud y la conversión de Bruce en Batman. La más popular hasta ahora es la que se presenta en ''Batman Begins'', donde Bruce realiza un viaje al exterior para entrenarse y luego convertirse en una leyenda, un símbolo, un vigilante que trataría de erradicar el crimen y el mal de Ciudad Gótica y vengar la muerte de sus padres. Regresa luego de 7 años asumiendo la doble identidad de Batman y como no tiene ningún poder en especial, se vale de la ciencia y la tecnología para derrotar a sus enemigos.

• Diferencias: Evidentemente la diferencia principal es que Batman no cuenta con ningún superpoder, es decir es un ser humano común que por medio de su poder económico como Bruce Wayne, puede valerse clandestinamente de armas y utensilios de última generación. Por otro lado Superman surge como una necesidad y con la buena intención de hacer el bien, por esto es idolatrado y amado por todos los habitantes de Metrópolis, Batman es todo lo contrario. Su origen es por sentimientos negativos, a pesar de que estos son los que le dan la fuerza necesaria para luchar contra el mal. Otro aspecto importante es la pareja de cada uno. Superman está profundamente enamorado de Lois, y por esta identidad tiene una especie de romance con ella. Batman, el pobre, no puede aferrarse a ninguna compañía amorosa, por que no tiene tiempo y no puede poner en el peligro a otros seres amados.
  Por tanto es común ver un desfile de diferentes mujeres a su lado, periódicamente. Clark representa la fidelidad, la inocencia y la humildad; Bruce representa el poder, el dinero y la chulería. Hasta aquí pueden deducir que las personalidades de uno y otro tienen una diferencia abismal.

• Similitudes: Ambos utilizan sus habilidades para el bien de la sociedad y darían su vida por algún ser querido si la situación lo amerita. Además hay un punto que muy pocos analizan y es la inmortalidad de ambos. Sí, Batman también es inmortal. Miren por qué. Si bien Superman es inmortal biológicamente, Batman lo es por ser un héroe que nunca revela su identidad, es decir, está acompañado de una máscara, por tanto si por alguna razón Bruce no puede seguir, podría entregarle a un aprendiz o alguien de confianza su legado, y así revalidar el personaje hasta el final de los tiempos.
  En la serie animada Batman Beyond, vemos a un Bruce Wayne que no puede seguir luchando ante el crimen debido a su edad, y elige al hijo de un empleado de Wayne Enterprises, otorgándole un traje de última generación y lo acompaña en que cada una de sus aventuras desde la Bati-cueva.

3. Ambiente dónde se desarrolla la trama: El ambiente donde Batman se desenvuelve ha sido mejor trabajado que el de Superman. Ciudad Gótica es una mezcla de las ciudades norteamericanas: Nueva York, Chicago y San Francisco. Digo Nueva York, por el tamaño de sus edificios, la forma de vida de la ciudad y el perímetro de la misma. Debido al sistema de tren exterior, numerosos puentes, el clima frío, llover constantemente y la relación con la mafia de los años 30, Ciudad Gótica toma también un pedazo de Chicago. De hecho gran parte de ''The Dark Knight'' , se filmó en dicha locación. Por último la existencia de la Isla donde se encuentra la prisión de máxima seguridad donde son enviados los criminales atrapados por Batman, tiene una increíble similitud en lo que a mi concierne con Alcatraz, la prisión de máxima seguridad de los Estados Unidos durante los 60s, en una isla de la costa de la ciudad de San Francisco. Además, la mayor parte de la trama se desarrolla en un ambiente oscuro y tenebroso, acorde con lo que Batman significa. Mientras que Metrópolis es puramente la ciudad de Nueva York. La mayor parte de la trama se desarrolla de día (recordemos que los poderes de Superman provienen de la energía del sol), y el oficio de Superman está más bien inclinado a rescatar aviones que se caen, salvar a personas de accidentes de tránsito o incluso un desastre biológico en el Océano.

• Conclusión: Ciudad Gótica es un ambiente mucho mejor elaborado que Metrópolis.

4. Disfraces y utensilios: Creo que en este aspecto Batman también lleva la delantera. Éste utiliza un traje a base de fibras arámidas, que son fibras sintéticas de gran resistencia, en especial al calor. Este traje es antibalas y resiste el fuego. Está compuesto por guantes y botas, una máscara de granito y una capa que sirve como paracaídas. En el pecho lleva la figura de un murciélago. El murciélago es el símbolo elegido por Bruce, porque les tiene miedo desde cuando era un niño. Sin embargo, el centro del traje es el cinturón, que posee un sinnúmero de armas y cuelga las famosas pistolas que expulsan un cable que lo permiten llevar de lugar en lugar. El traje es completamente negro, y el cinturón dorado. Los utensilios son variados: El famoso Batimóvil (estuvo genial en las dos últimas películas, siendo rediseñado totalmente) , el Batpod (motocicleta) y la Batinave. En otras ediciones se conoce también el Batibote, aunque éste es menos popular. Recuerden que Batman al no tener ningún superpoder debe valerse de todos estos utensilios para realizar su labor.
Del otro lado de la moneda está Superman, que no utiliza más que un traje de malla azul, unos calzoncillos, capa y botas rojas, con el símbolo de la S, en el pecho y un peinado diferente para distinguirse de Clark, que tiene apariencia de nerd con lentes. La verdad es increíble como todavía no lo descubren (irónico). Los únicos utensilios que se conocen de Superman son: su nave, un traje espacial y un traje especial de titanio, que hace que esté resista a la Kriptónita.

• Diferencias: Superman llevas los colores de la bandera de los Estados Unidos, y es asociado como un héroe nacional, no necesita absolutamente ningún utensilio, sin embargo tiene una apariencia un tanto ridícula, a pesar de que en ''Superman Returns'', se logró un gran avance. Batman, puede resultar un tanto ridículo para algunos, pero en realidad cada detalle de su apariencia ha sido muy bien cuidada, de igual manera el traje es completamente negro a diferencia de Superman. La diferencia más notable es la utilización de una máscara por Batman, lo que le quita popularidad entre los habitantes, ya que muchos se preguntan: ¿Cuál es su verdadera identidad?.
  Con Superman no sucede lo mismo ya que asumimos que no tiene otra identidad, porque no se esconde detrás de una máscara.

• Similitudes: En ocasiones Superman necesita valerse de utensilios especiales, y ambos utilizan un disfraz que refleja lo que son, y dejan plasmados sus ideales visualmente.

5. Némesis, debilidades y guaridas: Joker o Lex Luthor, ¿Cuál de los dos inspira más terror? Aquí es donde se marca una diferencia total entre ambas historias. El Joker es un ser despiadado y es un criminal por gusto, su cara está cubierta por un maquillaje de payaso que resulta ser un tanto tenebroso, además de un traje verde con morado. En lo personal creo que es uno de los villanos más elaborados.
Por otro lado está Lex Luthor. Un multimillonario empresario y científico cuyo deseo principal es derrotar a Superman y apoderarse del mundo. Existen diferentes versiones de este personaje que van desde un científico loco hasta el mismísimo Presidente de Los Estados Unidos, aunque eso sí la inconfundible calvicie que le da un toque especial. En algunas ediciones hemos visto la unión del Joker con Luthor para derrotar a Batman y a Superman. Podemos apreciar una interesante química entre ambos y estoy seguro que es la asociación de villanos más poderosa del universo de los cómics. En lo personal el Joker le lleva la ventaja a Luthor, por ser un villano sin razón, por su maquillaje, por su traje y por su malévola risa,  esto sumado a las actuaciones espectaculares de Jack Nicholson y Heath Ledger (Jokers) en la pantalla grande, superiores a la de Gene Hackman y Kevin Spacey (no me gustó para nada) como Lex Luthor.

Por el lado de las debilidades, Batman no posee ninguna debilidad en particular, más que la mortalidad misma, es decir, al ser un ser humano común y corriente puede morir. La única debilidad existente de Superman es la Kriptónita Verde, la cuál le ocasiona un daño terrible que puede producirle incluso la muerte y la menos conocida Kriptónita Roja que altera su personalidad, convirtiéndole en un ser despiadado y sin control.

Por último las guaridas o refugios de cada uno. Aunque un tanto menos popular que la famosa Bati-Cueva, Superman posee un refugio en el Polo Norte, que es una especie de cueva de hielo con vigas de cristal y se accede a ella por debajo de la Superficie (sumergiéndose dentro del agua). Allí Superman tiene acceso a la memoria de su padre, Jor-El. La cueva de Batman es mucho más conocida. Se encuentra debajo de la Mansión Wayne y desde allí monitorea toda Ciudad Gótica. Aquí no tengo ningún favoritismo en particular.

6. Informaciones Extras:

• Compañeros: Robin y Batichica (Batman), Superchica (Superman)

• Otros Villanos: Darkseid y Bizarro (Superman). Dos Caras y El Acertijo (Batman)

• Aliados: La Mujer Maravilla, Literna Verde, Flash, etc.

• Año de Creación: Superman (1932)
  Batman (1939)
  

Espero que estas informaciones cambien un poco la perspectiva y los ayude a profundizar en el universo de ambos personajes y escoger su favorito. Sin lugar a dudas, me quedó con Batman, por su realismo, su drama y la cara de la moneda que representa, un Heroé que no es heroé, que no es popular, que no es querido, pero lo sigue siendo, porque lo necesitan y porque así estaba escrito.

Por: Javier Cabral