Note: I'm not including the Star Wars prequels here, because the big letdown was The Phantom Menace in 1999. After that, the other two movies couldn't really be letdowns.

The Dark Knight Strikes Again. This was the moment we realized Frank Miller wasn't really Frank Miller any more. He agreed to do the long-awaited sequel to his most famous and groundbreaking graphic novels, the story that redefined Batman for a generation — and he turned in a bland caricature of his earlier brilliance. You can complain all you want about the assitude of All-Star Batman And Robin and The Spirit, but TDKSA was the start of the hackery. Worst moment: When the Joker turns out to be the much-abused Dick Grayson, and Bats kills him without a second thought.

Fox's Reign Of Terror. Firefly should have been one of the great success stories of the 2000s. It's hard to remember now how invincible Joss Whedon seemed going into Firefly — with two hit shows under his belt, he was the writer of several huge movies. And now he was bringing his patented mixture of rollicking adventure and twisted artiness to a space opera. Sure, Firefly's "Cowboys in Space" thing may have confused people at first, but the show really does sell itself, after just a few minutes' viewing, thanks to vivid characters. The failure of the TV show didn't just damage Joss Whedon's career — it damaged media SF as a whole, helping to push us towards canned remakes and reboots. And Firefly's demise was just the first of a trail of broken dreams and disappointments, culminating in the cancellation of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles and the burial of the promising Virtuality.

NASA and the space program. The decade did hold some great achievements for NASA, including the Mars rovers and some probes traveling outwards into the solar system. But it's hard not to feel a bit crushed by the fact that NASA is retiring its fleet of space shuttles without having a replacement lined up. We're going to have to hitch a ride with the Russians from here on out, and it feels a bit, well, disappointing. Especially with science-fiction promising us that this is our time to explore the solar system and beyond it, the stars themselves.

Ang Lee's Hulk. Before this movie came out, I would have sworn that Ang Lee never made a bad film. His track record included arthouse sensations like The Wedding Banquet, The Ice Storm and Sense And Sensibility, but also the brilliant actioner Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. He was also perhaps the most artsy director to take on a superhero icon to date (no offense, Tim Burton). There was every reason to believe Hulk would be both epic and heartfelt — but instead, we got gamma-irradiated poodles, daddy issues and a Hulk who sulked. We probably won't ever get a really great Hulk movie now, after two failures, which sucks. The Hulk deserves a proper outing, in which he fights monsters and marauders and crushes buildings. The Hulk needs to discover that he's not the worst monster in his world, and have larger-than-life adventures. Ang Lee just wasn't capable of giving that to us.

The Matrix sequels. This seems like a no-brainer in retrospect, but maybe you need cyber-Colonel Sanders to take you back and explain to you how much we were all looking forward to The Matrix 2 & 3. Ten years ago, The Matrix was the freshest thing to come out in ages, despite playing on ideas that books had explored for years. Its blend of fetish and noir and cyberpunk and Hong Kong action felt viciously original. And there were just so many ideas for the sequels to explore, so many mysteries about the machine world to uncover. And then... we just sort of descended into muddle. And long rave scenes. And blind Jesus. Walking out of The Matrix Reloaded, I remember someone turning to me and saying, "Well, that wasn't even the best powerpoint presentation I've sat through lately."

Identity Crisis and Infinite Crisis. DC Comics' biggest "event" storylines of the mid-2000s seemed to be groping towards a more adult, more flawed view of their major superheroes, with some of comics' most talent writers on board. But they overshot, landing in angstville and bombarding us with retcons that rewrote the "Satellite era" of the Justice League. As if in an attempt to capture the cachet of Alan Moore's Batman: The Killing Joke two decades earlier, these stories gave us female heroes being raped or abused, and turning into murderers. And Batman saying to Superman, "The last time you inspired anyone was when you died." The melodrama was thicker than the walls of Superman's Fortress of Solitude, and yet when it was all over, it was hard to understand what any of it had been about. The superheroes were closer to a bickering family (calling each other by their first names all the time) and the threats they faced seemed more existential and less external.

Superman Returns. There were a slew of other disappointing superhero movies in the past decade — but mostly you knew going into them that they were going to be ass. Who really thought Brett Ratner would make a good X-Men movie? Even Spider-Man 3 showed every sign of being ass-flavored long before it came out, despite Sam Raimi's involvement. But this film was Bryan Singer coming off two great X-Men films and The Usual Suspects, and he was doing the gutsy move of making it a sequel to the two Donner movies instead of going for the standard-issue reboot. Singer doing Donner — how could it be bad? Uh. Well, there's the part where he changed Clark Kent into Stalkerman. And then there's the Son Of Superman thing. But also, maybe, there's just the fact that the Donner movies were of a different era, and you can't bring that back.

Heroes seasons 2-4. Just imagine, for a moment, if this show had lived up to the promise of its first season. I know it's almost impossible to picture it, but just try. This mutant soap opera thrived on showing us the complications and craziness that come from secret super powers, against the backdrop of a sinister mutant-hunting conspiracy and a super-powered serial killer. But the show wrote checks it couldn't cash, including showing us Claire growing into her heroic destiny and Hiro becoming a future shaved-headed badass. Most of all, the show ducked out on its very title, opting to show us histrionics and family squabbles in place of actual heroism.

Watchmen. It was perhaps the greatest graphic novel of all time — almost certainly the greatest superhero comic of all time — lovingly recreated on screen by the ultimate OCD nerd. Every panel of the comic, recreated as concept art, then as storyboards, then as living, breathing people in costumes, surrounded by CG. Finally, a movie made by us for us. Except. The result, though lovely as anything, looked sort of lifeless once you took it out of the Smashing Pumpkins music-video trailers. The characters didn't quite live and breathe — especially Silk Spectre II, who needed to be the heart of the story. And the ending wasn't just missing a giant squid, or some other huge monstrosity to replace it — it was also lacking a certain coherence and urgency. Once people start talking about power signatures, it suddenly turns into an episode of Star Trek: Voyager. Maybe Watchmen could never have lived up to the book, but it could have been more thrilling than this, with a different Silk Spectre and a more thunderous ending.

Battlestar Galactica's big finale. I know that opinions will differ on this one — but just consider. BSG's finale was one of the most hyped things of recent years. We read endless interviews in which Edward James Olmos, Ron Moore and various others told us that the final episode would shake us to our very cores, and make us weep and smear paint and throw up on ourselves. Meanwhile, Syfy ran promos over and over again that said that "All Will Be Revealed," and I don't remember an asterisk leading to a disclaimer explaining that "All" in this context actually meant a limited number of things, not including how Starbuck came back from the dead or what the hell was up with the Opera House. Even if you think this was the most brilliant conclusion in history, you have to admit BSG promised too much.

Spider-Man 4:

Are we going to meet Peter Parker and Mary Jane's baby in the fourth movie? There's a casting call for a baby boy (aged two to three years) with red hair. (Actually, they want twins, so that they can keep filming and swap them out when one of the kids has to take a break. But it's almost certainly for just one kid.) A lot of fans are jumping to conclusions, assuming this means Spidey will have a kid — but as SpoilerTV points out, this could be a baby Cletus Kasady, who grows up to become Carnage. Or it could be any number of other things. All we really know is that they're starting to cast this movie, and apparently there's a red-headed kid in it. [SpoilerTV-Movies]

Superman Returns Again:

James McTeigue is still super-interested in directing the next Superman film, but sounds less certain that it'll ever happen. But he does offer one more hint of how he'd approach the Man of Steel: "It's ripe for a retconning." Whatever that means. [MTV]

Planet 51:

But screw all this superhero shit — you really want to know about this animated film, in which The Rock is an astronaut who lands on a 1950s planet where he's the alien invader. Right? Apparently in the movie, an alien teenager decides the only way to protect himself from an anal probe is by using a champagne cork. There's a cute Mars Rover robot named Rover (who probably doesn't say "Gadget Gadget," alas) and an alien Chihuahua shaped like the creature from Alien, and something quasi-hilarious happens when he pees.

When The Rock first lands, he hums "Thus Spake Zarathustra," and then realizes he's interrupted an alien barbecue in which all the 1950s aliens are dancing to old-time rock 'n' roll. Chuck (The Rock) says to himself that "Kennedy's going to freak" when they find out about "sea monkeys dancing to the oldies." Other classic SF movies referenced in this film include Plan 9 From Outer Space and E.T. [Kansas City.Com]

Lost:

A new and exciting twist on the "alternate universe where Flight 815 landed safely" concept: a dapper Sawyer was spotted filming a scene at the upscale Diamond Head restaurant, part of the Lotus hotel, and his lunch companion? Was Charlotte (Rebecca Mader) last seen dying on the island. [Hawaii Weblog]

Fringe:

Here are the first two minutes of this week's Observer-centric episode. Plus a new photo. [Fox]

And here's a new promo for the episode. [Fringe Television]

And a load of promo pictures from episode 2x09, "Snakehead." [SpoilerTV]

Supernatural:

Mark Pellegrino explains more about his approach to playing Lucifer and what's coming up:

As you know, the angels in the show can be, well, a—-holes. It is Lucifer who is kind and empathetic and truthful. So, play the "Prince of Lies" as the most sincere one of the bunch and you have a fresh take. But I have a feeling things are gonna change. Lucifer has a big chip on his shoulder and that can't be restrained for long... The proverbial crap is gonna fly. Hell, it's the apocalypse for crying out loud. Something's gotta give. If I tell you more than that I'll have to kill you.

[PopStar via SpoilerTV]

FlashForward:

Here are some promo pics from episode 10, "A561984". [SpoilerTV]

Assuming this show gets a second season, we'll see more of Mark Benford in season two — there will be new mysteries, but the second season is definitely a continuation of the first, says Jessica Goyer. [PopCorner.PL via FlashForward.PL]

Smallville:

Lois arrives in the future, in a new clip from Friday's episode:

Michael Shanks explains about his version of Hawkman, appearing February 5:

When we first meet Carter Hall he's in his museum. We'll learn he's a reincarnated prince from a thousand years ago. There is a reference to The Justice Society's time in the ‘70s, but we have since disbanded.

And apparently there's lots of flying and mace-swinging, but no bare chest — instead Hawkman has a weird bronze chestplate thingy. And here's a picture. (Full version at the link.) [TV Guide Magazine]

Stargate Universe:

But Shanks isn't just flying around Metropolis and giving Clark Kent advice — he's also a figment of Dr. Nicholas Rush's imagination in the upcoming Rush-centric episode "Human," in which we discover more about how he recruited Rush into the Stargate program. Shanks and Richard Dean Anderson also appear in the 18th episode, "Subversion." [Gateworld]

And here's a sneak peek at Friday's episode.

Heroes:

And here are five clips from the "Thanksgiving" episode. What are you thankful for? [The ODI]

Additional reporting by Josh C. Snyder.

I'll admit to liking the failed 2006 relaunch of the Superman franchise more than most people, but even I think it's definitely more flawed than it should be; overlong, lacking a show-stopping action set-piece and that whole Superman-as-stalker-and-Lois-is-married-this-can't-end-well thing was... ill-considered, to say the least. It's possible that a Director's Cut of the movie would uncover all manner of Singer's original intent and improve the thing, but what I find myself worrying about is the idea that what didn't work for me were the parts that were Singer's ideas (Superman-as-stalker-and-Lois-is-married, etc.), and any Director's Cut would make it worse. And so, I leave it to you, dear readers: What do you think about the idea of re-editing and re-releasing Superman Returns?

[Superman Returns: The Bryan Singer Cut]

MTV's Splash Page blog quotes Abrams, who wrote a screenplay for an unmade Superman movie years ago, as saying that he wouldn't necessarily say no if asked to return:

It was a very passionate character for me. As a kid growing up it meant a lot to me. It would be wonderful and fun to see that brought back. I don't know what Warners is thinking or what their plan is. It would be a blast.

This seems like a no-brainer for Warners, who are already facing the possibility of having to pay damages to the families of Superman's creators if they don't have another Superman movie in production by 2011. But does even that mean it's likely to happen?

J.J. Abrams Says Returning To Superman 'Would Be A Blast' [MTV Splash Page]

Talking during an appearance with director Kim Ji-woon at the Pusan International Film Festival in South Korea, Singer told the audience,

I'm still looking to possibly returning to the 'X-Men' franchise. I've been talking to Fox about it... I love Hugh Jackman. I love the cast.

While Singer has spoken before about his fondness for the X-Men, this is the first time he's confirmed rumors that he and Fox have discussed the possibility of his return. Another reason he wants to return to the franchise he helped launch, he says, is because of the opportunity it offers to make social commentary without the audience necessarily realizing it:

[I like to] trick audiences into thinking they're seeing fireworks, but they're learning about themselves and listening to what I have to say. The excitement about working in science fiction and fantasy is - the stories, if they are good, are about the human condition.

And if they're bad, they're X-Men Origins: Wolverine. We hope that Singer and Fox come to an arrangement that'd see him back with the students at Xavier's; it's really not been the same since he left.

Bryan Singer wants more 'X-Men' [Hollywood Reporter]

Here's a list of all the movies with production budgets of $170 million and over, for the past ten years. (We chose the threshold of $170 million because there were a ton of movies clustered around the $150 million-$160 million mark.) Movies that failed to make back their budget at the U.S. box office are underlined.

2009:

Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince: $250 million

Avatar: $237 million (according to AP)

Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen: $225 million (according to NY Post)

Terminator Salvation: $200 million

G.I. Joe: The Rise Of COBRA: $175 million

Up: $175 million

2008:

Quantum Of Solace: $230.6 million

Prince Caspian: $225.6 million

Iron Man: 186.5 million

Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull: $185.5 million

The Dark Knight: $185.5 million

Wall-E: $180.5 million

2007:

Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End: $317.4 million

Spider-Man 3: $272.9 million

The Golden Compass: His Dark Materials: $213.4 million

Rush Hour 3: $187.4 million

2006:

Superman Returns: $295.3 million

Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest: $223.1 million

X-Men: The Last Stand: $209.3 million

Poseidon: $171.3 million

2005:

King Kong: $232.5 million

Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion The Witch & The Wardrobe: $197.6 million

Sahara: $176.8 million

Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire: $150 million (2005 dollars)

2004:

Spider-Man 2: $232.2 million

Troy: $199.9 million

Van Helsing: $182.8 million

The Polar Express: $186.6 million

Alexander: $175.4 million

2003:

Terminator 3: $238.4 million

The Matrix: Reloaded: $176.7 million

Master And Commander: $175.6 million

The Matrix: Revolutions: $175.6 million

2000:

The Perfect Storm: $175.6 million

1999:

Wild Wild West: $221 million

The World Is Not Enough: $173.3 million

The 13th Warrior: $206.8 million

Notes: All figures are in 2009 dollars, adjusted for inflation. These figures are just production budgets, and are based on the most accurate figures we could find. They don't include marketing budgets. And of course, many of the films which failed to break even at the U.S. box office did make a profit when you factor in international box office.

Conclusions:

There hasn't been a movie as expensive as Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End since 2007, so you could argue that, over all, movies are not getting more expensive. However, after a few years where there were four mega-budgeted movies per year, the last two years have each seen six movies with budgets over $170 million (in inflation-adjusted dollars.) And as we mentioned above, this year had the most movies costing $200 million or more of any year, with next year likely to see even more films over $200 million.

And the listing above doesn't reflect this fact, but we also found a steep rise in the number of movies costing around $150 million every year — this seems to be the safe point for a film that is expected to do well, but may not be a blockbuster. Films like X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Batman Begins, Star Trek and many others all have production budgets in the magic $150 million zone.

At the same time, Hollywood seems slightly better at picking winners lately. We haven't had a year where most of the hugely expensive movies failed to make back their budget at the U.S. box office since 2004, when two historical epics, The Polar Expressand Van Helsing all bombed. Or 2003, when one of two Matrix sequels underperformed, along with Terminator 3 and Master And Commander.

One thing jumps out at me: There were apparently no budget busting movies in 2000, 2001 or 2002. Apparently the first X-Men movie, which came out in 2000, had a budget of only about $75 million. And the Star Wars prequels, hideous though they were, were apparently on the cheap side, costing around $120 million each (in non-adjusted dollars.)

Why would this be? Well, look at the three big-budget movies from 1999. Notice anything the three of them have in common? Hmmm... Other mega-expensive bombs in the late 1990s include Speed 2: Cruise Control, Lethal Weapon 4 and, of course, Waterworld. The only mega-budget movies to make money in the latter half of the 1990s were Armageddon and Titanic.

Sources: Know Your Money, Forbes.com, Listphobia, The Numbers, IMDB, Box Office Mojo, Wikipedia, and other sources as cited.

Diane Nelson, the president of the new DC Entertainment division, told MTV that Superman isn't anywhere on their current slate (aside from the already-existing Smallville):

We actually don't have any current plans for Superman... We've obviously done a lot of great things behind the property in our history, and it's a key part of the family, but we don't have current plans behind Superman.

This decision is probably based on DC/Warner's continually-eroding control on the rights to the character and concepts surrounding him as much as it is the relative lack of success of Superman Returns in 2006. But, while the judge in charge of the case surrounding Warners' claim to the character has said that the studio owns the movie rights for the next 21 years, Marc Toberoff - attorney to the heirs of co-creator Jerry Siegel - points out that the studio nevertheless has a deadline to spare itself from further legal action:

The Court pointedly ruled that if Warner Bros. does not start production on another Superman film by 2011, the Siegels will be able to sue to recover their damages.

Let's see how quickly DC Entertainment's "current plans" regarding the last son of Krypton change as we get closer to that date, shall we?

'We Don't Have Any Current Plans For Superman,' Says DC Entertainment President [MTV Splash Page]

We know, we know: the Hollywood development cycle is a slow, lumbering beast. It can take anywhere from a couple years (for a "fast-track" project) to a decade for a movie to see the light of day. But given how many people were saying, this time last year, that The Dark Knight had changed everything, you'd expect there to be at least some films in development, if not in pre-production or actually filming.

And there don't seem to be any movies in "the pipeline" that seem consciously influenced by TDK. Here are a few possible contenders:

• Super-Max. Written by TDK co-writer David S. Goyer, this film has obvious elements in common with Knight. From the scraps we've gleaned, it's about the snotty trust-fund superhero Green Arrow, who gets sent to prison, probably for a crime he didn't commit. And he has to escape from the world's toughest, most advanced prison by teaming up with a host of DC Comics supervillains. Gritty dark action? Check. Moral ambiguity? Check. Heroes who cross the line? Pretty much. Too bad that every time we hear about this film, it sounds more and more like it's stuck in limbo.

• 

• Superman Returns (Again). Every time someone mentions doing another Superman movie in the wake of 2006's underwhelming Superman Returns, they say it'll feature a "dark" take on the Last Son Of Krypton, influenced by Christopher Nolan's take on Batman. Says Warner Bros. president Jeff Robinov, "We're going to go dark, to the extent that the character will allow." More recently, rumored Super-director James McTeigue said something similar. But this "darker" Man Of Steel movie is still stuck in limbo, and Warner Bros. execs told a courtroom that they don't see much box-office potential in another Superman movie. (Granted, they were trying to get out of having to pay Superman's creators' heirs tons of money for Hollywood rights.) In fact, when they talk about doing a "darker" Superman movie, it's usually said with an air of "Well, nobody really wants to make a Superman movie, but if you put a gun to our heads, we'd do a darker one." The confusing copyright situation with Superman means they have to start development on a new Superman film in the next few years, but assuming Warners gets more enthusiasm for the cinematic Man Of Steel again, they'll probably rediscover their love for his fun, escapist side.
• 
  
  
• The Fantastic Four. News sites started claiming last spring that Fox was considering rebooting this super-family series as a darker, "less bubble-gum" version. And now, just the other day, Fox announced it was definitely rebooting the Fantastic Four. On the other hand, they tapped the decidedly non-dark Akiva Goldsman (Batman And Robin, I Am Legend) to produce the new movie, and
  Michael Greene, writer for Smallville, Heroes and the upcoming Green Lantern movie, will write the script. I am having a hard time imagining that team creating a "dark" FF movie. Plus everyone assumes Fox's sudden interest in moving forward with Reed Richards & Co. was motivated by Disney's purchase of Marvel, and the fact that Disney reportedly wants to take back all of the Marvel properties' movie rights as soon as outside deals expire. If Fox wants to impress Disney, a misguided "dark" Fantastic Four doesn't seem a likely approach.
• 
  
  
  
• Shazam. It's hard to believe, but yes, they were talking about a dark Shazam movie in the wake of The Dark Knight. This is the story of a little boy who discovers a magic cave full of statues of the Deadly Sins, plus an old wizard who teaches him a magic world that will transform him into a big galoot whose nickname is The Big Red Cheese. And then he fights an evil mad-science worm with the help of a talking tiger. Actually, screenwriter John August and director Peter Segal wanted to do a fun, upbeat take on Shazam, but Warner Bros. wanted something more like The Dark Knight. So August rewrote his fun script to make it darker:

  This wasn't "Big, with super powers" anymore. It was Black Adam versus Captain Marvel, with a considerable push into dark territory and liminal badlands like Nanda Parbat. It wasn't the action-comedy I'd signed on to write, but it was a movie I could envision getting made.

  But then Warners pulled the plug on the Shazam movie altogether — remember how I said the enthusiasm for "dark" stories often seems to coincide with a lack of enthusiasm for making the movies at all? And now Shazam is back on track, with Bill Birch writing and comics scribe Geoff Johns pitching in. Says Variety, "The studio is now looking to go back to the original DC Comics source material for inspiration." Going back to the original comics source material is slang for "not fucking it up with a dark reimagining."

So what happened? There are a few theories.

Watchmen happened. You could argue that The Dark Knight changed everything, and then Watchmen changed it all back. Zack Snyder's movie version of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' classic graphic novel was everything the studios were saying they wanted: dark, controversial, morally gray, challenging — and it didn't resonate that well with audiences. It had a so-so opening weekend, followed by a steep drop-off. (Sample headline from the L.A. Times: "Watchmen is going largely unwatched.")

Another "dark" movie that came out this summer, Terminator Salvation, did similarly badly. (It wasn't strictly a superhero film, but it had superhero-ish themes, and starred Bruce Wayne himself, Christian Bale.) And while Frank Miller's The Spirit was more goofy than dark, it did have a noir-ish look to it and was the handiwork of the original "Dark Knight" reinventer.

Meanwhile, movies like G.I. Joe and Wolverine, which were fluffy and bubbly and only challenged you to avoid giggling at their ridiculous dialogue and acting, did great. Audiences didn't suddenly stop liking braindead fun just because they liked one smart, bleak movie.

Also, the economy happened. Suddenly, people were hurting and depressed, and there were a spate of news stories saying that people in an economic shitstorm want upbeat, happy films. They want escapism and a pick-me-up, not a dreadful reminder that life is full of no-win situations and suffering. Whether that theory is true or not, it's one that seems to have a lot of currency in Hollywood.

And finally, looking back through those articles where execs are saying "I want a dark Shazam! I want a dark Dazzler! America needs a dark Howard The Duck!", I can't help noticing that this is usually accompanied by a lack of enthusiasm for whatever superheroic properties they're discussing. Sure, superheroes are big right now, but not every superhero movie is a huge hit, and characters like Superman and the Fantastic Four have fallen squarely into the second or third tier of big-screen spandex-flexers in the past decade or so.

Execs cast about for ways to make those lame fillies run again, and the "dark" thing is one of the ideas they hit on. But at this point, nobody seems to think "dark" is a cure-all for tired superheroes. At least, let's hope not.

Even if you're the greatest Bryan Singer fan in the world - and I'm sure someone out there saw Valkyrie and thought, "Man, if only this guy could have handled the Galactica reboot instead of that Roswell dude" - the idea of anyone handling a new version of Battlestar Galactica less than a year (Hell, it was announced less than six months) after the much-discussed, critically-inescapable finale of the then-SciFi Channel's version seems like a horrific misstep on the part of Universal and executive producer (and Galactica creator) Glen Larson. Why? Let us count the ways:

This Isn't Your Older Brother-By-About-A-Year's Battlestar Galactica
It's not just that audiences may wonder where Six, a female Starbuck or the notion of cylons that look like humans are in this proposed new version, so used are they to the concepts that Ron Moore brought to the franchise - concepts that Singer's threeboot won't be using, if reports are to be believed. It's that Moore's Battlestar Galactica ended up as much more than a television show; no matter how good Singer's version ends up being, there will be some sense of anti-climax because this version didn't get invited to the United Nations for a discussion about human rights that ended with a change to the UN charter. Trying to compete with that kind of impact isn't the smartest idea at the best of times, but seems like commercial suicide when it's announced so quickly after the event. Which leads to...

It's Just Too Soon
This is the part that really confuses me. I can understand Universal wanting to take advantage of what seems like a hot property, but it's the "And in order to do that, we shall throw out everything that made it work and start over" bit that I get stuck on. What made Moore's Galactica popular with both critics and audiences wasn't the core concept, but the execution; the original Galactica, after all, was canceled twice (Although you could easily make the argument that Galactica 1980 was a mercy killing), and it's not just because television audiences back then weren't in a downbeat, post-9/11 mindset. By abandoning Moore's take when it's not only so fresh in our minds, but the defining take in our minds, it's almost dooming Singer's version to failure before he's even started production. There's striking while the iron is hot, and then there's striking while there's already another iron there from last time, all the while telling us that that first iron doesn't really exist.

Yes, I may have strained my metaphor a little there.

The Singer Problem
Here's the thing: I know that I'm meant to be wowed by Bryan Singer's involvement, but I'm finding it hard to be too excited about the director of Superman Returns bringing that same fan-fiction mentality - and I say that as one of the few people who liked that movie - to Galactica. There was something about Superman that suggested that, when he's too close to a property, the sureness of something like The Usual Suspects (or even X-Men) is lost to nostalgia, a feeling that isn't helped by what's already leaked out about Singer's failed attempt to reboot the show for television. Also, is it so wrong that I can't shake the feeling that Singer's best contribution to the world of entertainment has been producing House MD instead of anything he's actually directed...

In the end, the feeling behind any plan to make a Battlestar Galactica movie that isn't directly connected to Ron Moore's version is just confusion. I'm not excited, I'm not feeling like my childhood has been raped, I'm just... confused as to why it seemed like a good idea now. And I get the feeling that I'm not alone in feeling that way. We'll see if Singer and company can work past that, and create something that people will want to pay money to see.

Perhaps the most damning part of the decision document was the revelation that executives at Warners shared fans' cynicism about Superman's potential (Remember, Warners and DC were the defendants in this case):

Defendants' film industry expert witness, Mr. [John] Gumpert, termed Superman as "damaged goods," a character so "uncool" as to be considered passe, an opinion echoed by Warner Bros. business affairs executive, Steven Spira... Indeed, Mr. [Alan] Horn [Warner Bros. President] admitted to being "daunted" by the fact that the 1987 theatrical release of Superman IV had generated around $15 million domestic box office, raising the specter of the "franchise [having] played out."

Almost as surreally, DC and Warners apparently argued to the court that

Superman was equivalent [in terms of public recognition and financial value] to a low-tier comic book character that appeared mostly on radio during the 1930s and 1940s and that has not been seen since a brief television show in the mid-1960s (the Green Hornet); an early 20th century series of books (Tarzan) or a 1930s series of pulp stories (Conan) later intermittently made into comic books and films; or a television, radio, and comic book character from the 1940s and 1950s, much beloved by my father, that long ago rode off into the proverbial sunset with little-to-no exploitation in film or television for decades (The Lone Ranger).

And these are the people in charge of the character?!?

There was, of course, legal value in downplaying Superman's status for WB and DC. But it's hard to shake the sense that even the character's owners don't understand the value and potential of Clark Kent's alter ego, or who (and what) he is and could be. But should we really be surprised, considering that these are the same people behind the pedestrian Smallville and almost-there-but-what-the-hell-is-with-the-stalker-thing Superman Returns?

Superman should, by rights, be up there with Batman. Certainly, he has the longevity and the high-concept, if not the moral ambiguity - and maybe that's one of the problems, that Superman's "goodness," his moral character and status as a reminder of our own potential, puts people off - to match Gotham's broodiest citizen. But what he lacks, and not necessarily for want of trying, is the pop cultural impact that Batman has had; it's not that Batman is necessarily a better character, but he's definitely one who has, at four specific points in the last decades (and, for the most part, in different ways), perfectly synched with the cultural zeitgeist to gain a weird standing as some kind of cultural avatar with a cape.

(Those points, for me, in case you're wondering: The 1960s TV show, which was less to do with Batman as a character as comic books as a medium, taking the "low art" trappings of the character and milking them for all their worth as pop art was doing the same. 1986's The Dark Knight Returns and 2008's The Dark Knight, which both used the character to embody and express paranoia and fear about politics and society in the real world, and 1989's Batman movie, which showed the power of branding, making the movie and the character foremost in everyone's minds by sheer force of making sure that no-one could turn anywhere without seeing a reminder of it.)

Superman, by comparison, is almost never allowed that level of contemporaneous value by the people telling his (mass media) stories, instead finding himself portrayed as either an anachronism due to his values or a naive outsider who doesn't fully understand the darker side of human nature (I have to separate comics from this; many comic creators such as Geoff Johns, Kurt Busiek and Grant Morrison have tried to demonstrate how Superman can and should work in modern, cynical society); I don't know whether it's that those making the stories think that that's how everyone else views Superman and that they should match that, or whether they see the character as someone out of step with modern times, but simply by taking that approach, they limit the impact Superman can have, and prevent him from becoming the success he should be.

(There's also a third route, as Bryan Singer's Superman Returns demonstrated: Superman as Jesus. But the problem with that is that, in order for the story to work as a superhero story, he has to stop turning the other cheek at some point. If you dropped a couple of "I am floating outside your window" scenes and added some more scenes of derring-do, Returns would've been a much better movie.)

Here's the thing: I firmly believe that now should be Superman's time. As The Dark Knight took all of our Bush-era worries and concerns and made them into an action movie, so should Superman be around right now to embody Obama's (still-resonant, even a year after campaigning) message of hope and positive change and being the best we can be. Instead of using Superman's inherent positivity against him, or thinking that it pushes him out of step with today's world, focus on the way in which he personifies that which we want to believe in, and the people that we want to be. If we elected a president because we believed in the ideals of Yes We Can and Hope and Change and all those buzzwords, I refuse to believe that we wouldn't want to see a movie that sold us the same message but with added punching, flying and action.

(I've said it before, and I'll say it again; Star Trek's success comes as much from it being positive and colorful and optimistic escapism as it being a good movie, this time around. Superman has those qualities in spades.)

Is Superman damaged goods? To an extent, yes, but he shouldn't be; there's nothing wrong with the character, or the concept, when done right, and I think that the audience is more ready for what he's selling now than they have been in years. What damages him most, perhaps, is the attitude from his owners that he's a problem that they don't know how to solve. The first step to stopping him being damaged goods is to stop treating him that way.

The first film to pass the $200 million mark this year, the Trek revamp has already managed to crack the top 100 earners in the US box office (non-inflation adjusted), meaning that it's made more money than movies like Toy Story, Twilight and Superman Returns. Impressive for a movie that's not even been released for a month yet, but it's worth noting that it's still coming in below such cinematic greats as Alvin And The Chipmunks and Mrs. Doubtfire in the current chart. By the end of this summer, though, who knows? If nothing else, it's almost guaranteed to beat Batman Begins, earning it a place as the most successful cinematic reboot to date - and, presumably, the one to learn from in years to come.

All Time Box Office Domestic Grosses [Box Office Mojo]

Spock (Star Trek)
Let's start with the really obvious here. Spock's father is a Vulcan ambassador named Sarek and his mother a human named Amanda Grayson. Much of his character, therefore, is based in the contrast between his two halves, with Leonard Nimoy having said that Spock is ""struggling to maintain a Vulcan attitude, a Vulcan philosophical posture and a Vulcan logic, opposing what was fighting him internally, which was human emotion."

Jack of Hearts (Marvel Comics)
The Jack of Hearts was born Jack Hart, the son of Philip Hart, a human scientist, and Marie, a humanoid extraterrestrial of the Contraxian race. His powers, which include such things as flight and the ability to project heat and concussive force, don't come from his parents, but rather his exposure to "zero fluid," a discovery of his father's.

B'Elanna Torres (Star Trek: Voyager)
B'Elanna, chief engineer aboard the USS Voyager, had a human father and Klingon mother, but her father left for Earth when she was a child, leaving B'Elanna to be raised by her mother. Either due to her childhood or her parentage, B'Elanna was short-tempered and often aggressive, but Roxann Dawson (the actress who portrayed B'Elanna) has said that over the course of the series, the character grows from an "unruly teenager" into a woman.

Moonshadow (Moonshadow)
The titular character in this twelve-issue comic book series written by J. M. DeMatteis is an adolescent boy of human-alien parentage. His mother is a human woman from Brooklyn named Sheila Fay Bernbaum, who takes on the name "Sunflower" during her flower-child days. When she's transported to the alien "zoo," she marries one of her abductors, a member of a nigh omnipotent race called the G'l-Doses. They're essentially glowing orbs of indeterminate largeness who use their power to wreak havoc on the universe, causing war and peace, death and life, with no real modus operandi beyond the delight they derive from the randomness of their actions.

Rystáll Sant (Star Wars)
A dancer for the Max Rebo Band, Rystáll has a Theelin father and human mother from New Bornalex. (It's argued, actually, that due to their greatly varied physical characteristics, that most Theelin are hybrids of one kind or another.)

Deanna Troi (Star Trek: The Next Generation)
Troi is the counselor aboard the USS Enterprise, with a Betazoid mother and human father.

Jason (Superman Returns)
When Lois's son shows up, we're supposed to assume the father is Richard White, her fiancé (and Perry White's nephew). But then Jason starts showing signs of super-strength and Kyptonite sensitivity, thereby implying that (sorry, Richard) Jason is actually Superman's kid. (The current convention that Superman cannot conceive a child with Lois clearly does not apply here.) So, yes. Superman: deadbeat alien father.

Reverend Golightly and the kitten children of Thomas Kincade Brannigan and Valerie (Doctor Who, new series)
In "The Unicorn and the Wasp" (Episode 7, Series 4), the Reverend Golightly is revealed not only to be Lady Eddison's son, but also the product of an affair she had with a Vespiform, a giant wasplike alien. Awkward.

"Gridlock" (Episode 3, Series 3) sees the introduction of a delightful little nuclear family, made up of Thomas Kincade Brannigan, a cat man, his human wife, Valerie, and their children: a litter of kittens. (It's debatable whether Brannigan counts as an actual alien, as he probably counts more as just a highly evolved feline lifeform. It's also debatable whether Brannigan is named after Thomas Kinkade, the "painter of light." Let's hope not.)

Additionally, in the 1996 TV movie, the Doctor himself claims to be "half-human, on my mother's side." But generally speaking, nobody listens to anything the Doctor Who TV movie said.

Hera Agathon (Battlestar Galactica)
Hera is the first known half-Cylon, half-human child. Her father is Karl "Helo" Agathon and her mother Sharon "Athena" Agathon.

Freedom Formula: Ghost of the Wasteland is set in the future where everyone fights in mechanized battle armor, but for fun. Gone are jets and submarines — instead, we send out men in super armor, to make battle. Then one lowly racer discovers that his blood may have the power to change the world.

I'm not a huge fan of this series — the suits are great looking, but man I care so little for mech suits, unless Robert Downey Jr. is inside. On the other hand, I have no doubt that Bryan Singer will do great things with the concept, like Superman Returns.

[Variety]

Talking to the LA Times, Singer was asked about the fate of his remake of the 1976 Michael York film about a future society that killed its citizens once they reached the age of thirty, and his answer was non-committal, but surprising:

I’m taking a few months to collect myself and figure out what I’m going to do in that regard. We did a lot of development on that movie and a lot of work. To start it up again, I wouldn’t start it up again without a full commitment. So I have decisions to make. Right now, that’s just hanging around.

The surprising part isn't that Singer would be considering returning to the project - there is a completed script written for it by his Valkyrie screenwriter Chris McQuarrie, after all - but that Singer was still involved in the project at all; in 2007, a new team were announced by Warner Bros. for the movie, including Joel Silver as producer, Children of Men's Tim Sexton as writer, with commercials director Joseph Kosinski making his feature debut... but all news on that front has been suspiciously quiet since the announcement. Does Singer's comment mean that that team is no longer involved? Will we have to wait thirty years for Logan to make it back to the big screen... and, if so, does that mean that we'll have to all be killed as soon as the credits roll?

Bryan Singer on 'Logan's Run' remake: 'I have decisions to make.' [LA Times Hero Complex]

Stay True To The Characters. This is one of two places where Superman Returns failed massively; not only would Superman not leave the Earth for years without telling anyone, but even if you bought into that, he still wouldn't have become creepy floating stalker ex to Lois afterwards. It shouldn't be that hard, really; Look at what's made the characters popular for decades, and then analyze how best to translate that onto the screen. Don't try and impose the latest fad or "radical reinvention" on characters that don't need it; save that for your inevitable reboot of Harry Potter in ten years' time. In other words, "dark Superman"? No.

Talk To Your Comic People. Take a page out of Marvel's playbook; run your ideas past the people who've been living with these characters and concepts day-in, day-out for years before things go too far (It's what saved Iron Man from the Mandarin, after all). If, as has been reported more than once, the Warner Bros plan is to use superhero movies to bring all the various WB arms into synch from publishing to movies to video games, then start as you mean to go on, and bring the movies into place with the comic books before you go any further.

Don't Overthink Things. You know what people want from a Superman movie? Action. It's very easy to remember; just think about the name of the comic where Superman made his first appearance. Failure number two of Superman Returns: With the exception of the falling plane, there weren't enough ridiculous set-pieces to give the audience something to distract themselves from Superemo. Even The Dark Knight had the awesome chase sequence that got pulses racing. Superman should be a movie that is almost stupid in its simplicity: The ultimate good guy against the ultimate bad guy. With punching and exciting action sequences.

Casting Is Key. If it wasn't for the fact that Smallville is kind of a mess, I'd suggest keeping Tom Welling as Superman, if only because he's already set in that role in many people's minds (and then the WB could use Smallville as a launching pad for the movie's promotion), but let's ignore Kate Bosworth and Kevin Spacey and the weird casting of Returns and look more to (again) Iron Man's outside-of-the-box collection of actors. Let's go for believability and no Kevin Spacey melodrama once again.

If All Else Fails, Give It To Geoff Johns. All you have to do is look at the Superman stories he's been writing for the past few years to know that he understands the character and can come up with some good stories about him. He's worked with The Dark Knight's co-write David Goyer in the past, and is already working in Hollywood himself (Amongst other things, he's producing a Metal Men movie and writing a Robot Chicken feature). And as if that wasn't enough, he's made noises about rebooting the franchise before: Where, exactly, is the downside to just giving him the keys to this particular car and letting him drive for awhile?

Alternatively, you could invite Tim Burton in to take a crack at the character; that worked out so well before.

In its second weekend, Batman Begins only lost about 44 percent of its box office take, compared with a 63 percent drop-off for Batman And Robin. (And Superman Returns had a 58.5 percent drop-off.) So a lot depends, for the Hulk, on word-of-mouth and reviews. Can the Hulk crush Maxwell Smart this weekend? Few reviewers seem to be saying the Hulk is as great as Batman Begins, and it's possible most of the die-hard fans have seen TIH already. My guess is Hulk will end up doing almost as well as Superman Returns, which is nothing to sneeze at.

The other big surprise success of the weekend was M. Night Shyamalan's much-maligned The Happening, which scored $30.3 million, better than Unbreakable and Lady In The Water. The film will probably make back its $50 million budget, but its success may just hasten the slow death of Shyamalan's career, if the people who saw it decide never to brave one of his movies again. [Box Office Prophets and Box Office Mojo]

Superman

One of the producers of the Batman and Superman movies told some students that he hopes the sequel to Superman Returns will portray Superman more as an "angry god." [Comics2Film]

Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles:

Sarah Connor Chronicles producer Josh Friedman talked to reporters for a conference call, and was customarily tight-lipped. He did say season two would be "more action-packed," and we won't be seeing any more of that mystery about the high-school prankster and the girl who committed suicide at John Connor's school. (Which is too bad, because that was my favorite part.)

Summer Glau will be back "full force" in spite of that car bomb in the season finale. And Brian Austin Green will be a series regular.

This will be John Connor's "growing up year," and he'll need his mother less than before. Sarah Connor's ex-boyfriend wlll be back, and so will Agent Ellison, who is starting to be less of a "doubting Thomas" when it comes to Terminators. We will not see Michael Biehn (who played Kyle Reese in the original Terminator movie.) And Friedman is hoping to show more of the "future war" at some point, but those episodes are expensive to make because of the large amount of CGI. You can read a complete transcript here: [The TV Addict]

Lost:

As we already heard, Lost recently shot a funeral scene involving all of the Oceanic Six. And the two-hour season finale, besides featuring Greg Grunberg as the pilot of the crashed Oceanic 815, also introduces a new character, a "Top Gun"-esque hotshot pilot who doesn't like it when his copilot brings a lucky charm aboard. [Ask Ausiello]

Oh, and the kid who played Dan Vasser's son on Journeyman will also play the young Locke in his upcoming flashback episode. Also playing a teen Locke is Caleb Steinmeyer, who was on Veronica Mars. That's the episode where Nestor Carbonell turns up, and is supposedly present at Locke's birth. [Doc Arzt]

Doctor Who:

Digital Spy is doing that annoying thing once again, where they list real spoilers for Saturday's Doctor Who episode, along with a couple of fake spoilers thrown in. It's gotten to the point where I don't even want to link to it. Plus, all of the spoilers for this Saturday's Sontaran episode, whether real or fake, make the episode sound a bit pants. Here they are anyway. [TARDIS Newsroom]

Meanwhile, Rose's die-hard fans are freaking out that Rose appears not to be in the Christmas special. They're coming up with all sorts of wild theories to explain her absence, such as that she's temporarily off in her alternate universe but will be back real soon. Or she and the Doctor are about to get married, but he's taking one last trip without her. Or she's in the episode, but isn't on set right now, so they're using a "hand double" for her. Feel free to come up with your own ideas. [Sunny Tyler 001]

Battlestar Galactica:

In the Battlestar Galactica prequel TV movie/possible series Caprica, we learn that the Caprican mafia funded the education of Joseph Adama (Admiral Adama's dad) and they expect a little something in return occasionally. [Ask Ausiello again]

Somebody posted a scene from episode 18 of Battlestar Galactica's final season on a closed Livejournal community, and somebody else was kind enough to email it to me. I'm not sure if this is an actual scene from the episode, or a "casting side," written for auditions. (It is of course possible it's just a fake.) But anyway, it answers our questions about the piano-playing devil that Starbuck finds herself opening up to... and thank the gods it's not Leoben. Instead, it's a new character named "Slick," who plays the piano in Joe's Bar and philosophizes about the meaning of music and destiny and stuff. He's surprised by how much Starbuck knows about music, thanks to her musician dad. [Livejournal, via the Booted Lady]

Wanted:

A new one-sheet for super-assassin movie Wanted gives a pretty detailed plot synopsis, which makes the film sound a bit... well, stupid. Here's what it says:

25-year-old Wes (James McAvoy) was the most disaffected, cube-dwelling drone the planet had ever known. His boss chewed him out hourly, his girlfriend ignored him routinely and his life plodded on interminably. Everyone was certain this disengaged slacker would amount to nothing. There was little else for Wes to do but wile away the days and die in his slow, clock-punching rut.

Until he met a woman named Fox (Angelina Jolie).

After his estranged father is murdered, the deadly sexy Fox recruits Wes into the Fraternity, a secret society that trains Wes to avenge his dad's death by unlocking his dormant powers. As she teaches him how to develop lightning-quick reflexes and phenomenal agility, Wes discovers this team lives by an ancient, unbreakable code: carry out the death orders given by fate itself.

With wickedly brilliant tutors—including the Fraternity's enigmatic leader, Sloan (Morgan Freeman)—Wes grows to enjoy all the strength he ever wanted. But, slowly, he begins to realize there is more to his dangerous associates than meets the eye. And as he wavers between newfound heroism and vengeance, Wes will come to learn what no one could ever teach him: he alone controls his destiny.

Speed Racer:

Here are some new promo pics from May's Speed Racer.

Superman

If Superman Returns does get a sequel, chances are Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor will be back. At least, Spacey says he's already signed to appear in it. [Cinemablend]

Doctor Who:

The first episode of Doctor Who season four, "Partners In Crime," is a "comedy episode" and features 15 minutes during which the Doctor and Donna are both investigating the same thing, but keep managing to miss each other. At one point, they're in the same office, but whenever the Doctor stands up, Donna looks down, and so on. Sarah Lancashire's evil diet pill scheme involves the fact that she controls what happens to your fat after it leaves your body.

And then in the second episode, "Fires of Pompeii," the Doctor and Donna lose the TARDIS in Pompeii, just a few hours before the eruption. Donna befriends a family that she wants to save, but the Doctor doesn't want to save them. And there are scary soothsayers in addition to those rock monsters, the Pyrovillians. [TV Scoop]

Meanwhile, here are some rumors and rank speculation about the end of season four and the specials that follow. Donna turns evil, and in fact is in league with the Master (an evil Time Lord) all along. Rose dies at the end of the season, giving the Doctor a new reason to be sad. The Doctor reprograms the Cybermen to help him defeat an army of evil Time Lords. (This one has been debunked already.) And the Rani, another evil Time Lord, appears in this year's Christmas special. [Doctor Who Forum]

Battlestar Galactica

Here are some stills from the third new Battlestar Galactica episode, "The Ties That Bind," which is rumored to be the one where Cally kills herself. [Dryope]

Smallville:

The rest of Smallville season seven is all about Lex's fall to the dark side. And Lex finds what he's always been searching for, says executive producer Brian Peterson. The season finale sets up all the storylines in season eight, which he hinted may answer some of fans' longstanding questions about when various elements of the Superman mythos will show up. [Sci Fi Wire]

Heroes

Kristen Bell thinks she'll back on Heroes as Elle the zappy psycho girl this fall. [Superhero Hype]

Lost:

"Leaked" script pages for the end of the Lost season finale have a mystery woman (probably Kate) dying in Jack's arms. And then it turns out Jack's dad is the evil mastermind behind everything bad in the world. Too bad these awesome pages also contain the words "April Fools" in a not-too-subtle code. [Doc Arzt's Lost Blog]

X-Files 2

And another piece of info that we're assuming is an April Fools thing. Supposedly Fox wanted to call the X-Files sequel X-Files: Curse of the Werepeople, but Chris Carter insisted on calling it X-Files: Full Moon Rising. And the film is Cat People meets American Werewolf In London. Ohhhkay then. [IESB]