OMG he's grey and zombie looking with wires coming out of him! HOW CAN THIS BE!?!? MY EYES!!!!!!!!!!!

Tim Burton sucks so bad! He ruined Batman, and if he would have had his hands on Superman, he would have looked stupider that he does now...

Somehow, reminds me of the monster from Roger Corman's Frankenstein Unbound.

I could have dealt with that if Tim Burton did art direction, but someone like Ridley Scott was in charge of everything else.

Geez, guys, relax. Yeah, Burton sucks, but from that looks of that illustration, it looks merely like a concept for a particular costume that Supes wears at one specific point in the film, and not how he's supposed to look normally. In fact, it bears a bit of resemblance to Steel, the black guy who became a hero following that "Death of Superman" crap in the 90s.

The link doesnt say anything, anywhere, about this being Burtons concept. Am I missing something here?

Here's another one, supposedly one of Burton's concepts:

http://www.kal-el.org/gallery/displayimage.php?album=topn&cat=9&pos=3

Darth Dingleberry, the concepts aren't by Burton. They're for an adaptation of Superman that he was in talks to direct around 1997. The images are by concept designers.

I had some free time this afternoon, so I actually read that script. The one linked at the top of the concept art page, written by Kevin Smith.

It was actually pretty good, in a doesn't-take-itself-too-seriously, summer movie kind of way. However, the requisite look it, considering the time it would have hit theaters (1999) and that it would have the distinctive aesthetic of a Tim Burton film, this movie would have been a train wreck.

Imagine 1997's Batman & Robin (yes the Clooney, Schwarzenegger one) only, add a wisecracking egg-shaped robot, a far-too-witty Superman, and all the camp and ridiculousness of Superman III & IV, and Batman & Batman Forever. Add to that the fact that I couldn't shake the image of Ben Affleck reading as Superman (it was a Kevin Smith script, after all) and you have a recipe for something evil and wrong.

That's what we're dealing with here, folks.

And being as I am an illustration student, hoping soon to land work in the film industry as a concept designer, I can say that these concepts are pretty good. It's quite a bit easier to get an idea of what this would look like had it made it to production. I wouldn't judge the entire scope of this project on a few illustrations.

For what it's worth, Superman looks "dead" because he was recently revived by the "Eradicator" ( Wiki link ) after he was killed by Doomsday. He ends up "wearing" Eradicator later in the film, and ultimately dons a black costume, emblazoned with a large metallic "S" for the film's finale, which involves a showdown between he and the villain, Brainiac.

In further defense of the illustrations, much pre-production concepts never see the light of day once they're shown to the director, much less make it into the final production. There are many layers of approval which these illustrations face. A producer may have said "no costume re-designs. The blue, red and yellow is too Iconic. Viewers will be confused". Stuff like that happens all the time. Sometimes a character's classic design is regarded as holy and sacred in it's distinctive readability (Spider-Man, Superman films, etc.) In other cases though, the costumes are either in need of an update, or don't translate well to a specific plot or motif. Case in point - The X-Men films.

Kudos to Smith though on a fun to read script. I'd really like to see him do something other than another Jay and Silent Bob vehicle.

Burton rocks, at least his superman wouldn't be gay, and I am gay, but I still find Singer too be annoying about his fetish for buff young men. Look at X-2, why is Collasis in the movie? oh because Singer was boning the kid playing him.

#7- Are you trying to imply Burton directed Batman and Robin? Because he didn't, and that movie sucked and in now way reflects Tim Burton's stile.

I will say this. Would make a cool "mechanical rebirth superman" or a bizarro. Anyways, to all those who freak because its supposedly Tim Burton:

1) Very much agreed that he's getting full of himself but thats no reason to bash the old Timmy. Batman and Batman Returns rocked. If you disagree (#2 this is to you) then fine. Don't prep for any retaliation for everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just know the majority think those two rocked. However, I'll deffinately say Batman Begins is by far the best of them all in my opinion.

2) Who cares? Why the hostility? it was already said "back around 1998, Tim Burton was taking a stab at the hero." back around 1998... I think we're all a little too late to moan about how bad this movie's gonna be seeing that, um, lets see, it's not going to happen. Someone else is doing it.

3) I don't see your guys beef with Tim Burton when the bigger deal is that its a Superman movie... c'mon. The only reason I'm going to see this movie is because Lex Luthor is the only good outta the Superman 'verse and and Kevin Spacey being Lex Luthor is like icing on the cake.

ciao and have a great day!

Paul Ganguly, kudos on your post.

Andrew the Zeppo said: "why is Collasis in the movie? oh because Singer was boning the kid playing him."

Well, maybe he was in the film because he has a cool power (I, for one, was disappointed that he wasn't given more to do in the second film), and because with Cyclops, Professor X and Jean no longer with the good guys by the time of the film's climax, they needed to bring in more X-Men for the final confrontation, which is the same reason Beast and Shadowcat were there.

As for your unsupported allegation that he and Singer are an item, well, Daniel Cudmore, who plays Collossus, turned in January That's a "kid"?

Andrewthezeppo, you're right that I was a little hard on Burton's style of filmmaking. I should iterate that I do like his offbeat, whimsical style, but not in this context.

Also, I will agree with Psyn about the irrelevance of defending/condemning a movie that neither did, nor will ever make it to production. It's just fun to play Nerd's-Advocate once in a while.

That being said, I'm not entirely sure what you (andrewthezeppo) are trying to say by suggesting that Daniel Cudmore's casting in X-Men 2 & 3 was related to a sexual relationship that you believe he and Singer were having. Each film featured an ensemble cast. You could seemingly use the same justification to suggest that Singer was involved with Hugh Jackman, or James Marsden. Hell, any male in the cast for that matter. Ian McKellen has been openly gay since long before it was "fashionable" to be gay. Not to suggest that homosexuality is nothing more than a fashion accessory, but I think you get the idea.

I am aware that Singer is gay, but I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. Largely due to the fact that it seems you believe casting a young, muscular actor for the part of Superman is in some way contradictory to the physical attributes of the character himself? Who else could/would you cast?

If he were straight, and was casting the part of younger, attractive, female character and accusations that a certain one got the part only after sleeping with him were to be claimed by unrelated parties, that would come off as inflammatory and inappropriate. And yes I know of the obvious "casting couch" mythos, but that makes the remarks no less inappropriate.

Being that Singer is a gay filmmaker, I applaud him for not "having an axe to grind" through use of his films. That is to say, in his work there does not seem to be any sense of promoting a "homosexual agenda", which it seems many other filmmakers in his place would jump at the chance to promote, given the audience and notoriety he has achieved.

He seems not to wear his sexuality "on his sleeve" so to speak and rightfully, he should not. It's not his fan's business who he sleeps with, frankly and I'm not sure that it's fair to make insinuations of that nature. Though obviously audiences live under a constant barrage of Hollywood gossip all the time. I just find it to be generally ridiculous, is all.

Anyway, not to come off too hard, I'm just trying to get a feel for what you're trying to say.

To SVA1994, are you an SVA alum? That's one of the schools I'm thinking of attending in the near future. If so, I'd like to talk to you about it, if you'd be willing (assuming you're ever going to read this page again).