New details on S2's fit in SR...

[DocLathropBrown]

http://thecinemaforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1998

Bryan Singer: The 2nd film is not in my history. It's not a particularly good film, either, if you watch it again.

That comes from the latest SFX article.

So at the very beginning, he counted it... now he doesn't?

That settles it, if so. The kid can't be Clark's, as Lois and he never had sex.

[Excel]

dude lois and clark were a couplke for several years before he left. he obviously did her at least once, hes superman.

[dark_b]

already a thread about this.

but thanks.

[Superman \S/]

Odd....I wonder why he would say that when he cleary said in the start of filming SR took elements from S2. I'm still sticking to what he said not by this article.

[DocLathropBrown]

dude lois and clark were a couplke for several years before he left. he obviously did her at least once, hes superman.

Without an on-screen catalyst, I doubt the kid is his, I don't think Singer'd make reference to something we hadn't seen, at least, not of that magnitude.

[DocLathropBrown]

already a thread about this.

but thanks.

I apoligize, I hadn't seen a thread with a title making it obvious this topic was contained therein.

[dark_b]

Odd....I wonder why he would say that when he cleary said in the start of filming SR took elements from S2. I'm still sticking to what he said not by this article.he said both many times.

[Superman \S/]

he said both many times.

I knew that. :o

[dark_b]

I apoligize, I hadn't seen a thread with a title making it obvious this topic was contained therein.the other thread is about the vague sequel. :)

[Cinemaman]

Sometimes Singer's words sounds strange for me.

[Superman \S/]

Lol ^

[Kane]

Odd....I wonder why he would say that when he cleary said in the start of filming SR took elements from S2. I'm still sticking to what he said not by this article.

Because the script obviously changed alot since those early days.

[DocLathropBrown]

Anyway, I'm now confident that the kid ain't his. Not that I think Singer'd be dumb enough to do something that terrible in the first place. He treats Superman better than he does X-Men.

[Captain Villa]

I really doubt this news. It contradicts many interviews.

[Superman \S/]

Because the script obviously changed alot since those early days.

I guess so. :up:

[The Guard]

I love how he recognizes that SUPERMAN II wasn't that good.

"Vague history" just means this:

Clark Kent grew up in Smallville
His father died, and he left home
He learned who he was via Jor-El
He worked at the Daily Planet
He became Superman
He fell in love with Lois Lane
He battled Lex Luthor

It could even be applied to the comic book mythos.

[ultimatefan]

That had been posted here before. Which means the whole sex between Clark and Lois thing is left in the open.

[THE MR. TERRIFIC]

It was cool!:supes:

[Captain Villa]

You do realise that the "evidence" is on a forum with one reply ?

I simply do not believe it. singer has said all along and it is well documented that 1&2 are in this film's history and to disregard 3 & 4.

I can't believe that after all this time, you are actually believing this BS ?!

[The Kid]

wtf singer. Just Scrap this vague history stuff and Do everything from a new continuity like Smallville. It worked pretty well for that show, people like it, so I don't see why this has to be in any way linked to the old movies except some design choices.... ****

....it'll probably be a great memorable movie anyway that people will love and all that, but this is confusing me now how it stands in the continuity with the old flicks partially. I've never heard of this ever being done before.

[Superman \S/]

You do realise that the "evidence" is on a forum with one reply ?

I simply do not believe it. singer has said all along and it is well documented that 1&2 are in this film's history and to disregard 3 & 4.

I can't believe that after all this time, you are actually believing this BS ?!

Never said i believed it.

[dark_b]

You do realise that the "evidence" is on a forum with one reply ?

I simply do not believe it. singer has said all along and it is well documented that 1&2 are in this film's history and to disregard 3 & 4.

I can't believe that after all this time, you are actually believing this BS ?!but i remember that he once said that superman 2 has nothing to do with this movie.

[Superman \S/]

but i remember that he once said that superman 2 has nothing to do with this movie.

So did I.

[Kane]

You do realise that the "evidence" is on a forum with one reply ?


SFX wouldnt print it if it was 'BS'. All those quotes were from Singer and the writers.

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231131

Even check out blog 17#, the 2 writers mentioned only the first movie as SR's history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiUnw4RiZWE

[hoopy3]

Singer just needed a version of superman (there are many many versions) to use as his foundation. He proabably figured usisng the movie version was the best since that is how superman is most widely known. Even smallville had their fortress of solitude look like the one form superman the movie.
It doesn't mean he needs to directly reference individual events of the original movies. The more intereviews i read the more i think this isn't really a sequel, just an original story that already has superman existing. It is probably why there is no reference to the supervillians in the movie.

This doesn't necessarily mean the kid is not supermans...Singer can allude to the fact that they slept togehter before he left since they were in love....i really have no idea on that point. Kinda like how you accept star wars (in 1977) without seeing the pre-quels becasue lucas alluded to the events......(which 30 years later we did finally see).

[Superman \S/]

SFX wouldnt print it if it was 'BS'. All those quotes were from Singer and the writers.

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231131

Even check out blog 17#, the 2 writers mentioned only the first movie as SR's history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiUnw4RiZWE

:up:

[LuvSupes]

Here's a scan of that part in the article, click twice to enlarge to read:

http://img417.imageshack.us/img417/6321/c305e637cb1lz.th.jpg (http://img417.imageshack.us/my.php?image=c305e637cb1lz.jpg)

[Superman \S/]

^ Thanks and welcome to the Hype.

[Captain Villa]

SFX wouldnt print it if it was 'BS'. All those quotes were from Singer and the writers.

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231131

Even check out blog 17#, the 2 writers mentioned only the first movie as SR's history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiUnw4RiZWE

The media does it all the time.

Infact, Empire this month says completely the opposite and calls it "Superman 2.1/2"

I'm not having it, tbf after listening to Singers interviews for nigh on 2 years, to know be told this - It is BS.

[Kane]

What does the media have to do with Singer's own words? Was the Empire article even quoting Bryan like SFX did, or was the writer of the article just saying his own thing..

[itflies]

It's very confusing really, as I read a new article the other day where Bryan said that the film is, for lack of a better term, a "sequel" to Superman II. It seems like this was from the new Wizard article. I read it about 5 minutes after reading the article from Script magazine where Mike and Dan say that it's a sequel to the first film only. Then they say that doesn't mean II-IV didn't happen, but it doesn't mean they did happen either. Then, I think later that day, I read the article that is quoted in this thread's original post. I actually found it a little funny. At the beginning of all this, before Bryan even began shooting, there was the same discrepancy between his interviews. It's just interesting that it still continues today. Perhaps he's only thinking of the sexual element from Superman II when he includes it "in continuity" when giving interviews.

[Captain Villa]

What does the media have to do with Singer's own words? Was the Empire article even quoting Bryan like SFX did, or was the writer of the article just saying his own thing..

Part of it is during an interview with Richard Donner.......

EMPIRE: That brings us nicely to Superman. Did you go after that or was it brought to you?

DONNER: I was home on a Sunday morning, sitting on the John after a bad Saturday night. The phone rings and this guy says, "This is Alexander Salkind." I said, "What do you want? It's Sunday." He said, "Do you know who I am?" I said no. He said, "I'm one of the most important producers in the United States." Well, I'd never heard of him and I told him so. He said, "Did you see The Three Musketeers? I produced that." I said, "Oh, and you produced The Four Musketeers. I've heard of you. You didn't pay them for the second one and you tried to get away with it..." Then he asked me to direct Superman and said he'd give me a million dollars. I thought this guy had to be some nut. A million dollars was like all the tea in China. Little did I know it was going to be two pictures and take four years of my life. So he said he was going to send me the script and I wrote everything he said down on a little card: Marion Brando: 2.5 weeks; Gene Hackman: 8.5 weeks; the name of the director who'd dropped out. I put it all on a little card, which I now have framed. I got the zeroes wrong on the million because I'd never written a million before. Then, later that day, this telephone book of a script arrived, because it was two movies. God, it was so badly written. The essence was there but it was terrible. There were things like Superman flying down to look for Lex Luthor and tapping this guy on the shoulder and the guy turns around and it's Telly Savalas, who says, "Who d'ya love, baby?" It was two guys from Hungary who had a Costa Rican passport, where they had never been, and they had an English director shooting in Italy. I called my agent and said I had to do it this just to save this piece of American culture. The end result I was thrilled with. Tough shoot though.

EMPIRE: It could have been tougher, though. You were making it in the pre-internet days, before fans were discussing every decision that was made. Did you feel any kind of fan pressure?

DONNER: No, not really. Didn't get on with the producers though. It was just (creative consultant) Tom Mankiewicz and I. We didn't get on with the producers at all, wouldn't let them on the set, hence them firing me from the completion of two. We were American kids, brought up on Superman, over there doing it. I have a sign in my office which has Superman and his cape spelling out "verisimilitude", and we were trying to keep that as an ethos — how we remembered Superman, how we remembered Krypton and how we remembered Metropolis. It was our mission to keep it honest.


EMPIRE: What actually happened between you and the producers to make them fire you from Superman II? When did the animosity start?

DONNER: It started the day I met them. I wasn't going to do it and then they started imposing a lot of restrictions that weren't very bright, by my standards. By trying to save a dollar, they ended up hurting the end result and also making the end result cost more! In my eyes they were really not picture makers. They cared more about making a dollar than making a good film.


EMPIRE: How much of the film do you think you shot? I've heard anything from 50 to 80 per cent.


DONNER: I don't know. Percentages are for pollsters, but we shot a good amount of film.

EMPIRE: And what are your thoughts on Warner Bros.' plans to release 'The Richard Donner Cut' on DVD later this year?

DONNER: It's a strange feeling. It's a long time ago and I guess enough people wanted to see it so much that Warner Bros, wanted to go ahead and finish my version. Of course, a lot of it couldn't be finished because a lot of it couldn't be found and a lot of it wasn't shot.


EMPIRE: So how can they even put it together?


DONNER: What they've done is, there were a couple of wonderful scenes of disclosures of Superman to Lois Lane. They decided not to use them in the cinema release and one of them I never shot except for screen tests, one for Margot (Kidder) and one for Christopher Reeve. It was the revelation when Lois finds out that Superman is Clark Kent. But they were on screen tests and not done in any way that you would do a real shoot. They've cut them both together and they will be in the release of the DVD as a scene, with a disclaimer saying this was two screen tests that were filmed for a scene that was supposed to be in the movie but was never shot. [I believe they found the blank bullets footage but I don't believe it, nor should you until I can get confirmation. Donner, you shot the footage!]

EMPIRE: Presumably you're not involved with putting this together?


DONNER: Well, I am to this respect. They've been very respectful. I've tried to give them the best input I can, but my feeling is it's hard because I look at it and think, "Man, I wouldn't shoot it like that today." So it's hard to go back to how I did it then and why. But I have tried to help them as best I can. They've got a great editor and director, Michael Thau, and this is his cut, it's his work, and give him all the credit for it.


EMPIRE: Did you ever see the cut of Superman II that was released?


DONNER: I didn't see it. I saw part of it. I could have fought to have my name on it as a director, but I decided against it. [New information has come to light -- Lester did offer to share credit but Donner didn't want it.]


EMPIRE: Have you never been curious to see it?


DONNER: No. They chose to take a good piece of material and treat it tastelessly. [Lester treated it differently but never tasteless; Iconoclastic, folks.]



EMPIRE: And now, of course, the sequel you never finished is getting a sequel of its own with Superman Returns. Is it true that Bryan Singer came to you for your approval before he made the film?
DONNER: Bryan is a wonderful young director and a terrific kid. He did X-Men with my wife Lauren producing. She told me that Bryan and the two writers would sit in a trailer during their breaks and watch Superman and I couldn't believe it. I thought they were kidding. But these guys would quote stuff from Superman that I couldn't remember in a million years. Then I guess they went through a lot of machinations with a lot of directors who weren't right for it. There was Brett someone...


EMPIRE: You mean Brett Ratner, who made X-Men 3?

DONNER: Oh ****, you're right. (laughs) Anyway, guys who were wrong for it, who were just shooters. Then into their life came Bryan Singer, who was passionate about it. Bryan called me and said he'd had the offer and he wanted to know what I thought. And I said I thought it was going to be the best thing that had happened to Superman in the last 25 years.


EMPIRE: So you're excited to see it, as a fan?


DONNER: Bryan has just been great about it and he's a terrific director, but I want to see it as an audience member. I haven't spoken to him about it, haven't seen a frame. I just want to sit in the audience and be, "Oooh, wow!"

EMPIRE: Is there any part of you that would have liked to revisit Superman again, with all that current technology allows?

DONNER: No, I did it. This is Bryan Singer's time. He's bringing something totally fresh and new and exciting and well beyond me.

[explode7]

Singer probably mentioned this as a joke and people like this site took it seriously. Nothing to worry about dudes:up:

[itflies]

And, then again, maybe in Singer's mind the film is a sequel to Richard Donner's unfinished Superman II, but not to Richard Lester's completed film.

[Kane]

Umm...those are Empire's own words...not Singer, not even Donner.

[Superman \S/]

Singer probably mentioned this as a joke and people like this site took it seriously. Nothing to worry about dudes:up:

Meh, i'm not worried.

[explode7]

so whats with the grey hair and bald spots then:p

[Superman \S/]

LOL! Very funny. :D

[Captain Villa]

Singer probably mentioned this as a joke and people like this site took it seriously. Nothing to worry about dudes:up:


Whilst I dont think it is a joke, I certainly think it is a mis quote as it contradicts previous stuff.

I agree with your point in principle :up:

[Kane]

There is the fact that Singer is very respectful to Donner and Donner obviously wasnt pleased with how Superman II turned out....

It kinda makes sense.

[explode7]

A director wasn't pleased with how his own movie turned out? I wonder if this is how BS feels about SR?

[Captain Villa]

A director wasn't pleased with how his own movie turned out? I wonder if this is how BS feels about SR?

Learn your S2 history dude....................The film was credited to Richard Lester and key scenes of Donners were taken away and reshot and re edited.

[explode7]

Who's Richard Lester???

[Kane]

A director wasn't pleased with how his own movie turned out? I wonder if this is how BS feels about SR?

:rolleyes: ...dude, wow


It didnt end up being Donner's own movie. He got pulled off the picture (for politcal studio reasons) and some significant elements of the film were changed....making it subpar to what Donner originally wanted. Margot Kidder even said at the Toronto Con last year how upset she was that they did that to Donner and she didnt want to be involved heavily in the 3rd film. Alot of castmembers and crew were upset and fed up at this.

[Captain Villa]

Who's Richard Lester???

EMPIRE: What actually happened between you and the producers to make them fire you from Superman II? When did the animosity start?

DONNER: It started the day I met them. I wasn't going to do it and then they started imposing a lot of restrictions that weren't very bright, by my standards. By trying to save a dollar, they ended up hurting the end result and also making the end result cost more! In my eyes they were really not picture makers. They cared more about making a dollar than making a good film.


EMPIRE: How much of the film do you think you shot? I've heard anything from 50 to 80 per cent.


DONNER: I don't know. Percentages are for pollsters, but we shot a good amount of film.

EMPIRE: And what are your thoughts on Warner Bros.' plans to release 'The Richard Donner Cut' on DVD later this year?

DONNER: It's a strange feeling. It's a long time ago and I guess enough people wanted to see it so much that Warner Bros, wanted to go ahead and finish my version. Of course, a lot of it couldn't be finished because a lot of it couldn't be found and a lot of it wasn't shot.


EMPIRE: So how can they even put it together?


DONNER: What they've done is, there were a couple of wonderful scenes of disclosures of Superman to Lois Lane. They decided not to use them in the cinema release and one of them I never shot except for screen tests, one for Margot (Kidder) and one for Christopher Reeve. It was the revelation when Lois finds out that Superman is Clark Kent. But they were on screen tests and not done in any way that you would do a real shoot. They've cut them both together and they will be in the release of the DVD as a scene, with a disclaimer saying this was two screen tests that were filmed for a scene that was supposed to be in the movie but was never shot. [I believe they found the blank bullets footage but I don't believe it, nor should you until I can get confirmation. Donner, you shot the footage!]

EMPIRE: Presumably you're not involved with putting this together?


DONNER: Well, I am to this respect. They've been very respectful. I've tried to give them the best input I can, but my feeling is it's hard because I look at it and think, "Man, I wouldn't shoot it like that today." So it's hard to go back to how I did it then and why. But I have tried to help them as best I can. They've got a great editor and director, Michael Thau, and this is his cut, it's his work, and give him all the credit for it.


EMPIRE: Did you ever see the cut of Superman II that was released?


DONNER: I didn't see it. I saw part of it. I could have fought to have my name on it as a director, but I decided against it. [New information has come to light -- Lester did offer to share credit but Donner didn't want it.]


EMPIRE: Have you never been curious to see it?


DONNER: No. They chose to take a good piece of material and treat it tastelessly. [Lester treated it differently but never tasteless; Iconoclastic, folks.]





Read that.

[Nivek]

Who's Richard Lester???

I hope your kidding, because thats pretty damn embarrassing if you havn't learned about this till today.

[explode7]

:rolleyes: ...dude, wow


It didnt end up being Donner's own movie. He got pulled off the picture (for politcal studio reasons) and some significant elements of the film were changed....making it subpar to what Donner originally wanted. Margot Kidder even said at the Toronto Con last year how upset she was that they did that to Donner and she didnt want to be involved heavily in the 3rd film. Alot of castmembers and crew were upset and fed up at this.

So there were only one good superman movie out of the five and that was the first one then

[Kane]

:rolleyes:

not taking explode7 seriously again...

[Thunder Emperor]

singer, singer

[PSU442]

if S2 no longer exists, how does luther know the location of the FOS

[Nightwing1977]

if S2 no longer exists, how does luther know the location of the FOS

Because he's Lex Luthor!! ;)

[Kane]

if S2 no longer exists, how does luther know the location of the FOS

Explained in the film.

[gdw]

dude lois and clark were a couplke for several years before he left. he obviously did her at least once, hes superman.


Yeah, but if that's the case, they why doesn't she know he's CK?

[Matt]

Superman 2 aged a lot better than Superman 1. Singer is a nut job.

[Matt]

In all honesty, I think THIS is intentional misinformation. The script review leaked the movie's big 'twist' (the kid is Superman's)...so now Singer is trying to do damage control.

Afterall, by logic, how would Clark conceive a child with Lois, without S2's history?

But many other elements do not fit without S2 (what inspired Clark to look for Krypton if not Zod, how did Luthor know of the Fortress of Solitude, etc)..

This seems like script review damage control to me.

[Spider-jedi]

i think you'er right

[DarthSkywalker]

Superman 2 aged a lot better than Superman 1. Singer is a nut job.

I would agree if not for every single thing that happens after Superman Returns and ask the General to step outside. Everything after that is really hard to look at.

[Matt]

I would agree if not for every single thing that happens after Superman Returns and ask the General to step outside. Everything after that is really hard to look at.

Really? I love all the fights between the Kryptonians and Supes.

[Matt]

Ok, not all of it. What was the deal with the part where Superman threw that plastic wrap cape at them?

[green]

In all honesty, I think THIS is intentional misinformation. The script review leaked the movie's big 'twist' (the kid is Superman's)...so now Singer is trying to do damage control.

Afterall, by logic, how would Clark conceive a child with Lois, without S2's history?

But many other elements do not fit without S2 (what inspired Clark to look for Krypton if not Zod, how did Luthor know of the Fortress of Solitude, etc)..

This seems like script review damage control to me.


Most have guessed the kid was probably his early on...long before the script review, I highly doubt its damage control at this point.

The rest well it seems you just want to assume answers before the movie is out, that's great for you Matt. Most people are going to wait and see how it plays out before jumping to conclusions.

[Matt]

Most have guessed the kid was probably his early on...long before the script review, I highly doubt its damage control at this point.

The rest well it seems you just want to assume answers before the movie is out, that's great for you Matt. Most people are going to wait and see how it plays out before jumping to conclusions.

:rolleyes:

The first official confirmation of the kid, aside from fanboy speculation was the budget draft review.

As for assuming answers, I assume nothing...it seems the easiest, most practical route however would be to acknowledge Superman 2.

It seems like damage control.

[Sub-Zero]

http://thecinemaforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1998



That comes from the latest SFX article.

So at the very beginning, he counted it... now he doesn't?

That settles it, if so. The kid can't be Clark's, as Lois and he never had sex.

you're an idiot! all that means is that maybe the 3 k-villains never came to earth. and that the events of superman II never happened. the superman in superman returns had been around for awhile then left. in that time he was in metropolis. he could've had a relationship with lois and the kid could be conceived a little bit before he left. its his kid. why have a kid there that isn't his???? i think everyone is just worried that in superman returns 2 that superman will die or something and pass the mantle on to the kid, but that won't happen. there's only one superman. just like there's only one batman.

[green]

:rolleyes:

The first official confirmation of the kid, aside from fanboy speculation was the budget draft review.

As for assuming answers, I assume nothing...it seems the easiest, most practical route however would be to acknowledge Superman 2.

It seems like damage control.

You know what Matt it doesnt matter.
You have made up your mind, there is no discussing or debating with you at all on the subject.
Have a good time at the movies.:)

[The Game]

Who's Richard Lester???

LMAO, this guy is funny

[skruloos]

Superman 2 aged a lot better than Superman 1.
LOL. Superman 2 is a completely imbalanced film. I can understand you might like it more because of the villains but it does not hold up better than StM. The hick sheriff. The cellophane S. The stupid gags with the general public during the fight with the Kryptonians.

There is a reason why StM is the one referenced by directors like Raimi and Nolan. It is the reason why other movies have been compared to it. It is a reason why its formula is the one that is followed by movies like Spider-man and Batman Begins. You may not agree with that and its fine. But the proof is in the pudding.

[DocLathropBrown]

Doube post

[DocLathropBrown]

In all honesty, I think THIS is intentional misinformation.

Or it might not be. No one knows for sure.

[DocLathropBrown]

you're an idiot!

I'm an idiot for speculating? Simply incredible!

[Venom71]

In all honesty, I think THIS is intentional misinformation. The script review leaked the movie's big 'twist' (the kid is Superman's)...so now Singer is trying to do damage control.
I disagree

Afterall, by logic, how would Clark conceive a child with Lois, without S2's history?
Ahhh..the kid won't be Superman's?

But many other elements do not fit without S2 (what inspired Clark to look for Krypton if not Zod, how did Luthor know of the Fortress of Solitude, etc)..
These answer you will find out when you see SR...you know you will be seeing it :)

This seems like script review damage control to me.
Nah..you just want it to be that.

[Matt]

LOL. Superman 2 is a completely imbalanced film. I can understand you might like it more because of the villains but it does not hold up better than StM. The hick sheriff. The cellophane S. The stupid gags with the general public during the fight with the Kryptonians.

There is a reason why StM is the one referenced by directors like Raimi and Nolan. It is the reason why other movies have been compared to it. It is a reason why its formula is the one that is followed by movies like Spider-man and Batman Begins. You may not agree with that and its fine. But the proof is in the pudding.

However, it is far less campy, in no small part due to Zod. The camp is the reason the original Superman aged horribly and is practically unwatchable by today's standards. I don't deny the formula is good, but I can still watch and enjoy Superman II, I can't say the same for I.

[Matt]

Or it might not be. No one knows for sure.

Thus the I think.

[Matt]

I disagree


Ahhh..the kid won't be Superman's?


These answer you will find out when you see SR...you know you will be seeing it :)


Nah..you just want it to be that.

Venom, try thinking before you talk. Why would I want the kid to be Superman's? One thing I have consistantly complained about is the kid. Use that noggin of yours.

Facts point otherwise. We have a budget draft where the kid is Superman's. Do you have any better information to go off of?

[Venom71]

Venom, try thinking before you talk. Why would I want the kid to be Superman's? One thing I have consistantly complained about is the kid. Use that noggin of yours.

Facts point otherwise. We have a budget draft where the kid is Superman's. Do you have any better information to go off of?
Yeah where Singer said in the SFX mag that he is only using Superman 1 as his vague history.

[Mentok]

Intresting. I thought that SR would line up after the 'Donner cut' of S2 comes out.

[TheBat812]

I doubt this interview was even conducted after the "script review".

[skruloos]

However, it is far less campy, in no small part due to Zod. The camp is the reason the original Superman aged horribly and is practically unwatchable by today's standards. I don't deny the formula is good, but I can still watch and enjoy Superman II, I can't say the same for I.
Far less campy? Are you serious? Lester's whole contribution to the film was camp. Again, the sheriff and deputy? All the stupid gags during the fight in the city street? Whatever floats your boat. I'd rather watch StM, and I often do in a double feature with Batman Begins and it completely holds up.

[skruloos]

In all honesty, I think THIS is intentional misinformation. The script review leaked the movie's big 'twist' (the kid is Superman's)...so now Singer is trying to do damage control.
The only problem with this is that magazine interviews for non-weekly magazines are conducted about a month before street date. The script review occured only a couple weeks ago.

[Scooter]

I loved the scene in Superman II, when Zod, Ursa, and Non are tearing throught the DP, and some guy tries to stop Non by throwing a t.v. at him. Best scene in the movie.

[DocLathropBrown]

Far less campy? Are you serious? Lester's whole contribution to the film was camp. Again, the sheriff and deputy? All the stupid gags during the fight in the city street? Whatever floats your boat. I'd rather watch StM, and I often do in a double feature with Batman Begins and it completely holds up.

Not to mention Zod's ego feels less threatening and more goofy in light of Lester's material.

[Kane]

The memory wipe thing at the end was stupid. Superman 1 was definately the more solid movie. At least it nailed the origins well and made the film seem epic.

The fights between Superman vs the Kryptonian criminals in 2 were pure cheese. It wasnt a great film.

I'm glad Singer said hes only using Superman 1 as the vague origin.

[Kevin Roegele]

Warner Bros studio meeting...

SINGER: Hey guys, my Superman Returns will be ready soon.

EXECS: Cool, that should make big bucks, plus the toy sales as well.....new private jets all round!

SINGER: It contradicts Superman II, III and IV.

EXECS: Which we're going to re-release on DVD. Thanks, Bryan. :rolleyes: And to think we didn't force you to put in Paris Hilton.

[Spider-jedi]

funny

[lujho]

Yeah, but if that's the case, they why doesn't she know he's CK?

You know, she could sleep with Superman without knowing he's Clark.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Anyone else not seeing "new" uhh "details" ? :confused:

[Superman \S/]

Who's Richard Lester???

http://imdb.com/name/nm0504513/

[Spider-jedi]

You know, she could sleep with Superman without knowing he's Clark.

how on earth would that happen?

[The Kid]

Super-rape :)

[Spider-jedi]

what the heck is super-rape? and dont say sleeping with her and the memory wiping kiss

[The Kid]

ok it's



















rapingg her and the memory wiping kiss.

Though supes wouldn't and shouldn't rape anybody, he did sex with Lois and make her forget she ever did it with the man of steel... so that brings up a few questions about his morals, I think.

[SolidSnakeMGS]

LOL, this discussion has gotten...questionable.

[Captain Villa]

if S2 no longer exists, how does luther know the location of the FOS

And thus, this threads intention is now officially blown away by that above statement.

Well done !

[The Kid]

I'd love to join in on the hooray, but I'd guess he finds out the same way he finds out in Superman 2, just figures it out with that gadget thingy he used I guess.

[dark_b]

And thus, this threads intention is now officially blown away by that above statement.

Well done !they can explan that lex after S:TM did find out where the FOS iswhen he i in prison.so it would be like S2 was never made.

the question now is in the trailer when we see lex in teh FOS. will it be like he is there for the first time or the second time.

[echostation]

ok i can't remember but in the original Superman movie, did Clark Kent ever accidentally drop his glasses and Lois picks them up and gives them back to Clark without looking? Wasn't that done in Superman II after they kissed or something... if that's the case then Superman II is defn in the continuity

[supzfan]

Too many anomalies. Singer painted himself into a corner by indenturing himself so heavily to the first two Supes movies. He can't have it both ways, choosing what to keep and what to throw out. If he insists on referencing these movies then he's stuck with their timelines and events and when he does that he's a dead duck. That what comes from not being original and playing it "safe". Any new touches he does add aren't good ones, like the kid and the god-awful suit. By mimicing STM and STM2 he's asking for trouble, inviting a torrent of inevitable comparisons. By doing so he's bound to come up short. This shouldn't be a "sequel" or a "remake". I'm sorry but he's lost me. One last point: I think a lot of the luster of this movie is diminshed due to the fact that there is another live version of Superman running concurrently on TV. I just don't think people will be as excited as they were when the first Reeve film came out. I remember quite clearly that Warner Bros. somehow got the TV stations to pull the earlier George Reeves series off the air so as NOT to invite comparisions. Just a thought.

[hoopy3]

Too many anomalies. Singer painted himself into a corner by indenturing himself so heavily to the first two Supes movies. He can't have it both ways, choosing what to keep and what to throw out. If he insists on referencing these movies then he's stuck with their timelines and events and when he does that he's a dead duck. That what comes from not being original and playing it "safe". Any new touches he does add aren't good ones, like the kid and the god-awful suit. By mimicing STM and STM2 he's asking for trouble, inviting a torrent of inevitable comparisons. By doing so he's bound to come up short. This shouldn't be a "sequel" or a "remake". I'm sorry but he's lost me. One last point: I think a lot of the luster of this movie is diminshed due to the fact that there is another live version of Superman running concurrently on TV. I just don't think people will be as excited as they were when the first Reeve film came out. I remember quite clearly that Warner Bros. somehow got the TV stations to pull the earlier George Reeves series off the air so as NOT to invite comparisions. Just a thought.

I have to respectfully disagree. By no means do i know this movie will be a resounding success (as I have yet to see more than a teaser, tv spot and trailer), however at the same time I find what Singer has done to be quite intelligent. I felt Singer was painted into a corner long before he started making this movie. The original Superman Movie (STM) is still fairly mainstream and is considered the "father" of the modern day superhero movie. It did a wonderful job of showing his origin. In addition, the televison show Smallville demonstates another rendition of his origin (while actually also using elements from STM). For Singer to do yet another origin story would be extremely redundant. This, in my opinion, would lead to even more comparisons to STM.
Nolan was able to get away with doing a re-start of Batman because Burton, while doing a terrific job of illustarting the Joker's creation, did not do a good job at all at showing how Batman truly came to be. In essence, Batman Begins was the 1st real origin story told (and ther ewas also no live action television show concurrently airing).
I feel at this point that Singer is trying to be "original" by not re-telling the origin we all know so well. His intention is likely to tell a new story. However, to do this, he needs a background or better yet a foundation on which to tell this story. STM is probably the most wide-known version of Superman there is. Therefore it is probably the best backstory to build off of. From the previews it appears that he is trying to incorporate some of the newer themes as well. Luthor now has wealth (he apparently has his own helicpoter that he uses to go to the fortress as well as a yacht...like in the animated series). It appears that Singer wants to use elements from the original movies and not actual events. This way he has the freedom to be original while not having to re-tell the origin. The irony is that for the most part people want the same well known (and awesome) superman theme march. It would be strange to have a completely new origin tale with the same music. That would really confuse people.
Anways...As i said before..I really have no idea how this will all turn out....The kid (is it supes, is it whites, is it luthors)...who knows...The suit...the actors...only seeing it for real will i be able to form a true opinion. However, I do think that Singer has done what he could considering the limitations that existed prior to him even undertaking this endeavor.

[Desk]

I felt Singer was painted into a corner long before he started making this movie. The original Superman Movie (STM) is still fairly mainstream and is considered the "father" of the modern day superhero movie. It did a wonderful job of showing his origin. In addition, the televison show Smallville demonstates another rendition of his origin (while actually also using elements from STM). For Singer to do yet another origin story would be extremely redundant. This, in my opinion, would lead to even more comparisons to STM.

Except that the alternative to a "sequel" or "remake" as Supzfan describes it is not necessarily an origin film.

The Superman premise is so well know, and so easily established, that Singer could have given us a film that neither felt compelled to revisit and retread what had already gone before nor retell Superman's origin.

IIRC, for all its many faults Kevin Smith's script would have done just that, launching the audience straight into a fresh, new story.

[hoopy3]

Except that the alternative to a "sequel" or "remake" as Supzfan describes it is not necessarily an origin film.

The Superman premise is so well know, and so easily established, that Singer could have given us a film that neither felt compelled to revisit and retread what had already gone before nor retell Superman's origin.

For all its many faults Kevin Smith's script would have done just that, launching the audience straight into a fresh, new story.

I guess I am not convinced that Singer isn't launching us into a fresh new story as well. Kevin Smith would have still based his version of Superman on a preivioulsy existing one. Singer is doing the same. I don't see the flaw in modeling the fortress of solitude, the music, and jor-el after the original movies. What have you seen in the previews that demonstrates that this movie is directly based on events that transpired in STM or SM2 for that matter. (Desk, this isn't rhetorical..i am actually asking...I am pretty open minded about this issue and am neither totally fro Singer's vision nor against it)

[bosef982]

Super-rape :)

That's disgusting and tasteless and belittles anyone who knows someone who has or have themselves been raped.

[bosef982]

they can explan that lex after S:TM did find out where the FOS iswhen he i in prison.so it would be like S2 was never made.

the question now is in the trailer when we see lex in teh FOS. will it be like he is there for the first time or the second time.

It's the first time b/c notice how he asks him to tell him everything. He wouldn't have to do that if SII was in continuity, since he'd already learned everything necessary to know about Zod and CO.

[bosef982]

I have to respectfully disagree. By no means do i know this movie will be a resounding success (as I have yet to see more than a teaser, tv spot and trailer), however at the same time I find what Singer has done to be quite intelligent. I felt Singer was painted into a corner long before he started making this movie. The original Superman Movie (STM) is still fairly mainstream and is considered the "father" of the modern day superhero movie. It did a wonderful job of showing his origin. In addition, the televison show Smallville demonstates another rendition of his origin (while actually also using elements from STM). For Singer to do yet another origin story would be extremely redundant. This, in my opinion, would lead to even more comparisons to STM.
Nolan was able to get away with doing a re-start of Batman because Burton, while doing a terrific job of illustarting the Joker's creation, did not do a good job at all at showing how Batman truly came to be. In essence, Batman Begins was the 1st real origin story told (and ther ewas also no live action television show concurrently airing).
I feel at this point that Singer is trying to be "original" by not re-telling the origin we all know so well. His intention is likely to tell a new story. However, to do this, he needs a background or better yet a foundation on which to tell this story. STM is probably the most wide-known version of Superman there is. Therefore it is probably the best backstory to build off of. From the previews it appears that he is trying to incorporate some of the newer themes as well. Luthor now has wealth (he apparently has his own helicpoter that he uses to go to the fortress as well as a yacht...like in the animated series). It appears that Singer wants to use elements from the original movies and not actual events. This way he has the freedom to be original while not having to re-tell the origin. The irony is that for the most part people want the same well known (and awesome) superman theme march. It would be strange to have a completely new origin tale with the same music. That would really confuse people.
Anways...As i said before..I really have no idea how this will all turn out....The kid (is it supes, is it whites, is it luthors)...who knows...The suit...the actors...only seeing it for real will i be able to form a true opinion. However, I do think that Singer has done what he could considering the limitations that existed prior to him even undertaking this endeavor.


Good post, man. And you forgot that people are making this unneccessarily complicated intead of taking the Bond approach to the sequels, which do pick and choose certain things to move on with.

[bosef982]

Except that the alternative to a "sequel" or "remake" as Supzfan describes it is not necessarily an origin film.

The Superman premise is so well know, and so easily established, that Singer could have given us a film that neither felt compelled to revisit and retread what had already gone before nor retell Superman's origin.

IIRC, for all its many faults Kevin Smith's script would have done just that, launching the audience straight into a fresh, new story.

The Kevin Smith script was a joke. Superman eating spaghetti after stopping an assassination? A talking suit? Corny. Campy. Cheesy. And poor writing.

Also, it smacked of lacking any sort of vision outside of fandom.

[Desk]

I guess I am not convinced that Singer isn't launching us into a fresh new story as well. Kevin Smith would have still based his version of Superman on a preivioulsy existing one.
He would? Please cite any evidence of this, because having just looked over his script again I can't see anything that links his film to any specific existing take on Superman.

Rather, it's a very general, standalone story.

Singer is doing the same. I don't see the flaw in modeling the fortress of solitude, the music, and jor-el after the original movies. What have you seen in the previews that demonstrates that this movie is directly based on events that transpired in STM or SM2 for that matter. (Desk, this isn't rhetorical..i am actually asking...I am pretty open mided about this issue and am neither totally fro Singer's vision nor against it)
Well, you've just listed a number of elements yourself, including the design of The Fortress of Solitude, the music, and the fact that you've actually got one of the stars reprising his role (the late Brando).

On top of this you've got a Hackman-style wig-wearing, land-grabbing Lex Luthor, a comedy bungler Clark Kent, and the revelation that sex with Lois resulted in a son. Ben Hubbard? That character only existed in Donner's version of the Superman mythology.

I'm sorry, but the fact that Singer's film is directly linked to the original Christopher Reeve films is inescapable.

Worse still, large parts of this production film just seem to be an uninspired retread of those films.... the narrative structure, Lex being betrayed by his kooky girlfriend, Superman regaining his powers, etc..

The only truly original elements in Singer's films are the things which many fans have no wish to see... Superman abanonding his Neverending Battle for several years, and the decision to make him an absentee father to an illegitimate son.

[Desk]

The Kevin Smith script was a joke. Superman eating spaghetti after stopping an assassination? A talking suit? Corny. Campy. Cheesy. And poor writing.

Also, it smacked of lacking any sort of vision outside of fandom.
"For all its many faults."

Once again... "For all its many faults."

That's what I wrote, because while I welcomed Smith's approach of a standalone film that throws the audience straight into a fresh story I didn't think much of his screenplay as a whole.

Smith's basic approach was sound... his execution was lowsy.

[Whack Arnolds]

The new movie, should've been a relevant re-start origin ala Birthright. Birthright is the best Superman story, ever. Beats the pants off S:TM.

[Sub-Zero]

I'm an idiot for speculating? Simply incredible!

no. you're an idiot for acting like you know what's going on. i'm not saying that i do, but you're logic is pretty messed up. the fact that all you got from my post was that i called you an idiot is SIMPLY INCREDIBLE!!!!!!

[supzfan]

Using the now-dead Brando is, in my opinion, really low. How could this NOT recall STM? Ditto for the John Williams theme, Fortress and storyline elements. And that goes double for all those similiar scenes, nods, touches and homages. I can't believe that Singer couldn't have come up with something more exciting and original. Superman has almost 70 years of comics under his belt to draw from and this is what we get? Oh, I remember, Singer didn't read the comic books! Isn't that a nice slap-in-the-face for all Superrman fans out there who did and still do. The fans wait almost 30 years for this? With hundreds of guys doing superthings in colorful underwear nowadays, this movie has to be spectacularly different, really stand out in effects, story and acting. From what I've seen so far it hasn't done so. Can anyone honestly say this is the best Superman movie possible? The best story, cast and effects? There is just too much that seems so wrong with this picture.

[Retroman]

Hmmm....

October 18, 2004
He also talked about how and his writing parterns crafted a story which could be compared to Tim Burton's Batman (1989). He said that he is going to have the first two films serve as a sort of vague history, and that this next film will pick up after Superman has been gone for 6 years. He said that the story is going to approach Superman as sort of being a returning Messiah (sp). Singer also had an interesting comment that people in the movie sort of wish that Superman had never existed, because once he disappeared, the world fell into chaos.
Source: http://www.superherohype.com/news/supermannews.php?id=2119

[Showtime]

I think Singer is just throwing up smokescreens, one interview he is going in one direction, another interview it's another direction. One minute it is Superman III, the next minute doesn't take the 2nd movie into account, and sometimes it uses the first two films as a jumping point.

[The Kid]

That's disgusting and tasteless and belittles anyone who knows someone who has or have themselves been raped.

whoa! what a post to read while calmly strolling through the threads today. Sorry.:eek: I have a cousin who has been raped so that's absolutely not my intention at all. :down I'm very confused that you'd think that way. The Super-rape is what I use to describe Superman's ability to make women forget that they slept with him. That's the best way I know of to describe it and I think it might be a problem if that's allowed to be part of Superman Return's continuity. I don't see that as such a problem, but I guess it is... ?

[bosef982]

whoa! what a post to read while calmly strolling through the threads today. Sorry.:eek: I have a cousin who has been raped so that's absolutely not my intention at all. :down I'm very confused that you'd think that way. The Super-rape is what I use to describe Superman's ability to make women forget that they slept with him. That's the best way I know of to describe it and I think it might be a problem if that's allowed to be part of Superman Return's continuity. I don't see that as such a problem, but I guess it is... ?

Just be careful b/c that's an awfully strong connotation you're going for there. It really makes something sound extreme. While the ethicallity of Superman sleeping and then making someone forget is up for debate, it's certainly not rape by any means. I mean, it was the 70s, I don't think the whole ramapnt fear of having sex once and getting pregant instantly was present, so he probably saw (or the filmmakers) no problem with portraying that. However, there is no unconditional proof that Superman and Lois slept together -- just circumstantial evidence.

[Desk]

That's disgusting and tasteless and belittles anyone who knows someone who has or have themselves been raped.
Don't be so touchy... there are people on this forum calling for Lois' son to be murdered - why no similar outrage about references to infanticide?

[The Kid]

Oh, I see...Well in the end, that's my dilema. I want them to have slept together, you know, at some point in the past, and that's how Jason became his super-son from his super-seed. But I don't really want it to have anything to do with that possible one night romp in Superman 2 and the memory wipe that occured afterwards. It'd complicate their relationship too much. The other option is that he's not superman's boy, but I don't want that either.....I wish Moriarty had explained how the kid is superman's with more detail. Mo, if your're bored and decided to read the hype for whatever reason, could you drop me a bone here? thanks, man.

Yikes, looks like a fight's brewing... i didn't want this to happen... *Slowly backs away from thread and runs....*

[Superfreak]

This is not directed at anyone in particular, I'm just sick of seeing these threads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


GET OVER IT PEOPLE!!!!! The concept of this film is NOT hard to grasp. It's a sequel, not a continuation of the orignal series. Please it's that simple.

[musclesforsupes]

Superman II is in continuty according Harris, plus kid is supes, remember moriarity and the AICN script leak.

[lujho]

how on earth would that happen?

Why wouldn't it? She doesn't know Superman's Clark. She loves Superman. They screw. Unless he accidentally puts his glasses on and straightens his hair part-way through, she's not going to recognise him as Clark for the same reason she never does.

[lujho]

GET OVER IT PEOPLE!!!!! The concept of this film is NOT hard to grasp. It's a sequel, not a continuation of the orignal series.

They're the same thing. It's both of those things, and yet it's trying to be something new too. It's trying to have it both ways - have the cake and eat it too. It's a mess, really.

[Matt]

This is not directed at anyone in particular, I'm just sick of seeing these threads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


GET OVER IT PEOPLE!!!!! The concept of this film is NOT hard to grasp. It's a sequel, not a continuation of the orignal series. Please it's that simple.

Wait.....what?

A sequel is a continuation of something :confused:

[Lightning Strykez!]

Weyseed,

The rape analogy might not have been the best choice of words (even though I understand where you're going with it). Let's uh...move on okay? :cool:

And for the rest of you: please stop calling eachother idiots, etc. It's just a movie and some users may take offense.

[Spider-jedi]

Why wouldn't it? She doesn't know Superman's Clark. She loves Superman. They screw. Unless he accidentally puts his glasses on and straightens his hair part-way through, she's not going to recognise him as Clark for the same reason she never does.

doesn't that sound funny superman is suppose to be noble he won't just sleep with her and then bust

[Backdrifter]

Bryan Singer: The 2nd film is not in my history. It's not a particularly good film, either, if you watch it again.

Niether is S:TM if you watch it again. Way to go Singer. Reeve and John Williams are the glue that holds S:TM together. The plot is laughable and the villians are incompetently bad.

[Dope Nose]

Birthright is the best Superman story, ever.

pfft! sorry, but you're way off.

[Superfreak]

Wait.....what?

A sequel is a continuation of something :confused:

the difference is, is that the narrative line of the first two movies have been broken. It is no longer a story that climax's with the defeat of Zod. New threat new movie etc. Best example I can think of is the Star trek movies. ST1, stand alone, STII-V direct continuations of an ongoing plot, STVI, stand alone sequel.

so, STM and SII direct continuation, SR stand alone sequel (it's called Superman: 10 Years after Zod)

[lujho]

doesn't that sound funny superman is suppose to be noble he won't just sleep with her and then bust

Yet he does anyway in this film (or its backstory), whether he's Clark at the time or he erases her memory or not.

I'm not saying whether he should or would do it, just that it's possible for Lois to sleep with Superman and still not be aware he's Clark.

[The Kid]

Wesyeed,

The rape analogy might not have been the best choice of words (even though I understand where you're going with it). Let's uh...move on okay? :cool:

And for the rest of you: please stop calling eachother idiots, etc. It's just a movie and some users may take offense.

:O ok, i'll be more careful with word choice from now on.

Idiot's my favorite word of all though... ;)

We may soon discover how Superman could have father'd Jason once someone gets that novelization and gives us all details... ultimately only the movie will be the true proof of whether superman mated with lois at one time in their history yadda yadda yadda, and later performed his memory wipe of course.

[Kane]

Or if Superman isnt Jason's father...