Er......what sequels?

[Kevin Roegele]

Superman sequels are not guarenteed anymore, unfortunetly.

Makes it very intresting how Spider-Man 3 will do at the box office, doesn't it?

[Jochimus]

Superman sequels are not guarenteed anymore, unfortunetly.

IMO that means nothing. A sequel to Superman Returns wouldn't cost so much to make and would finally have Luthor out of the way to make room for a more badass villain. Plus it's only made $10 million more than Batman Begins did in its first five days, and WB's already revving up THAT sequel.

[blind_fury]

Batman Begins cost 150 million. Superman Returns cost 250 million.

SR will need to make alot more than Batman Begins to get a sequel.

[Kuato]

Yeah but BB cost more than $50 million less than Superman...or if you take into account all the costs associated with getting Superman Returns off the ground before Singer became attached BB cost nearly $115 million dollars less. Sequels are...unlikely unless SR has great legs.

(Damn you beat me to it)

[dpm07]

Superman sequels are not guarenteed anymore, unfortunetly.

Makes it very intresting how Spider-Man 3 will do at the box office, doesn't it?

Spiderman 3 will rock. People will get a solid story with great action and not see a hero just dealing with natural disasters, or the same villain again.

SR had a weak story, and should have had Superman taking on a villain in a physical confrontation. Furthermore, it should never have introduced Superman's son, and it should have had a director who came into the game with a stronger knowledge of Superman other than the Donner film, which was great for its time, but pretty dated now.

Spiderman 3 won't make those mistakes. The past two films have illustrated Raimi has a respect for the hero and the comics.

[GreenKToo]

while I am looking forward to Spidey 3,it has shades of batman and robin,to many villians.

[blind_fury]

Batman and Robin failed because it made a mockery of the characters NOT because it had multiple villians.

[Triligors]

A sequel at this point seems guaranteed. It's just that MANY trolls are taking advantage of the situation and making others skeptical.

MANY films have had small openings and went on to become #1 at box office!!!

Case in point- LOTR, Chronicles, etc.

It's just people can't wait anymore.

Box office is a marathon- not a sprint.

[Image]

Batman and Robin failed because it made a mockery of the characters NOT because it had multiple villians.

That is true. It's how you use the villains, not how many you got.

[dpm07]

Batman and Robin failed because it made a mockery of the characters NOT because it had multiple villians.

That's very true.

[Norm3]

Is SR making enough money? The question is, where does Superman go from here? Do you want Singer back for second run, or is it time for a complete restart? Warner Bros & oh no Jon Peters have some big decisions ahead. Peters may return to his old self & go the Black Costume Superman Lives/Reborn route. I'm really worried about who or what the Studio is going to blame for this lower than expected Box office. I sure hope its the Donner continuation factor that gets blaimed.

[dpm07]

Is SR making enough money? The question is, where does Superman go from here? Do you want Singer back for second run, or is it time for a complete restart? Warner Bros & oh no Jon Peters have some big decisions ahead. Peters may return to his old self & go the Black Costume Superman Lives/Reborn route. I'm really worried about who or what the Studio is going to blame for this lower than expected Box office. I sure hope its the Donner continuation factor that gets blaimed.

My thing is this. If Singer isn't aboard, how are they going to get rid of Superman's son? That's a headache an incoming director probably will have nightmares with resolving. Singer made a hole for this franchise that's going to be tough to climb out of for another director.

[Norm3]

My thing is this. If Singer isn't aboard, how are they going to get rid of Superman's son? That's a headache an incoming director probably will have nightmares with resolving. Singer made a hole for this franchise that's going to be tough to climb out of for another director.I wish both DC & Marvel would appoint a censor to tell the Directors No you can't do that! Instead they let them do whatever they want.

[ShadowBoxing]

Superman Returns will easily have a sequal. Probably with a villian like Brainiac or Metallo attached. It's going to make 100mil before the weekend is out. I think X3 (which had the largest 3 day weekend openning and the largest EVER dropoff in sales--due in large part to how bad it was) scared people off from Superhero films this summer.

[Secret_Riddle]

superman returns will have an amazing sequal with the return of bryan singer and a cooler bad guy. trust me :) also the sequal would be cheaper because sets can be re-used or redesigned but not remade as well as other things being re-used. plus its making more money then batman begins and warner bros is a good studio when it comes to sequals. its not how much money the movie is making in comparison with how much it cost. for example batman begins came out and opened at less then this and it was guaranteed right away we would get a sequal because there was an interest in this. superman returns is showing an even higher interest so im sure we will get a sequal. although they will have to do some rebudgeting because they probably will lose money with superman returns or gain it back only through dvd sales or something.

[Timstuff]

Superman Returns will need to make around 320 million or more to be profitable, and keep in mind that a LOT of the gross goes into the pockets of movie theater operators. And, there's marketing costs to consider. Batman Begins cost $110 million less than SR, and it didn't have Pirates of the Carribbean opening the next week, or a negative word-of-mouth campaign working against it.

The only way SR will get a sequel is if Warner Bros. breaks even, in which case the sequel will likely have a MUCH smaller budget. It's not looking good though.

[Aren]

Spiderman 3 will rock. People will get a solid story with great action and not see a hero just dealing with natural disasters, or the same villain again.

SR had a weak story, and should have had Superman taking on a villain in a physical confrontation. Furthermore, it should never have introduced Superman's son, and it should have had a director who came into the game with a stronger knowledge of Superman other than the Donner film, which was great for its time, but pretty dated now.

Spiderman 3 won't make those mistakes. The past two films have illustrated Raimi has a respect for the hero and the comics.

Couldnt have said it better :up:

[LongshotRules]

IMO there's no way WB would not do Supe sequel, just like Batman it's one of the only flagship franchises WB can count on and if you don't have these two icons made into movies what else you gonna have that's a guaranteed BO draw? WW? GL? JLA? No way. WB didn't spend 10 years and millions of its money so it can make one movie. No matter how much BO SR ends up getting rest assured a sequel is inevitable. As for Singer his job is safe for one more Supe movie at least. But if the second Supe movie pulls in less money than first then there may be a change of director.

[Timstuff]

Spiderman 3 will rock. People will get a solid story with great action and not see a hero just dealing with natural disasters, or the same villain again.

SR had a weak story, and should have had Superman taking on a villain in a physical confrontation. Furthermore, it should never have introduced Superman's son, and it should have had a director who came into the game with a stronger knowledge of Superman other than the Donner film, which was great for its time, but pretty dated now.

Spiderman 3 won't make those mistakes. The past two films have illustrated Raimi has a respect for the hero and the comics.

My thoughts exactly. :up:

[Timstuff]

But if the second Supe movie pulls in less money than first then there may be a change of director.

It's already too late, the damage is done. Warner Bros. isn't going to give him a second chance to waste their money. If this were the second in a string of movies, they'd give him another chance to get it right with the third. But when you get off to a start that's this rocky, it's game over.

[Triligors]

TimStuff, from your previous comments. I'd say you're a MARVEL "troll". Whose not waiting to see what the final numbers are.

Sure it opened small, but so did LOTS of films that went on to become #1 at box office. And you can't just say "yeah, but Pirates- Pirates" because one film does not have the potential to bury- only perhaps make more, but not bury. Lol. I find it hilarious that some who want to see it fail- POTC fans, MARVEL fans, etc. Come up with a reason that actually makes SENSE.

[Timstuff]

I've always been a DC fan more than Marvel, but I must admit that Marvel has been in better shape in recent years.

[Triligors]

But, what everyone forgets is that this movie will continue to make good money- continuing this amount. I know that there will be a sequel, with Bryan at the helm, have super villains, etc. Am I the only one who saw the MANY seeds that the film planted? We now know the story, the world. From here it's a free playing zone- anything can happen.

POTC2 will hurt, but it won't bury. SR faces no competition from alot of other films of the summer, some of these films, but not most of them.

The first POTC earnings were disappointing, I remember- yet, look what happened come the end of the summer. Exactly.

The same scenario is happening here. A hesitant audience. Low opening. But, great word of mouth and long summer run.


I've been to too many threads on multiple movies where people were screaming 'flop' just because it didn't make money immediately. But, over the summer it makes alot.

Yet, there are many that rush to fast to conclusions. Coming up with negatives that frankly seem like trolls reaching for straws and some hesitant people buying into them.

It's WAY too fast. There are two blockbusters.

1. Those that make money immediately and drop off
2. Those that open low, but end high- a "sleeper" blockbuster which happens more often than people, for some reason, are ignoring.

SR is the second and has the properties of a second. I've gone to multiple message boards, and etc. This film in the end won't be a dissapointment nor will it be a flop. Did it underperform? Only since it was expecting HUGE SM like numbers. But, just because it didn't doesn't mean that the film will end as a dissapointment. This has been said alot before for multiple movies and almost always ends at the opposite end of the spectrum.

That's why I'm saying wait. Good reviews, from what I've personally been hearing and experiencing- great word of mouth. Has a POTC vibe about it. POTC2 will hurt, but it won't throw SR to tenth spot- it will only slow it down, but not bury it. Lol.

I've looked at the past. This is working like any other "sleeper" blockbuster that I have encountered.

What I'm saying is that people should just shut up and wait. Because at this time there is no definite one way or another, it's a wild card.

[Kane]

Looks like we shouldnt assume that WB will fire Singer and avoid sequels yet:

"Bryan [Singer] is just such a bright and creative individual. He had his own vision, and he was right and did a great job," said Dan Fellman, Warner head of distribution.

The movie should hit $110 million by Tuesday, Fellman said.

"Superman Returns" had big returns in 76 huge-screen IMAX theatres, most of which ran the movie incorporating 3-D footage in many action sequences. About $5 million of the film's grosses came from IMAX theatres.

(From Supermanhomepage.com)

[Jochimus]

Looks like we shouldnt assume that WB will fire Singer and avoid sequels yet:

"Bryan [Singer] is just such a bright and creative individual. He had his own vision, and he was right and did a great job," said Dan Fellman, Warner head of distribution.

The movie should hit $110 million by Tuesday, Fellman said.

"Superman Returns" had big returns in 76 huge-screen IMAX theatres, most of which ran the movie incorporating 3-D footage in many action sequences. About $5 million of the film's grosses came from IMAX theatres.

(From Supermanhomepage.com)

Other things to factor in are the international take - that's how the first Star Trek movie broke even despite also having a gigantic budget and being critically blasted in the end - and DVD sales - which is how the first Austin Powers movie ended up turning a profit.

WB didn't spend 20 years and millions of dollars to bring Superman back to the big screen just to give up. If they overcame Batman & Robin, they'll overcome this, too.

BTW I just came back from the movie. I wanted to see something that could replace Superman III and IV as a decent follow-up to the first two movies. I got it. :D

[Timstuff]

Right now the Warner execs are in "spin" mode. Even if SR only made 50 million this week, they'd still act like there's nothing wrong. The last thing they want is to let people see them sweat, but behind the scenes right now, they're all screaming "WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON OVER THERE? We payed 300 million for this!?"

Unless SR turns out to have very strong legs, I don't really see how it's supposed to make 600 mil and turn in a profit for WB. The movie got good reviews, but people actually coming out of the movie are having mixed opinions about it, ranging from "That was pretty good." to "Ugh, it's over." with a couple "ZOMG TEH BEST MOVIE EVAH!!!" from people who are crazy for the Donner films. But as for average Joe movie goer, when he sees the so-so BO numbers and hears "wait till it's at blockbuster" from his friends, the incentive to actually watch it is decreased-- especially since there's an equally big rival movie coming out this friday.

Pirates of the Carribean had strong legs because it had a universal appeal to it, and most of the hype from the other summer blockbusters had died down. It took people by surprise, and it wasn't long before it had made 300 million in the US alone. With Superman Returns, it's too early to say it could have that kind of long-term stride, but it's certainly not getting as good word-of-mouth as Pirates did. Many people left SR feeling dissapointed, but with Pirates it was something completely new and fresh, and people didn't know what to explect-- but they came out happy, and more people went in afterwards.

Like I said, we'll have to wait a week or two to see what happens. But right now, I certainly wouldn't bet money on SR being the movie of the summer.

[Lightning54SC]

Right now the Warner execs are in "spin" mode. Even if SR only made 50 million this week, they'd still act like there's nothing wrong. The last thing they want is to let people see them sweat, but behind the scenes right now, they're all screaming "WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON OVER THERE? We payed 300 million for this!?"

Unless SR turns out to have very strong legs, I don't really see how it's supposed to make 600 mil and turn in a profit for WB. The movie got good reviews, but people actually coming out of the movie are having mixed opinions about it, ranging from "That was pretty good." to "Ugh, it's over." with a couple "ZOMG TEH BEST MOVIE EVAH!!!" from people who are crazy for the Donner films. But as for average Joe movie goer, when he sees the so-so BO numbers and hears "wait till it's at blockbuster" from his friends, the incentive to actually watch it is decreased-- especially since there's an equally big rival movie coming out this friday.

Pirates of the Carribean had strong legs because it had a universal appeal to it, and most of the hype from the other summer blockbusters had died down. It took people by surprise, and it wasn't long before it had made 300 million in the US alone. With Superman Returns, it's too early to say it could have that kind of long-term stride, but it's certainly not getting as good word-of-mouth as Pirates did. Many people left SR feeling dissapointed, but with Pirates it was something completely new and fresh, and people didn't know what to explect-- but they came out happy, and more people went in afterwards.

Like I said, we'll have to wait a week or two to see what happens. But right now, I certainly wouldn't bet money on SR being the movie of the summer.

pirates will sink.... trust me its the same movie all over again and the first ine was ok nothing that screams 5 stars in my book

[thorstone]

I think everyone watched the trailer and said to themselves, meh.

They should have done something truly different. How about a Superman who is 80 years old, has lost everyone he ever loved, his Metropolis has grown to something totally different, and he is in his last days.

[Timstuff]

pirates will sink.... trust me its the same movie all over again and the first ine was ok nothing that screams 5 stars in my book

Somehow, I highly doubt that. The level of un-official hype for Pirates 2 is crazy, and everyone loved the first one. If your one of the few who didn't, the sequel certainly won't change your mind. But really, the movie would have to suck pretty bad to not get the same kind of attention the first did.

[War Lord]

Superman sequels are not guarenteed anymore, unfortunetly.

Makes it very intresting how Spider-Man 3 will do at the box office, doesn't it?

Spiderman is going to do very well, it may even make more money than the other two, but I think the somewhat tepid return with Superman might be more of a tired public than an opinion that it's a bad movie.

[dpm07]

Spiderman is going to do very well, it may even make more money than the other two, but I think the somewhat tepid return with Superman might be more of a tired public than an opinion that it's a bad movie.

You know, what you're saying might very well have some validity, and normally that statement is one I would be inclined to agree with. This film of SR though, was really done poorly. It had all the resources available, and Singer dropped the ball because of his fanatical fetish and blind love for the Donner film. It was a film that was good for its time, but deserved to stay in the past.

Today's audience wanted more, and Singer wasn't the right man for the job. Singer's idea of a return was great as a concept, but the writing for the film was poor by incorporating Jason as Superman's son, and creating an unnecessary love triangle. The lack of character development with the other characters (most notably Martha and Clark) was poorly done. If this film had probably taken a more Post-Crisis approach with a reboot and kept the concept of the return with a villain with which Superman could have gone head to head with, it may have performed better. Luthor's part of the Superman Mythos, but good God! Give him a Metallo or something Superman can unload on. Keep Luthor in, but make him a CEO versus just some real estate schemer. Give him Mercy Greaves as well! I'd take one Mercy for all of the other characters. That's a role that Peta Wilson should have been doing versus the flight attendant. Parker Posey was a waste, and why was Kal Penn even in this film? A personal favor to Singer or Routh? He deserves better.

There were aspects of the film that were done well. Unfortunately, in other areas it clearly was not done as well for the amount of money that was put in it. Underwhelming is a word that is good to describe it. Lacking a great climax as well. I mean, sitting around playing cards while NK is being built? That's waaay to lame.

Singer has created problems now that another director coming in would be afraid to deal with, or have problems with resolving. The only thing that can save the franchise is a reboot. This is definitely not a job for Singerman.

[Hiruu]

Looks like we shouldnt assume that WB will fire Singer and avoid sequels yet:

"Bryan [Singer] is just such a bright and creative individual. He had his own vision, and he was right and did a great job," said Dan Fellman, Warner head of distribution.

The movie should hit $110 million by Tuesday, Fellman said.

"Superman Returns" had big returns in 76 huge-screen IMAX theatres, most of which ran the movie incorporating 3-D footage in many action sequences. About $5 million of the film's grosses came from IMAX theatres.

(From Supermanhomepage.com)

What do you expect him to say? Oh...we expected this movie to make $150 million and shatter everything? Not likely...he's going to spin stuff, and hope to squek out a BB like performance to get to $200 million, and then pray and hope for a decent overseas performance...yikes! :eek:

[Jochimus]

Luthor's part of the Superman Mythos, but good God! Give him a Metallo or something Superman can unload on.

This I agree with. Much as I enjoyed the movie, I think that's one of the movie's biggest flaws right there, if not THE biggest. I liked Spacey's performance, I thought he did great, but after Zod I think it's well past time to up the ante on the villain front. Apparently Paul Dini was the only writer who could manage that for WB; I say let him write the script for the next one.

[Hunter Rider]

I am sure there will be a sequel but i expect a big change of content and approach and perhaps a change of director
Right now SR is being received fairly well and many say it's a decent movie but is also the most expensive chick flick ever made

[OzzMosiz]

WB should ensure the next Superman has Superman up against a physically worthy adversery!! Thats what people want to see!
Ensure they wrap up any fights into a good story though.
Story first, action second!

[Jochimus]

The last thing they want is to let people see them sweat, but behind the scenes right now, they're all screaming "WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON OVER THERE? We payed 300 million for this!?"

More likely they paid $300 million for gay robots, black latex costumes with S-shields made out of daggers, and Nicholas Cage. Money well lost, I say.

[superion]

pirates will sink.... trust me its the same movie all over again and the first ine was ok nothing that screams 5 stars in my book

Pirates 2 is tracking for a opening of over $100 million for a three day weekend. It will crush all the other films that opened this summer domestically. It will probably be the biggest worldwide as well though the DeVinci codes incredible foreign numbers may keep it the No. 1 film for the summer worldwide

[elvislennon2005]

The cast of Superman Returns has signed up for three movies so far. I think the movie will get its money back and more. So there will be sequels in the future. There is plans for The World's Finest to be made. So you will see Batman and Superman in one movie. I would like to see the Justice League in a movie. I bet that would do great in the theaters. It is about time for DC to make their heroes come to the theaters. Now with Wonder Woman in the plans, The Flash, Aquaman, Green Lanturn and few others. I will go and see them when they are in the theaters. I like Marvel too but it gets tired to see Marvel heroes all the time and not seeing DC.

[Payle Gray]

You have to think that Singer and his two twelve year old writers had at least a two movie plan/draft/script when they pitched this to WB. It's not likely that they said, "We're giving Superman a son and we'll just decide later what to do with him." WB had to have approved what they had in mind for a sequal when they gave the go ahead for SR. Now whether or not it's a GOOD sequal idea...

[Timstuff]

The cast of Superman Returns has signed up for three movies so far. I think the movie will get its money back and more. So there will be sequels in the future. There is plans for The World's Finest to be made. So you will see Batman and Superman in one movie. I would like to see the Justice League in a movie. I bet that would do great in the theaters. It is about time for DC to make their heroes come to the theaters. Now with Wonder Woman in the plans, The Flash, Aquaman, Green Lanturn and few others. I will go and see them when they are in the theaters. I like Marvel too but it gets tired to see Marvel heroes all the time and not seeing DC.

You seem fairly oblivious to the world around you.

[dpm07]

You have to think that Singer and his two twelve year old writers had at least a two movie plan/draft/script when they pitched this to WB. It's not likely that they said, "We're giving Superman a son and we'll just decide later what to do with him." WB had to have approved what they had in mind for a sequal when they gave the go ahead for SR. Now whether or not it's a GOOD sequal idea...

That's what is sad. These two tools Harris and Daugherty are set to write the screenplay of the Superman Sequel, and Singer is currently slated to direct it. I wonder how much further they'll drag Superman down if they do the film?

[Payle Gray]

I don't mind Singer directing again, IF he gets much better help with the sequel's screenplay... whether he wants it or not. Whatever idea that his minions came up with for the sequel should be examined over and over again. I really wonder if DC has any actual say as to what happens in the movies. I'm guessing not.

[elvislennon2005]

I like Superman Returns. It is a very good movie. The only reason why it isn't doing that great in the theaters is because some fans are not giving Brandon Routh a chance. Most people thinks that Christopher Reeve is the only Superman and they shouldn't do anymore. Well, for me if someone can play a good Superman he should play it. Brandon Routh did a very good job as Superman. During a fiver day run it has made $84.2 million already. Yes, that isn't that good but it is a start. Their will be sequels of Superman in the future. For those who thinks that Christopher Reeve is the only one who should play Superman and that there should be no more Superman movies. Well, those guys and gals needs to get a life. Singer said it himself that their will indeed be more Superman movies in the future. He said he will not do no more X-Men movies, that his sights are on Superman now since he has director control over him now. He is thinking about using the a combination of the several old scripts to make The Death of Superman movie. Which will be a two parter and that they will be filmed at the same time. He will also add his idea. Well, I look over the different scripts that is available on the internet of the idea of the Death of Superman. If it is done right and he can add his ideas to it, it might become a blockbuster. But he said that he is thinking about it for a future movie.

[dpm07]

I like Superman Returns. It is a very good movie. The only reason why it isn't doing that great in the theaters is because some fans are not giving Brandon Routh a chance. Most people thinks that Christopher Reeve is the only Superman and they shouldn't do anymore. Well, for me if someone can play a good Superman he should play it. Brandon Routh did a very good job as Superman. During a fiver day run it has made $84.2 million already. Yes, that isn't that good but it is a start. Their will be sequels of Superman in the future. For those who thinks that Christopher Reeve is the only one who should play Superman and that there should be no more Superman movies. Well, those guys and gals needs to get a life. Singer said it himself that their will indeed be more Superman movies in the future. He said he will not do no more X-Men movies, that his sights are on Superman now since he has director control over him now. He is thinking about using the a combination of the several old scripts to make The Death of Superman movie. Which will be a two parter and that they will be filmed at the same time. He will also add his idea. Well, I look over the different scripts that is available on the internet of the idea of the Death of Superman. If it is done right and he can add his ideas to it, it might become a blockbuster. But he said that he is thinking about it for a future movie.

I don't have a problem with Routh. He's not a great Superman and his acting is wooden, but he's ok. He's not my first choice, but he wasn't the overall problem in the film, IMO. The problem was Singerman, and his blind fetish and fanaticism for the Donner film. Then you factor in his flunkies Otis and Gus Gorman (Aka Dan Harris and Michael Daugherty).

The next film needs to have more action and stronger characterizations from the characters. I'd also have to say get rid of Jason, but Singerman made that hole that I don't think anyone can fill or erase.

[Payle Gray]

I actually liked Routh as Supes. I really couldn't see them getting a better unknown. The problem isn't that fans or the general public can't see Routh as Supes, it's the lackluster story and direction that Singer has taken the film. I also don't mind the homage to S:TM, however it didn't exactley use it as a building block. It seemed to move more sideways rather than forward.

[Robin91939]

SUPERMAN RETURNS did NOT cost $250 million dollars. Singer said that the production budget was $180 million, but they would probably go over that with some effects, and marketing. So he said the budget would increase but not into the $200 million dollar territory.

-R

[Logan876]

This I agree with. Much as I enjoyed the movie, I think that's one of the movie's biggest flaws right there, if not THE biggest. I liked Spacey's performance, I thought he did great, but after Zod I think it's well past time to up the ante on the villain front. Apparently Paul Dini was the only writer who could manage that for WB; I say let him write the script for the next one.

I couldn't agree more! Luthor's overused! In SR, he had virtually the same evil plan as in the 1st Supes' film! And showing Supes saving Metropolis from disaster happened too in the 1st film! :confused: I think Singer's patterned SR to the Donner films too much. The love triangle and Supes' son subplots didn't help much. SR is a rehash and lots of people were expecting new-If SR would bomb, I think these are few reasons why. :wolverine

[Kevin Roegele]

A sequel at this point seems guaranteed. It's just that MANY trolls are taking advantage of the situation and making others skeptical.

MANY films have had small openings and went on to become #1 at box office!!!

Case in point- LOTR, Chronicles, etc.

It's just people can't wait anymore.

Box office is a marathon- not a sprint.

It's a sprint now. You open big, your takings drop quickly, and something else replaces you. That's how it works these days.

[Kevin Roegele]

Can we all calm down and try and use some cold, hard logic here? Or just common sense?

There won't be a Superman sequel just because you think there is great potential for one, or because you loved Returns.

Forget 'trolls' and 'haters' and accusing each other, and don't let your hopes for a sequel blind you from the facts either. The box office has been disapointing. The sequel looks in doubt.

[Cdawg751]

Spiderman 3 will rock. People will get a solid story with great action and not see a hero just dealing with natural disasters, or the same villain again.

SR had a weak story, and should have had Superman taking on a villain in a physical confrontation. Furthermore, it should never have introduced Superman's son, and it should have had a director who came into the game with a stronger knowledge of Superman other than the Donner film, which was great for its time, but pretty dated now.

Spiderman 3 won't make those mistakes. The past two films have illustrated Raimi has a respect for the hero and the comics.

Exactly. WB Jus Brought Singer Along Cuz He Was A Visionary. But The Problem Was He Knew Little Of The Man Of Steel, Unlike Raimi Who Was Both A Visionary And A True Spidey Fan. GO SPIDERMAN!:spidey: !

[Cdawg751]

while I am looking forward to Spidey 3,it has shades of batman and robin,to many villians.

Okay...for 1 batman an robin had the one of the worst directors known to man. Second Spiderman has Sam f***ing Raimi! This guy is a genius! He's knows wut he's doing besides Joel Schummacher or wut ever his name was doing. All He did was smash all the bad guys that hadnt been in a Batman movie yet an slapped a tag on it.

[Isildur´s Heir]

There is going to be a sequel, be sure of it.
Why?
It´s Superman, that´s why.

The first didn´t worked, the second might...its Superman...

[Cdawg751]

A sequel at this point seems guaranteed. It's just that MANY trolls are taking advantage of the situation and making others skeptical.

MANY films have had small openings and went on to become #1 at box office!!!

Case in point- LOTR, Chronicles, etc.

It's just people can't wait anymore.

Box office is a marathon- not a sprint.

Not True. All Those Movies Were Up Againist Harry Potter (Besides The Return Of The King Which Was Jus A Good Film Off The Back) They Had Small Openings Becuz My Man Harry Kicked There Ass. Superman Wasnt Rivaled With Any Body. Unles u dont count out the "Devil Weres Prada" or "Click"

[Isildur´s Heir]

Okay...for 1 batman an robin had the one of the worst directors known to man. Second Spiderman has Sam f***ing Raimi! This guy is a genius! He's knows wut he's doing besides Joel Schummacher or wut ever his name was doing. All He did was smash all the bad guys that hadnt been in a Batman movie yet an slapped a tag on it.
Neither is Joel Schumacher is the worst director known to man (not even close), nor is Sam Raimi a genius.
Joel Schumacher is a good director (Phone Booth, Time to Kill, The Client, Falling Down), just wrong for Batman; Raimi is a capable one, with much love for Spider-Man.

Bare in mind that Schumacher wanted to make Batman based on the tv show (wrong, stupid, but there is a reason why the movies went that way), and the Spider-Man, even if good adaptations, lack in the movie department, IMO.
Batman Begins and Hulk are way better movies than the Spider-Mans

[dpm07]

Exactly. WB Jus Brought Singer Along Cuz He Was A Visionary. But The Problem Was He Knew Little Of The Man Of Steel, Unlike Raimi Who Was Both A Visionary And A True Spidey Fan. GO SPIDERMAN!:spidey: !

Totally!

That really sums things up my fellow Michigander from the big "D". :up:

[Kevin Roegele]

I think this thread sumsup exactly what some people who post here do wrong.

You consider the comicbooks and holy literature, and the quality of any movie based on them depends entirely on their faithfulness to the source. Of course you think this, because that means you personally, knowing all about the comicbook, know exactly how to make the movie properly.

This is completely wrong, this is not the case at all.

[ReptileOrion]

Batman and Robin failed because it made a mockery of the characters NOT because it had multiple villians.

So true :up:

[Eteric]

I believe that Returns will get a sequel. You have to look at the long term.

1. Superman Returns has legs. It isn't just going to dissapear in a week, even with Pirates around.

2. Merchandising. Though this isn't a big point of income, it's still income.

3. DVD is where most of the money will come from. It's getting to a point these days where they would be better off just going straight to DVD.

Combine all of that with foreign sales and you can bet there will be a sequel.

Most of the people I've talked to loved it. The ones that didn't seem to be the die-hard comic fans and the people who like action flicks.

But that's just on my side of Louisiana. So meh.

[CrypticOne]

Spiderman 3 will rock. People will get a solid story with great action and not see a hero just dealing with natural disasters, or the same villain again.

SR had a weak story, and should have had Superman taking on a villain in a physical confrontation. Furthermore, it should never have introduced Superman's son, and it should have had a director who came into the game with a stronger knowledge of Superman other than the Donner film, which was great for its time, but pretty dated now.

Spiderman 3 won't make those mistakes. The past two films have illustrated Raimi has a respect for the hero and the comics.

I agree. Too much talk, not that much action in SR, but that is expected from Singer.

I hope they make a sequel to SR though, I liked the movie. Maybe the filmakers think that they had to have Lex as the main baddie. I hope we get a better and stronger villain though.

[dpm07]

I agree. Too much talk, not that much action in SR, but that is expected from Singer.

I hope they make a sequel to SR though, I liked the movie. Maybe the filmakers think that they had to have Lex as the main baddie. I hope we get a better and stronger villain though.

One problem with the sequels is that now you have to include the kid in successive films. Also, while Luthor is important to Superman canon, Superman does have other rogues in his gallery.

However, that said, I think we'll get something along the lines of a repeat of a Superman II film with Kryptonians. Singer had great visuals in the film, but horrible storywriting from those quacks Harris and Daugherty, and he should have used the concept of the Return, but with a different story, or completely did a restart. At any rate, he should have had a villain Superman could have gone head to head with.

I've seen the film twice, and both times I watched the audience's reaction, and it was flat. People were leaving the theatre talking more about the Spiderman Teaser than they were the Superman film. Comments I did hear about SR were, "That kid was a waste", and "Why didn't he fight anyone?", as well as "That movie seemed too much like the original".

[Kevin Roegele]

There is going to be a sequel, be sure of it.
Why?
It´s Superman, that´s why.

The first didn´t worked, the second might...its Superman...

:confused: It doesn't matter if the film works or not, all that matters is how much cash in makes. Warner Bros won't be saying to each other, "Hey, atleast we know we can make a great film as a sequel."

[GL1]

The anti-SR stuff in here is laregely without basis.

I think it's been established that SR can more than make it's money back, especially with the sickening amount of merchandizing they've been doing. It was definitely an expensive film, but that will hardly cut it's legs for a sequel.

So let's see. "Superman should've fought someone head to head."
Hmm... so action makes a movie good? Catwoman was great. Schindler's List sucked. Gotcha. Superman was just fine with the physical challenges he was given.

What else? "Singer doesn't know Superman's mythos."
Ah, so then Grant Morrison didn't know the Batman Mythos when he took an OUT OF CONTINUITY story Son of the Demon and made Batman's non existant son Ibn a half-grown sword swinging villain. Did he not know the mythos, or did he just add to them? Grant Morrison decided not to retread the same old Batman versus Bane for all the marbles big fight and did something a bit deeper. Singer did the same thing.

If Singer DID know the mythos he'd realize that everyone tired of the Clark-Lois-Superman triangle (that's why the comics changed it), and Lois and Clark married is boring (that's why DC makes her dissappear). Singer did the same thing any DC writer does... he shakes things up.

But wait. There's more. "The kid is a problem."
Genious. Wait for it...
OF COURSE the kid is a problem. The point of the movie is that Superman has PROBLEMS. He is a grown man and he has grown man problems when he acts like a little kid and shirks his responsibilities. It makes his personal life IMPOSSIBLE. His son calls another man daddy. His girl is HAPPILY with another man. That's not a problem to get rid of, that's where good character development comes from.

What other piddly complaints hear I? Oh... "People came out of the film saying bad things."
So, the three people you talked to, and Roger Ebert, didn't like it. So? If you noticed, it wasn't a slam bang action film, therefore, the people who enjoyed it would likely be thinking about the subtleties of the plot rather than shouting "Booyah!" Right? If it had been all about a big fight and cool moves, then I could see how a lack of shouting would be a problem, but you didn't hear a lot of people shouting hurrah at the end of Schindler's List. Superman Returns isn't really an action movie.

So not only are we imagining that Superman Returns was bad because it wasn't the action movie we somehow expected... it gets better.

"Singer had blind devotion to the Donner films."
I always laugh at this one. Anyone who was on a message board five years ago, while Superman Lives and those other aborted projects were being worked on know that every message board was glutted with praise for Donner's films. They were "Superman done right." As far as fandom was concerned. Singer fell right in line with that and WB could say they were following the fans on picking someone with such devotion to Donner films. Again, fans ASKED for the Donner films again, and we almost got them, except for Singer's ugly habit of not rehashing played out storylines.

Oh but it gets better:
"What the film really needed was Mercy Graves"
Who? Grace AND Mercy or just Mercy? So Singer should trade his blind devotion for the Donner films and replace it with blind devotion to STAS? Perfect.

There's more of course, but I think it's pretty clear that the standards being used to judge SR are biased, and therefore, useless for making any judgements. Let's watch the money roll in and see how high over $200M it rises.

As for sequel issues, I have to say that I am very glad for Jason's existance. It forces Superman to grow as a character. Superman can no longer be a naive wanderer. He has to step up and take charge. He has to be a man. DC Comics has been trying to do this for years, and haven't had too much success. Singer did this in a little over two hours. SR for teh win.

[Norm3]

I just saw it again today. I like this movie much more now. I was spending too much time comparing Reeve to Routh. This time I could relax & take it all in.

[ouiouigirl]

a sequel, if there is one will not cost them as much money...take Ghosbuster 2 for instance, the first one had a 25% budget just for marketing. the movie was so big and such a household name in the end that they barely had to spend anything on marketing for the second one, just the fact it was a sequel sold the movie.
the problem with a SR sequel will not be how much it will cost them but whether they (WB) are willing to make a change in writers. Too many folks are complaining about the plot holes, the poor character writing (lois was an outrage if you ask me) not to mention a son. A new writer's crew (they can keep singer) is what will sell the movie, especially if the writers are known superman (comic book) fans..not juveniles who just finished watching the Donner series.

[Jochimus]

The anti-SR stuff in here is laregely without basis.

I think it's been established that SR can more than make it's money back, especially with the sickening amount of merchandizing they've been doing. It was definitely an expensive film, but that will hardly cut it's legs for a sequel.

So let's see. "Superman should've fought someone head to head."
Hmm... so action makes a movie good? Catwoman was great. Schindler's List sucked. Gotcha. Superman was just fine with the physical challenges he was given.

What else? "Singer doesn't know Superman's mythos."
Ah, so then Grant Morrison didn't know the Batman Mythos when he took an OUT OF CONTINUITY story Son of the Demon and made Batman's non existant son Ibn a half-grown sword swinging villain. Did he not know the mythos, or did he just add to them? Grant Morrison decided not to retread the same old Batman versus Bane for all the marbles big fight and did something a bit deeper. Singer did the same thing.

If Singer DID know the mythos he'd realize that everyone tired of the Clark-Lois-Superman triangle (that's why the comics changed it), and Lois and Clark married is boring (that's why DC makes her dissappear). Singer did the same thing any DC writer does... he shakes things up.

But wait. There's more. "The kid is a problem."
Genious. Wait for it...
OF COURSE the kid is a problem. The point of the movie is that Superman has PROBLEMS. He is a grown man and he has grown man problems when he acts like a little kid and shirks his responsibilities. It makes his personal life IMPOSSIBLE. His son calls another man daddy. His girl is HAPPILY with another man. That's not a problem to get rid of, that's where good character development comes from.

What other piddly complaints hear I? Oh... "People came out of the film saying bad things."
So, the three people you talked to, and Roger Ebert, didn't like it. So? If you noticed, it wasn't a slam bang action film, therefore, the people who enjoyed it would likely be thinking about the subtleties of the plot rather than shouting "Booyah!" Right? If it had been all about a big fight and cool moves, then I could see how a lack of shouting would be a problem, but you didn't hear a lot of people shouting hurrah at the end of Schindler's List. Superman Returns isn't really an action movie.

So not only are we imagining that Superman Returns was bad because it wasn't the action movie we somehow expected... it gets better.

"Singer had blind devotion to the Donner films."
I always laugh at this one. Anyone who was on a message board five years ago, while Superman Lives and those other aborted projects were being worked on know that every message board was glutted with praise for Donner's films. They were "Superman done right." As far as fandom was concerned. Singer fell right in line with that and WB could say they were following the fans on picking someone with such devotion to Donner films. Again, fans ASKED for the Donner films again, and we almost got them, except for Singer's ugly habit of not rehashing played out storylines.

Oh but it gets better:
"What the film really needed was Mercy Graves"
Who? Grace AND Mercy or just Mercy? So Singer should trade his blind devotion for the Donner films and replace it with blind devotion to STAS? Perfect.

There's more of course, but I think it's pretty clear that the standards being used to judge SR are biased, and therefore, useless for making any judgements. Let's watch the money roll in and see how high over $200M it rises.

As for sequel issues, I have to say that I am very glad for Jason's existance. It forces Superman to grow as a character. Superman can no longer be a naive wanderer. He has to step up and take charge. He has to be a man. DC Comics has been trying to do this for years, and haven't had too much success. Singer did this in a little over two hours. SR for teh win.

Well said. :up:

I myself enjoyed the movie - in fact, I'm going to see it for the second time this weekend - it's just that for a sequel, anyway, I'd spice things up a bit.

I can't complain much about the (frankly) surprising level of merchandising the movie is getting - I already own the soundtrack and three of the action figures (Clark-To-Superman, Arctic Gear Lex and Space Suit Kal-El - whenever I buy these things, I tend to get the suits that actually APPEAR in the movie ;))

For my part, the desire to see another super-brawl comes largely from the fact that I've waited 20 years to see Superman tear up downtown Metropolis again on the big screen. Luthor IS a great villain, and I liked Spacey's darker turn with the character, but since he's the only regular Superman rogue to figure into every live-action show they've ever done (except maybe the George Reeves series), I'd like to see him put in the shadows a bit, more of a behind-the-scenes puppet master a la Darth Sidious than the immediate threat. And as I've said before, since half of Superman's rogues owe their existence to lab accidents and experiments and whatall, Luthor would be the PERFECT catalyst to see the likes of Metallo and Parasite enter the fray.

As far as the mythos, it doesn't take much really to be faithful to the legend of Superman: he's the sole survivor of the doomed planet Krypton. He has powers and abilities beyond those of mortal men. He was raised by the Kents on a farm in Smallville, KS and leads a double life as Clark Kent, reporter for the Daily Planet in the city of Metropolis, where he's got the hots for fellow reporter Lois Lane. And he saves innocent lives and battles evil while flying around in blue tights and a red cape with an :supes: across his chest. Even the Fleischer cartoons and the George Reeves series were able to do that.

I don't mind Jason so much, if they could at least try to keep the character worthwhile without overplaying their hand. As long as his 'talents' (which I'm guessing he has some inkling of, judging by what happened to Brutus) are spasmodic, the writers can at least assure his character of an interesting puberty without turning him into the Wesley Crusher of the Superman franchise.

As for the negativity...bah. Most every negative opinions I've seen for this movie - not all, but a pretty good deal of them, anyway - give me the distinct impression of a large gathering of morally-withered relatives practically screaming for their deathly-ill rich patriarch to kick over already so they can dance all the way to the banker's office. Your assessment of the anti-SR sentiment is dead-on in my book.

I can't diss Singer's devotion to STM and SII, either - they were by no means perfect, but they are a tricky act to follow (well, maybe not so much SII with its super-kissing and removable 'S'-wrap). I can't see any 'reboot' of the Superman film series doing much better than Donner's film, anyway.

And in regards to Mercy...I could take or leave her. She's cool, but not entirely necessary.

All I can really ask for in a possible SR sequel is that they just take what's established and keep it moving forward. They brought Superman back, now what? :)

[Eteric]

The anti-SR stuff in here is laregely without basis.

I think it's been established that SR can more than make it's money back, especially with the sickening amount of merchandizing they've been doing. It was definitely an expensive film, but that will hardly cut it's legs for a sequel.

So let's see. "Superman should've fought someone head to head."
Hmm... so action makes a movie good? Catwoman was great. Schindler's List sucked. Gotcha. Superman was just fine with the physical challenges he was given.

What else? "Singer doesn't know Superman's mythos."
Ah, so then Grant Morrison didn't know the Batman Mythos when he took an OUT OF CONTINUITY story Son of the Demon and made Batman's non existant son Ibn a half-grown sword swinging villain. Did he not know the mythos, or did he just add to them? Grant Morrison decided not to retread the same old Batman versus Bane for all the marbles big fight and did something a bit deeper. Singer did the same thing.

If Singer DID know the mythos he'd realize that everyone tired of the Clark-Lois-Superman triangle (that's why the comics changed it), and Lois and Clark married is boring (that's why DC makes her dissappear). Singer did the same thing any DC writer does... he shakes things up.

But wait. There's more. "The kid is a problem."
Genious. Wait for it...
OF COURSE the kid is a problem. The point of the movie is that Superman has PROBLEMS. He is a grown man and he has grown man problems when he acts like a little kid and shirks his responsibilities. It makes his personal life IMPOSSIBLE. His son calls another man daddy. His girl is HAPPILY with another man. That's not a problem to get rid of, that's where good character development comes from.

What other piddly complaints hear I? Oh... "People came out of the film saying bad things."
So, the three people you talked to, and Roger Ebert, didn't like it. So? If you noticed, it wasn't a slam bang action film, therefore, the people who enjoyed it would likely be thinking about the subtleties of the plot rather than shouting "Booyah!" Right? If it had been all about a big fight and cool moves, then I could see how a lack of shouting would be a problem, but you didn't hear a lot of people shouting hurrah at the end of Schindler's List. Superman Returns isn't really an action movie.

So not only are we imagining that Superman Returns was bad because it wasn't the action movie we somehow expected... it gets better.

"Singer had blind devotion to the Donner films."
I always laugh at this one. Anyone who was on a message board five years ago, while Superman Lives and those other aborted projects were being worked on know that every message board was glutted with praise for Donner's films. They were "Superman done right." As far as fandom was concerned. Singer fell right in line with that and WB could say they were following the fans on picking someone with such devotion to Donner films. Again, fans ASKED for the Donner films again, and we almost got them, except for Singer's ugly habit of not rehashing played out storylines.

Oh but it gets better:
"What the film really needed was Mercy Graves"
Who? Grace AND Mercy or just Mercy? So Singer should trade his blind devotion for the Donner films and replace it with blind devotion to STAS? Perfect.

There's more of course, but I think it's pretty clear that the standards being used to judge SR are biased, and therefore, useless for making any judgements. Let's watch the money roll in and see how high over $200M it rises.

As for sequel issues, I have to say that I am very glad for Jason's existance. It forces Superman to grow as a character. Superman can no longer be a naive wanderer. He has to step up and take charge. He has to be a man. DC Comics has been trying to do this for years, and haven't had too much success. Singer did this in a little over two hours. SR for teh win.

Thank you! :supes:

[Metropolis_Man]

It's already too late, the damage is done. Warner Bros. isn't going to give him a second chance to waste their money. If this were the second in a string of movies, they'd give him another chance to get it right with the third. But when you get off to a start that's this rocky, it's game over.

And I'm sure you asked the people at WB and they told you that he definately won't be back. I'm not saying your statement is wrong, I just think you should wait before making some wild conclusion like that. Singer might not be back, but then again he might be. We won't actually know until we have official word from Warner Bros.

[Metropolis_Man]

The anti-SR stuff in here is laregely without basis.

I think it's been established that SR can more than make it's money back, especially with the sickening amount of merchandizing they've been doing. It was definitely an expensive film, but that will hardly cut it's legs for a sequel.

So let's see. "Superman should've fought someone head to head."
Hmm... so action makes a movie good? Catwoman was great. Schindler's List sucked. Gotcha. Superman was just fine with the physical challenges he was given.

What else? "Singer doesn't know Superman's mythos."
Ah, so then Grant Morrison didn't know the Batman Mythos when he took an OUT OF CONTINUITY story Son of the Demon and made Batman's non existant son Ibn a half-grown sword swinging villain. Did he not know the mythos, or did he just add to them? Grant Morrison decided not to retread the same old Batman versus Bane for all the marbles big fight and did something a bit deeper. Singer did the same thing.

If Singer DID know the mythos he'd realize that everyone tired of the Clark-Lois-Superman triangle (that's why the comics changed it), and Lois and Clark married is boring (that's why DC makes her dissappear). Singer did the same thing any DC writer does... he shakes things up.

But wait. There's more. "The kid is a problem."
Genious. Wait for it...
OF COURSE the kid is a problem. The point of the movie is that Superman has PROBLEMS. He is a grown man and he has grown man problems when he acts like a little kid and shirks his responsibilities. It makes his personal life IMPOSSIBLE. His son calls another man daddy. His girl is HAPPILY with another man. That's not a problem to get rid of, that's where good character development comes from.

What other piddly complaints hear I? Oh... "People came out of the film saying bad things."
So, the three people you talked to, and Roger Ebert, didn't like it. So? If you noticed, it wasn't a slam bang action film, therefore, the people who enjoyed it would likely be thinking about the subtleties of the plot rather than shouting "Booyah!" Right? If it had been all about a big fight and cool moves, then I could see how a lack of shouting would be a problem, but you didn't hear a lot of people shouting hurrah at the end of Schindler's List. Superman Returns isn't really an action movie.

So not only are we imagining that Superman Returns was bad because it wasn't the action movie we somehow expected... it gets better.

"Singer had blind devotion to the Donner films."
I always laugh at this one. Anyone who was on a message board five years ago, while Superman Lives and those other aborted projects were being worked on know that every message board was glutted with praise for Donner's films. They were "Superman done right." As far as fandom was concerned. Singer fell right in line with that and WB could say they were following the fans on picking someone with such devotion to Donner films. Again, fans ASKED for the Donner films again, and we almost got them, except for Singer's ugly habit of not rehashing played out storylines.

Oh but it gets better:
"What the film really needed was Mercy Graves"
Who? Grace AND Mercy or just Mercy? So Singer should trade his blind devotion for the Donner films and replace it with blind devotion to STAS? Perfect.

There's more of course, but I think it's pretty clear that the standards being used to judge SR are biased, and therefore, useless for making any judgements. Let's watch the money roll in and see how high over $200M it rises.

As for sequel issues, I have to say that I am very glad for Jason's existance. It forces Superman to grow as a character. Superman can no longer be a naive wanderer. He has to step up and take charge. He has to be a man. DC Comics has been trying to do this for years, and haven't had too much success. Singer did this in a little over two hours. SR for teh win.

:up: Well put. I couldn't have said it better myself. There were some obvious flaws in Returns, but I'm in agreement that for the majority of the movie, it was one of the best. I like that you mention it doesn't hurt to "shake" things up a bit and go in a different direction that we haven't seen yet. I didn't like the kid anlge and first but now I'm really enjoying where this could lead. Thanks for your post. It really sums up what a lot of people were trying to say but just couldn't say it right!

[Isildur´s Heir]

Well....let´s see here..and bare in mind that i haven´t seen the movie yet, but you are the one that look biased

So let's see. "Superman should've fought someone head to head."
Hmm... so action makes a movie good? Catwoman was great. Schindler's List sucked. Gotcha. Superman was just fine with the physical challenges he was given.
I give you that, i always put drama and characterization over action...and so did Ang Lee, and everyone hated Hulk for the lack of action...

What else? "Singer doesn't know Superman's mythos."
Ah, so then Grant Morrison didn't know the Batman Mythos when he took an OUT OF CONTINUITY story Son of the Demon and made Batman's non existant son Ibn a half-grown sword swinging villain. Did he not know the mythos, or did he just add to them? Grant Morrison decided not to retread the same old Batman versus Bane for all the marbles big fight and did something a bit deeper. Singer did the same thing.
Son of the Demon is an Elseworld, so there isn´t much to discuss here...

But wait. There's more. "The kid is a problem."
Genious. Wait for it...
OF COURSE the kid is a problem. The point of the movie is that Superman has PROBLEMS. He is a grown man and he has grown man problems when he acts like a little kid and shirks his responsibilities. It makes his personal life IMPOSSIBLE. His son calls another man daddy. His girl is HAPPILY with another man. That's not a problem to get rid of, that's where good character development comes from.
The problem with the kid, IMO, is that he is Superboy.
You are re-introducing Superman to the general public, he should be the focus of the all story, so, the moment you put in a kid with superpowers, you lose that spotlight.
It goes from being "Superman Returns", to Superman is the Father to Superboy

"Singer had blind devotion to the Donner films."
I always laugh at this one. Anyone who was on a message board five years ago, while Superman Lives and those other aborted projects were being worked on know that every message board was glutted with praise for Donner's films. They were "Superman done right." As far as fandom was concerned. Singer fell right in line with that and WB could say they were following the fans on picking someone with such devotion to Donner films. Again, fans ASKED for the Donner films again, and we almost got them, except for Singer's ugly habit of not rehashing played out storylines.
I can only talk in my behalf here, but i don´t recall anyone wanting to see a rehashing of a pre-crisis movie, and extremely outdated take on Superman, that doesn´t make much sense today :confused:

[dpm07]

Well....let´s see here..and bare in mind that i haven´t seen the movie yet, but you are the one that look biased


I give you that, i always put drama and characterization over action...and so did Ang Lee, and everyone hated Hulk for the lack of action...


Son of the Demon is an Elseworld, so there isn´t much to discuss here...


The problem with the kid, IMO, is that he is Superboy.
You are re-introducing Superman to the general public, he should be the focus of the all story, so, the moment you put in a kid with superpowers, you lose that spotlight.


I can only talk in my behalf here, but i don´t recall anyone wanting to see a rehashing of a pre-crisis movie, and extremely outdated take on Superman, that doesn´t make much sense today :confused:

I agree with you on all your points. Well stated. Especially the last one and the one on the kid. :up:

[GL1]

Thank you Jochimus, Eteric and Metropolis Man... I didn't know my post was that good. Thank you. :)

I give you that, i always put drama and characterization over action...and so did Ang Lee, and everyone hated Hulk for the lack of action...

Bingo. Nail on the head. I loved the Hulk movie, cuz the psychology was so great in it. Most people went to Hulk movie to see the Hulk cartoon from the 90s in live action. If they read the comics they'd know multiple issues can go by without Hulk ever showing his face, only Bruce Banner. They'd know what the Hulk franchise is about. But they don't, they just want action and were dissappointed by Ang Lee using his brain on the movie.

Same with Superman, people just wanted the 90s cartoon on steroids. I did too at first, but then I saw the trailers... I noticed they were VERY light on action and VERY heavy on Jor-El's speeching and posturing. The Smallville Theme Song has more action than the Superman Returns trailer! I adjusted my expectations. I understand a lot of people who grew up just looking at the pictures in comics or watching the cartoons (like we all did as kids) aren't used to these characters as more than action peices, but I'm so glad that some directors are trying to make these guys more than just kid's stuff.

Son of the Demon is an Elseworld, so there isn´t much to discuss here...

Batman #657 says it's not. Mythos change. Otherwise, there'd never be much of a reason to read the stories.

The problem with the kid, IMO, is that he is Superboy.
You are re-introducing Superman to the general public, he should be the focus of the all story, so, the moment you put in a kid with superpowers, you lose that spotlight.
It goes from being "Superman Returns", to Superman is the Father to Superboy

No costume. One Power. The fact is that he's not Superboy. The fact is that he was NOT in the spotlight, nor was he the focus of the story. SR proved that the child is incapable of being Superboy, that he doesn't steal the spotlight and that Superman was still the focus of all the story. If you choose to believe that a sequel will somehow magically be forced to put the boy in costume, make him heroic and give all Superman's screen time to him, then I will be forced to allow you to have your illogical and disproven opinion.

I can only talk in my behalf here, but i don´t recall anyone wanting to see a rehashing of a pre-crisis movie, and extremely outdated take on Superman, that doesn´t make much sense today :confused:

No of course not. No one ever spoke about the Donner films with any negative terms. You, had you been paying attention, would have heard repeated comparisons of the Peters/Nic Cage Superman film to the Donner ones, with various reasons why the Donner films were better and truer to the source material. It didn't make much sense, a new and fresh story like SR would have, but fanboys didn't want that, they wanted the same old same old.

[Galactical]

Or hulk wasn't really that good a movie that used some confusing split screen effect and was paced poorly, and had the most bland sleepwalking performances in a superhero movie ever aside from nick and the guy playing ross, though I thought it was ok enough do better at the bO than it did. I can see why its overly serious tone would make people stay away. Comicbook movies about big green giant guys or men in colorful tights fighting bad guys aren't supposed to be kid's stuff, but they're not supposed to exclude them either. they should be fun for all, good light sci-fi entertainment at least, not shakespeare, but fun diversions from the real world.

Whether we like it or not, the next film if there is one will focus in some part on Superman's son, Superboy and him accepting or denying his true heritage. Overall, the revelation of superman having a son is supposedly THE BIG TWIST in Returns the writers wanted to save for everyone. that's why they lied when asked about the boy's true parentage in interviews. The focus in the end of superman, much like it will be in the sequel, was on the boy and Superman telling the boy what his father told him.

Assuming everyone wanted superman the film to clearly pattern itself after donner's movie and reuse old dialogue is wrong, I think. but anyway I doubt WB cared much for what fans wanted since a bunch of supey comic fans are not going to make or break anything they release. It's up to the public.

Personally, I just wanted a good fun superman movie I could cherish in my superman collection. I knew they were using some of the donner film's style like on smallville, but with the vague history thing and lois looking like a 12yrld, the new suit, I thought they were going somewhere a little fresher than what we got... a pretty hokey donner-re-mix, with superboy and stalker superman added on top. Parts were good but overall I didn't enjoy it. I hope if there's a sequel they choose a more X2-like approach but even better. These guys can do it.

[Isildur´s Heir]

Bingo. Nail on the head. I loved the Hulk movie, cuz the psychology was so great in it. Most people went to Hulk movie to see the Hulk cartoon from the 90s in live action. If they read the comics they'd know multiple issues can go by without Hulk ever showing his face, only Bruce Banner. They'd know what the Hulk franchise is about. But they don't, they just want action and were dissappointed by Ang Lee using his brain on the movie.
Same with Superman, people just wanted the 90s cartoon on steroids. I did too at first, but then I saw the trailers... I noticed they were VERY light on action and VERY heavy on Jor-El's speeching and posturing. The Smallville Theme Song has more action than the Superman Returns trailer! I adjusted my expectations. I understand a lot of people who grew up just looking at the pictures in comics or watching the cartoons (like we all did as kids) aren't used to these characters as more than action peices, but I'm so glad that some directors are trying to make these guys more than just kid's stuff.
I can´t go against here on that, Hulk is, IMO, the best comic book movie so far, so...there.
The more i hear that SR doesn´t have that much action and focus heavily on the drama and characterization, the more hyped i am.
But i still don´t like Singer´s vision one bit....

Batman #657 says it's not. Mythos change. Otherwise, there'd never be much of a reason to read the stories.
It´s an Elseworld, trust me ;)
Birthright was also written to be the "true" Superman origin, and all of a sudden, people in DC are saying that is not and they are going to write the "definetely" origin of the Man of Steel

No costume. One Power. The fact is that he's not Superboy. The fact is that he was NOT in the spotlight, nor was he the focus of the story. SR proved that the child is incapable of being Superboy, that he doesn't steal the spotlight and that Superman was still the focus of all the story. If you choose to believe that a sequel will somehow magically be forced to put the boy in costume, make him heroic and give all Superman's screen time to him, then I will be forced to allow you to have your illogical and disproven opinion.
I´m not saying Superboy in the hero and costume kind of way, and it doesn´t matter if he only has one power....he has it, case close.
It´s like putting Captain America in a Spider-Man movie, for example....it would steal the spotlight of Spidey, because it would make people be divided for the character they love best or are more interested in.
The same goes for this case, the moment you have a kid with powers in a 1st movie, you are stealing the show from the main character.
And bare in mind that, this is the 1 st movie (that´s why i put it in bold).
I would be fine (in an Elseworld kind of deal), if they had the kid in the 3rd movie...never in the first one.

No of course not. No one ever spoke about the Donner films with any negative terms. You, had you been paying attention, would have heard repeated comparisons of the Peters/Nic Cage Superman film to the Donner ones, with various reasons why the Donner films were better and truer to the source material. It didn't make much sense, a new and fresh story like SR would have, but fanboys didn't want that, they wanted the same old same old.
No..no...no....well, at least, i think not.
They bashed the Peters script and compared it to the Donner´s movie because it was totally against the Superman mythos, and before that, the all Peter/Cage/Burton approach, was just plain dumb.
Neither was a great start, and neither is Returns, because you making a continuation of a pre-crisis franchise, even if "vague story", which is the same as to say "i´m just a lazy SOB to start all over again".
Of course it´s "new" and fresh, it´s a sequel to an old, totally outdated, pre-crisis franchise....

[Sub-Zero]

Superman Returns will easily have a sequal. Probably with a villian like Brainiac or Metallo attached. It's going to make 100mil before the weekend is out. I think X3 (which had the largest 3 day weekend openning and the largest EVER dropoff in sales--due in large part to how bad it was) scared people off from Superhero films this summer.

i don't know about that. i hated x3 as well but if you ask any non fanboy moviegoer that saw it they'll say they loved it and that it was a great film. people like crap. plain and simple. sr did bad because people kept bringing up the gay thing and it was really boring to most. i think that they should have went with my idea.(which is posted in the lexcorp thread), but that's just me. there might be a sequel. i want there to be a sequel, but if it doesn't make back the $200+ mil it cost to make i doubt they'll do it anytime soon.

[Cdawg751]

Neither is Joel Schumacher is the worst director known to man (not even close), nor is Sam Raimi a genius.
Joel Schumacher is a good director (Phone Booth, Time to Kill, The Client, Falling Down), just wrong for Batman; Raimi is a capable one, with much love for Spider-Man.

Bare in mind that Schumacher wanted to make Batman based on the tv show (wrong, stupid, but there is a reason why the movies went that way), and the Spider-Man, even if good adaptations, lack in the movie department, IMO.
Batman Begins and Hulk are way better movies than the Spider-Mans Okay i over exaggerated a little Joel isnt the worst but Batman an Robin was pretty bad...But i do think Raimi is the best director for Spiderman. Batman Begins has a more in depth an Emotional Story than the Spiderman films. But the HULK? no way man nooooo way....

[Sub-Zero]

i think there could have been many other directors who could have done wonders with spider-man. i kinda wanted to see james cameron's take on the character. as long as the superman returns sequel doesn't have zod and the other k-villains i'll have faith in singer again.

[Superman Prime]

As sure as the sun rises, there will be an EVENTUAL sequal to Superman Returns. Just don't hold your breath... at least bring along an oxygen tank.

[D-Bone]

I agree; there may eventually be another Superman movie, just not any time soon. Right now, WB suits are in a huddle doing a major re-think.
I've read their original plans, before SR was released, to put out a sequel for Summer of 2009. Expect that now to be pushed even farther out, say 2010 or 2011.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Nah.....I think in '09 will be the sequel.

What's the point in pushing it further if it's a sequel.

[NHawk19]

Another poster on the hype found this article (http://www.tmz.com/2006/07/10/exclusive-super-200-million-man-or-else/). Credit to you Pat but I dont want to hotlink to the "other" forum.

Thought it might be worth a read for those advocating a continuation of SR. It speaks to budget etc.

[elvislennon2005]

I would say that we will see a sequel in early 2008.:supes:

[Timstuff]

And what would you base that "prediction" on? Because right now it's looking REALLY bad, and right now SR probably won't make back it's budget domestically, or make a profit even when the international tallies come up.

[PSU442]

i think all the studios need to rethink their 'tentpole' approaches... too easy to get burned. With the way the box-office has been. studios are making less movies and putting that money into a way-to-expensive summer movie (Stealth.) I still expect a Superman Returns sequel.... WB still needs its franchises.... even though SR has floundered, POTC2's success still shows that audiences want sequels (as opposed to original ideas.)

If anything, i think this shows that WB should consider the Superman films as a Christmas release.... the original was. Harry Potter enjoys it. Narnia cleaned up. Just a thought....

[OzzMosiz]

If anything, i think this shows that WB should consider the Superman films as a Christmas release.... the original was. Harry Potter enjoys it. Narnia cleaned up. Just a thought....

Definitely a xmas release!!

[Mr. Walters]

IMO that means nothing. A sequel to Superman Returns wouldn't cost so much to make

Why do you say that?

[Darknightnomis]

Why do you say that?

Sequel usually cost less becasue many of the sets and costumes, etc are alreay made and the special eforts are already created.

the only reason a sequel will cost more if they didn't put much money in the first film and then it becomes a major blockbuster so they put more in the sequel .

An example of this is the orginal Starwars (which cost 10 mil) and then ESB (23 mil)

[Mr. Walters]

I see what you are saying.

But it seems to be the trend latley has been to do make the sequels "bigger and better". Personally, I don't think they could spend more money on a sequel. A $300 million budgest would be insane.

[Jochimus]

But it seems to be the trend latley has been to do make the sequels "bigger and better".

Not if the first one barely makes its money back. After Buttman & Rubbin', Crapwoman, and the present situation with Superman Returns, WB would be insurmountably stupid to continue wrapping their superhero franchises in excesses. That's not good business. There are ways of making a worthwhile sequel without spending a sh**load on production design and FX, and hopefully if Singer, Dougherty and Harris are as humbled by the lashing they've gotten from Captain Jack Sparrow as it sounds, they'll be the wiser for it if WB does give them another chance.

[Steelsheen]

Sequel usually cost less becasue many of the sets and costumes, etc are alreay made and the special eforts are already created.

i hope to dear God that they improve on the costume. i dont know if i can bear seeing Routh again in that joke of an attire.

[Timstuff]

Also, sets are always destroyed after a movie is finished to make room for the next production coming in.

[Jochimus]

Also, sets are always destroyed after a movie is finished to make room for the next production coming in.

No, not always. For a while after its release, Universal kept the sets for "Van Helsing" still standing in anticipation of a sequel. Heh.

[GL1]

It´s an Elseworld, trust me ;)
Birthright was also written to be the "true" Superman origin, and all of a sudden, people in DC are saying that is not and they are going to write the "definetely" origin of the Man of Steel

They may retcon it to something else, but right now, it's not all that Elsy. Bottom line. Mythos change.

I´m not saying Superboy in the hero and costume kind of way, and it doesn´t matter if he only has one power....he has it, case close.
It´s like putting Captain America in a Spider-Man movie, for example....it would steal the spotlight of Spidey, because it would make people be divided for the character they love best or are more interested in.
The same goes for this case, the moment you have a kid with powers in a 1st movie, you are stealing the show from the main character.
And bare in mind that, this is the 1 st movie (that´s why i put it in bold).
I would be fine (in an Elseworld kind of deal), if they had the kid in the 3rd movie...never in the first one.

I don't think the kid is any way at all comparable to Captain America. The kid is, more or less useless, if not on a fluke, he is also sickly and easily scared. This is not somebody that's going to be competing with Superman for your attention, especially since the director decides how much screen time he has. No show has been stolen.

No..no...no....well, at least, i think not.
They bashed the Peters script and compared it to the Donner´s movie because it was totally against the Superman mythos, and before that, the all Peter/Cage/Burton approach, was just plain dumb.
Neither was a great start, and neither is Returns, because you making a continuation of a pre-crisis franchise, even if "vague story", which is the same as to say "i´m just a lazy SOB to start all over again".
Of course it´s "new" and fresh, it´s a sequel to an old, totally outdated, pre-crisis franchise....

Again, we can all have negative comments about the Donner films now, but they simply didn't exist pre-SR. If they did, people were to scared to say them.

As sure as the sun rises, there will be an EVENTUAL sequal to Superman Returns. Just don't hold your breath... at least bring along an oxygen tank.
I agree; there may eventually be another Superman movie, just not any time soon. Right now, WB suits are in a huddle doing a major re-think.
I've read their original plans, before SR was released, to put out a sequel for Summer of 2009. Expect that now to be pushed even farther out, say 2010 or 2011.
And what would you base that "prediction" on? Because right now it's looking REALLY bad, and right now SR probably won't make back it's budget domestically, or make a profit even when the international tallies come up.

Okay, homies, listen up, you're only gonna get education this good once. Superman Returns has already made all it's money back. Yup.

The posted budget is $260 Million. WB only confirms spending $250, but hey, lets stick with $260, for arguement's sake. $40 Million of that is budget for sequels. Yes, that's actors deals and resources, ALREADY dedicated to SR2 and 3 (And perhaps beyond). That brings us down to $220M that WB (the people who matter) are looking for from SR. Now, with the Australian tax cuts, WB will be getting back from Australia everything but $183M dollars. Yes. $40M in tax cuts. That's why people make movies in Australia so often.

How much has SR made so far? $187M. Yes, SR has ALREADY made all of it's money back, that's in 17 days, not even three weeks. Everything from this day forward, is profit. Keep in mind this doesn't take into account the toys and games and sudden rise in T-shirt sales. This says nothing of the DVD sales (good gosh). SR has already made a profit. WB has no reason not to make a sequel... besides, they've already spent $40 M on it...

So this silliness about WB being scared of a sequel, is just that. They'll probably fight harder for the early-Summer slot where they know they can clean up. They won't be cocky, like say, Star Wars would, because they know other notable franchises, like POTC, can be competition. But WB has no reason not to make a sequel to SR. In fact, they're probably celebrating right now, since they made back their budget today.

Those who care about the truth may want to check this link:
The Numbers on Sueprman Returns (http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2006/SPRMN.php)

The rest of you can continue to pretend that SR isn't making money, and isn't going to get a sequel...

[Stevens25]

I really liked Superman Returns. Although it's not tearing up the box office,I think a sequel would be a great idea. I agree with most people here in having Supes fight someone else with superpowers. We need to see an epic battle!

[WormyT]

A sequel at this point seems guaranteed. It's just that MANY trolls are taking advantage of the situation and making others skeptical.

MANY films have had small openings and went on to become #1 at box office!!!

Case in point- LOTR, Chronicles, etc.

It's just people can't wait anymore.

Box office is a marathon- not a sprint.
So people are Trolls if they dislike Superman Returns and express that opinion.
It's called having good taste in movies..

[Jochimus]

So people are Trolls if they dislike Superman Returns and express that opinion.
It's called having good taste in movies..

No, it's called having an opinion.

[Mr. Walters]

The anti-SR stuff in here is laregely without basis.

I think it's been established that SR can more than make it's money back, especially with the sickening amount of merchandizing they've been doing. It was definitely an expensive film, but that will hardly cut it's legs for a sequel.

So let's see. "Superman should've fought someone head to head."
Hmm... so action makes a movie good? Catwoman was great. Schindler's List sucked. Gotcha. Superman was just fine with the physical challenges he was given.

What else? "Singer doesn't know Superman's mythos."
Ah, so then Grant Morrison didn't know the Batman Mythos when he took an OUT OF CONTINUITY story Son of the Demon and made Batman's non existant son Ibn a half-grown sword swinging villain. Did he not know the mythos, or did he just add to them? Grant Morrison decided not to retread the same old Batman versus Bane for all the marbles big fight and did something a bit deeper. Singer did the same thing.

If Singer DID know the mythos he'd realize that everyone tired of the Clark-Lois-Superman triangle (that's why the comics changed it), and Lois and Clark married is boring (that's why DC makes her dissappear). Singer did the same thing any DC writer does... he shakes things up.

But wait. There's more. "The kid is a problem."
Genious. Wait for it...
OF COURSE the kid is a problem. The point of the movie is that Superman has PROBLEMS. He is a grown man and he has grown man problems when he acts like a little kid and shirks his responsibilities. It makes his personal life IMPOSSIBLE. His son calls another man daddy. His girl is HAPPILY with another man. That's not a problem to get rid of, that's where good character development comes from.

What other piddly complaints hear I? Oh... "People came out of the film saying bad things."
So, the three people you talked to, and Roger Ebert, didn't like it. So? If you noticed, it wasn't a slam bang action film, therefore, the people who enjoyed it would likely be thinking about the subtleties of the plot rather than shouting "Booyah!" Right? If it had been all about a big fight and cool moves, then I could see how a lack of shouting would be a problem, but you didn't hear a lot of people shouting hurrah at the end of Schindler's List. Superman Returns isn't really an action movie.

So not only are we imagining that Superman Returns was bad because it wasn't the action movie we somehow expected... it gets better.

"Singer had blind devotion to the Donner films."
I always laugh at this one. Anyone who was on a message board five years ago, while Superman Lives and those other aborted projects were being worked on know that every message board was glutted with praise for Donner's films. They were "Superman done right." As far as fandom was concerned. Singer fell right in line with that and WB could say they were following the fans on picking someone with such devotion to Donner films. Again, fans ASKED for the Donner films again, and we almost got them, except for Singer's ugly habit of not rehashing played out storylines.

Oh but it gets better:
"What the film really needed was Mercy Graves"
Who? Grace AND Mercy or just Mercy? So Singer should trade his blind devotion for the Donner films and replace it with blind devotion to STAS? Perfect.

There's more of course, but I think it's pretty clear that the standards being used to judge SR are biased, and therefore, useless for making any judgements. Let's watch the money roll in and see how high over $200M it rises.

As for sequel issues, I have to say that I am very glad for Jason's existance. It forces Superman to grow as a character. Superman can no longer be a naive wanderer. He has to step up and take charge. He has to be a man. DC Comics has been trying to do this for years, and haven't had too much success. Singer did this in a little over two hours. SR for teh win.

While some of what you said does hold merit, you are making way to many generalizations. Some pople wanted Mercy and to follow The Animated Series and others wanted him to follow the Donner movies, but you make it sound as if everyone who disliked the movie is contridicting themselves because they wanted Superman: The Movie and Superman: The Animated Series, and that's not always true. While some people wanted to see Mercy (me being one of them) I didn't cry that it wasn't a rehashing of an old Donner film.

Yes, the kid is a problem, but no the movie is not about Superman having problems. I didn't see this at all. I got more about the movie from what Singer said in interviews than I did from the actual movie. Singer may have wanted this to be about Superman's problems but it didn't come across on the screen, at least not to me. I think Superman should have regualr human problems, but after watching Singer portray him as a God for over two and a half hours I didn't see how human problems were relevant. Singer all but stripped him of his humanity.

I also agree, that story should take precendence over action in a movie, but Superman Returns also failed in this aspect. What story? You know, the other day someone asked me what the movie was about and I said I didn't know. I couldn't begin to tell them waht the hell Superman Returns was other than Superman flying around and saving the day. I wanted to come out of the theatre think about the subtleties of the plot, but there weren't any. Superman Returns did emphasize action over story in my opinion.

And yes, in a sequel Superman could grow as a character, but what growing did he do in the two hours (closer to three actually) that Singer had him?

And a lot more than three people have said bad things about the movie. I only know one person who liked it. One. Two if I count you.

I may have missed something though. Your rant makes me want to take a second and closer look at Superman Returns.

[KaptainKrypton]

There will be a sequel. Most of the budget of the film (excluding previous development costs) went to the material stuff like sets and FX. Sets can be re-used, and the FX may not have seemed groundbreaking to desensitized eyes, but there were a boatload of shots that were all synthetic (and more importantly, costly). Superman saving the world from natural disasters and plane crashes is likely more expensive to put onscreen than a couple of guys brawling around a city like in Spiderman 2 because of the design of entire large-scale sets and full CG sets as well. Personally, I thought it was money well spent as I loved the FX. On another note, filming in Australia gives them tax incentives that lessen the cost even more. WB can't give exact dollar amounts because they probably don't know given exchange rates for the US dollar, as well as the spreading of costs over sequels.
The next film won't have to have the Gertrude sets or the New Krypton sets, so there is money saved. It also won't have to deal with things like the ship crash and the location costs for that. Plus, costs for the Genesis camera were damn sure not going to be cheap as far as the R & D goes for their filming. The tapes were cheap, but the camera was probably insanely pricey. Films like SR are difficult to guage a budget on, which is why there has been a ton of numbers just thrown around. Case in point, though. There will be a sequel within the next three years. DVD sales will boost this film like they did for BB. The release of the 14 disc set will also help to entrench Superman throughout the holiday season this year. Even without DVD sales and merchandise tie-ins this coming fall/winter, they've already broken even in the total worldwide BO gross.

[CB Fan]

wats up everybody, I was watching the news yesterday and they said that the studio has confirmed that there probably wont be a sequel due to failed expectations in the gross.

[Jakomus]

wats up everybody, I was watching the news yesterday and they said that the studio has confirmed that there probably wont be a sequel due to failed expectations in the gross.Is this true?

[DarKush]

SR will make its money back, if not domestically then from the worldwide take. However, I see it limping to the $200 million mark.

When Little Man and Dupree take out the Man of Steel, this is a sure sign that SR doesn't have a lot of staying power.

I liken the movie to The Phantom Menace. I sort of had the same dazed, unsatisfying feeling coming out of TPM too.

There were some good parts in SR. The FX were good, the cast was decent, though I didn't care for Kate Bosworth as Lois, and Spacey played Luthor way too flat. And Frank Langella was far too sedate.

However, it wasn't a movie that roused the emotions or made you feel good or believe that a man could fly. People can dump on the Donner films 'campiness' all they want, but those movies were larger than life. It's still a fun experience watching them.

When Christopher Reeve declared "I don't lie," or told Lois about the safety of flying, I believed him. Routh was just delivering lines. And why was Clark drinking a beer?

There weren't enough 'super' moments in the film to warrant going to watch it a second time.

All that being said, there will be a sequel. I don't mind Singer as a director again, but I really like the idea of Paul Dini as screenwriter. He gets Superman, Singer doesn't.

To me, Supes is not a god or a stalker or absentee parent. He is an alien, but at the same time the embodiment of humanity's highest ideals and aspirations. He should be revered and respected, not worshipped.

[OzzMosiz]

wats up everybody, I was watching the news yesterday and they said that the studio has confirmed that there probably wont be a sequel due to failed expectations in the gross.

Fox news by any chance? I won't believe it until its picked up on the net by a trustworthy site.

[Jochimus]

SR will make its money back, if not domestically then from the worldwide take. However, I see it limping to the $200 million mark.

When Little Man and Dupree take out the Man of Steel, this is a sure sign that SR doesn't have a lot of staying power.

I liken the movie to The Phantom Menace. I sort of had the same dazed, unsatisfying feeling coming out of TPM too.

I think that's a very apt description. :)

When Christopher Reeve declared "I don't lie," or told Lois about the safety of flying, I believed him. Routh was just delivering lines.

I agree with that, also. And the only time I felt that that schtick REALLY worked was at the end, and even then it was thirty-year-old dialogue. I think Routh was just stuck between a rock and a hard place by Singer.

All that being said, there will be a sequel. I don't mind Singer as a director again, but I really like the idea of Paul Dini as screenwriter. He gets Superman, Singer doesn't.

:up:

[Lucidious]

I just read this:
http://www.moviehole.net/gossipmonkey/20060715_gossip_monkey_15706.html


So, “Superman Returns” was cool. (No gigantic mechanical spider in there though Jon? And Supes kept his suit too. You losing some power or you just accepted you were a little nuts at the time?) Ahem… but this **** about Warner holding out until it makes $200 million before greenlighting a sequel is just that - ****. pure bull****. They've already decided they're doing a sequel. I can assure you of that. "Superman Continues" or "Superman Strikes Back" - or whatever they end up calling it - will definitely be at cinemas within the next couple of years. (Brandon Routh's chasing a role in the "World of Warcraft" movie - -wonder if he'll do that first?)

[Jochimus]

(Brandon Routh's chasing a role in the "World of Warcraft" movie - -wonder if he'll do that first?)

Might be a wise decision on his part if he wants to keep working beyond Superman.

[griffolyon12]

Is SR making enough money? The question is, where does Superman go from here? Do you want Singer back for second run, or is it time for a complete restart? Warner Bros & oh no Jon Peters have some big decisions ahead. Peters may return to his old self & go the Black Costume Superman Lives/Reborn route. I'm really worried about who or what the Studio is going to blame for this lower than expected Box office. I sure hope its the Donner continuation factor that gets blaimed.I loved SR,but I think any sequel would destroy how good this film is.I mean there aren't many routes you can take with the whole Superman's son thing.I like the kid and SR is tied with BB in my opinion,but a sequel would more than likely be a trainwreck.I think they should just leave Superman for now and return in about ten years(just like Batman did)with a complete restart of the franchise starting from scratch,and I mean retelling the origin and everything.Because I think that might be one of the major problems with this film's main audience teenagers,most teens haven't seen any of the Chris Reeves movies and don't know Superman's origins and their only source of his origin is Smallville and Smallville is different than the origin that SR was based off of.I loved SR and don't want to see it ruined by a bad sequel.But if they leave Superman alone for about a decade they can start over with a clean slate just like BB was able to do,and we all know how well that worked for Batman.

[Jochimus]

I loved SR,but I think any sequel would destroy how good this film is.I mean there aren't many routes you can take with the whole Superman's son thing.I like the kid and SR is tied with BB in my opinion,but a sequel would more than likely be a trainwreck.I think they should just leave Superman for now and return in about ten years(just like Batman did)with a complete restart of the franchise starting from scratch,and I mean retelling the origin and everything.Because I think that might be one of the major problems with this film's main audience teenagers,most teens haven't seen any of the Chris Reeves movies and don't know Superman's origins and their only source of his origin is Smallville and Smallville is different than the origin that SR was based off of.I loved SR and don't want to see it ruined by a bad sequel.But if they leave Superman alone for about a decade they can start over with a clean slate just like BB was able to do,and we all know how well that worked for Batman.

Um, O.K. Evidently you never heard of a little show called "Superman: The Animated Series".

We don't need Superman's origin told for the umpteenth time. It's been done already, over and over and over in every medium in which Superman stories have been told. They did it in the '50s show, they did it in the movie, they did it in the animated series, they're doing it right now on "Smallville"; they just don't have the suit. And it's the same basic setup every time, it just LOOKS different.

Batman's origin has NOT been addressed every time they've done a movie or TV show. Every movie serial or TV show or movie they did for the longest time just barely mentioned it, and really the only show up until "Batman Begins" that did that story any justice was B:TAS, and even then as references and memories of his father and never a direct re-telling.

I want to see a NEW STORY, more than anything else. I like the John Williams theme music and the flying opening credits and John Barry's Fortress of Solitude design, but I want to see a Superman movie that has a classic Superman villain that hasn't yet gotten their long-overdue screen time, a story that gets things rolling into new territory, and character development beyond simply forcing poor Brandon Routh to impersonate Christopher Reeve and sticking Lois Lane with a kid who in the hands of today's writers will probably amount to little more than a one-note plot device. I'm glad I didn't have insanely high expectations for "Superman Returns", otherwise I probably wouldn't have liked the movie as much as I do.

Come to think of it, if anyone wants to send a sign to Singer that he needs to get down off the Donner horse already, just send him one of those Christopher Reeve Foundation dog tags. The line on the tag says it all: GO FORWARD. That'll do it.