The TIH & TDK Effect: A Civil Debate

[chosen1]

So i guess its going to be Man of Steel 2009

[Steelsheen]

hopefully, if all goes according to plan.

[CConn]

I certainly wouldn't mind if it was, but then, Singer's really hasn't done anything to follow in Nolan's footsteps yet.

[Immortalfire]

I hope not.

[Cyclops3235]

wait, if this 09, and bats 08, what is dx have in 07?????

[WhatsHisFace]

"The Dark Knight" sounds so much better than "Escalation".

[Caliboy]

at the moment, shazam is on imdb slated for 2007 but thats not a def, wonder woman is a possibility too, if the execs ever pass on whedon's script.

[PSU442]

i don't think shazam is WB.... the movie rights went to somebody else. Don't forget, WB always has Harry Potter to be a tent pole though.

[hippie_hunter]

"The Man of Steel" is expected in 2009.

[Steelsheen]

wait, if this 09, and bats 08, what is dx have in 07?????

nothing :(.

it should've been Wonder Woman, but then Whedon is taking his sweet time. he said that studio has read his script and is arranging for a meeting, but even IF they liked his script and started casting and pre-prod the following day its too late to get this out by 2007, certainly not by the summer, and would feel totally rushed if they forced it for the winter release.

[Bad Superman]

I would save The Man of Steel title for a future franchise re-start. It's too good for a SR sequel.

[Vile.47]

Well, if the villian of the movie is Braniac, then I'm hoping for the title to be The Last Son Of Krypton. If it was Metallo, then The Man Of Steel. Please, no Zod!!

[Apellation]

Please, no Zod!!No one has suggested Zod except the people who do want him, so you should stop worrying.

[M.O.Steel]

Well, if the villian of the movie is Braniac, then I'm hoping for the title to be The Last Son Of Krypton. If it was Metallo, then The Man Of Steel. Please, no Zod!!

Wow...that sounds good. Maybe use both in the subsequent sequels.

[Top_Hatter]

Well, if the villian of the movie is Braniac, then I'm hoping for the title to be The Last Son Of Krypton. If it was Metallo, then The Man Of Steel. Please, no Zod!!

My friend I like your style, I also think that "The Man Of Tomorrow" could work well for either.

[The Kid]

To steal... er I mean HOMAGE :cwink: from JcDc's thread, I want to make a new poll but without Ratner as the other choice.

hehehe. So just imagine that Nolan for some reason was available to do it, would you want him to or continue with singer?
:yay:

vote!

[Dark_Lord]

Just because Nolan did a great job with Begins it doesnt mean he'd do a good Superman movie.

[Steelsheen]

i wanna see what Nolan's re-imagining would look like first.

as i've said i'm not a real fan of the term "re-imagining"

[BigCityBoy]

Just because Nolan did a great job with Begins it doesnt mean he'd do a good Superman movie.

Thats the same way I felt about Tim Burton directing a Superman movie like he was suppose to some years back. He did an excellent job with Batman and Batman Returns but I don't think he would've done a good job with Superman.

[I Am The Knight]

No, he would have Superman flying a plane because aliens and people flying don't exist in the real world :woot: Seriously, I don't think he's suited for Superman. I would rather have Peter Jackson or Singer of course. :yay:

[The Kid]

Just because Nolan did a great job with Begins it doesnt mean he'd do a good Superman movie.

Whatt? :huh:

The quality of the story is determined by the quality of the story teller, and nothing else. It could be a story about a piece of poo (this does exist. It's some french film.) and if the story teller is good, he can keep you interested and tell a good story. So I don't see exactly how Nolan, a good story teller, and someone who respects the comics, wouldn't make a good supey movie.

INWT

ISWDT

[The Kid]

No, he would have Superman flying a plane because aliens and people flying don't exist in the real world :woot: Seriously, I don't think he's suited for Superman. I would rather have Peter Jackson or Singer of course. :yay:

Golly a peter jackson superman might be swell.

Singer again? He'll have Superman stupidly walk up to lex and get manhandled and shot in the eye and then fly around crying all day but if that's what people want... who am i to fiddle on the roof about it...

[Bad Superman]

Nolan did an excelent job with Batman, so this is a no brainer:

NOLAN

[lordofthenerds]

Singer. I liked Singer and for some reason I don't think that Nolan would do as well with Superman as he did with Batman.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Nolan is one my top three favorite directors, the others being Michael Mann and Oliver Stone. That being said, he is all wrong for Superman. Nolan loves doing gritty, dark, compelling psychological thrillers. He's perfect for Batman, all wrong for Supes. Besides, he hates Superman.

[matrix_ghost]

Nolan is one my top three favorite directors, the others being Michael Mann and Oliver Stone. That being said, he is all wrong for Superman. Nolan loves doing gritty, dark, compelling psychological thrillers. He's perfect for Batman, all wrong for Supes. Besides, he hates Superman.

Seriously ??

Haha , now that is funny :woot:

[Visionary]

Neither Nolan or Singer are good enough for a Superman film, I'd say Ridley Scott.

[matthooper]

Neither one!

[ultimatefan]

Does Nolan even like Superman? Plus he´s busy with tons of projects, including the Batman sequels, the remake of The Prisioner, etc. The sequel will be directed by Singer. Live with it.

[batman44]

Nolan is one my top three favorite directors, the others being Michael Mann and Oliver Stone. That being said, he is all wrong for Superman. Nolan loves doing gritty, dark, compelling psychological thrillers. He's perfect for Batman, all wrong for Supes. Besides, he hates Superman.

prove it

[dark_b]

No, he would have Superman flying a plane because aliens and people flying don't exist in the real world :woot: Seriously, I don't think he's suited for Superman. I would rather have Peter Jackson or Singer of course. :yay:the difference is that batman has no superpowers and a lot of hes villains ar normal humans. so nolan thought that he could live in a ''real'' world. but that doesnt mean that nolan wants always everything realistic in hes movie.

[matthooper]

etc. The sequel will be directed by Singer. Live with it.

That is the sad but true fact. Superman Returns wasn't as much as a dissapointment as say Hulk, which is getting a new spin and new director. Unfortunately, although a dissapointment, SR made just enough money to save Singer's job.

Incidentally, Hulk made 62 million in it's opening weekend and Superman Returns made 52 million.

[The Kid]

Hulk should have been released in 3D Imax too.

I still hope the execs can him. After nearly three decades Superman NEEDS someone with more modern sensibilities behind it.

Setting aside that Singer's version of superman fundamentally is rubbish with all his angst and childish behavior in the film, it's really stupid to have made it a vague sequel, basically intending to have the audience ignore all the plot holes and inconsistencies with the movies it borrows everything from. Just dumb. No one knows what to think it's a sequel to, not even singer and his crew. How stupid is this crap?

Superman deserved a billion times better than this. No, I'm not saying if you're on your knees in love with singer's movie that that's wrong or that as bosef would say "pathetic". Unlike that guy who probably works for WB, I can respect someone's right to have a different opinion than mine. I'm just confused with a side of dissapointment... after all these years superman basically gets the batman forever treatment. Woo hoo...

[Thespiralgoeson]

prove it

First of all, that was really a joke. Second, go screw yourself. Third, Nolan is all wrong for Superman. Fourth, go screw yourself again.

[Eros]

Yea nolan first and for most only did a batman movie, becasue he really liked the fact the character had no powers, and his villians were insane. Nolan like realism alright, but he also does like some fantastical elements. But just becasue he did a good job with a batman movie, does not mean he would do a great job with a superman movie. Singer was a huge fan[as opposed to Nolan who is not] of superman [movies anyway] but some people felt he didn't do a amazing job with Returns.

[NotFadeAway]

I vote for a Venom re-imagining!

Im ready to go right now, I got a script, casting idea's, Ill shoot the film around a budget of $125 million give or take, hit me up Wrner Brothers it's not like you won't know who I am soon enough Im coming for your ass Alan Horn.

[fceeviper]

Singer.

[Excel]

ummm.... no. nolans realistic views would be horrible for superman.

[batman44]

First of all, that was really a joke. Second, go screw yourself. Third, Nolan is all wrong for Superman. Fourth, go screw yourself again.

Umm No, not that kind of person:oldrazz:

[The Sage]

Continue with Singer. I don't think Nolan's style lends itself to Superman's world.

[DavidTyler]

Nolan would not have a problem w/Superman's fantastic elements. The thing that I think would work against Nolan is that he loves to work in flashbacks. Batman's whole life is about the flashbacks - so that works for that character. Superman is about where he's going instead of where he's been.

I'm not in favour of Singer, however. In fact, he's proven that he's less qualified to do a Superman film than half the posters here.

[Venom71]

Nolan would not have a problem w/Superman's fantastic elements. The thing that I think would work against Nolan is that he loves to work in flashbacks. Batman's whole life is about the flashbacks - so that works for that character. Superman is about where he's going instead of where he's been.

I'm not in favour of Singer, however. In fact, he's proven that he's less qualified to do a Superman film than half the posters here.
Opinion...not fact....I keep seeing posters saying they can do a better job..lets see it...get your Superman movie out there before Singer's sequel.....prove you can do better.

[patrickbateman]

But are the fans out there ready to accept a donner less vision? Let say for example my humble attempt at tying to re imagine superman. I’m 100% sure you guys would give it a below 5 rating For various reasons. lets however try to work together and see if we can do better than the big wigs out there.

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10256274#post10256274

I tried to stay true to most of the original theme At the same time making it fresh for the general audience out there... sure I didn’t have the guy bang on Lois and having a kid and all but have I included more than Bryan singer’s movie hell yeah.

[Venom71]

But are the fans out there ready to accept a donner less vision? Let say for example my humble attempt at tying to re imagine superman. I’m 100% sure you guys would give it a below 5 rating lets trying working together and see if we can do better than the big wigs out there.
Thats a good point....no matter who directs, writes, stars..etc the fanbase are never going to agree 100 %.

[KaptainKrypton]

Thats a good point....no matter who directs, writes, stars..etc the fanbase are never going to agree 100 %.
That's very true. For a lot of us geeks on here (especially me) Superman is an integral part of what we are, and probably has been since childhood (it has for me). He's kind of like a "Fifth Beattle" to me, in some ways. When something I like is done with him, I'm happy. On the flipside, if it's not? I'm Super-pissed.

[zanos]

Neither. Both directors are lacking in some area or another to make a proper comic book adaptation.

[xwolverine2]

neither........ but def. not singer again

so i voted nolan... just because batman begins was better than SR

[DavidTyler]

Opinion...not fact....I keep seeing posters saying they can do a better job..lets see it...get your Superman movie out there before Singer's sequel.....prove you can do better.

You get me the funding and the bet is on.

I KNOW I could make a better Superman movie. One that would satisfy all sides of the debate here.

So many of you are Hollywood zombies that almost anything they put out will become canon to you. I would go back to source and use as much current info as possible while still throwing a bone in to some of the other sources.

I'd let you keep Donner's fortress but not his Krypton. I'd let you keep crystals but not a crystaline Krypton. Jimmy would be an average 20 something instead of nerdy left-over from the 1930's with a 'man-crush' on Clark. Clark would no longer be a nebbish. He would just be a quiet, unassuming guy with a rep for being a good, inquisitive reporter.

Lois would be intelligent with a lot of guts. No ciggie smoking neurotic.

Perry would be that great bear of a man that he's been almost since his creation.

Luthor would be the corporate shark with Mercy at his side - and wouldn't be the main threat.

The first film would involve a massive, non-terrestrial threat like Darksied, Brainiac, or Mongul.

I would do the treatment but bring in Denny O'Neil or Roger Stern, or even Waid to do the script. Waid I'd have to make clear that he's not to alter concepts and stick with the interpretation of character that's laid out to him.

But, It's all up to you, Venny - YOU get me the funding and I'll do the rest.

[Venom71]

You get me the funding and the bet is on.

I KNOW I could make a better Superman movie. One that would satisfy all sides of the debate here.

So many of you are Hollywood zombies that almost anything they put out will become canon to you. I would go back to source and use as much current info as possible while still throwing a bone in to some of the other sources.

I'd let you keep Donner's fortress but not his Krypton. I'd let you keep crystals but not a crystaline Krypton. Jimmy would be an average 20 something instead of nerdy left-over from the 1930's with a 'man-crush' on Clark. Clark would no longer be a nebbish. He would just be a quiet, unassuming guy with a rep for being a good, inquisitive reporter.

Lois would be intelligent with a lot of guts. No ciggie smoking neurotic.

Perry would be that great bear of a man that he's been almost since his creation.

Luthor would be the corporate shark with Mercy at his side - and wouldn't be the main threat.

The first film would involve a massive, non-terrestrial threat like Darksied,Brainiac, or Mongul.

I would do the treatment but bring in Denny O'Neil or Roger Stern, or even Waid to do the script. Waid I'd have to make clear that he's not to alter concepts and stick with the interpretation of character that's laid out to him.

But, It's all up to you, Venny - YOU get me the funding and I'll do the rest.

I've never said I could make a better movie..I just put the challenge out there...you say you can do it..come up with the money and do it...you talk a good game but I knew when I put the chalage out there it would be..well I don't have the money for that kind of thing...but I know I can do better. I am already unimpressed with some of what you are suggesting (See Items In Bold)

[Visionary]

Unimpressed with Darksied as a main villain, you've got to be kiddin,' that would kick muti-cultural asses. In fact, if DavidTyler ideas were set forth in Superman Returns, it would have made for a better movie.

[Venom71]

Unimpressed with Darksied as a main villain, you've got to be kiddin,' that would kick muti-cultural asses. In fact, if DavidTyler ideas were set forth in Superman Returns, it would have made for a better movie.
2 Reasons:
A) I don't think he would translate well into live action...I see him being cheesy like Skelator in the Masters of The Universe
B) The general audience would be like..who is this..I have never heard of this guy Darksied.....Where is Lex, Brainiac or Zod?

[batman44]

2 Reasons:
A) I don't think he would translate well into live action...I see him being cheesy like Skelator in the Masters of The Universe
B) The general audience would be like..who is this..I have never heard of this guy Darksied.....Where is Lex, Brainiac or Zod?

Then lets teach the audience who the villians are; did the audience know who Zod was before S:TM or SII? Are going to say the audience will be turned off by Spider-man 3 cause they don't know who Sandman is?

[Venom71]

Then lets teach the audience who the villians are; did the audience know who Zod was before S:TM or SII? Are going to say the audience will be turned off by Spider-man 3 cause they don't know who Sandman is?
I still say Darksied would be cheesy in Live Action but I suppose if SINGER introduces him slowly and not be the villain in the next movie the GA will get to know who Darksied is.
As for Sandman..the GA has flocked to the first two Spider-Man movies so it wouldn't matter who the villain is in the 3rd...the GA would still flock to it. :woot:

[batman44]

I still say Darksied would be cheesy in Live Action but I suppose if SINGER introduces him slowly and not be the villain in the next movie the GA will get to know who Darksied is.
As for Sandman..the GA has flocked to the first two Spider-Man movies so it wouldn't matter who the villain is in the 3rd...the GA would still flock to it. :woot:

Well I really wasn't saying you got to have Darksied, but just that having a villian the audience doesn't know really doesn't= bad.

[Batgort]

In Nolan We Trust

[DavidTyler]

I still say Darksied would be cheesy in Live Action but I suppose if SINGER introduces him slowly and not be the villain in the next movie the GA will get to know who Darksied is.
As for Sandman..the GA has flocked to the first two Spider-Man movies so it wouldn't matter who the villain is in the 3rd...the GA would still flock to it. :woot:

Cheesy? Oh, you mean like Hackman in S:TM?

Darksied would translate fantastically if he were done acurately and seriously.

Who knew Darth Vader before he made his first appearance...


And of course you don't like the other changes I would institute. You've made it plain time and time again that you think Donner's and Singer's takes are great. More Hollywood eating it's own tail.

[Venom71]

Cheesy? Oh, you mean like Hackman in S:TM?

Darksied would translate fantastically if he were done acurately and seriously.

Who knew Darth Vader before he made his first appearance...


And of course you don't like the other changes I would institute.You've made it plain time and time again that you think Donner's and Singer's takes are great. More Hollywood eating it's own tail.

Nah...I never seen Hackman's Luthor as Cheesy in S:TM....yes Otis was but not Lex...Hackman was great...my only gripe was the wigs.
I also thought Lois & Clark was Great and I am a SV fan and when I was a kid The Adventures of Superman & The Superfriends...Challenge of The Superfriends was my favorite Superfriends cartoon. :word: :super:

[Visionary]

2 Reasons:
A) I don't think he would translate well into live action...I see him being cheesy like Skelator in the Masters of The Universe
B) The general audience would be like..who is this..I have never heard of this guy Darksied.....Where is Lex, Brainiac or Zod?
There is nothing cheesy about Darksied, with the right director, he would be an unforgettable villain. Especially, seeing him knock Superman on his ass, making him bleed without Krytonite while he's at full power. His origin unto itself is an epic worth telling. You don't really need a well known villain in an "ICON" movie, the audience will get to know him as he's slowly released through posters and trailers--not to mention looking the character up on the web. Darksied intrigues, he's what the Superman film needs, a threat, a huge threat. You could still have Lex, as a background villain.

Like someone said, Sandman is not a popular villain, neither is Ras Al Ghul in Batman Begins. When you have names like Batman, Spider-Man or Superman that's your draw right there. Put a villain on film, that can go toe-to-toe with the hero (something that SR was missing), and then you've got something people want to see. Superman Return's sequel needs a powerful villain. Brainic is good, Zod has been used and we need to get away from previous Superman films already (thanks to Singer). Darksied is the best choice, when people read his background and what he does, and how powerful he is...it'll be intrigue on the minds of many.

[Delete]

Nolan has directed more than a couple of good movies unlike Singer so I go wiht him.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Nolan has directed more than a couple of good movies unlike Singer so I go wiht him.


LOL

I put Apt Pupil, Usual Suspects, and the X-men films up against Nolan's work :)

Memento is pure greatness I must say though :up:

[Delete]

LOL

I put Apt Pupil, Usual Suspects, and the X-men films up against Nolan's work :)

Memento is pure greatness I must say though :up:

I wasn't a big fan of Apt Pupil. Usual Suspects is a great movie though.

[FanboyX_Returns]

LOL

I put Apt Pupil, Usual Suspects, and the X-men films up against Nolan's work :)

Memento is pure greatness I must say though :up:

BATMAN BEGINS single handedly takes down box XMEN movies made by Singer, and also his Supercrappyman Returns.
Apt Pupil stunk, and about the only good movie Singer has ever made was Usual Suspects which again doesnt even compare to Memento...

Nolan is a brilliant film maker... Singer is a grade A HACK!

[Maze]

Lol I wouldd lovvvee to see more hack like Singer :woot: but hey that's me ;)

[Thespiralgoeson]

BATMAN BEGINS single handedly takes down box XMEN movies made by Singer, and also his Supercrappyman Returns.
Apt Pupil stunk, and about the only good movie Singer has ever made was Usual Suspects which again doesnt even compare to Memento...

Nolan is a brilliant film maker... Singer is a grade A HACK!

You're not going to find a bigger Christopher Nolan fan than me. Hell, Insomnia is easily one of my all-time favorite movies.

But seriously, you're Singer-hate is completely misplaced. He may be overrated, but he's certainly no "grade A HACK." The guy is as talented a filmmaker as there is.

Look, I loved Batman Begins way more than either of Singer's X-men flicks, but that's in no small part due to the fact that I'm much more a Batman fan than an X-men fan. You absolutely HAVE to give Singer credit and appreciate the first X-men film for what it was. After the embarassment that was Batman & Robin, a lot of people didn't think a comic based movie could ever be taken seriously. Singer's X-men movie proved that a comic-based movie could have a real plot, real drama, and not be inherently campy. X-men paved the way for Spider-man, which in-turn started the current trend of superhero movies. Imagine if X-men had failed. I seriously doubt we'd be having the barrage of comic-inspired movies we have now. Hell, the Batman franchise was virtually dead. We might not even have Batman Begins. So give Singer and his X-men films their due. Few filmmakers could've accomplished what he did under the same circumstances.

Second, Apt Pupil did not stink. It was an intelligent, unconventional thriller that I enjoyed quite a bit. In fact, I enjoyed Apt Pupil a great deal more than the Usual Suspects, which I personally think is grossly overrated.

Third... to say "Usual Suspects doesnt even compare to Memento..." is about as subjective as you can possibly get. I enjoyed Memento more than the Usual Suspects as well, but honestly, I think they're both overrated. All the Usual Suspects really had that seperated it from any other film was twist at the end that nobody expected. In the same way, all Memento really had going for it was it's backward story-telling, which of course was brilliant. But still, it's not like there was any kind of real message behind it all, and there were some major plot-holes as well. I personally found Insomnia to be much more engrossing than Memento.

Anyway, the point is, Singer is no hack. I'm not a big fan of his personally, but I definitely appreciate talent and skill, and he's got both. Don't get me wrong, between the two, I prefer Nolan by a significant margin. But Singer deserves a LOT more credit than you give him.

[storyteller]

Singer was just a director who doesnt like action and knows only reeves superman. Unfourtantly that was what superman didnt need.

[NotFadeAway]

Im telling you, Im doing a Superman film at some point in my life. I already got my foot in the door of movie biz.

Get ready for a character driven origin film featuring Braniac as the sole villian.

Real people in a fantasy world, a man with the powers of a god, thats what I promise. I promise more of a fantasy element than Donner/Singer, but also more endearing, real life versions of the characters.

Luthor willl go the way of the Joker and appear in the sequel. After being in 4 of the 5 mainstream Superman movies, Smallville, Lois and Clark, The Animated Series, etc etc, good ole Lex has been shoved down the throat of the audience like a c*ck in a porn star. Lex needs a rest, and Braniac can carry a movie on it's own.

Im doing an origin story, you know why, because I want to. The characters in S:TM are outdated and slightly one-dimensional, and Smallville shouldn't serve as a starting point for this generation of Superman.

[MulligaN Stew]

The characters in S:TM are outdated and slightly one-dimensional
Ok.

Elaborate human. Please elaborate.

Then again, if you did a Darkseid film, I would respect you greatly and dismiss that statement. I agree with some of what you said, but explaining how you compare 70's film with the complexity that critics/audiences demand today should prove to interest me.

The unfortunate reality is that Superman: The Movie captured a human side of a hero that has never been seen since then. It showed the grooming of an alien as if he were one of us, yet he became better. Enough of my quasi 'A&E' special-type spiel, but you surely comprehend the gist of what I'm saying.

Elaborate human. Please Elaborate

edit - Real people in a fantasy world

Isn't that comparable to Hypesters surfing the Hype. Ha, ha. Yeah.

Good luck with your film aspirations friend.

[Venom71]

Im telling you, Im doing a Superman film at some point in my life. I already got my foot in the door of movie biz.

Get ready for a character driven origin film featuring Braniac as the sole villian.

Real people in a fantasy world, a man with the powers of a god, thats what I promise. I promise more of a fantasy element than Donner/Singer, but also more endearing, real life versions of the characters.

Luthor willl go the way of the Joker and appear in the sequel. After being in 4 of the 5 mainstream Superman movies, Smallville, Lois and Clark, The Animated Series, etc etc, good ole Lex has been shoved down the throat of the audience like a c*ck in a porn star. Lex needs a rest, and Braniac can carry a movie on it's own.

Im doing an origin story, you know why, because I want to. The characters in S:TM are outdated and slightly one-dimensional, and Smallville shouldn't serve as a starting point for this generation of Superman.

Lex is Superman's main nemesis...he should be in every Superman movie IMHO..even if he isn't the main villain of the story.

[MulligaN Stew]

I can appreciate why you feel that way, but 'boxed' thinking such as the above is why Superman will only lose popularity in this contemporary climate.

A Superhero is only as good as their villains or challengers; if you're saying that Luthor is the only singular vessel to challenge the Man of Steel, you're immediately crippling your hero.

Darkseid?
Draga?

. . . on second thought, maybe you are right. His villains are a poor man's criminals(excluding Lex, and maybe Darkseid). Who else, the Toyman? Haha, nope.

[Venom71]

I can appreciate why you feel that way, but 'boxed' thinking such as the above is why Superman will only lose popularity in this contemporary climate.

A Superhero is only as good as their villains or challengers; if you're saying that Luthor is the only singular vessel to challenge the Man of Steel, you're immediately crippling your hero.

Darkseid?
Draga?

. . . on second thought, maybe you are right. His villains are a poor man's criminals(excluding Lex, and maybe Darkseid). Who else, the Toyman? Haha, nope.

I think Lex should be in the movies but not the only villain...have him create Metallo and Bizarro and like others have stated on the boards have him think he is controlling Brainiac but actually have Brainac be running the show..I am still not sure if Darkseid could be done well in live action....I see him being cheesy in live action.

[Thot]

I would choose Nolan due to the fact that I like his style and believe he would be truer to the character's universe. I think the word I'm looking for is "respect". Singer didn't show it, Nolan did.

[NotFadeAway]

Ok.

Elaborate human. Please elaborate.

Then again, if you did a Darkseid film, I would respect you greatly and dismiss that statement. I agree with some of what you said, but explaining how you compare 70's film with the complexity that critics/audiences demand today should prove to interest me.

The unfortunate reality is that Superman: The Movie captured a human side of a hero that has never been seen since then. It showed the grooming of an alien as if he were one of us, yet he became better. Enough of my quasi 'A&E' special-type spiel, but you surely comprehend the gist of what I'm saying.

Elaborate human. Please Elaborate

edit -

Isn't that comparable to Hypesters surfing the Hype. Ha, ha. Yeah.

Good luck with your film aspirations friend.

Well, I don't what to see a hero considered above us, I want to see a hero fighting beside us with the ability to make the world a better place.

[NotFadeAway]

I think Lex should be in the movies but not the only villain...have him create Metallo and Bizarro and like others have stated on the boards have him think he is controlling Brainiac but actually have Brainac be running the show..I am still not sure if Darkseid could be done well in live action....I see him being cheesy in live action.

Darkseid would need to be handled carefully.

[Thespiralgoeson]

I would choose Nolan due to the fact that I like his style and believe he would be truer to the character's universe. I think the word I'm looking for is "respect". Singer didn't show it, Nolan did.

Respect for what? The comics? Because if you're just talking about "respect" then wasn't Singer's problem the fact that he had too much respect... for Donner's Superman?

[DavidTyler]

Darksied would be incredible in a live action film. Darksied and his minions ... maybe even take the action to Metropolis.

I have a vague plot in my head that involves Darksied searching for a weapon of great power and discovers that the last remaining Kryptonian is living on Earth. Failing to get Superman's willing cooperation to join his armada, Darksied takes half the population of Metropolis prisoner, whisking them off to Apokolips to hold as hostage to Superman's capitulation. Supes has to go to that dark world to rescue them.

I figure this would give Jimmy and Lois a lot to do, as well. They would be among the captured and organizing the other hostages in their own rescue attempt.

Darksied alone on Earth as a villain wouldn't have the same impact. He must be accompanied by para-demons, Desaad, and some of the other supporting cast like Kalibak and the Furies.

I envision the armies of the world coming into combat with the forces of Apokolips. It could be epic.

As to Luthor ... He needs to be a corporate shark with his fingers in a lot of the pies of Metropolis. In this way he could be a part of every Superman movie. However, he can't always be the main villain ... and sometimes not the villain at all. Sometimes he can be a reluctant ally.

[Parker]

Nolan did an excellent job with Batman, but that doesn't mean he'd reproduce that excellence with Superman. If you look at Burton's Batman films, they were pretty decent, but he was going to butcher Superman.

[Retroman]

Reporter tried to ask Nolan about Superman and he dodged the question. It probably means nothing but you never know.
This was spotted by Milkman95

From In Focus:

TWO
STRIKES

MOVIE PUBLICIST: I have to drag Chris back on the set. One more question.

Uh…. Will the Joker be the only villain in “Dark Knight”? Can we safely confirm Ryan Phillippe as Harvey Dent and Philip Seymour Hoffman as The Penguin/Cobblepot?
You struck out with your last question!

I know.
How sad!

My editor wanted me to ask.
Wasted! Wasted!

I’m sorry.
Is there another question?

Could you see your Batman interacting with Singer’s Superman? [Nolan laughs] Another strikeout?
Another strikeout!

Oh, Lordy.
One more. Third time lucky.

How did you come to collaborate with David Goyer on “Batman Begins”?
Wow. I’m sure I can answer that one.

I first met him years before, through mutual friends one morning at breakfast. I remember chatting with him and thinking he was an interesting guy, and then, years later, checked out some of his stuff — especially “Dark City.” I was really impressed with the ideas in that film.

And when I was looking for somebody who really knew the world of comics — who could set me off on the right foot and really get me going in the right direction — he seemed the obvious choice. But he was absolutely booked up, because he was about seven or eight weeks from going into production on “Blade: Trinity,” which he was directing.

So we just spitballed a few ideas. And he said, “Look, you can have these ideas. I can’t write the script for you. I’m just too busy.” And then, over the course of a week or two, I guess he just realized that he couldn’t turn down the opportunity to write on the film. He loved the character so much. So he came on for a very short, intense period where we just thrashed out a story and he wrote the first draft. He had to work very, very fast. He’s a very quick writer.

Yeah, I’ve read that draft. There’s such a strong idea at the core of that thing.
Yeah. A lot of the fun we had — which we’re also having as we do “The Dark Knight” — is throwing ideas around before anything is written. Just talking about the script. He’s a tremendous collaborator.
Source: http://www.infocusmag.com/06October/prestige.htm

[matthooper]

That's Nolan speak for Superman Returns sucked.

He could have politely said "we'll see" or "interesting", or a dozen of other cryptic yet benign responses.

[J.Howlett]

I seriously doubt that's what Nolan meant....People just read way too much into comments too many times these days on the net.

[Thespiralgoeson]

That's Nolan speak for Superman Returns sucked.

He could have politely said "we'll see" or "interesting", or a dozen of other cryptic yet benign responses.

Nonsense. The possibility of a Batman/Superman movie is clearly out of Nolan's hands. That's up to the top dogs at WB. Nolan was clearly in no position to answer such a question. It was more like Nolan speak for "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."

[saint sinner x]

Superman wouldn't work with Batman and Nolan understands this. You should all understand as well, Nolan seeks for realism not sci-fi campy crap such as Superman Returns besides the B.O. speaks for itself Nolan would not want the money making Batman to form an alliance with the non-money making Superman. Get over it even if you guys want a world's finest or a Batman vs Superman film it wouldn't work out and it would probably end up pissing most of you off because I am 100percent confident Batman would win if Superman and Batman starts to fight.

[thedarks0ldier]

Superman wouldn't work with Batman and Nolan understands this. You should all understand as well, Nolan seeks for realism not sci-fi campy crap such as Superman Returns besides the B.O. speaks for itself Nolan would not want the money making Batman to form an alliance with the non-money making Superman. Get over it even if you guys want a world's finest or a Batman vs Superman film it wouldn't work out and it would probably end up pissing most of you off because I am 100percent confident Batman would win if Superman and Batman starts to fight.
B.O. dont say crap

[Motown Marvel]

That's Nolan speak for Superman Returns sucked.

He could have politely said "we'll see" or "interesting", or a dozen of other cryptic yet benign responses.
or maybe, considering the very similar answer to the previous question, he was merely just in a position where he cant give an answer to that. plus, lets not forget, the question wasnt even if he liked SR or not, it had nothing to do with that.....so how can his answer be related to such?

[Motown Marvel]

Superman wouldn't work with Batman and Nolan understands this. You should all understand as well, Nolan seeks for realism not sci-fi campy crap such as Superman Returns besides the B.O. speaks for itself Nolan would not want the money making Batman to form an alliance with the non-money making Superman. Get over it even if you guys want a world's finest or a Batman vs Superman film it wouldn't work out and it would probably end up pissing most of you off because I am 100percent confident Batman would win if Superman and Batman starts to fight.
um, i gotta disagree with your first statement. in the comics, they root batman in realism as well...and keep superman as sci-fi....yet they interact very well all the time. while i'd agree i dont think we're gonna get a worlds finest film, i do think it can work.

[Fried Gold]

That's Nolan speak for Superman Returns sucked.So by that logic, it was it also Nolan speak for saying Hoffman would suck as the Penguin (when he quite clearly wouldn't).

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

So by that logic, it was it also Nolan speak for saying Hoffman would suck as the Penguin (when he quite clearly wouldn't).

Exactly, he didnt mean it sucked at all, he didnt even comment on SR's quality and wasnt even asked about it.

[DavidTyler]

It might also be two different answers to two different questions using the same device: "strike out'.

I would say that there is no conceivable way that Singer's 'Superman' could work in Nolan's dark and gritty world of 'Batman'.

It would take a lot of tweaking of 'Singerman' to make the two function in the same script.

[Immortalfire]

As much as a lot of these nerdbombers would like to believe it, Nolan is not going to do a new Superman.

[Smegger56]

Superman wouldn't work with Batman and Nolan understands this. You should all understand as well, Nolan seeks for realism not sci-fi campy crap such as Superman Returns besides the B.O. speaks for itself Nolan would not want the money making Batman to form an alliance with the non-money making Superman. Get over it even if you guys want a world's finest or a Batman vs Superman film it wouldn't work out and it would probably end up pissing most of you off because I am 100percent confident Batman would win if Superman and Batman starts to fight.


If box office had any say in how good a film was, then Batman Begins would be total shte compared to Spidermans 1 and 2... when in fact, BB is a better film than both combined... IMO.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

If box office had any say in how good a film was, then Batman Begins would be total shte compared to Spidermans 1 and 2... when in fact, BB is a better film than both combined... IMO.

Ex-****ing-actly, this stupid argument about SR's box office 'proving' that Sr is a bad movie is complete and utter bull****. In that case Titanic is the best movie ever, period.

Spiderman 1 is not the best CB movie ever because it made the most money, just as SR isnt necessarily a bad one because its 'only' made $390 million WW.

[Showtime]

I dont see why it would be that difficult to insert Superman into Batman's world, the whole story wouldn't take place in Gotham anyway, it would be on a global scale.

[saint sinner x]

Ex-****ing-actly, this stupid argument about SR's box office 'proving' that Sr is a bad movie is complete and utter bull****. In that case Titanic is the best movie ever, period.

Spiderman 1 is not the best CB movie ever because it made the most money, just as SR isnt necessarily a bad one because its 'only' made $390 million WW.

Well if you want to get technical you need to look at the bigger picture. It was spiderman's first movie and it was good but not the best but Good operative word is FIRST. As for Batman and Superman they had there first, second, third films etc.... When spiderman the movie came out it was like if he was a new superhero on the market simply because no one has ever seen a full length live interpretation of him on the big screen. When I said B.O. speaks for itself I was implying that the more people who saw it are the people who liked it. Fantastic Four was the biggest piece of crap I have ever seen in my entire existence but it had a good opening day because it was full of special effects and stupid jokes. Superman Returns the sequel will make more money because singer has stated he wants more action in it and let's face the facts action does call attention. THE DARK KNIGHT will also make more movie but yes I came in a gritty mood about superman returns because I didn't liked the movie as much as I did with Batman Begins or V for vendetta.
My point is Batman wouldn't work because they're both totally different, saying that a Batman and Superman movie would work well is like saying Spawn and Spiderman would work well onscreen.

[Monkey Chops]

Nolan is not having a dig at Superman Returns. Nolan's having a dig at the interviewer trying to think up a smart question when Nolan shot down his Dent question. You cannot seriously read anymore into it than that. It's not a Rorschach test.

...besides the B.O. speaks for itself Nolan would not want the money making Batman to form an alliance with the non-money making Superman.

You do realise that Superman Returns has made more money that Batman Begins at the box office worldwide, right? Domestically, the difference is marginal.

Whether's it's been financially successful for Warners is another matter entirely, of course.

Compare:

Batman Begins (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batmanbegins.htm)

Superman Returns (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman06.htm)

I do agree that having them in the same movie is a bad idea, but not for financial reasons.

[Thot]

Respect for what? The comics? Because if you're just talking about "respect" then wasn't Singer's problem the fact that he had too much respect... for Donner's Superman?

Respect for the Superman that the fans and general public have come to treasure over the past 60+ years. The look, the characters, the city, the action, the philosophy, etc. Singer did it HIS way and he blew it.

[DavidTyler]

.........
You do realise that Superman Returns has made more money that Batman Begins at the box office worldwide, right? Domestically, the difference is marginal.

Whether's it's been financially successful for Warners is another matter entirely, of course.

.......................................

The criteria for Warners to consider is how much SR cost as opposed to BB.

...AND how well SR will do post theaters. In other words, DVD sales as well as toy and how well the sequel does. There will be a sequel to both films but how the first impacted the general public will influence whether they go to see them. I'm betting that Nolan's Batman franchise will have more 'legs'. But then, that's just my opinion. It was definitely a more cohesive film and more respectful of source.

[Steelsheen]

That's Nolan speak for Superman Returns sucked.

He could have politely said "we'll see" or "interesting", or a dozen of other cryptic yet benign responses.

no that's Nolan speak for "No Comment". He's a Brit, they're born with the polite gene, even when they're swearing.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The criteria for Warners to consider is how much SR cost as opposed to BB.

...AND how well SR will do post theaters. In other words, DVD sales as well as toy and how well the sequel does. There will be a sequel to both films but how the first impacted the general public will influence whether they go to see them. I'm betting that Nolan's Batman franchise will have more 'legs'. But then, that's just my opinion. It was definitely a more cohesive film and more respectful of source.

Well we never really have had a complete definitive idea of what the budget was for SR, we know BB was around $150 million but with Sr we've been quoted anything from $180 to $280 million, so the movie may well already be profitable.

BUT DVD sales will be interesting to see.

[Monkey Chops]

He's a Brit, they're born with the polite gene, even when they're swearing.

Thanks for the compliment... I think. ;)

[ScottishFogg]

so far, all of Nolan's films have been dark, gritty or just psychologically disturbing.

now. let's think. what superheroes does that make him a perfect match for?

is Superman REALLY in that list?

:wolverine
:supes:

:whatever:

[Black Mamba]

Continue with Singer. I don't think Nolan's style lends itself to Superman's world.
Evidently, neither did Singer's style. :ninja:

[Retroman]

I dont see why it would be that difficult to insert Superman into Batman's world, the whole story wouldn't take place in Gotham anyway, it would be on a global scale.
A few references to Metropolis, Smallville or the Daily Planet in The Dark Knight would be pretty cool. Just like the Gotham clock in Perry white's office or the mention of Gotham on tv in SR.

[explode7]

^Exactly

[thedarks0ldier]

The criteria for Warners to consider is how much SR cost as opposed to BB.

...AND how well SR will do post theaters. In other words, DVD sales as well as toy and how well the sequel does. There will be a sequel to both films but how the first impacted the general public will influence whether they go to see them. I'm betting that Nolan's Batman franchise will have more 'legs'. But then, that's just my opinion. It was definitely a more cohesive film and more respectful of source.
If they keep making the toys like that then they will be wasting time and losing money

[TripXyDE]

I dont see why it would be that difficult to insert Superman into Batman's world, the whole story wouldn't take place in Gotham anyway, it would be on a global scale.

...Because it would be like Michael Corleone (of the Godfather Trilogy) inter-acting with the Planet of the Apes storyline

it's all about balance... in the comics world, EVERYTHING can be merged whether it proves to be a good or bad combination. In films, it's risky.

Especially, one minute, Batman is facing a horrendous task of keeping the Joker locked up, while in a crossover with Superman, it would be easy for him to join forces with Superman to defeat a godlike entity like DARKSEID

it's all about balance.

Can you not see the gap between the atmosphere of Nolan's serious gritty world of Batman & Singer's campy, sci-fi soap opera Superman?

[TripXyDE]

It might also be two different answers to two different questions using the same device: "strike out'.

I would say that there is no conceivable way that Singer's 'Superman' could work in Nolan's dark and gritty world of 'Batman'.

It would take a lot of tweaking of 'Singerman' to make the two function in the same script.

:up:

[aquiles]

That's Nolan speak for Superman Returns sucked.

He could have politely said "we'll see" or "interesting", or a dozen of other cryptic yet benign responses.he just knows man,superman returns sucked big time!!!!!!!!!!!!nobody wants a good hero like batman interacting with a gay superman cause thats how singer represent it.

[mclay18]

*yawn*

I'd wish you geek SR naysayers would just shut up about how SR is bad compared to the flawless BB. We're talking about a comment Chris Nolan made, not another thread about how SR sucks. [/sarcasm]

Ahem, back to the topic at hand. I think that was Nolan speak for "no comment" or "this is out of my hands". It's not that hard to interpret it... honestly, the only way Nolan is going to give an opinion about SR (that is, if he even saw it) is if someone asked him what he thought about it.

That said, I think that with the right script and the right director (provided that the writers from BB and SR work on the screenplay), I think a World's Finest film could work out well.

[I Am The Knight]

I'd rather not have a World's Finest. I don't think Supes and Bats would interact so well after Nolan's more toned down approach to Batman. But maybe in the distant, distant future.....

[BrollySupersj]

I don't think Nonlan means any ill towards Superman. Perhaps he doesn't want his version of Batman meeting up with Superman.

[lordofthenerds]

I never knew that "strikeout" was a term for "bad movie"...:confused:

[Mr. Socko]

As any professional filmmaker would say the same...

Seeing as Nolan is employed by the same company as Singer is who produced both superhero movies, Nolan had no choice but to dodge the question. He says it sucks, then everyone looks at him like he's unprofessional, he says it's good then he knows he's lying through his teeth.

[lordofthenerds]

As any professional filmmaker would say the same...

Seeing as Nolan is employed by the same company as Singer is who produced both superhero movies, Nolan had no choice but to dodge the question. He says it sucks, then everyone looks at him like he's unprofessional, he says it's good then he knows he's lying through his teeth.
And how can you be so sure he hated the movie? Just because he dodged the question doesn't mean he hated it.

[saint sinner x]

And how can you be so sure he hated the movie? Just because he dodged the question doesn't mean he hated it.

Nolan is not big on CGI or crappy storyline. Now be realistic here Nolan is the guy who hates sci-fi bullcrap of course he didn't liked superman returns if Nolan wouldn't even dare put clayface into the Batman Begins trilogy what makes you think he wants his Batman to team up with an alien that has super powers.

BATMAN BEGINS IS BASED ON REALISM

SUPERMAN RETURNS IS BASED ON SCI-FI

What would happened if you add the both up?

You would probably get the X-files.

[ultimatefan]

He´s dodging the question because if they put the two characters together it´s nothing but a vague idea now that will still take some years to get made.

[dark_b]

Nolan is not big on CGI or crappy storyline. Now be realistic here Nolan is the guy who hates sci-fi bullcrap of course he didn't liked superman returns if Nolan wouldn't even dare put clayface into the Batman Begins trilogy what makes you think he wants his Batman to team up with an alien that has super powers.

BATMAN BEGINS IS BASED ON REALISM

SUPERMAN RETURNS IS BASED ON SCI-FI

What would happened if you add the both up?

You would probably get the X-files.ok correct me if i am wrong but i read somewhere that nolan likes blade runner. or wasnt it said that it is one of the best movies that he saw?

but i am 100% sure that he said that he wants that batman begins looks like blade runner. he had also a private screening for the guys who made batman.

[Showtime]

He held a screening of Bladerunner to his staff and said that is what he was shooting for with Begins.

[skruloos]

Nolan is not big on CGI or crappy storyline. Now be realistic here Nolan is the guy who hates sci-fi bullcrap of course he didn't liked superman returns if Nolan wouldn't even dare put clayface into the Batman Begins trilogy what makes you think he wants his Batman to team up with an alien that has super powers.
I think you're confusing the types of films Nolan wants to make with the type he likes to watch.

As a screenwriter and director, I love making realistic dramas infused with comedy. But as an audience member, I love sci-fi, fantasy, screwball comedy, horror and film noir.

Just because Nolan wouldn't make a sci-fi film doesn't mean he would hate watching sci-fi. Case in point, the fact that he loves Bladerunner.

[Showtime]

As a screenwriter and director, I love making realistic dramas infused with comedy. But as an audience member, I love sci-fi, fantasy, screwball comedy, horror and film noir.


How about a screwball horror noir. :oldrazz:

[The Kid]

I can't believe this never got closed.

Well I guess it's not relevant anymore if in fact singer's doing another rehash.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Well fans just LOVE to compare recent movies to SR/future MOS sequel movie.

I'd have to say right now as an observer between a reboot and sequel, if TDK does better at the BO than BB (which I expect) the reboot argument over SR gets put off balance.

TIH did not revitalize the Hulk franchise. The sequel to BB is looking to do bigger numbers. So hmmm... a sequel cost LESS and makes MORE. Bring on MOS :p


If ANY Superman movie happens I'm thinking sequel.

[mojo-x]

Yes but TDK is a squeal to BB which was a reboot. I feel that SR should have been a totally reboot in the first place and not some kind of half ass sequel to STM.

[SatEL]

Well fans just LOVE to compare recent movies to SR/future MOS sequel movie.

I'd have to say right now as an observer between a reboot and sequel, if TDK does better at the BO than BB (which I expect) the reboot argument over SR gets put off balance.

TIH did not revitalize the Hulk franchise. The sequel to BB is looking to do bigger numbers. So hmmm... a sequel cost LESS and makes MORE. Bring on MOS :p


If ANY Superman movie happens I'm thinking sequel.

BB as a whole was much much much more loved than SR so your little theory fails. Beside as stated above Begins was a reboot of a failed franchise much like Superman is.

[Showtime]

Is this thread really even necessary?

[SatEL]

Is this thread really even necessary?

No it isnt as the topic at hand is retarded.

[mojo-x]

Are any of these Threads really necessary? However I have no problem comparing other movies that are similar.

[I Am The Knight]

Is this thread really even necessary?

Nope.

[Dark Knight]

Well fans just LOVE to compare recent movies to SR/future MOS sequel movie.

I'd have to say right now as an observer between a reboot and sequel, if TDK does better at the BO than BB (which I expect) the reboot argument over SR gets put off balance.

TIH did not revitalize the Hulk franchise. The sequel to BB is looking to do bigger numbers. So hmmm... a sequel cost LESS and makes MORE. Bring on MOS :p


If ANY Superman movie happens I'm thinking sequel.



I agree...a reboot Superman origin movie would be a waste of time, money and resources at this point.

[Dark Knight]

Yes but TDK is a squeal to BB which was a reboot. I feel that SR should have been a totally reboot in the first place and not some kind of half ass sequel to STM.


Basically your trying to compare apples to oranges.

Your saying that SR is comparable to Batman and Robin??

Nah, not even close.....

[I SEE SPIDEY]

This thread is redundant.

[Showtime]

Yes. Yes it is.

[hippie_hunter]

BB as a whole was much much much more loved than SR so your little theory fails. Beside as stated above Begins was a reboot of a failed franchise much like Superman is.

That comparison is absolutely faulty.

The reason why Batman Begins had to reboot was because Batman & Robin was just so damn ****ty. Batman Triumphant would have been a guaranteed bomb if they went forward with it.

Superman on the other hand is different. The reason why Superman V, Superman the New Movie, Superman Lives, Superman Flyby, and Batman vs. Superman didn't take off the ground was because of Warner Bros.' own inept actions, not because Superman III, Superman IV, and Supergirl sucked.

Singer threw aside the Superman movies that sucked ass and made Superman Returns a sequel to the Superman movies that were good, the ones made by Richard Donner. So it was riding on the back of two very successful movies.

Not only that, while it underperformed in its financial expectations, Superman Returns did bring in a lot of money for Warner Bros. It brought in almost $400 million in box office revenue. It was very successful on DVD, blu-ray, and HD DVD. And think of all the licensing money they made with toys, lunchboxes, video games, cable TV rights, etc.

So you really can't say that it is a failed franchise at all.

[AragornKing1]

BB as a whole was much much much more loved than SR so your little theory fails. Beside as stated above Begins was a reboot of a failed franchise much like Superman is.

It obviously doesn't matter if Batman Begins is more popular than Superman Returns because Superman Returns is still getting a sequel.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I smiled when I made this thread as I was literally rushing out the door :)

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Ah to add more

--

Superman Returns, was sacked in its second outing, plunging 58 percent. Cut down by Pirates, mixed word-of-mouth and the front-loadedness of the superhero genre, Warner Bros.' franchise resurrection earned $21.8 million for $141.6 million in 12 days—the picture's IMAX theaters, though, were down 27 percent and accounted for ten percent of the weekend gross. By comparison, Warner's previous revival, Batman Begins, descended 43 percent to $27.6 million in its second weekend, albeit opposite far less imposing competition.

[Lighthouse]

Well fans just LOVE to compare recent movies to SR/future MOS sequel movie.

I'd have to say right now as an observer between a reboot and sequel, if TDK does better at the BO than BB (which I expect) the reboot argument over SR gets put off balance.

TIH did not revitalize the Hulk franchise. The sequel to BB is looking to do bigger numbers. So hmmm... a sequel cost LESS and makes MORE. Bring on MOS :p


If ANY Superman movie happens I'm thinking sequel.

There are so many faults with this logic I don't even know where to start.

[Showtime]

This is really too much for me. This thread is so two years ago.

[Showtime]

Let us be passengers in the Delorean for a moment and have a civil discussion on a couple on some points of interest.

The Incredible Hulk Effect: Many posters thought that WB was looking at The Incredible Hulk and were really curious on how a reboot would do. They pointed out the similarities between Ang's Hulk and Superman Returns. There were many that argued this point and believed one had nothing to do with the other.

Originally I didn't see the connection at all, but I was reminded that a faction at WB was indeed interested in how the reboot would fair. It seems that the fans really enjoyed the reboot, along with critics. However, the movie just barely passed its predecessor, so I wonder if the reboot was even worth it? I think the plan from the beginning was to set up Avengers. Thoughts.

The Dark Knight Effect:

I previously heard that WB would be announcing a slate based on the performance of Dark Knight and during or just after Comic Con, a similar plan to which Marvel went with. This was obviously wrong, which means I was wrong. I won't blame it on my sources and try to say it is because things change in Hollywood. It is my responsibility to check and recheck information, so I shoulder the blame entirely.

That being said, how has TDK had an effect on a reboot or Superman Returns sequel? What about The Summit? Why is WB so silent?

[mojo-x]

Just because one director is good at one type of movies does not necessary mean he is good for a different type of movie. While I think the 1st X-men movie is kind of overrated I do really enjoy X 2, but after SR I wish Singer would have stayed with the X-men franchise.

[Ultimate_Superman]

BB as a whole was much much much more loved than SR so your little theory fails. Beside as stated above Begins was a reboot of a failed franchise much like Superman is.

That comparison is absolutely faulty.

The reason why Batman Begins had to reboot was because Batman & Robin was just so damn ****ty. Batman Triumphant would have been a guaranteed bomb if they went forward with it.

Superman on the other hand is different. The reason why Superman V, Superman the New Movie, Superman Lives, Superman Flyby, and Batman vs. Superman didn't take off the ground was because of Warner Bros.' own inept actions, not because Superman III, Superman IV, and Supergirl sucked.

Singer threw aside the Superman movies that sucked ass and made Superman Returns a sequel to the Superman movies that were good, the ones made by Richard Donner. So it was riding on the back of two very successful movies.

Not only that, while it underperformed in its financial expectations, Superman Returns did bring in a lot of money for Warner Bros. It brought in almost $400 million in box office revenue. It was very successful on DVD, blu-ray, and HD DVD. And think of all the licensing money they made with toys, lunchboxes, video games, cable TV rights, etc.

So you really can't say that it is a failed franchise at all.You both are wrong the reason why Nolan had to do a reboot with Batman is because they killed off all of the major villains for Batman. Nolan said this in a interview a while back where he stated he wouldn't have mind following Burton's Batman but he killed off all the major villains. That is the main reason why you got a reboot not because Batman and Robin sucked but because you had The Joker, Penguin, Two-Face dead and had Batman as a killer. So yes you would then need to have a reboot to fix all those things with Superman a reboot (origin wise) was not and still is not needed.

[Timstuff]

Jason and Richard are the Superman equivalent to killing off Joker and Two-Face.

[SatEL]

It obviously doesn't matter if Batman Begins is more popular than Superman Returns because Superman Returns is still getting a sequel.

Orly? Well looks like we are still waiting.:yay:

[SatEL]

You both are wrong the reason why Nolan had to do a reboot with Batman is because they killed off all of the major villains for Batman. Nolan said this in a interview a while back where he stated he wouldn't have mind following Burton's Batman but he killed off all the major villains. That is the main reason why you got a reboot not because Batman and Robin sucked but because you had The Joker, Penguin, Two-Face dead and had Batman as a killer. So yes you would then need to have a reboot to fix all those things with Superman a reboot (origin wise) was not and still is not needed.

Actually I have heard Nolan state that the reason he did a reboot was due to the fact that an origin story had never been covered before, so we have two explanations as to why a reboot was giving the go ahead. I mean maybe he didnt want to come out and state well Batman and Robin sucked donkeys balls so WB have called me in to fix up Batman. And besides if we use your logic a reboot is needed because Singer has locked himself into a corner much like Burton with the villians, I am refering to the kid and Richard white. I am sure they can come up with ways to get rid of them but I am certain it will be cheesy as ****, I say a reboot is very much needed one where we dont have an Anchor baby.

[wellsy]

Satel, Jason and Richard are hardly the creative dead-ends that dead villains are. Dead villains don't come back to life. Jason and Richard can be written in whatever way the team behind the film so sees fit (life or death, etc). The two are incomparable. Non sequitur.

Jason and Richard are the Superman equivalent to killing off Joker and Two-Face.
You'll forgive me if I disagree, I'm sure. Dead people just don't quite match the living. I suppose they lack a certain... panache. :o

[Ultimate_Superman]

Please Jason and Richard can be written off it is just how well you do it. For example many people thought Chris Kent was a dead end but people started to love him and just when people were getting use to him Johns and Donner wrote him off but they did it with class. The same can be done for Jason where he can be written off it is just a matter of how you do it. Superman Returns is a perfect example of this if you read the shooting script (which by the way everything in it was shot for the movie) you will say that's not the Superman movie I watched and that is because of how the edited the movie. As I have said many times the down fall of Superman Returns was not action (because the first movie had little to no action but is still held as the greatest comic movie ever) and it is not Jason or Richard because they were written well but it was the editing. With Superman: Man of Steel you can fix Jason and Richard it is just a matter of how it is done and how it is put together in the final product.

[SatEL]

Please Jason and Richard can be written off it is just how well you do it. For example many people thought Chris Kent was a dead end but people started to love him and just when people were getting use to him Johns and Donner wrote him off but they did it with class. The same can be done for Jason where he can be written off it is just a matter of how you do it. Superman Returns is a perfect example of this if you read the shooting script (which by the way everything in it was shot for the movie) you will say that's not the Superman movie I watched and that is because of how the edited the movie. As I have said many times the down fall of Superman Returns was not action (because the first movie had little to no action but is still held as the greatest comic movie ever) and it is not Jason or Richard because they were written well but it was the editing. With Superman: Man of Steel you can fix Jason and Richard it is just a matter of how it is done and how it is put together in the final product.

Why did you bring up Chris Kent? There is no comparison, he isnt Superman and Lois kid and its in the comics and one of many story arcs. Besides in the comics things can be rectoned with an excuse of a reality altering punch. With Jason and Richard they are permanent fixtures due to their connection with Lois there isnt an original way to get rid of them. Besides all that they were not the only problems with Returns there are other aspects that will have to translate over to a sequel to continue the craptastic story that was returns.

[Ultimate_Superman]

Why did you bring up Chris Kent? There is no comparison, he isnt Superman and Lois kid and its in the comics and one of many story arcs. Besides in the comics things can be rectoned with an excuse of a reality altering punch. With Jason and Richard they are permanent fixtures due to their connection with Lois there isnt an original way to get rid of them. Besides all that they were not the only problems with Returns there are other aspects that will have to translate over to a sequel to continue the craptastic story that was returns.I brought up Chris Kent because Chris and Jason are pretty much the same in terms they were both introduced and both played off as Lois and Superman's child. You act like there are no good script writers out there when this problem of Richard and Jason is not that big and can be fixed. And you other problem which I assume you are talking about Lexcorp can be fixed but really isn't need as well. The general public does not care about Lexcorp all they care about is that Lex is evil not that he wears a 3 piece business suit and sits behind a desk. That is something we as comic fans might like to see but the public doesn't care about that stuff. The movie was not beyond repair the main thing this movie has against it IMO is time the more time they wait the older Jason gets that you have to look at recasting him or a reboot.

[SatEL]

I brought up Chris Kent because Chris and Jason are pretty much the same in terms they were both introduced and both played off as Lois and Superman's child. You act like there are no good script writers out there when this problem of Richard and Jason is not that big and can be fixed. And you other problem which I assume you are talking about Lexcorp can be fixed but really isn't need as well. The general public does not care about Lexcorp all they care about is that Lex is evil not that he wears a 3 piece business suit and sits behind a desk. That is something we as comic fans might like to see but the public doesn't care about that stuff. The movie was not beyond repair the main thing this movie has against it IMO is time the more time they wait the older Jason gets that you have to look at recasting him or a reboot.

I repeat he was not Superman and Lois kid, Chris is the son of Zod also Supes has a knack for taking any kryptonian that isnt trying to kill him in. Jason will be in the film unless they decide to kill him or do something unoriginal which I am sure they will,then you have poor Richard who will probably be shafted hardcore in any sequel to Singerman. I mean when Singerman the douchebag is after your woman you really dont have much say in it. They will either make Richard the cliche bad guy or have him make a sacrifice...........either way he probably wont be leaving Singerman 2 alive or perhaps they will just have him **** of.

[Ultimate_Superman]

Chris may have been Zod and Ursa child but that still didn't stop the fact of Superman looking at him like he was his son and even calling him his son and saying he is a part of his family. The only think that separates Jason from Chris is that he was their child and Jason can be written off or dealt with much like how Chis was. You can keep Jason and still have great stories look at Busiek run on Superman. Chris was apart of every arc for the whole time he was on the book and it worked and didn't even take away from Superman. The real main problem with Jason was how it was done. Not that it happened but how it was done. I understand you hated Superman Returns and that it was not the Superman movie you thought it could be but it is not beyond repair.

[SatEL]

Chris may have been Zod and Ursa child but that still didn't stop the fact of Superman looking at him like he was his son and even calling him his son and saying he is a part of his family. The only think that separates Jason from Chris is that he was their child and Jason can be written off or dealt with much like how Chis was. You can keep Jason and still have great stories look at Busiek run on Superman. Chris was apart of every arc for the whole time he was on the book and it worked and didn't even take away from Superman. The real main problem with Jason was how it was done. Not that it happened but how it was done. I understand you hated Superman Returns and that it was not the Superman movie you thought it could be but it is not beyond repair.

Sadly the film is beyond repair, I feel like we are going round in circles with the Jason thing, you obviously believe it will work and I dont so we will leave it at that. There are things and questions that will need to be carried over to the sequel, heck SR is a dead weight that will drag the sequel down. Superman in SR was not a likeable hero hell he was not a likeable man morally he just wasnt there. That is Singers Superman and also will be the same Superman that gets carried over to a sequel.

[Alonsovich]

Basically your trying to compare apples to oranges.

Your saying that SR is comparable to Batman and Robin??

Nah, not even close.....

No... but Superman III and IV were...

[Alonsovich]

It obviously doesn't matter if Batman Begins is more popular than Superman Returns because Superman Returns is still getting a sequel.

O RLY? Where is the announcement?

[GreenKToo]

Please Jason and Richard can be written off it is just how well you do it. For example many people thought Chris Kent was a dead end but people started to love him and just when people were getting use to him Johns and Donner wrote him off but they did it with class. The same can be done for Jason where he can be written off it is just a matter of how you do it. Superman Returns is a perfect example of this if you read the shooting script (which by the way everything in it was shot for the movie) you will say that's not the Superman movie I watched and that is because of how the edited the movie. As I have said many times the down fall of Superman Returns was not action (because the first movie had little to no action but is still held as the greatest comic movie ever) and it is not Jason or Richard because they were written well but it was the editing. With Superman: Man of Steel you can fix Jason and Richard it is just a matter of how it is done and how it is put together in the final product.
It really makes me wonder how they could edit out so much and still think it would be o.k.
I just don't get that at all.

[Timstuff]

Maybe Superman will spin the world backwards again, and then go back in time to give himself a condom 5 years ago. Or maybe it will turn out that it was all just a dream sequence. Either way, Singer's Superman is a d***.

[KaptainKrypton]

I hope that Jason and Richard are both kept in the film. I'd like to see character expansion that chronicles Jason's growth and his dealing of that as well as a complete resolution to the Richard/Lois/Clark triangle. I also don't want Superman to end up with Lois, either. Lana needs to make an appearance or some other love interest. If I wanted to watch the cut-and-paste version of the comics...then I'd just read the comics. I'm glad that the kid and Richard are in it and I'm glad that it pisses so many of you off. Happy, to be succinct about it. With the forced timespan and lack of liquid continuity that comics provide, they can do some serious exploration of what it'd be like with Superman having to teach the kid about his heritage and whatnot. I want the story to go that route instead of finding a cheap way out to get rid of the kid and return everything to square one. I remember that even in the original film series, Superman didn't end up with Lois and that was fine by me.

[KaptainKrypton]

As for the effect that TDK or TIH had? I think that TIH showed that a reboot done too soon will not be a guarantee for lucrative return on an investment...if the first film is a flop like Hulk was in 2003. SR can't be considered a flop because after the dust settled and the film was done it made more than Batman Begins at the box office and it did well on DVD (which accounts for more revenue per capita these days anyway). It also garnered positive reviews on the whole and was generally liked. It's a much smarter and safer financial bet for Warner to use the same players and makers with a slightly reduced budget and a leaner, more action-oriented sequel this time out than to repackage the whole damn thing from scratch and start over.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^People keep saying that it did well and was well received but I just don't know because a sequel hasn't been annouced yet and it's been over 2 years since the original film. This isn't like the old days when the studio's didn't know if they were going to make a sequel to a film so it took longer for the sequel to get here. Usually if a movie is as well received as some on here are saying you hear that there is going to be a sequel even if they haven't greenlit it yet.

I used to be of the mindset that there would be a sequel but now I'm 50/50 on it. WB seems to be incredibly quiet on the issue not to mention that the behind the scenes stuff sounds messy. Lowering the budget by 50mil? Not letting the famous well respected director have a say on who the writers are going to be? That is not engouraging. Now things change in hollywood all the time so I'm not going to count on a sequel not being made but I'm also not confindent that it is going to be made.

It doesn't sound safe to me to make a sequel to a movie that seemingly (I mean ofcourse I'm just guessing based on the little facts and info that I have, I don't have any real proof, we are all pretty much guessing) underwhelmed most. The fact is, SR didn't do as well on home video and BB and it wasn't as well recieved and it won't have one of the leads dying to guide it to a huge boxoffice victory (feel free to disagree but this is my opinion on a huge chunk of TDK's boxoffice take) and it doesn't have an interesting take on a hugely popular villain. The first movie could have but Bryan Singer decided that a ever so slightly more serious version of Hackman's Lex was more interesting than finally giving us a serious bad ass LexCorp Lex on the bigscreen. Despite the boxoffice numbers I see no proof that a sequel would pull a TDK at the boxoffice, even a tiny one.

I think that WB should just make WW, GL and Flash movies and on down the line come back to Superman and finally make a new version of the character for the bigscreen, leaving Donners version of the character behind.

[Superark]

I really think had the budget not been so high and been say, 20 million lower, we would not be having this debate.

SR made a lot of money for a movie, but obviously not the money WB had hoped, especially b/c of the budget.

Regardless, I still think it made enough to warrant a sequel, as IMO GA don't have a clue about budget stuff and $200 mill is a nice bit for any movie.

I'm just guessing but I think the general reaction to SR was that it was "ok". I believe as long as you make a compelling, and action-oriented sequel folks will see it. They also have to market the hell out of it like they did TDK.

I agree with Spidey, a sequel will not make TDK numbers. Honestly though, what movie can? TDK had so many factors that have led to it success, mostly, IMO, the death of Ledger.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Like not exactly the 520mil that TDK will probably end with but 275 to 325mil. TDK is an anomaly.
Plain and simple.

[TheBatman1979]

Like not exactly the 520mil that TDK will probably end with but 275 to 325mil. TDK is an anomaly.
Plain and simple.

TDK is what we call a perfect storm. It has many factors working for it all at the same time to generate the box office it has.

1. a Positive reboot that it is the sequel to.

2. Huge word of mouth and internet buzz.

3. Critical acclaim

4. A well rounded cast.

5. The Death of an actor that most in Hollywood would say had huge promise and had already been Oscar nominated.

6. A huge fan following.

7. Respect to the source material.

8. General Audience appeal.

That is why TDk will end over 500 million in box office receipts.

Now, that being said does Warner Bros. expect Superman to do 500 million? No but they do expect it to rank with the first Spider-man in the 380 to 400 million dollar range. They don't expect it to beat Titanic, most sane people wouldn't, but they do expect it to do well especially since Superman has a more kid friendly appeal to it than the current Batman series of films does.

Now the effect of TDK is unknown because to be honest if the people at Warner Bros. were as smart as we'd like them to be we'd already see them putting someone with a base in comic knowledge in charge of the DC properties much like Avi Arad was for a lot of the Marvel films and much like Kevin Feige is now. We also would have heard a few more announcements for DC related projects.

If the Warner execs are intelligent, they'll take away from TDK that they need to tell a good Superman story that respects the source material and does not bring in too many off beat new elements but is a fresh story, not something simply regurgitated from 12 issues we've already read.

And if they're intelligent they'll take away from TIH that doing a reboot after only two years of waiting is not the smartest idea because the general public that doesn't read Superherohype, Comics2film, Dccomics-on-film, Newsarama and the 100 other sites dedicated to comic related news aren't going to know this isn't a sequel and when word leaks that you're either doing something completely unrelated or another origin story all you're going to do is confuse people.

By the way I'm a big fan of the dream sequence idea to get rid of some of the elements in SR I think that yes it has been used a lot but it's simple and keeps a continuity intact.

[Superark]

I actually believe 380-400 Million is stretching it.

I think a successful Superman should be expected to make Iron Man numbers.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

You know that in 2008 dollars that Spidey sold far more than 400mil worth of tickets. Don't know the numbers though.

Thats not directed towards TDK boxoffice just saying that 380 to 400mil in 2002 dollars is very different than in 2010 dollars. Doesn't mean that 380 to 400mil wouldn't be an incredible gross though. I'm just a boxoffice nerd so I think about things like that.

[TheBatman1979]

You know that in 2008 dollars that Spidey sold far more than 400mil worth of tickets. Don't know the numbers though.

Thats not directed towards TDK boxoffice just saying that 380 to 400mil in 2002 dollars is very different than in 2010 dollars. Doesn't mean that 380 to 400mil wouldn't be an incredible gross though. I'm just a boxoffice nerd so I think about things like that.

Spidey's box office ticket sales in 2008 dollars is 491 million. Which TDk will surpass on it's present course. Ticket sales are nice to count, it shows how many people actually saw the movie but money is money. And 380 million dollars..well I'm sure they'd take it any day of the week.

If they can make a Superman movie budgeted between 150 million and 175 million and make it good enough that people will love to go see it they could easily rake in 380 million in domestic grosses, and who knows how much world wide.

[Superark]

You know that in 2008 dollars that Spidey sold far more than 400mil worth of tickets. Don't know the numbers though.

Thats not directed towards TDK boxoffice just saying that 380 to 400mil in 2002 dollars is very different than in 2010 dollars. Doesn't mean that 380 to 400mil wouldn't be an incredible gross though. I'm just a boxoffice nerd so I think about things like that.


Yeah I know what ya mean. I was just reading an article on Yahoo Movies that said when they adjusted the prices Gone With The Wind made something like $1.4 Billion. www.the-numbers.com (http://www.the-numbers.com) has a list of adjusted ticket prices.

People just don't go to the movies like they use to.

[I Am The Knight]

Well, there are multiple forms of entertainment these days.

[TheBatman1979]

Yeah I know what ya mean. I was just reading an article on Yahoo Movies that said when they adjusted the prices Gone With The Wind made something like $1.4 Billion. www.the-numbers.com (http://www.the-numbers.com) has a list of adjusted ticket prices.

People just don't go to the movies like they use to.

Remember, that was before DVD, downloading pirated copies. Hell the only other forms of entertainment back then were plays and reading. Movies were new. So everyone who could afford to go see a movie, went.

[Superark]

You also have to consider that all you have to do is wait a few months and the movie is out on DVD. If you're lucky, you also have dollar theaters near by as well.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Spidey's box office ticket sales in 2008 dollars is 491 million. Which TDk will surpass on it's present course. Ticket sales are nice to count, it shows how many people actually saw the movie but money is money. And 380 million dollars..well I'm sure they'd take it any day of the week.

If they can make a Superman movie budgeted between 150 million and 175 million and make it good enough that people will love to go see it they could easily rake in 380 million in domestic grosses, and who knows how much world wide.Good you have the numbers and I kinda figued that The Dark Knight was going to pass whatever Spidey's ticket sales were. And I already said that 380mil is an incredible gross and it would be awesome for any movie to make that much but I'm not going to discount ticket price inflation completely.

I'm sure they could easly make over 300mil with the right Superman movie, the one the public would want to see in droves, the question is can Bryan Singer make it?


Well, there are multiple forms of entertainment these days.Yep. Going to the movies is still a very popular activity but ofcourse it won't ever have the hold that it had before.

[bgshw44]

superman the movie did over 400 million domestically and over 800 million worldwide in 2008 dollars. im sure that 600 worldwide is not out of the question for a really good superman movie.

[KaptainKrypton]

Yeah I know what ya mean. I was just reading an article on Yahoo Movies that said when they adjusted the prices Gone With The Wind made something like $1.4 Billion. www.the-numbers.com (http://www.the-numbers.com) has a list of adjusted ticket prices.

People just don't go to the movies like they use to.
Of course. Because of the ancillary income streams, theatrical gross only accounts for roughly 20% of an event film's profit. DVD changed the face of the market. This is why I feel that IMAX is the only thing that can save threatrical viewing as a consistent American moneymaker.

[GreenKToo]

With the right story, huge action scenes, awesome villain, and a great actor cast to play said villain, I don't see any reason why M.O.S. couldnt make 300 mill dom. Maybe more.

That sounds simple to me, but i'm sure W.B. will overcomplicate it yet again.

[TheBatman1979]

With the right story, huge action scenes, awesome villain, and a great actor cast to play said villain, I don't see any reason why M.O.S. couldnt make 300 mill dom. Maybe more.

That sounds simple to me, but i'm sure W.B. will overcomplicate it yet again.

I think that if they continue to use viral marketing that would be a plus. I mean it was awesome IMO to have all that stuff even if the pay offs weren't the best it was just cool to have something to do that was related to the movie while we waited for the movie.

[robzass]

Batman Begins Domestic Gross:
205 Million

Superman Returns Domestic Gross:
200 Million

Batman Begins Worldwide:
371 Million

Superman Returns Worldwide:
391 Million

TDK has more that doubled Begins total and is only making more money. Now I realize that Returns cost more than Begins, but all in all, more people did see Returns than Begins, and that's saying something. If Singer can deliver a sequel that is bigger and better like X2 or the Dark Knight, I see this film making a ton of money.

[TheBatman1979]

Batman Begins Domestic Gross:
205 Million

Superman Returns Domestic Gross:
200 Million

Batman Begins Worldwide:
371 Million

Superman Returns Worldwide:
391 Million

TDK has more that doubled Begins total and is only making more money. Now I realize that Returns cost more than Begins, but all in all, more people did see Returns than Begins, and that's saying something. If Singer can deliver a sequel that is bigger and better like X2 or the Dark Knight, I see this film making a ton of money.

X-men original took in 296 million world wide. X-men 2 took in Just over 400 million worldwide and X-men 3, which was the worst one took in Almost 460 million world wide. X-men 3 did better than the previous two because the other films were good movies, I won't say great, but good. Not because it was a good movie. Batman Begins was a good movie, which plays a part in why The Dark Knight is doing so well if you want my other reasons on that I'll link you to the thread.

If they want to pull off a sequel to Superman Returns they better promise the world and then deliver, because the only thing that it'll make the sequel sell is word of mouth.

[GreenKToo]

TDK, like B.B., had a stunning cast that really got folks excited for it. We had one, ONE, big star in S.R.
I'm not saying a film's success depends on star power alone, that would be silly of course, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have some in it.

*IF* we get a sequel, I hope they go after a big time actor for the villain role. Someone that will make folks go see it that otherwise might have skipped it.

[TheBatman1979]

TDK, like B.B., had a stunning cast that really got folks excited for it. We had one, ONE, big star in S.R.
I'm not saying a film's success depends on star power alone, that would be silly of course, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have some in it.

*IF* we get a sequel, I hope they go after a big time actor for the villain role. Someone that will make folks go see it that otherwise might have skipped it.

I'd love to see Viggo Mortenson as Metallo.

[Superark]

With the right story, huge action scenes, awesome villain, and a great actor cast to play said villain, I don't see any reason why M.O.S. couldnt make 300 mill dom. Maybe more.

That sounds simple to me, but i'm sure W.B. will overcomplicate it yet again.

Don't they most of the time?! Just let Singer and company work!

[SatEL]

TDK, like B.B., had a stunning cast that really got folks excited for it. We had one, ONE, big star in S.R.
I'm not saying a film's success depends on star power alone, that would be silly of course, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have some in it.

*IF* we get a sequel, I hope they go after a big time actor for the villain role. Someone that will make folks go see it that otherwise might have skipped it.

Or we could just start all over with a reboot, get a Superman that has charisma inside and outside the role someone that makes the girls go crazy and gets respect from the guys. Get a Lois Lane that has the Angelina Jolie affect or Meegan Fox affect, get someone for Lex Luthor that can drop an Oscar worthy performance for Lex have him light up the role. Also chuck in a few Oscar winners or nominees people that Garner respect in the industry, people like how Freeman and Caine were to BB and TDK.

[Superark]

Or we could just start all over with a reboot, get a Superman that has charisma inside and outside the role someone that makes the girls go crazy and gets respect from the guys. Get a Lois Lane that has the Angelina Jolie affect or Meegan Fox affect, get someone for Lex Luthor that can drop an Oscar worthy performance for Lex have him light up the role. Also chuck in a few Oscar winners or nominees people that Garner respect in the industry, people like how Freeman and Caine were to BB and TDK.

So you want looks over acting talent? Jolie is highly overrated as an actress, and what has Megan Fox done other than look pretty?

And as far as the second bolded comment, what do you think Kevin Spacey is?

[GreenKToo]

I'd love to see Viggo Mortenson as Metallo.
Viggo would be awesome. I wanted him for Aquaman in J.L.
Anywho, these are some examples of actors i'd love to see them go after for Metallo.

Matt Damon
Kiefer Sutherland
Viggo (good suggestion):oldrazz:

For Brainiac,

Hugo Weaving.
A left field choice here, Johnny Depp.
Jim Caviezel

Those are the kinda actors with star power I think they need to go after.

[SatEL]

So you want looks over acting talent? Jolie is highly overrated as an actress, and what has Megan Fox done other than look pretty?

And as far as the second bolded comment, what do you think Kevin Spacey is?

You obviously read my post yet nothing seemed to sink in.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Meh, putting together a bunch of big stars is overrated. Superman can sale himself without the huge stars.

[MAN O STEEL]

Superman can sale himself without the huge stars.


WROOOOOOONG!. This thinking alone is the reason why SR failed. Everyone thought that Superman was big enough to sell a movie all by itself & they failed. Even the Salkinds admitted when making STM that they needed bankable stars to make it a legitimate movie. Bryan Sinegr thought that the name Superman alone would be enough to make the movie a big hit. hell who needs action & good character moments when the name Superman is in the title :huh:. Nuff Said!.



Steve

[GreenKToo]

I agree. They tried that with S.R. with limited success.
It's no skin off my back if they don't cast an A-lister, but I seriously doubt it'll be the smashing success they want without one.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Spider-Man sure was a smashing success without one.

The first Superman movie was always going to make alot of money. A-lister or no, Superman Returns, which came out 19 years after the last movie, would have made alot of money if it had action and fights that used that new fangled technology and good/interesting characters and a halfway decent screenplay.

[GreenKToo]

It was spidey's first film. Superman's had several. It's going to take more than just the name ''Superman'' to sell him again IMHO.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^I already stressed that.

Kevin Spacey was the big star of the film and it still didn't sale as well as WB wanted it to. I think that it's more important and you could make just as much money to make a good movie with action and fight scenes than to hire big stars but thats just me. Most of these stars aren't draws anyway.

[GreenKToo]

While Kevin is a big star, he's not the kinda star that has mass appeal and the B.O. draw of say a Depp or Hanks.
IMVHO, they should have cast someone like Bruce Willis as Lex in S.R.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

While Kevin is a big star, he's not the kinda star that has mass appeal and the B.O. draw of say a Depp or Hanks.
IMVHO, they should have cast someone like Bruce Willis as Lex in S.R.That would be interesting but WB seems to want to stick with a version of the Hackman Lex.

I wouldn't have had as much of a problem with a non-LexCorp Lex if he was ultra serious and smart without any traces of Hackman's interpitation.

[GreenKToo]

I know, and that sickens me dammit. Lex is MUCH more than the doofus portrayed ( so Far) in the films.

[C. Lee]

You obviously read my post yet nothing seemed to sink in.
Like how the title of the thread says A Civil Debate?

[mojo-x]

I think the main effect TIH and TDK has on Superman franchise is to show how important it is to get that first movie right. To not just make the Film the director wants, (Singer, and Lee) but to make a film that will set up the franchise for future sequels and spin-offs.

[KaptainKrypton]

[QUOTE=I SEE SPIDEY]^People keep saying that it did well...[QUOTE]
Given that Valkyrie isn't out until February and they haven't even completely finished it yet, I wouldn't figure on an announcement until the fall. Singer hasn't yet announced another directing gig, but just production stuff which he's always involved in anyway (reportedly juggling up to eight projects while still filming SR).

I doubt that WB will do a reboot. I figure they'll be more instrumental in choosing writers for the movie and if Singer doesn't like what's happening, he'll walk and someone else will be brought in to direct. Given the difficulty of finding a new Superman, I don't think WB would be stupid enough to take a chance on further diluting the Superman actor stable given Routh and Welling already being dropped on the audience while having to restart a franchise from scratch that although disliked by a minority, still made more money than Batman's reboot (not factoring budgets in...because those false starts were a doozy).

I agree on the passing of Heath as a major factor for TDK's success. I know that they will guage public reception in terms of judging where to proceed with Supes, but on the whole SR scored well with sites and well with critics in terms of acclaim. Usually, the vocal dislikers of the film are the ones frequenting places like this.

Not saying it swept the top critics on RT, because we all know how Ebert felt, but on the whole it wasn't a panned film like X3. Regardless of what happens, I doubt a reboot will happen. What I do think is that they'll go forward with a sequel with or without Singer at the helm. It'll be a lot easier for them to cut off the leg then it will be to shoot the horse and then go buy a brand new one.

They've been very mum about ALL of their projects and not just Superman. I have a feeling that sometime in the next several months, they'll have all of their supposed irons in the fire, and then they'll pull a Marvel and announce a potential slate with a timetable. I'm just hoping they do decent renditions of GL, Wonder Woman and The Flash. I'm still having this recurring nightmare about Jack Black as Hal Jordan. Ugggh...

[KaptainKrypton]

That would be interesting but WB seems to want to stick with a version of the Hackman Lex.

I wouldn't have had as much of a problem with a non-LexCorp Lex if he was ultra serious and smart without any traces of Hackman's interpitation.
It's funny because my choice wouldn't have been LexCorp Lex. I would've went for crazy mad-scientist Lex. It's probably because I watched too many damn episodes of Super Power: Galactic Guardians when I was a little guy.

[TheBatman1979]

It's funny because my choice wouldn't have been LexCorp Lex. I would've went for crazy mad-scientist Lex. It's probably because I watched too many damn episodes of Super Power: Galactic Guardians when I was a little guy.

I actually wouldn't mind a mixture of the two. Not quite mad scientist but not completely just business man either. A nice mix of Science Savy Business man with evil intentions around everything he does.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^I wouldn't mind that.

[TheBatman1979]

^I wouldn't mind that.

The other thing I wouldn't mind is a quick Business meeting between Lex and Christian Bale/Bruce Wayne in the next Superman movie with Bruce telling Lex to shove his deals in forbidden territory.

[Lucid]

I believe that Superman is the greatest superhero ever created (and one of the most inspiring, universal characters in the history of fiction) and the character deserves a film as good as The Dark Knight.

I didn't love The Dark Knight, but I thought that Nolan and company really aimed to squeeze the full potential out of the Batman world, its characters, its themes, its tone, etc. and they really succeeded. That film is probably the richest Batman film that will ever be made. Such aims from Nolan show respect for the character and produce high quality results on screen, which are obviously noticed by fans and non-fans alike, equalling not only audience enjoyment, but record box office numbers. Nolan didn't pretend to have respect for Batman, copy Tim Burton's film, use the old theme music, lift the story structure, revive previous (and not the mention dead) actors to play parts, mimic opening credits, and essentially make another Burton film. Rather, Nolan had true respect for Batman, ignored the previous inadequate films, looked at the most respected and compelling source material, and aimed to create a film better than what had come before, the ultimate Batman film that, as I said, utilized every ounce of potential that the world of Batman possesses.

Personally, I believe that the world of Superman is greater than that of Batman, more profound and inspiring and important to the values of our society. Such a beautiful fictional world deserves a film that squeezes every ounce of potential out and slams it on the screen with utter passion the way that Nolan has done. Singer only wants to rehash what has come before, which creates lazy, underwhelming films that audiences don't enjoy and don't make money. Learn from the success of Nolan's Batman and hire someone who will take the same visionary approach with Superman, someone who believes that the best Superman film of all time has not been made yet and who has the filmmaking talent to actually bring that confidence and passion to the screen the way that Nolan has (and by the way, that doesn't mean the shortcut of "realism," that means doing what's best for Superman).

There's no question that the Superman world contains a rich, respected, compelling treasure trove of material that, combined with such a visionary director, would make a greater film than The Dark Knight (and maybe make more money).

There are many things that I want to see in my lifetime and such a Superman film is one of them. Superman deserves it.

[Pickle-El]

Leave your Singer vitrol for the Bryan Singer thread...and stop trying to mask your distaste for him by using TDK as a comparison to judge his "downfalls" as a director. Who are you trying to kid?

Believe it or not, people STILL want Bryan Singer back. And they felt he did a more than adequate job with Superman Returns.

What's the next comic book movie to come out? Watchmen right? I bet when that times comes it'll be....

Superman deserves a film as good as "The Watchmen"!!!

If you guys have nothing to add, then just sit on your hands and wait for some type of confirmation. Otherwise, stop using up valuable space on the Hype.

[Mostpowerful]

Leave your Singer vitrol for the Bryan Singer thread...and stop trying to mask your distaste for him by using TDK as a comparison to judge his "downfalls" as a director. Who are you trying to kid?

Believe it or not, people STILL want Bryan Singer back. And they felt he did a more than adequate job with Superman Returns.

What's the next comic book movie to come out? Watchmen right? I bet when that times comes it'll be....

Superman deserves a film as good as "The Watchmen"!!!

If you guys have nothing to add, then just sit on your hands and wait for some type of confirmation. Otherwise, stop using up valuable space on the Hype.

:up::up: great post

[NewYorkSpider]

The next Superman movie can be as good as TDK. All we need is a villain other than Lex Luthor. I want to see Metallo or Braniac in the next movie with a good written story. Singer said in an interview last year that he wanted the next movie to have lots of action in it. I'm willing to give the guy a chance.

[wellsy]

Frankly, I'm just sick of people opening threads like this one that immediately get closed by Showtime.

Come on people, stick to the threads we've got. No need to double up so much.

[I could make a snide remark here, but I shall refrain].

[dark_b]

harwey dents story and one of the best villains the joker added something to TDK. its not like it was all about bruce wayne and batman.
TDK as a whole was 10/10.


lex luthors ....kryyyyyyyyyyyyptonite wont cut it anymore. joker had a plan and was evil. lex luthor should never be the comedy in a superman movie. and he was something like that in SR.
make a better villlain and have some epic rescue scenes and a fight and i think we can make 300 milions domestic. which is good tor this times. TDK is something different. this kind of movie doesnt happen every year.

[SatEL]

Leave your Singer vitrol for the Bryan Singer thread...and stop trying to mask your distaste for him by using TDK as a comparison to judge his "downfalls" as a director. Who are you trying to kid?

Believe it or not, people STILL want Bryan Singer back. And they felt he did a more than adequate job with Superman Returns.

What's the next comic book movie to come out? Watchmen right? I bet when that times comes it'll be....

Superman deserves a film as good as "The Watchmen"!!!

If you guys have nothing to add, then just sit on your hands and wait for some type of confirmation. Otherwise, stop using up valuable space on the Hype.

Just goes to highlight that people dont feel they got a film truly worthy of Superman, I tend to agree with that SR could have been so much more.

[mego joe]

...and Bryan Singer is not capable doing it. Personally, I believe that Superman is the greatest superhero ever created (and one of the most inspiring, universal characters in the history of fiction) and the character deserves a film as good as The Dark Knight.

I didn't love The Dark Knight, but I thought that Nolan and company really aimed to squeeze the full potential out of the Batman world, its characters, its themes, its tone, etc. and they really succeeded. That film is probably the richest Batman film that will ever be made. Such aims from Nolan show respect for the character and equal high quality results on screen, which are obviously noticed by fans and non-fans alike, equalling not only audience enjoyment, but record box office numbers. Nolan didn't pretend to have respect for Batman, copy Tim Burton's film, use the old theme music, lift the story structure, revive previous (and not the mention dead) actors to play parts, mimic opening credits, and essentially make another Burton film in every way. Rather, Nolan had true respect for Batman, ignored the previous inadequate films, looked at the most respected and compelling source material, and aimed to create a film better than what had come before, the ultimate Batman film that, as I said, utilized every ounce of potential that the world of Batman possesses.

Personally, I believe that the world of Superman is greater than that of Batman, more profound and inspiring and important to the values of our society. Such a beautiful fictional world deserves a film that squeezes every ounce of potential out and slams it on the screen with utter passion the way that Nolan has done. Warner Bros. if you're reading this, Bryan Singer is NOT the right man. Singer only wants to rehash what has come before, which creates lazy, underwhelming films that audiences don't enjoy and don't make money. Learn from the success of Nolan's Batman and hire someone who will take the same visionary approach with Superman, someone who believes that the best Superman film of all time has not been made yet and who has the filmmaking talent to actually bring that confidence and passion to the screen the way that Nolan has (and by the way, that doesn't mean the shortcut of "realism," that means doing what's best for Superman).

There's no question that the Superman world contains a rich, respected, compelling treasure trove of material that, combined with such a visionary director, would make a greater film than The Dark Knight (and maybe make more money).

There are many things that I want to see in my lifetime and such a Superman film is one of them. Superman deserves it.

I second the motion.

[Odin's Lapdog]

superman already had, it's called superman: the movie?

it was the dark knight of its time.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Just goes to highlight that people dont feel they got a film truly worthy of Superman, I tend to agree with that SR could have been so much more.

It goes to highlight why SOME dont feel that, but plenty of people obviously DID feel they got a film worthy of Superman.

[Superfreak]

...and Bryan Singer is not capable doing it. Personally, I believe that Superman is the greatest superhero ever created (and one of the most inspiring, universal characters in the history of fiction) and the character deserves a film as good as The Dark Knight.

I didn't love The Dark Knight, but I thought that Nolan and company really aimed to squeeze the full potential out of the Batman world, its characters, its themes, its tone, etc. and they really succeeded. That film is probably the richest Batman film that will ever be made. Such aims from Nolan show respect for the character and equal high quality results on screen, which are obviously noticed by fans and non-fans alike, equalling not only audience enjoyment, but record box office numbers. Nolan didn't pretend to have respect for Batman, copy Tim Burton's film, use the old theme music, lift the story structure, revive previous (and not the mention dead) actors to play parts, mimic opening credits, and essentially make another Burton film in every way. Rather, Nolan had true respect for Batman, ignored the previous inadequate films, looked at the most respected and compelling source material, and aimed to create a film better than what had come before, the ultimate Batman film that, as I said, utilized every ounce of potential that the world of Batman possesses.

Personally, I believe that the world of Superman is greater than that of Batman, more profound and inspiring and important to the values of our society. Such a beautiful fictional world deserves a film that squeezes every ounce of potential out and slams it on the screen with utter passion the way that Nolan has done. Warner Bros. if you're reading this, Bryan Singer is NOT the right man. Singer only wants to rehash what has come before, which creates lazy, underwhelming films that audiences don't enjoy and don't make money. Learn from the success of Nolan's Batman and hire someone who will take the same visionary approach with Superman, someone who believes that the best Superman film of all time has not been made yet and who has the filmmaking talent to actually bring that confidence and passion to the screen the way that Nolan has (and by the way, that doesn't mean the shortcut of "realism," that means doing what's best for Superman).

There's no question that the Superman world contains a rich, respected, compelling treasure trove of material that, combined with such a visionary director, would make a greater film than The Dark Knight (and maybe make more money).

There are many things that I want to see in my lifetime and such a Superman film is one of them. Superman deserves it.


bla bla bla, I love Superman, bla bla bla, Superman is the best, bla bla bla, I don't like Bryan Singer, bla bla bla, Superman can be amazing bla bla bla

That's a song, which has been sung around here FOREVER.

and guess what, changing director is not the solution. Getting someone with the correct perspective on the character to WRITE A BLOODY SCRIPT that is worthy of superman is what Superman really deserves. It's the story that is the problem with SR, not the production/construction of the film. The film was fully Superman, it's just too bad there was no real story to hold the whole thing together.

[Showtime]

There is already a thread on this, so I am merging this with said thread...

[mojo-x]

bla bla bla, I love Superman, bla bla bla, Superman is the best, bla bla bla, I don't like Bryan Singer, bla bla bla, Superman can be amazing bla bla bla

That's a song, which has been sung around here FOREVER.

and guess what, changing director is not the solution. Getting someone with the correct perspective on the character to WRITE A BLOODY SCRIPT that is worthy of superman is what Superman really deserves. It's the story that is the problem with SR, not the production/construction of the film. The film was fully Superman, it's just too bad there was no real story to hold the whole thing together.

Yah but the director is the one who usually decides what the movie is going to be about. They usually hire the writers and give them the story and tell them what they want the movie to be about.

[Nightwing1977]

The next Superman movie can be as good as TDK. All we need is a villain other than Lex Luthor. I want to see Metallo or Braniac in the next movie with a good written story. Singer said in an interview last year that he wanted the next movie to have lots of action in it. I'm willing to give the guy a chance.

Same here. Singer has proven it with X2. Even Kevin Smith feel the same too. That speak volume there with him being a huge Supes fan as many are around here.

[VenomsMom]

harwey dents story and one of the best villains the joker added something to TDK. its not like it was all about bruce wayne and batman.
TDK as a whole was 10/10.


lex luthors ....kryyyyyyyyyyyyptonite wont cut it anymore. joker had a plan and was evil. lex luthor should never be the comedy in a superman movie. and he was something like that in SR.
make a better villlain and have some epic rescue scenes and a fight and i think we can make 300 milions domestic. which is good tor this times. TDK is something different. this kind of movie doesnt happen every year.
I agree with Dark B. SR was a breath of stale air. Been there done that. Nothing new, nothing original, and nothing exciting to revive a dead francise. And more importantly nothing to look forward to even if the thing is loaded with action and alien villains and superclones. It left people split and divided like no other comic movie. Everything that singer talks about doing in a sequel should have been done in this damn movie period.

[Superfreak]

Yah but the director is the one who usually decides what the movie is going to be about. They usually hire the writers and give them the story and tell them what they want the movie to be about.


they give a vague outline, which writers hammer out into a coherent plot. Problem with SR was not with the vague outline (which is what the movie actually felt like), but rather the details in that story, or the utter lack thereof. It's obviously a group effort, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty details of plot, it's the writer who is most responsible. Where the director translates script into film. I thought the delivery of SR was great,,, it's just that the plot in SR was non existant(well, it didn't follow superman, it followed Luthor, which defeats the purpose of a superman movie).

[spiderral]

All I want is either Bizarro, Metallo or Doomsday as a villain so Superman and one of them three villains can have a massive fight. Please don't put Lex in another film. Coz all it's about w/ Lex is a whole loada Kryptonite!
This video explains it and is so funny!
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7rp2f2OcCpQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7rp2f2OcCpQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Anita18]

If the Warner execs are intelligent, they'll take away from TDK that they need to tell a good Superman story that respects the source material and does not bring in too many off beat new elements but is a fresh story, not something simply regurgitated from 12 issues we've already read.
I think what you've brought up is somewhat of a paradox, LOL - not bringing in too many off-beat new elements but also isn't something that's been done before. :cwink:

TDK changed a lot of things from the comics. Harvey Dent, from what we were shown in the film, did not have an abusive father. His origin was different, although they had a nice reference with the "hostile" witness in court. Rachel Dawes never existed in the comics, and she certainly wasn't dating Harvey Dent. And of course, the Joker also was not permanently bleached. :hoboj:

But even with these differences, the film gave the characters believable motivations that mirrored their comics counterparts, motivations that drove the story forward, and that's why the audience bought it.

TDK's plot felt rich because there were so many characters involved, but there was only one real force driving the conflict - the mob hired the Joker to get rid of Batman since they were losing their grip on Gotham, and the Joker took the opportunity and ran with it. Everything that transpired in the film, externally and emotionally, was based off of that one premise.

It's difficult to say what the real driving conflict was in SR. Supes had emotional conflict with Lois moving on, but he also had a physical conflict with Lex Luthor wreaking global havoc. One didn't really have to do with the other, besides the convenient plot point of Lois and son suddenly finding themselves in the middle of Luthor's evil plan. But thematically, they were completely different. It's like they belonged in different films, with the Lois conflict being what they were aiming for, but having to include Luthor because they needed a villain.

It would have been more cohesive if Luthor's plan took advantage of Superman's feelings of being outcast, instead of just utilizing kryptonite and killing billions of people.

I don't think WB is holding off on SR because us fans don't want it or that its box office performance was poor. I don't think anyone really wanted a sequel to FF, but one got made anyway. :oldrazz:

I mostly think WB's not sure where they want to go with the story, and there's the issue of budget. SR wasn't a bomb, but with so much money on the line, WB wants to make sure they're getting the most bang for their buck. It's not an unreasonable thing for them to worry about.

I'm not sure if the rumors of Nolan and Goyer giving WB a 3-movie premise are true, since TDK went off in a different direction from what the outline was supposed to be anyway. But I haven't even heard any rumors of Singer and Co having an outline for a trilogy for SR. IMO, they've written themselves into a hole with Jason. Writing a good Superman story that includes him isn't impossible, but you'd have to have a terrific writing team behind the project. And I think that's what WB is waiting for.

[The Overlord]

It goes to highlight why SOME dont feel that, but plenty of people obviously DID feel they got a film worthy of Superman.


Yeah and lot of other people though that film sucked, the dark Knight pleased almost everyone.

[The Overlord]

It goes to highlight why SOME dont feel that, but plenty of people obviously DID feel they got a film worthy of Superman.


Yeah and lot of other people though that film sucked, the dark Knight pleased almost everyone.

[GreenKToo]

I don't get why directors say ''Just wait for the sequel, it will be what you REAALLLY wanted"
Why not give the fans what they want the first time?

[I Am The Knight]

It's a way of not blowing their load during foreplay, so to speak. I think...

[Pickle-El]

I don't get why directors say ''Just wait for the sequel, it will be what you REAALLLY wanted"
Why not give the fans what they want the first time?

They try to. Everyone wants to 'Spiderman' their franchises with their 1st film, strike gold, and continue uphill. It's all hindsight, you see what worked with your film, and what didn't, they then base many of the sequel decisions on those results. Hence, making the good parts of the first film, 'bigger and better'.

This is incredibly easy when the 1st film is received very well. Which is why films like the Iron Man and Transformers sequels are sitting very pretty right now. You already know they will be incredibly similar to the first, just with more of what you liked. (IMO hopefully it doesn't get too campy with the jokes..Shia and Downey Jr. getting too cute with the audience)

And to people that feel Superman should have results like TDK;

A movie like TDK.... Now that's an anomoly all on itself. Not even POTC1 or Shrek 1 which made a hundred million more at the Box office and sold at least 5-10 million more DVD's than Batman Begins did what TDK did in it's sequel (POTC2 DMC and Shrek 2). I wouldn't think anyone had any realistic reason to base a 500 million dollar result on the film, other than being a typical 'excessive' fan. Trust me, even the WB has no idea all the mysterious winds that went into that perfect storm. They're just riding it out till the last penny.

Dont' EVER expect a Superman movie to do what TDK has done on the box office sheets based solely on cinematic experience. Just hope that they at least listen to the fans on certain subjects, and find a common ground with the character of Superman regarding future films.

[hatebox]

To put it very bluntly, WB have to work out a way of making Superman 'cool' again.

He just isn't cool like batman, or even Ironman. If WB can somehow crack that and still remain true to what made Supes loved by his fans in the first place, they could be onto something. In many ways the world has moved on and finds the Superman irrelevant. The writers have to make him relevant to today's world again.

[Pickle-El]

To put it very bluntly, WB have to work out a way of making Superman 'cool' again.

He just isn't cool like batman, or even Ironman. If WB can somehow crack that and still remain true to what made Supes loved by his fans in the first place, they could be onto something. In many ways the world has moved on and finds the Superman irrelevant. The writers have to make him relevant to today's world again.

And THAT is the 500lb elephant in the room. Not the kid, not Lex and his yelling, it's this.

Are today's audiences simply too 'cool' for Superman? Even if they are, Superman needs to pull of some 'cool' **** for a sequel, or reboot. We all love the character, but lets face it, he's not interesting to a lot of people. Certainly not as interesting as the current Iron Man, Bruce Wayne, or Joker.

When I saw SR the biggest compliment was about the plane scene. People I knew thought it was amazing. No one said, 'Superman was such a good guy saving the world like that!' When people watch Iron Man or TDK....it's about the suave personalities of the characters, or the cold-menacing quirks of The Joker, same with Jack Sparrow in the POTC movies.

I don't know, how do you fix something like this? I'm kinda stuck now that I think about it. I'm not so sure Superman simply being a beacon on light at the end of a dark tunnel is enough anymore.

Hell, even James Bond was remolded to fit the 'darker, cooler' form. And it worked. Color me confused. Maybe I should work at the WB. :o

[Mostpowerful]

It goes to highlight why SOME dont feel that, but plenty of people obviously DID feel they got a film worthy of Superman.

Yesss


Same here. Singer has proven it with X2. Even Kevin Smith feel the same too. That speak volume there with him being a huge Supes fan as many are around here.

Exactly. I'm sure he can deliver, if he is allowed to. Come on WB, Singer Is the man. He has love and passion for the character. Besides, I don't see other directors interested on doing a supes movie.



I don't get why directors say ''Just wait for the sequel, it will be what you REAALLLY wanted"
Why not give the fans what they want the first time?

But according to reviews, most of us fans, as well as the critics feel SR was what we wanted, at least as a reintroduction. And that's what sequels are for. I mean, not everybody absolutely loved BB. But now with TDK Nolan got to deliver more of what the fans wanted. Why not give Singer another chance to improve things? Also, I understand that a lot of fans wanted a continuation of the Donner universe, no? I'm not sure on that.



They try to. Everyone wants to 'Spiderman' their franchises with their 1st film, strike gold, and continue uphill. It's all hindsight, you see what worked with your film, and what didn't, they then base many of the sequel decisions on those results. Hence, making the good parts of the first film, 'bigger and better'.

This is incredibly easy when the 1st film is received very well. Which is why films like the Iron Man and Transformers sequels are sitting very pretty right now. You already know they will be incredibly similar to the first, just with more of what you liked. (IMO hopefully it doesn't get too campy with the jokes..Shia and Downey Jr. getting too cute with the audience)

And to people that feel Superman should have results like TDK;

A movie like TDK.... Now that's an anomoly all on itself. Not even POTC1 or Shrek 1 which made a hundred million more at the Box office and sold at least 5-10 million more DVD's than Batman Begins did what TDK did in it's sequel (POTC2 DMC and Shrek 2). I wouldn't think anyone had any realistic reason to base a 500 million dollar result on the film, other than being a typical 'excessive' fan. Trust me, even the WB has no idea all the mysterious winds that went into that perfect storm. They're just riding it out till the last penny.

Dont' EVER expect a Superman movie to do what TDK has done on the box office sheets based solely on cinematic experience. Just hope that they at least listen to the fans on certain subjects, and find a common ground with the character of Superman regarding future films.

:up: You are so wise, Pickle.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

PE's post was good. TDK was a freak of nature and nothing more.

[GreenKToo]

But according to reviews, most of us fans, as well as the critics feel SR was what we wanted, at least as a reintroduction. And that's what sequels are for. I mean, not everybody absolutely loved BB. But now with TDK Nolan got to deliver more of what the fans wanted. Why not give Singer another chance to improve things? Also, I understand that a lot of fans wanted a continuation of the Donner universe, no? I'm not sure on that.

Your correct, alot did want the Donnerverse continued.
As for giving Singer another chance, I'd be willing to if he can show me he's got the chops to pull it off. If it's just more of the same stuff we got in S.R., then no thanx.
Like I said though, i'm open to it.

[hatebox]

But according to reviews, most of us fans, as well as the critics feel SR was what we wanted, at least as a reintroduction. And that's what sequels are for. I mean, not everybody absolutely loved BB. But now with TDK Nolan got to deliver more of what the fans wanted. Why not give Singer another chance to improve things? Also, I understand that a lot of fans wanted a continuation of the Donner universe, no? I'm not sure on that.

Again, the problem is that I get the sense when BB finished far more people really wanted to know what happened next. SR failed to generate that interest for (I would say) most people who saw it.

[dark_b]

I don't get why directors say ''Just wait for the sequel, it will be what you REAALLLY wanted"
Why not give the fans what they want the first time?orci and kurtzaman and Nolan are thinking the same way. they all said that their aproach is : make the best movie you can.
dont think about how can i top the sequel. when you are doing your movie there is no sequel. you need to writte and film your movie like its your last. the best story and the best fight.
when you think about the sequel you are holding back .and why would a director hold back?

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^Thats the mindset to have, unfortunately Singer never seems to have that mindset. And with WB's help, this time it cost him atleast alot of creative control.

[Anita18]

orci and kurtzaman and Nolan are thinking the same way. they all said that their aproach is : make the best movie you can.
dont think about how can i top the sequel. when you are doing your movie there is no sequel. you need to writte and film your movie like its your last. the best story and the best fight.
when you think about the sequel you are holding back .and why would a director hold back?
Well, you've also got to know when to stop.

If Nolan had truly gone all out in BB, he would have used the Joker and Two-Face in the first film. But those two characters didn't serve the same purpose thematically as Ra's al Ghul and Scarecrow did, so they "saved" Joker and Two-Face for another film, when they would serve a thematic purpose.

But I do agree that a director should treat each film and story as its own entity. Do what's best for the film that you're doing now.

I have no idea why Singer offered the "we're going all Wrath of Khan!" explanation for the SR sequel. I can't decide whether it's because everyone thought SR didn't have enough action or whether it's because he really did hold back on SR. Eh, don't think we'll ever find out either.

[dark_b]

Well, you've also got to know when to stop.

If Nolan had truly gone all out in BB, he would have used the Joker and Two-Face in the first film. But those two characters didn't serve the same purpose thematically as Ra's al Ghul and Scarecrow did, so they "saved" Joker and Two-Face for another film, when they would serve a thematic purpose.

But I do agree that a director should treat each film and story as its own entity. Do what's best for the film that you're doing now.

I have no idea why Singer offered the "we're going all Wrath of Khan!" explanation for the SR sequel. I can't decide whether it's because everyone thought SR didn't have enough action or whether it's because he really did hold back on SR. Eh, don't think we'll ever find out either.nolan used the best villains that they would serve the origin story. and i am not trying to defend him.
joker would nto fit in an origin batman movie. yes its true that Nolan didnt use the best batman villain. but i didnt say that the director should use the best villain. i said that the director should make the best movie he can. of course the best origin would not be with joker because he would not fit in.
so i think Nolan made teh best origin movie he could. now he made the best sequel he could.
SR didnt have the best L. this was not the ultimate LL plan. it was a joke. ''hey i will have advanced alien technology.i will destroy an entire continent. that way people will take me serious. after bilions of american people died i will sell my NK to the world.i will be rich.''
this is an insult. you have million lex luthor stories in hte comics where you could use it to gap S:TM and SR.:o

[dark_b]

I have no idea why Singer offered the "we're going all Wrath of Khan!" explanation for the SR sequel. I can't decide whether it's because everyone thought SR didn't have enough action or whether it's because he really did hold back on SR. Eh, don't think we'll ever find out either.well i really dont think that this is Singer trying to save hes ass. it looks like that this is how he does he s movies. yes X-men is an example.
of course you coud disagree with me that the reason X-men 2 was bigger and better is because he had a bigger budget. then we can mention that Singer already had 100% control and a 200 milion budget. he had a budget under 100 milions for x-men back in 2000.
so in a way we can not compare x-men and SR.
whait a minute. was i trying to defend singer or what? :huh: plus why compare x-men and SR . in x-men you had to many characters to make them all shine in one movie. in SR you had 4 main characters.

i think the worst comment from B.Singer was : ''i needed to introduce the characters so that i can put them in danger in the sequel''. i guess ridley scott,spielberg, all big directors are making a big mistake when they do all this in their movies. so singer needs two movies t put them in danger. so how would you make an action story with a movie where you can nto have a sequel?
should peter jackson make a sequel to king kong so that they can have a Ann in danger?

so in other words. i really think he is nto lying. hes approach is just wrong. but all of this is not so bad if you think that WB are the ones paying 200 milions. they were the ones who liked all this. they were the ones who gave him a 10 milion pay or play deal. after all of the BO. they are chaning their minds every minute. obviously .

back on topic.

[Bulletproof]

The increase in the action a la Wrath of Kahn works great for Star Trek, I mean the original series had those ultra science type episodes that were in the same mold as Trek the motion picture. This outline doesn't work for Superman because he's a "SUPERHERO" meaning he needs to fight injustice!

This is why Singer dropped the ball. He was thinking Star Trek when he should have been reading a Superman comic book or two.

[The Overlord]

They try to. Everyone wants to 'Spiderman' their franchises with their 1st film, strike gold, and continue uphill. It's all hindsight, you see what worked with your film, and what didn't, they then base many of the sequel decisions on those results. Hence, making the good parts of the first film, 'bigger and better'.

.

Quick question why did singer think people wanted a rehash of Superman I, with stupid lex, no super villain fights and this kid weighing thwe franchise down. Because that's not what I watnted!

[GreenKToo]

I think Singer should have hinted strongly at the threat to come at the end of S.R.
I see no reason why the last shot of S.R. couldnt have been of Brainiac's ship flying through space. His instruments suddenly pick up a signal, a kryptonarian signal. It's from N.K.

Brainiac alters his ships course and heads toward Earth.

Imagine the buzz something like that would have created.

[FlawlessVictory]

I think Singer should have hinted strongly at the threat to come at the end of S.R.
I see no reason why the last shot of S.R. couldnt have been of Brainiac's ship flying through space. His instruments suddenly pick up a signal, a kryptonarian signal. It's from N.K.
Brainiac alters his ships course and heads toward Earth.

Because Jason waving bye is much more thrilling. :dry: And come on, you mean to tell me you didn't leave the theater totally stoked when you saw Jason in the window like that. You weren't like, "Wow, I can't wait to see how Superman interferes with Richard and Lois raising Jason. The sequel is going to be amazing!!!" :wow:

As for your idea of hints of Brainiac, that's cool and all but with SR, that's just like putting a band-aid on a severed arm. There's so much wrong with Singer's Superman that hints of Brainiac are not going to save it, IMO.

[SatEL]

Because Jason waving bye is much more thrilling. :dry: And come on, you mean to tell me you didn't leave the theater totally stoked when you saw Jason in the window like that. You weren't like, "Wow, I can't wait to see how Superman interferes with Richard and Lois raising Jason. The sequel is going to be amazing!!!" :wow:

As for your idea of hints of Brainiac, that's cool and all but with SR, that's just like putting a band-aid on a severed arm. There's so much wrong with Singer's Superman that hints of Brainiac are not going to save it, IMO.

Your right no little hints could have made that film any move exciting than it was, Singer and crew should appear on what were they thinking.

[GreenKToo]

Because Jason waving bye is much more thrilling. :dry: And come on, you mean to tell me you didn't leave the theater totally stoked when you saw Jason in the window like that. You weren't like, "Wow, I can't wait to see how Superman interferes with Richard and Lois raising Jason. The sequel is going to be amazing!!!" :wow:

As for your idea of hints of Brainiac, that's cool and all but with SR, that's just like putting a band-aid on a severed arm. There's so much wrong with Singer's Superman that hints of Brainiac are not going to save it, IMO.
Lol. the kid didnt really bother me all that much. To be honest, the way Lex was portrayed was my biggest gripe. That and the lack of ''more'' and ''bigger'' action.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I have to say that I despised the rehashed horrible land deal plot, Lex still being a bumbling criminal who hires idiots, Lois being beyond bland and Superman being irresponsible and mopey wayyy more than I hated the kid.

Now thats not me standing up for the idea because I hate it and want it to go away but those other things just killed the movie for me, how the kid came about just killed the whole idea of a kid for me too.

[VenomsMom]

I think what you've brought up is somewhat of a paradox, LOL - not bringing in too many off-beat new elements but also isn't something that's been done before. :cwink:

TDK changed a lot of things from the comics. Harvey Dent, from what we were shown in the film, did not have an abusive father. His origin was different, although they had a nice reference with the "hostile" witness in court. Rachel Dawes never existed in the comics, and she certainly wasn't dating Harvey Dent. And of course, the Joker also was not permanently bleached. :hoboj:

But even with these differences, the film gave the characters believable motivations that mirrored their comics counterparts, motivations that drove the story forward, and that's why the audience bought it.

TDK's plot felt rich because there were so many characters involved, but there was only one real force driving the conflict - the mob hired the Joker to get rid of Batman since they were losing their grip on Gotham, and the Joker took the opportunity and ran with it. Everything that transpired in the film, externally and emotionally, was based off of that one premise.

It's difficult to say what the real driving conflict was in SR. Supes had emotional conflict with Lois moving on, but he also had a physical conflict with Lex Luthor wreaking global havoc. One didn't really have to do with the other, besides the convenient plot point of Lois and son suddenly finding themselves in the middle of Luthor's evil plan. But thematically, they were completely different. It's like they belonged in different films, with the Lois conflict being what they were aiming for, but having to include Luthor because they needed a villain.

It would have been more cohesive if Luthor's plan took advantage of Superman's feelings of being outcast, instead of just utilizing kryptonite and killing billions of people.

I don't think WB is holding off on SR because us fans don't want it or that its box office performance was poor. I don't think anyone really wanted a sequel to FF, but one got made anyway. :oldrazz:

I mostly think WB's not sure where they want to go with the story, and there's the issue of budget. SR wasn't a bomb, but with so much money on the line, WB wants to make sure they're getting the most bang for their buck. It's not an unreasonable thing for them to worry about.

I'm not sure if the rumors of Nolan and Goyer giving WB a 3-movie premise are true, since TDK went off in a different direction from what the outline was supposed to be anyway. But I haven't even heard any rumors of Singer and Co having an outline for a trilogy for SR. IMO, they've written themselves into a hole with Jason. Writing a good Superman story that includes him isn't impossible, but you'd have to have a terrific writing team behind the project. And I think that's what WB is waiting for.
I love your posts Anita18. Well said and I agree.

[VenomsMom]

I think Singer should have hinted strongly at the threat to come at the end of S.R.
I see no reason why the last shot of S.R. couldnt have been of Brainiac's ship flying through space. His instruments suddenly pick up a signal, a kryptonarian signal. It's from N.K.

Brainiac alters his ships course and heads toward Earth.

Imagine the buzz something like that would have created.

Because Jason waving bye is much more thrilling. :dry: And come on, you mean to tell me you didn't leave the theater totally stoked when you saw Jason in the window like that. You weren't like, "Wow, I can't wait to see how Superman interferes with Richard and Lois raising Jason. The sequel is going to be amazing!!!" :wow:

As for your idea of hints of Brainiac, that's cool and all but with SR, that's just like putting a band-aid on a severed arm. There's so much wrong with Singer's Superman that hints of Brainiac are not going to save it, IMO.
I actually agree with both statements. Hinting at an alien threat coming could not have hurt and it would have at least generated a little mor buzz instead of the bland ending we got. However, its almost as if the ending of SR they opted for just completed the story in a strange way and they didnt want to leave a cliffhanger like the Joker card in BB. You can really interpret it how you want without ever seeing a sequel. Either Supes will leave jason to be raised by Lois and Richard knowing that its in the best interest of Jason for his safety or Richard will come to the conclusion that Lois still loves supes and will never feel the same about him as well as knowing Jason is not really his. Superman is no longer alone as he has Jason and as he stated he will "Be Around". So thats it.There are ways for this to continue but it could also end completing the Donner mythos. However, as disappointing as I was with the whole story and characters its a shame we are even taliking about these plot points after seeing a Superman film in this new millenium to begin with.

[VenomsMom]

I think Singer should have hinted strongly at the threat to come at the end of S.R.
I see no reason why the last shot of S.R. couldnt have been of Brainiac's ship flying through space. His instruments suddenly pick up a signal, a kryptonarian signal. It's from N.K.

Brainiac alters his ships course and heads toward Earth.

Imagine the buzz something like that would have created.

Because Jason waving bye is much more thrilling. :dry: And come on, you mean to tell me you didn't leave the theater totally stoked when you saw Jason in the window like that. You weren't like, "Wow, I can't wait to see how Superman interferes with Richard and Lois raising Jason. The sequel is going to be amazing!!!" :wow:

As for your idea of hints of Brainiac, that's cool and all but with SR, that's just like putting a band-aid on a severed arm. There's so much wrong with Singer's Superman that hints of Brainiac are not going to save it, IMO.
I actually agree with both statements. Hinting at an alien threat coming could not have hurt and it would have at least generated a little mor buzz instead of the bland ending we got. However, its almost as if the ending of SR they opted for just completed the story in a strange way and they didnt want to leave a cliffhanger like the Joker card in BB. You can really interpret it how you want without ever seeing a sequel. Either Supes will leave jason to be raised by Lois and Richard knowing that its in the best interest of Jason for his safety or Richard will come to the conclusion that Lois still loves supes and will never feel the same about him as well as knowing Jason is not really his. Superman is no longer alone as he has Jason and as he stated he will "Be Around". So thats it.There are ways for this to continue but it could also end completing the Donner mythos. However, as disappointing as I was with the whole story and characters its a shame we are even taliking about these plot points after seeing a Superman film in this new millenium to begin with.

[VenomsMom]

Well, you've also got to know when to stop.

If Nolan had truly gone all out in BB, he would have used the Joker and Two-Face in the first film. But those two characters didn't serve the same purpose thematically as Ra's al Ghul and Scarecrow did, so they "saved" Joker and Two-Face for another film, when they would serve a thematic purpose.

But I do agree that a director should treat each film and story as its own entity. Do what's best for the film that you're doing now.

I have no idea why Singer offered the "we're going all Wrath of Khan!" explanation for the SR sequel. I can't decide whether it's because everyone thought SR didn't have enough action or whether it's because he really did hold back on SR. Eh, don't think we'll ever find out either.
So true.

[GreenKToo]

I have to say that I despised the rehashed horrible land deal plot, Lex still being a bumbling criminal who hires idiots, Lois being beyond bland and Superman being irresponsible and mopey wayyy more than I hated the kid.

Now thats not me standing up for the idea because I hate it and want it to go away but those other things just killed the movie for me, how the kid came about just killed the whole idea of a kid for me too.
I hated this Lex, absolutely hated him. As for Jason, if everything else had of been right with S.R., the kid wouldn't be near the issue he is now ( not saying I liked him either).

[SuperDaniel]

I completely agree, guys!

[VenomsMom]

I hated this Lex, absolutely hated him. As for Jason, if everything else had of been right with S.R., the kid wouldn't be near the issue he is now ( not saying I liked him either).
Yes.....there are characters who are dispicable that you should hate but you still love them. The Joker was a mad evil SOB but I certainly enjoyed him. This Lex is a mad evil SOB that you supposed to hate as well but didnt enjoy him and therefore I hate this character. I hate his plots and his plans and the people he surrounds himself with. These are classic characters that have been around for years and there are numerous interpretations of them. It would have been nice to get something new or different with Lex.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Yes.....there are characters who are dispicable that you should hate but you still love them. The Joker was a mad evil SOB but I certainly enjoyed him. This Lex is a mad evil SOB that you supposed to hate as well but didnt enjoy him and therefore I hate this character. I hate his plots and his plans and the people he surrounds himself with. These are classic characters that have been around for years and there are numerous interpretations of them. It would have been nice to get something new or different with Lex.And thats all I'm saying. We already have underground criminal goofball Lex from the 70's/80's films, why not give us the serious businessman version on the bigscreen?

[GreenKToo]

Yes.....there are characters who are dispicable that you should hate but you still love them. The Joker was a mad evil SOB but I certainly enjoyed him. This Lex is a mad evil SOB that you supposed to hate as well but didnt enjoy him and therefore I hate this character. I hate his plots and his plans and the people he surrounds himself with. These are classic characters that have been around for years and there are numerous interpretations of them. It would have been nice to get something new or different with Lex.
The opening scene with Lex killed him for me. Godawful stuff there.

[VenomsMom]

The opening scene with Lex killed him for me. Godawful stuff there.
LoL..yeah nothing set the tone for the whole movie like watching Lex swindle a dying old lady while she praises him for pleasures unknown. :o

[GreenKToo]

LoL..yeah nothing set the tone for the whole movie like watching Lex swindle a dying old lady while she praises him for pleasures unknown. :o
And yet they cut the one scene that would have helped S.R. more than anything, the R.T.K. scene.
For me, Lex being wealthy needed no explanation. People like him just are. The first time we should have seen him should have been the yacht scene in the arctic. I mean, would you have questioned how he got rich and had a yacht? I wouldnt have.

[SuperDaniel]

I thought he was already rich in S:TM. I mean, that underground lair sure was fancy!

[VenomsMom]

From what I saw in STM Lex may have attained whatever wealth he had through his alleged criminal activities and all that may have been compensated when he got arrested. Once again we are dealing with a vague history with very little explanation. And this guy has been locked up for five years. You would have to go read other sources of literature to get further explanations about Lex and his time in prison and how he met the old rich dame. I for one am not interested. If it were important Singer and his talented writers would have included it in this movie.