This is just a theory

[SlickSyck]

I just noticed there was a thread about this already...sorry.

...and i dont know if ayone else would agree with me, but i was thinking about this. Superman in SR seemed like something was missing from the character aspect of his presence in the film. i think he seemed like kind of a shallow character just a little bit. im serious, its not very much in my opinion, i loved the character development in the film, but i was wondering...if the Character of Jason was killed off in the sequal, perhaps by something that was caused by who ever the next villian will be, or by the villian directly...i think that would give the character of Superman that missing piece on screen. It would make him seem like he means business when it comes to fighting the villian. I actually had the idea when I was watching Star Trek 3 the other day. When the Klingon killed David, the son of James Kirk, it seemed like suddenly, you REALLY didnt wanna mess with Kirk...i think that would be a nice way to make Superman seem more serious if this were to happen to Jason in the sequal. And since we got to know Jason a little in SR, not only would it pull the audience onto the edge of thier seats and into the story and film veiwing a lot, it would also add a really intense depth to the character of Superman.

[mjbull23]

I can see where your going with this premise, but I don't think it would make for a very effective subplot. Primarily because at this point in time, Supes has only just learned that he is Jason's father. There has been virtually no emotional bonding, or relationship development between the two. We have had one bedroom scene, where Supes surreptitously counsels his sleeping son. A brief meeting at the Daily Planet between the two, and a kiss in the hospital.

If Singer decides to continue the Father/Son Story arch, which I think he will, because he went so very out of his way to make it a motif in this first film, then he is going to have to devote the onscreen time to establishing a meaningful relationship dynamic between the two. I just hope he doesn't go down the obvious route and have Jason as a kidnapee or victim in this next film.

Anyways, getting back to my original point. Once you have developed the relationship between the two, then ...in a 3rd film(?)...then i think it works far more effectively.

[wellsy]

Also, a heroic sacrifice, like Spock in ST II would probably be more heroic.

Its either that, or Singer is working with a "legacy" plot, ie he'll eventually kill Superman (or something to that effect) and have Jason take over...

Until Superman Returns again :o.

But I do agree that MoS will probably not see Jason killed. I just don't think its the right time.

[lexlives]

Also, a heroic sacrifice, like Spock in ST II would probably be more heroic.

Its either that, or Singer is working with a "legacy" plot, ie he'll eventually kill Superman (or something to that effect) and have Jason take over...

Until Superman Returns again :o.

But I do agree that MoS will probably not see Jason killed. I just don't think its the right time.
There won't be a second film let alone a third. You can take that to the bank.

But, my bet is that Singer's original plan was to kill off Superman in the third film and introduce a "hip" mutant like Superman that WB could then try to market where they have not been able to market the white-bread Superman so perfectly epitomized in the white-bread, boring Routh.

[JamalYIgle]

There won't be a second film let alone a third. You can take that to the bank.

But, my bet is that Singer's original plan was to kill off Superman in the third film and introduce a "hip" mutant like Superman that WB could then try to market where they have not been able to market the white-bread Superman so perfectly epitomized in the white-bread, boring Routh.

Dude, you're never right. way to keep the losing streak going ,Lex

[Super Kal]

I have to agree with Jamal on this one, LL... if they weren't gonna do a sequel, then why did they already say they were planning on doing one?

[lexlives]

I have to agree with Jamal on this one, LL... if they weren't gonna do a sequel, then why did they already say they were planning on doing one?

They said they were doing a Hulk sequel and lee claimed so for almost after a year after the Hulk came out.

Don't trust me - if WB can't affirm next week that an SR sequel is on their 2009 schedule - forget giving a specific date which they did not with TDK last march at ShoWeast - then draw your own conclusions.

That begs the point - do you want a sequel with Singer, D&H and Routh and Bosworth? Believe me - that is or would be a recipe for disaster.

[Freddy_Krueger]

They said they were doing a Hulk sequel and lee claimed so for almost after a year after the Hulk came out.

Don't trust me - if WB can't affirm next week that an SR sequel is on their 2009 schedule


Yes, because Warner Brothers is on lexlives' schedule, not their own.

[lexlives]

Yes, because Warner Brothers is on lexlives' schedule, not their own.


Nothing to do with schdule. WB did not have a script for TDK in March 2006 yet were perfectly content to announce that TDK would be their 2008 summer tentpole.

Spin it how you want - if they can't do that for Superman next week it says a he** of a whole lot. Its why I wish they would just fess up and confirm what many here know in their hearts - the sequel is shelved.

[Freddy_Krueger]

Spin it how you want

Funny...the master of spin accuses me of spinning...

[redcaped]

Superman scattered everywhere I$ not the way.

[JamalYIgle]

They said they were doing a Hulk sequel and lee claimed so for almost after a year after the Hulk came out.

Don't trust me - if WB can't affirm next week that an SR sequel is on their 2009 schedule - forget giving a specific date which they did not with TDK last march at ShoWeast - then draw your own conclusions.

That begs the point - do you want a sequel with Singer, D&H and Routh and Bosworth? Believe me - that is or would be a recipe for disaster.

And yet they're (Marvel) Still making a Hulk movie.

[JamalYIgle]

They said they were doing a Hulk sequel and lee claimed so for almost after a year after the Hulk came out.

Don't trust me - if WB can't affirm next week that an SR sequel is on their 2009 schedule - forget giving a specific date which they did not with TDK last march at ShoWeast - then draw your own conclusions.

That begs the point - do you want a sequel with Singer, D&H and Routh and Bosworth? Believe me - that is or would be a recipe for disaster.

Aren't you the one who claimed that Warner Bros. wasn't going to do any publicity for the movie(SR)Because they didn't like the way it came out, that they were going to just put it out and let it slowly die in the theaters?

Forgive me but I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously.

[El Payaso]

Don't trust me

Ok.

[VenomsMom]

There won't be a second film let alone a third. You can take that to the bank.

But, my bet is that Singer's original plan was to kill off Superman in the third film and introduce a "hip" mutant like Superman that WB could then try to market where they have not been able to market the white-bread Superman so perfectly epitomized in the white-bread, boring Routh.
There will be a second film. It cant possibly get any worse than the first film. If this one struggles to get 200 million again we can kiss this francise goodbye for many years.

[GreenKToo]

I agree, a second film is pretty much assured, but a 3rd one depends on how well the second one does...its common sense Lex, really it is.

[VenomsMom]

200 million dollars will not justify a third film ,I guarantee it.

[lexlives]

And yet they're (Marvel) Still making a Hulk movie.


Oh yes - and it is a reboot/restart. The studio is doing everything it can to distance itself from Lee's film.

You'd think WB would take a clue?!

[lexlives]

I agree, a second film is pretty much assured, but a 3rd one depends on how well the second one does...its common sense Lex, really it is.

Bien sur - of course it is common sense.

Yet, think about this, WB is already prepping a third Batman film before - a year plus before - the second one is out.

What does that tell you? Do you like the odds of getting a thrid film if Singer is allowed a second film?

Batman fans don't have to worry about a third film, or FF fans a thrid film or Spidey fans a fourth film.

Why do Superman fan have to worry about a third - and really a second as it is still iffy.

What is wrong with this picture? Could it be Singer and his vision? And why does anyone here want to give Singer another shot when we all admit - at least 3rd filmwise - things are in big doubt?!

For the life of me, I absolutely do not get some of you.

[El Payaso]

Batman fans don't have to worry about a third film, or FF fans a thrid film or Spidey fans a fourth film.

As a fan of Bats and Spiderman - and having a taste for FF - my main concern are that TDK won't have terrible dialogues and the fight scenes will be better; that Spiderman will be closer to Sp-M2 and not the mediocre (but successful) Sp-M1, and the FF2 won't be as Catwomanly terrible as the first one, which seems very unlikely.

So I rather having one good movie instead of 3 mediocre sequels. In Superman's case, I already have.

[wellsy]

Question - wasn't FF a bit dodgy too? Didn't it have a few problems critically and at the BO?

And it got a sequel.

A precedent, methinks.

[El Payaso]

Question - wasn't FF a bit dodgy too? Didn't it have a few problems critically and at the BO?

And it got a sequel.

A precedent, methinks.

That shows a movie can be a total piece of crap and still have a seque. It's all in the BO results.

That's why I wouldn't even be stressed if SR wouldn't have a sequel, I rather have one great Superman movie with a bad BO than 4 stinky but successful flicks ala FF.