The Official Mike Dougherty & Dan Harris Thread [Archive] - Page 4

matrix_ghost

10-22-2007, 10:44 PM

Despite being "The WOrld's Greatest Comic Magazine" FF is not the crossover concept that Superman is. I think studio expectations for FF were met, plus they felt they could do a better film in a sequel, and I think they did.

The problem is that the world in which SR exists is a millstone to future films in and of itself. FF just needed to be a better film, SR has a conceptual flaw inherent in it's approach to the character and his world.

Which was the point that i was making. Had Superman Returns made more money , then we'd get a sequel sooner instead of this kind of news.
The higher the BO for SR would've been , the faster you'd hear the news that we'd get a sequel. That is the same reason why we are getting TDK. The studio demands were met , the movie made a profit , it got positive critical reviews as well as big support from the comic book fans.

Showtime

10-22-2007, 10:56 PM

Indeed. Look no further then then Fantastic Four which , despite mostly negative reviews and with many comic boog fans outright hating it , still got a sequel

...because it turned a profit at the box office right?

Showtime

10-22-2007, 11:00 PM

I think the split indicates potential/ faith in a sequel in the same direction. If it made 500 and the fans were split WB would still have to re-think it. It's about potential for the next film. No matter how much a first film made, if there are indcations that the core fan base is not interested in what comes next, then a studio will certainly move more slowly.

Think about Spider-Man 3. THere is a contingent of fans that did not like it and it has certainly turned off a number of them. There is talk of SM4. But the reaction from the fans, despite huge box office was not overwhelmingly positive. While it contains bigger issues, like director, cast etc.... It's not like SM4 is a go already. IF we get a SM4 with Raimi and Maguire etc... It will be a different kind of film than 3 or 2, because they will have learned something from SM3- despite huge initial BO, fans are looking for something different in another outing.

If a studio doesn't think a sequel is going to make money, then they move slowly. Core fan base can be yelling and screaming, but if the 1st film made money then you can bet a sequel will be soon to follow.

It's money.

matrix_ghost

10-22-2007, 11:05 PM

...because it turned a profit at the box office right?

Precisely. And good profit i might add. 100 million budget ultimately led to 330 million WW at the BO
Same thing with X1. Cost about 75 million and 296 million WW.

Money talks in Hollywood and certain characters need to pull of big numbers. Superman is such a character.

That'ssuper!

10-22-2007, 11:05 PM

With thia, the Donnerverse vanishes from the stretches of the universe and Superman fans everywhere can breathe a collective sigh of relief. Turn in next time kiddies to see what happens next on Superman is Saved.

mego joe

10-22-2007, 11:28 PM

If a studio doesn't think a sequel is going to make money, then they move slowly. Core fan base can be yelling and screaming, but if the 1st film made money then you can bet a sequel will be soon to follow.

It's money.

Money, yes. But didn't SR gross more than BB? It's been argued that SR didn't net as much b/c it had to recoup all the false start money from failed projects.

Doesn't it have just as much to do with sequel potential? WB have faith in a BB sequel but not so much with an SR sequel? WHy b/c SR grossed MORE than BB? THat doesn't make any sense. There are other factors that play into it. In the end it's all about BO and return on investment. Obviously, WB felt that in addition to the gross on BB there was significant potential for a sequel, but despite a higher gross on SR they didn't/ don't feel the same way.

In the end the studio is looking at the highest profit it can make, but simply looking at the gross of the first film is not the only indicator. It's a factor, but potential has to be analyzed along with public opinion, us fan-boy whack jobs and other things we're probably not privy to.

Showtime

10-22-2007, 11:57 PM

Money, yes. But didn't SR gross more than BB? It's been argued that SR didn't net as much b/c it had to recoup all the false start money from failed projects.

Doesn't it have just as much to do with sequel potential? WB have faith in a BB sequel but not so much with an SR sequel? WHy b/c SR grossed MORE than BB? THat doesn't make any sense. There are other factors that play into it. In the end it's all about BO and return on investment. Obviously, WB felt that in addition to the gross on BB there was significant potential for a sequel, but despite a higher gross on SR they didn't/ don't feel the same way.

In the end the studio is looking at the highest profit it can make, but simply looking at the gross of the first film is not the only indicator. It's a factor, but potential has to be analyzed along with public opinion, us fan-boy whack jobs and other things we're probably not privy to.

No, Batman Begins made less than Superman Returns, but Batman Begins had a smaller budget, thus it turned a profit. That is why it is getting a sequel. WB made money at the box office with Batman, but not with Superman. It's not really rocket science for these studios.

Nightwing1977

10-23-2007, 01:01 AM

Why is it so unrealistic? Superman is probably the most popular superhero in the world. With the right combination of a compelling story, ground breaking action and a great villain to fight, a Superman movie could pull in HUGE numbers.

Batman is more popular than Superman (or at least almost equal) & it didn't made huge numbers either. In fact, SR made better profit WW than Batman Begins.

That really irritates me. Singer managed to ruin two franchises. :cmad:

He didn't ruin X-Men thought. After all, X2 was from him & that was consider one of the top 10 best comic book movies ever made. I want to see if he get different writers & improve SR2 to SR like he did with X2 to X-Men. I think it can be done. He should make the story better, use some more action, different villians, & using his own vision instead of another Donner's homage.

Stringer

10-23-2007, 01:08 AM

Good news, no more weeping, soft ass Superman....hopefully

daywalker2007

10-23-2007, 04:24 AM

i just want Brandon Routh back as superman,

if they dont bring him back i will be really dissapointed

X-Maniac

10-23-2007, 04:27 AM

Batman Begins cost $150m and made $372m, a profit of $222m.

Superman Returns cost $270m and made $391, a profit of $121m.

So BB made $100m more in profit. That does matter to the studios.

Jake Cassidy

10-23-2007, 04:32 AM

I want Alex Proyas to direct this. Apparently he was the runner-up in case Singer didn't do it originally.

dark_b

10-23-2007, 06:15 AM

Money, yes. But didn't SR gross more than BB? It's been argued that SR didn't net as much b/c it had to recoup all the false start money from failed projects.

Doesn't it have just as much to do with sequel potential? WB have faith in a BB sequel but not so much with an SR sequel? WHy b/c SR grossed MORE than BB? THat doesn't make any sense. There are other factors that play into it. In the end it's all about BO and return on investment. Obviously, WB felt that in addition to the gross on BB there was significant potential for a sequel, but despite a higher gross on SR they didn't/ don't feel the same way.

In the end the studio is looking at the highest profit it can make, but simply looking at the gross of the first film is not the only indicator. It's a factor, but potential has to be analyzed along with public opinion, us fan-boy whack jobs and other things we're probably not privy to.for christ sake how many times do we have to say that the budget of BB was 150 milions and not 200 milions. :cmad:

DrunkSquirrel

10-23-2007, 06:43 AM

Well, at least there is still signs of life for the sequel. The fact the studio is looking for a new writer(s) is promising. The fact it will be a direct sequel and not a restart is promising to the fans of SR.

Superman_

10-23-2007, 07:43 AM

FlawlessVictory

10-23-2007, 08:12 AM

Batman is more popular than Superman (or at least almost equal) & it didn't made huge numbers either. In fact, SR made better profit WW than Batman Begins.

I disagree. I think worldwide Superman is still more popular than Batman. I bet more people can tell you Superman's secret identity than they can Batman's. Then again, I have no scientific numbers to back this up, just the feeling that I get.

He didn't ruin X-Men thought. After all, X2 was from him & that was consider one of the top 10 best comic book movies ever made. I want to see if he get different writers & improve SR2 to SR like he did with X2 to X-Men. I think it can be done. He should make the story better, use some more action, different villians, & using his own vision instead of another Donner's homage.

I should have been clearer in my post. I enjoyed X1 and I loved X2, definitely one of my favorite comic book movies. He ruined that franchise when he left, then he ruined Superman when he took that project on.

DarkSuperman

10-23-2007, 08:31 AM

^^^

Sounds about right. :woot:

Although...I don't know how many more of his "Reimagining" of characters that I could take. Rogue personality in the X-Films still irritates me. He sucked out all her southern charm, nixed her ****tiness and made her Jubilee. I have some other issues with the films, but I'll keep those to myself.

Grinder

10-23-2007, 08:39 AM

I should have been clearer in my post. I enjoyed X1 and I loved X2, definitely one of my favorite comic book movies. He ruined that franchise when he left, then he ruined Superman when he took that project on.
You forgot the 2 solo flicks that would've happened also: Flash and Wonder Woman. Not even talking about all the possible other solo films and an actual "World's Finest" film leading into the "Justice League".

If his movie would've worked, WB wouldn't have to take a short cut now and just throw all of them into one film.

Thanks Bryan! :dry:

nintendo nerd

10-23-2007, 08:52 AM

You forgot the 2 solo flicks that would've happened also: Flash and Wonder Woman. Not even talking about all the possible other solo films and an actual "World's Finest" film leading into the "Justice League".

If his movie would've worked, WB wouldn't have to take a short cut now and just throw all of them into one film.

Thanks Bryan! :dry:

Oh yeah, poor WB. :whatever: Singer was probably pointing a gun at Horn to give him 230 million dollars. For a movie that lacks action and a Super villian. Singer of course is responsible for a lot of things. But WB is as responsible for green lighting this project and give Singer all that money.

El Payaso

10-23-2007, 08:55 AM

To behonest I am torn about how I feel about this because while I did like Superman Returns I do feel they should have done a restart to the movie much like Batman Begins. Personally I think they screwed them self over when they gave Superman a child.

I always thought of it as something like that, even when not going too much into the origin details. nd simply HATED the ideas of a Dponner-based idea until I saw the actual movie and felt it was a more serious Donner version. But, as the 'new version' idea sounded natural from the beginning, I don't think I'd be against that. But as for the origin I doubt it would be better than Donner's and I have doubts now of what studios could think about what a new Superman movie should be, I mean after Spiderman and Hulk, could have good results. First things I heard about the new Hulk movie, after Ang Lee's attempt, was it was "light" and that "Banner was going to come to an understanding [or something like that] with his alter ego" which are two things that would be horrible for a Hulk movie.

Super Kal

10-23-2007, 08:55 AM

it is the WB's fault for putting their trust in a man that can't get out of the 70's :(

nintendo nerd

10-23-2007, 08:57 AM

it is the WB's fault for putting their trust in a man that can't get out of the 70's :(

Exactly. Did WB even read the script? Didn't they realize it was very similar to STM? Didn't they read there wasn't an spectacular fight?

Nightwing1977

10-23-2007, 08:59 AM

You forgot the 2 solo flicks that would've happened also: Flash and Wonder Woman. Not even talking about all the possible other solo films and an actual "World's Finest" film leading into the "Justice League".

What the hell does Singer doing SR has to do with Flash & WW not being made? Both Goyer & Whedon left on their own. Singer's SR has nothing to do with it. I can't help but laugh at people thinking Singer deserve to be blame for everything. Sorry, but Flash & WW not being made is just the 2 men I mention left on their own. Singer has nothing to do with it. Personally, I'm glad Goyer left Flash. He was going to direct it & I didn't want him to pull another "Blade: Trinity". His script is good when a talent director make some change to it as we saw what Nolan did. That why Nolan's brother did the script for TDK instead of Goyer. Goyer just wrote the story & not the script like he did with BB this time.

And FlawlessVictory, I blame Fox for Singer leaving X-Men. I think he wanted a break after X2, but Fox wanted a new one right away. They wouldn't even give him more money for the first film (which cost $75 millions). That why it was very short & that they couldn't use both Beast and Blob. Singer shouldn't leave X-Men, but Fox probably put pressure on him that he couldn't stand of them anymore. You should've explain me a little more clearer on you talking about he ruin X-Men in term of movies, not leaving it. :p :D

Super Kal

10-23-2007, 08:59 AM

who knows what they were thinking... I guess they wanted to play it safe, and I think that's what hurt them in the long run

Nightwing1977

10-23-2007, 09:01 AM

it is the WB's fault for putting their trust in a man that can't get out of the 70's :(

I think he can get out of the 70s if he do a sequel & use his own vision than using another Donner's homage. If he can do that with the sequel beside more action & better story, I'm all for it.

nintendo nerd

10-23-2007, 09:03 AM

who knows what they were thinking... I guess they wanted to play it safe, and I think that's what hurt them in the long run

Yes. But spending 230 - 250 million on the first film of a possible franchise its way too much. Look at Spider - man 1, I think it cost 130 million. And BB 150 million and they look pretty good. Why SR cost that much is beyond me.

Showtime

10-23-2007, 09:04 AM

What the hell does Singer doing SR has to do with Flash & WW not being made? Both Goyer & Whedon left on their own. Singer's SR has nothing to do with it. I can't help but laugh at people thinking Singer deserve to be blame for everything. Sorry, but Flash & WW not being made is just the 2 men I mention left on their own. Singer has nothing to do with it. Personally, I'm glad Goyer left Flash. He was going to direct it & I didn't want him to pull another "Blade: Trinity". His script is good when a talent director make some change to it as we saw what Nolan did. That why Nolan's brother did the script for TDK instead of Goyer. Goyer just wrote the story & not the script like he did with BB this time.

Goyer and Whendon did not leave on their own, it is not as cut and dry as that. The scripts that were submitted for their respective characters, Flash & WW, were too gritty and dark according to WB. They didn't want this type of take on either character so the two sides "parted ways", "creative differences". You may think this has nothing to do with Singer, but it was WB's reaction to Superman Returns not living up to in house projections. WB does not want to continue their superhero movies with this type of realistic tone, except for Batman, who is one of the heroes that warrants this treatment. This is why you are going to see a more fun and fantastical JLA.

Showtime

10-23-2007, 09:05 AM

Yes. But spending 230 - 250 million on the first film of a possible franchise its way too much. Look at Spider - man 1, I think it cost 130 million. And BB 150 million and they look pretty good. Why SR cost that much is beyond me.

Singer brought some of the cast back for reshoots, left money on the editing floor, and built wasteful sets that didn't see the light of day.

nintendo nerd

10-23-2007, 09:08 AM

Singer brought some of the cast back for reshoots, left money on the editing floor, and built wasteful sets that didn't see the light of day.

Just look at the RTK scene. 10 million on a scene we didn't even see. Most Mexican movies cost half of that. :csad:

If there's a sequel I hope we get to see that scene.

mego joe

10-23-2007, 09:08 AM

for christ sake how many times do we have to say that the budget of BB was 150 milions and not 200 milions. :cmad:

IN assessing potential and popularity you are not going to simply look at profit from the first film. YOu can budget whatever you want for a second film. If SR only cost 150 do you think it would already have a sequel in production?

My point is simply this, while the end result for the studios is profit, it is not the only factor. Whether SR only cost 150 or grossed 500, WB is seeing a lack of potential. THey could certainly churn out a sequel for 170, but that still has nothing to do with the fact that the POTENTIAL of an SR sequel is in question, whether it costs 150 or 200.

Showtime

10-23-2007, 09:09 AM

Just look at the RTK scene. 10 million on a scene we didn't even see. Most Mexican movies cost half of that. :csad:

If there's a sequel I hope we get to see that scene.

Bullet to the Eye: 2.3 Million.

RedIsNotBlue

10-23-2007, 09:13 AM

I like how a scene costs more money than Routh's actual paycheck...lol.

nintendo nerd

10-23-2007, 09:16 AM

I like how a scene costs more money than Routh's actual paycheck...lol.

Really? Wow. I thought it was 1 million.

RedIsNotBlue

10-23-2007, 09:18 AM

No I remember posting the article I am pretty positive he get way less than a million but he has a contract for the sequels and playing Superman alone probably sent a ton of movie scripts his way.

A.X.L

10-23-2007, 09:21 AM

Sanchez from IESB chimes in...

Until he can spell he is not worth considering

nintendo nerd

10-23-2007, 09:22 AM

No I remember posting the article I am pretty positive he get way less than a million but he has a contract for the sequels and playing Superman alone probably sent a ton of movie scripts his way.

And that bullet to eye cost 2.3 million? And its not even that spectacular. In fact, i found it kind of boring.

RedIsNotBlue

10-23-2007, 09:23 AM

Yep one of the benefits of casting an unknown as the lead you get em cheap.

nintendo nerd

10-23-2007, 09:28 AM

Yep one of the benefits of casting an unknown as the lead you get em cheap.

The same happened with Reeve in STM and S2.

Super Kal

10-23-2007, 09:36 AM

I think he can get out of the 70s if he do a sequel & use his own vision than using another Donner's homage. If he can do that with the sequel beside more action & better story, I'm all for it.
I personally don't think so... he's stuck too much on pleasing Donner than he is the fans.

Don't get me wrong, Donner's movies will always be the best, but you gotta move on to bigger and better things, and I don't think Singer knows how to do that

blueboy

10-23-2007, 09:38 AM

Just to throw my 2 cents in. People been saying that Supes made more than bats overall. While Supes made more worldwide, in the domestic part of the world, Batman made a bit more money.

You also have to take into account that Batman had a lot more against it as far as those awful sequels. The peoples trust had to be regained and from the looks of it, The Dark Knight should top Batman Begins figures in the long run.

A.X.L

10-23-2007, 09:40 AM

Plus Batman made a hell of a better profit for WB - DVD sales alone were much higher than SR.

Super Kal

10-23-2007, 09:47 AM

plus BB had more action to grab the general audience's attention

RedIsNotBlue

10-23-2007, 09:47 AM

blueboy

10-23-2007, 09:54 AM

When you factor in budget, marketing, etc. Batman Begins made more profit overall period.

Exactly... While I'm not trying to get into it with the hardcore Superman fans, I just wanted to throw that out there since they seem to think Superman was more profitable than Batman Begins period.

I think while Superman is indeed a popular figure like the rest of the heroes, he is no longer the most popular comic book character for todays generation. I don't think he was the most popular in the 90s either.

It seems like the character may have to go through a revamp of some sorts to pull in Spiderman numbers, if that's what they're going for.

blueboy

10-23-2007, 09:56 AM

1 more thing. Singer knows how to make movies, that's for sure. But I think he might be the wrong director for superman just because he'll inject so much of his own personal beliefs into the character. While there is nothing wrong with a director doing that, Singers outlook on life doesn't fit the Superman character in my opinion.

Juice2020

10-23-2007, 09:56 AM

Good. Now if Singer step down, the movie may actually be decent.

Juice2020

10-23-2007, 09:57 AM

blueboy

10-23-2007, 10:02 AM

Yea he tried to make Superman into Jesus Christ.

I can't even begin to tell you how many people rolled their eyes at that imagery.

RedIsNotBlue

10-23-2007, 10:04 AM

Exactly... While I'm not trying to get into it with the hardcore Superman fans, I just wanted to throw that out there since they seem to think Superman was more profitable than Batman Begins period.

I think while Superman is indeed a popular figure like the rest of the heroes, he is no longer the most popular comic book character for todays generation. I don't think he was the most popular in the 90s either.

It seems like the character may have to go through a revamp of some sorts to pull in Spiderman numbers, if that's what they're going for.

Yeah and its not like SR bombed but it really disappointed and failed to meet the expectations WB had for it I think that is safe to say. And while I enjoy the darkness of characters (which is probably why I love characters like Batman, The Punisher, etc. more) Superman Returns was way too gloomy IMO. The need to lighten it up a bit more not necessarily with humor or jokey Otis type moments but just moments where you don't make you feel depressed.

With that said I really can't stress how much I want to see a Singer Superman movie where he actually draws his inspiration from the comics rather than past film and television.

SymbioteKal-El

10-23-2007, 10:05 AM

I can't even begin to tell you how many people rolled their eyes at that imagery.

Let me ask, have they rolled their eyes at the COUNTLESS times its been done in the comics?

FlawlessVictory

10-23-2007, 10:09 AM

Oh yeah, poor WB. :whatever: Singer was probably pointing a gun at Horn to give him 230 million dollars. For a movie that lacks action and a Super villian. Singer of course is responsible for a lot of things. But WB is as responsible for green lighting this project and give Singer all that money.

I agree. WB is just as much to blame as Singer is for those that did not like the movie.

What the hell does Singer doing SR has to do with Flash & WW not being made? Both Goyer & Whedon left on their own. Singer's SR has nothing to do with it. I can't help but laugh at people thinking Singer deserve to be blame for everything. Sorry, but Flash & WW not being made is just the 2 men I mention left on their own. Singer has nothing to do with it. Personally, I'm glad Goyer left Flash. He was going to direct it & I didn't want him to pull another "Blade: Trinity". His script is good when a talent director make some change to it as we saw what Nolan did. That why Nolan's brother did the script for TDK instead of Goyer. Goyer just wrote the story & not the script like he did with BB this time.

Singer has a lot more to do with it than you think. WB saw the results of SR and panicked and pretty much canceled all other solo superhero projects with the exception of Batman. WB feels that if a solo Superman can't tear up the BO, then what solo superhero movie can? Plus, like Showtime said, seeing as how serious and dark the tone was for Flash and WW(similar in ways to SR) this really made WB nervous, they are not taking chances like that again. Perhaps just for Batman and that's it.

So from here on out, I would expect "lighter" superhero movies out of WB(with the exception of Batman). Which doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing as long as it doesn't get campy or silly.

Just look at the RTK scene. 10 million on a scene we didn't even see. Most Mexican movies cost half of that. :csad:

LOL

FlawlessVictory

10-23-2007, 10:12 AM

Bullet to the Eye: 2.3 Million.

2.3 million for that scene?!?!? That is mind boggling and kinda sad. It wasn't even that great. I thought it was ok.

A.X.L

10-23-2007, 10:17 AM

That eye scene was ....meh.

Showtime

10-23-2007, 10:41 AM

Routh had actually finished shooting I believe, and Singer brought him back to add the bullet to the eye scene, which cost 2.3 million. This was Singer's answer to lack of action.

shieldshero

10-23-2007, 10:49 AM

This is great news. . . the writing for 'Returns' sucked big time! When will the studios realise that the script is everything, and the big budget effects come second or third? just look at the dialogue/story for spider-man 3 also, ruined the Franchise (imo)

My only concern now is, as much as I loved Routh as a casting choice, I think the next film has to be done from scratch, as an origin story. . . This means even the fans may find it a little off having Routh in the part. After we get a new supes for JLA, the solo film may be shelved in favour of a spin off starring the new superman actor?. . .

dark_b

10-23-2007, 10:50 AM

Routh had actually finished shooting I believe, and Singer brought him back to add the bullet to the eye scene, which cost 2.3 million. This was Singer's answer to lack of action.and it was filmed with brandon on the set. then on the other hand some people are saying that it is 100% CGI. retroman posted the footage with greenscreen.

i am confused.

answer to lack of action.........hahahhahahahahahah singer stop it hahhahahahhhaha :woot:

Showtime

10-23-2007, 10:54 AM

and it was filmed with brandon on the set. then on the other hand some people are saying that it is 100% CGI. retroman posted the footage with greenscreen.

i am confused.

answer to lack of action.........hahahhahahahahahah singer stop it hahhahahahhhaha :woot:

100% CGI? The bullet was CGI I believe and maybe the shot of them looking down could have been, but they had to shoot this scene. It ended up being the last scene Brandon shot.

FlawlessVictory

10-23-2007, 10:55 AM

This is great news. . . the writing for 'Returns' sucked big time! When will the studios realise that the script is everything, and the big budget effects come second or third? just look at the dialogue/story for spider-man 3 also, ruined the Franchise (imo)

In fairness to SR, the dialogue was never cheesy like SM3.

My only concern now is, as much as I loved Routh as a casting choice, I think the next film has to be done from scratch, as an origin story. . . This means even the fans may find it a little off having Routh in the part. After we get a new supes for JLA, the solo film may be shelved in favour of a spin off starring the new superman actor?. . .

I bet WB is leaning very heavily in this direction.

FlawlessVictory

10-23-2007, 10:57 AM

100% CGI? The bullet was CGI I believe and maybe the shot of them looking down could have been, but they had to shoot this scene. It ended up being the last scene Brandon shot.

Yup, Brandon was def there. I remember the pic WB used to submit to the Academy Awards "For your consideration". It was Brandon sitting, with Singer standing behind him filming that scene.

El Payaso

10-23-2007, 10:58 AM

Yea he tried to make Superman into Jesus Christ.

Donner did that 30 years ago. And Siegel and Shuster tried too 78 years ago.

dark_b

10-23-2007, 11:05 AM

100% CGI? The bullet was CGI I believe and maybe the shot of them looking down could have been, but they had to shoot this scene. It ended up being the last scene Brandon shot.well i remember that someone said that they then replaced the real footage with CGI footage.

Showtime

10-23-2007, 11:13 AM

well i remember that someone said that they then replaced the real footage with CGI footage.

That is what happens when you drink too much.

dark_b

10-23-2007, 11:22 AM

That is what happens when you drink too much.
:woot:

Super Kal

10-23-2007, 11:33 AM

100% CGI? The bullet was CGI I believe and maybe the shot of them looking down could have been, but they had to shoot this scene. It ended up being the last scene Brandon shot.
the bullet and the other side of Brandon's face was all CGI

Grinder

10-23-2007, 11:42 AM

Brandon shot that scene! It's on the DVD (making of SR) the only thing CGI was the bullet and the some small parts like his eye/face.

And yes, WB canceled the other projects because of the dark tones and SR's crappy BO. That was right back in the summer 06, shortly after the Pirates blew SR away and left it hanging with something like $150 million. (Pretty much all of the domestic BO came from the first 2 weeks, the rest was collected over 5 more months! Doesn't sound like a success to me.)
Goyer and Whedon just couldn't talk about it till months after that decision, if I remember correctly.

OK, Singer isn't the only one to blame, Peters and whoever else produced this rotten pile are just as much to blame. Which is kinda frightening, 'cause those dudes will likely have a shot at it again and I think we know what Peters is like ...
They should give the project to another producer. I mean, how many times did Peters fail with this now? There were so many tries and the final result disappointed the studio. Why is this guy still in charge of Superman movies!?

X-Maniac

10-23-2007, 11:48 AM

Donner did that 30 years ago. And Siegel and Shuster tried too 78 years ago.

Sounds like a good reason NOT to be doing it yet again!

Showtime

10-23-2007, 11:53 AM

the bullet and the other side of Brandon's face was all CGI

Right. Not 100% CGI.

Dark Knight

10-23-2007, 11:59 AM

Why is it so unrealistic? Superman is probably the most popular superhero in the world. With the right combination of a compelling story, ground breaking action and a great villain to fight, a Superman movie could pull in HUGE numbers.

Very unrealistic.....especially since they are the ones that greenlit a Superman movie with no big time villians and a Superman film that lacked big time action......

I guess they bear no responsiblity huh? Come on... :whatever:

buggs0268

10-23-2007, 12:15 PM

What the hell does Singer doing SR has to do with Flash & WW not being made? Both Goyer & Whedon left on their own. Singer's SR has nothing to do with it. I can't help but laugh at people thinking Singer deserve to be blame for everything. Sorry, but Flash & WW not being made is just the 2 men I mention left on their own. Singer has nothing to do with it. Personally, I'm glad Goyer left Flash. He was going to direct it & I didn't want him to pull another "Blade: Trinity". His script is good when a talent director make some change to it as we saw what Nolan did. That why Nolan's brother did the script for TDK instead of Goyer. Goyer just wrote the story & not the script like he did with BB this time.

And FlawlessVictory, I blame Fox for Singer leaving X-Men. I think he wanted a break after X2, but Fox wanted a new one right away. They wouldn't even give him more money for the first film (which cost $75 millions). That why it was very short & that they couldn't use both Beast and Blob. Singer shouldn't leave X-Men, but Fox probably put pressure on him that he couldn't stand of them anymore. You should've explain me a little more clearer on you talking about he ruin X-Men in term of movies, not leaving it. :p :D
The studio initially wanted darker takes on the characters, that is why they hired Nolan and Goyer to develop. Everything was going fine till SR came out. Then they started reading fan criticism and that is about when Goyer and Wheddon started turning in their first drafts and the studio wanted them to lighten the tone, which is different from what they were originally told. Goyer specifically even stated this (the studio all of a sudden wanting him to lighten the tone, while Wheddon glossed over it. Both finally came out with the fact that they were off the project about 6 months to a year after SR left the B.O.

buggs0268

10-23-2007, 12:19 PM

Singer brought some of the cast back for reshoots, left money on the editing floor, and built wasteful sets that didn't see the light of day.
Yep. He also actually decided to shoot the entire script and assemble a first edit with the fill script, and then to make his cuts, instead of what most directors do. Most directors on set see which scenes they don't need, which scenes they can merge, and write bridging scenes. They also start assembling a rough cut earlier to see how the film is working so they can decide to cut scenes that they want to change out of the schedule, so that set is not built, so they can come up with new, better scenes to fill in it's place. So Singer really screwed the pooch that way.

buggs0268

10-23-2007, 12:23 PM

Drexx,

"Lol, what was the ounce of logic behind this gem? You don't make 400 million (do I even need to mention how HUGE that is?) without being immensely popular amongst the crowd. If the film was crap, it would have dropped significantly. Plain and simple."

Episode I made 431 million dollars. I love the film but would you call that film popular amongst audiences, Drexx?
It made most of it's money in the first week and a half. After that, it crawled for 5 months to it's final domestic tally. AS far as foreign markets, it did the same thing and was reported in the trades. It had a strong opening weekend, then it was completely week on the second week, and by the third it was gone. So yes, it did to really bad.

buggs0268

10-23-2007, 12:27 PM

If a studio doesn't think a sequel is going to make money, then they move slowly. Core fan base can be yelling and screaming, but if the 1st film made money then you can bet a sequel will be soon to follow.

It's money.
Your forgetting one thing too. The exhibitors have to want to play it in their theaters. The studios have to sell it to them too. And if they didn't turn what they thought they were on the first one, then they are a big factor in the studio deciding against a sequel too. You have to have a place to play your movie to make money off of it.

Showtime

10-23-2007, 12:34 PM

Your forgetting one thing too. The exhibitors have to want to play it in their theaters. The theaters have to sell it to them too. And if they didn't turn what they thought they were on the first one, then they are a big factor in the studio deciding against a sequel too. You have to have a place to play your movie to make money off of it.

That all comes down to the same bottomline, so to speak, money. If the movie was a hit at the box office, then it was a hit at theaters thus leading to the studio and theaters making...MONEY.

buggs0268

10-23-2007, 12:41 PM

That all comes down to the same bottomline, so to speak, money. If the movie was a hit at the box office, then it was a hit at theaters thus leading to the studio and theaters making...MONEY.
OOps. I messed up on that previous post. The studios have to sell it to the theaters, who have to want to exhibit it in their theaters.

Porygon

10-23-2007, 12:53 PM

OOps. I messed up on that previous post. The studios have to sell it to the theaters, who have to want to exhibit it in their theaters.Are you saying that if a Superman sequel was made, theaters won't accept it because SR was a disappointment?

Because if so, thats ridiculous.

buggs0268

10-23-2007, 01:03 PM

Motown Marvel

10-23-2007, 01:07 PM

Donner did that 30 years ago. And Siegel and Shuster tried too 78 years ago.

er, siegel and shuster were jewish, im pretty sure they werent consciously tossing in christ allegories in their stories. that whole thing came much much later in superman stories. it may have in fact started with donner, really. and didnt even get picked up in the comics till the 80's.

Porygon

10-23-2007, 01:08 PM

The studios have to sell the movie to the exhibitors, who then decide how many auditoriums they want to sell the space to the studios. So yes, the theater chains have to see potential money making for them or they can only let the studios show it in a minimum of studios. If a sumemr blockbuster does not make them the money they anticipated, they are less likely to book out a lot of auditoriums for the sequel.Yeah, I got it the first time you said it. But it's still a Superman movie. Regardless of how SR did, there is no way a Superman movie is going to have a limited release. The character is far too marketable to dwell on past failures.

I just don't see it.

buggs0268

10-23-2007, 01:10 PM

er, siegel and shuster were jewish, im pretty sure they werent consciously tossing in christ allegories in their stories. that whole thing came much much later in superman stories. it may have in fact started with donner, really. and didnt even get picked up in the comics till the 80's.
They based Superman on the story of Moses.

buggs0268

10-23-2007, 01:11 PM

Yeah, I got it the first time you said it. But it's still a Superman movie. Regardless of how SR did, there is no way a Superman movie is going to have a limited release. The character is far too marketable to dwell on past failures.

I just don't see it.
If they didn't see B.O. on the first, they much likely not see it on the second one. In most cases, a studio will just not make the film if they can't sell it.

Porygon

10-23-2007, 01:14 PM

If they didn't see B.O. on the first, they much likely not see it on the second one. In most cases, a studio will just not make the film if they can't sell it.That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying in the scenario that a sequel gets made, I don't see any decrease in theater showings that will matter. Whether the sequel is made or not is irrelevant as to why I think its a moot point.

I SEE SPIDEY

10-23-2007, 01:37 PM

Damn! I go away for a couple of days and a 30page long thread appears.

My Take.

This is interesting news but I don't think that it means Singer is leaving. I seriously doubt the writters just left to persue other projects though, I mean if you believe that you would actually have to believe that Katie Holmes left The Dark Knight...not bloody likely!

I for one won't be happy until I hear that Bryan Singer has left because lets face it, SR was Singer's movie the writters were just along for the ride.

I could be wrong but I believe that Singer will leave sometime soon and the project will be canned.

FlawlessVictory

10-23-2007, 01:41 PM

Very unrealistic.....especially since they are the ones that greenlit a Superman movie with no big time villians and a Superman film that lacked big time action......

Very unrealistic to expect big time numbers from SR, yes. Not very unrealistic to expect big time numbers from a Superman film done right that satisfies all parties.

I guess they bear no responsiblity huh? Come on... :whatever:

Huh? Of course I think WB bears responsibility. I blame them as much as I blame Singer for greenlighting that snorefest.

nintendo nerd

10-23-2007, 02:17 PM

Very unrealistic to expect big time numbers from SR, yes. Not very unrealistic to expect big time numbers from a Superman film done right that satisfies all parties.

Huh? Of course I think WB bears responsibility. I blame them as much as I blame Singer for greenlighting that snorefest.

IMO. A Superman movie with a good balance of action and a good story could make 250 - 300 million.

But I think no superhero will make spidey numbers.

buggs0268

10-23-2007, 02:40 PM

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying in the scenario that a sequel gets made, I don't see any decrease in theater showings that will matter. Whether the sequel is made or not is irrelevant as to why I think its a moot point.
Well those who have a greater understanding of the exhibition side will be glad to explain it to you. But the fact is, even though I can't name them offhand, there have been sequels that have been not put into production because of this.

El Payaso

10-23-2007, 03:24 PM

Sounds like a good reason NOT to be doing it yet again!

Yes. As Superman being Clark, being in love with Lois and working for the Planet, even having super-powers; it has been done too many times.:dry:

Porygon

10-23-2007, 03:30 PM

Well those who have a greater understanding of the exhibition side will be glad to explain it to you. But the fact is, even though I can't name them offhand, there have been sequels that have been not put into production because of this.Maybe, but I don't see any theatre rejecting a Superman movie.

buggs0268

10-23-2007, 04:25 PM

I want Singer to return but from the looks of this story, it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't. And if he doesn't, I pretty much won't even view the sequel, even with the perfect casting of Routh.

Lee's Hulk gets killed before we could really see what Lee can do with the character in follow ups. Fox got in it's own way with Singer on X3 and you see what we got. Spider-Man 3 is a prime cut example of studio interference in a director's vision of a character. The same will happen with Superman with Singer gone.

Say what you will but it won't be for the better, no matter how haters of Returns will spin it. The next film, under new direction and the watchful eye of WB, will be for crap. Bet on it.
You really seem to think that movie studios have money to burn to just throw millions at movies to let directors who made movies that fail at the BO see where they are going with the same director. Movie studiso are a business. If a movie fails to make back what it is expected to, like any other company out there, they fire the team that brought the failure and either kill the project or retool if they think there is money to be made with another approach based on taking care of all of the complaints the first one made.

buggs0268

10-23-2007, 04:28 PM

He isn't crying at all. He's fed up with everyone hating on SR and being extremely vocal about it. I can't say that I'm disagreeing with him on the point, either.
Oh yes he is. Even those who like SR are distancing themselves from him. And the mods have told him to calm down as well. I think he needs serious help.

buggs0268

10-23-2007, 04:31 PM

I think that is the next report you will hear.
I am pretty sure of this myself.

buggs0268

10-23-2007, 04:37 PM

Which is a shame. Fox won't let him finish his X-Men trilogy. WB and "some" fans don't want him to finish what he had in mind on Superman. I mean, didn't WB learn it's lesson with Donner all those years ago?

You would think they would've...
But Donner's movie was up until Batman 89 the WB's most money making film of all time. And the WB wasn't calling the shots on that. The Salkinds were. This is a different scenario. In the early 70's, the Salkind's had the right to make Superman movies, and then offer it up first to the WB to distribute. If the WB passed, they could go to another company, but the WB had a minor role until Donner went to them for more money to finish 1, which at that point gave the WB a bit more control than before on STM. But both films were financed by private investments found by the Salkind's. It was the Salkind's who fired Donner, and not the WB. The WB could have fought to have Donner back, but the Salkind's were adamant, and the WB had to go along with it as they did not own the property for the sequel.

SR was a Warner Bros. controlled property and financed by the WB in concert with Legendary, but WB was calling the shots and Legendary was just an investment partner. They own SR.

buggs0268

10-23-2007, 04:44 PM

Singer and his team deserve one more shot. The worldwide box office and DVD sales sort of dictate that they should get another shot....
No they don't deserve that. Again, you are acting as if studios have money to burn, and thy don't. SR did not do what it was intended to do. It was called by the WB a tenpole film. If failed to be that in every way, shape, and form, and the WB is smartly responding to this. They have seen the fan division. They know the baggage that Singer, his writers, cast, and story bring. They know a lot of people are not interested in a sequel. They had to throw 100 million in advertising just to get SR to 200 mill domestic. That is money on top of the production budget. SR failed in every way for them, and if they go with any sort of sequel to it, which I doubt they will, they will do it right per what the complaints are.

buggs0268

10-23-2007, 04:48 PM

hunter,

You still had to reintroduce the guy to the world without actually redoing the origin. That was the dilemna from the get go because EVERYONE knows the origin. Nobody wants to see it again and yet you can't just go right into a Superman film with a new supervillian without some basis to get it started.

Every director was having that problem with their ideas. Singer was the only bright one in the bunch to say let's get back and fix what Donner was trying to do and then go forward after we finish this first film because no matter how you spin, the origin can't be done any better for this character in the way Donner did it. That 's why Singer didn't want to do the origin directly.

Every origin film for a comic character today pretty much follows the template that Donner set. And there's a pretty damn great reason for that...
Donner's stuff didn't need to be fixxed. That is why that film is universally loved all these years later. It was damn near perfect, and Singer took some things from it and just messed up the joint with his loner-detached-no one understands me on tick pony thing.

And if he did it so right and beautifully as you claim, then why is the fan base split? Obviously he did not do it right and perfect as you claim.

buggs0268

10-23-2007, 04:56 PM

Excel has beat you to it, apparently, I think. :cwink:
Excel hasn't written a script, and he is not represented by anyone. He is all talk. On something like this, they do not go with anyone that does not already have a proven track record for writing scripts for produced movies. If Excel says so otherwise, then he is jerking your chain. He has a history of doing this.

buggs0268

10-23-2007, 05:01 PM

Last night I watched SR again, after 6 months. I tried to see the film without my love for it beat my way of thinking. I realized there were many flaws with it, flaws that didn't make it attractive to the audience, flaws that sometimes made it boring, flaws that sometimes made it look like it wasn't a Superman movie. This is all my opinion:

Good things about SR:

- William theme ( Fits Superman perfect )

- The plane rescue scene.

- The lift of New Krypton

- The speech of Superman to Jason at the end of the movie.

- Superman flying to receive the rays from the Sun.

Bad thing about SR:

- The movie most of the time feels depressing.

- The lack of lines for Superman ( Routh did a great job with his face expressions, but is not enough) He is not Batman. Superman talks a lot.

- After the plane rescue scene, theres like an hour that feels really boring.

- The scene where Superman gets shot in the eye, should've been spectacular, it's not. In fact it feel kind of forced.

- Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane doesn't work. She looks too young and I never felt I was looking at Lois Lane in her. Bad casting desicion by Singer. I don't know why Keri Russell didn't stay.

Too Many, many "homages" to STM. Which makes the movie feel dated and feel like you watched almost the same 30 years ago.

- The budget was way too big for the story. IMO you didn't need 200 million to make SR.

In conclusion:

SR is a good movie but it wasn't great as most of the people expected. STM was a great movie but there's great material on the comic books.
And Singer just ignored it. That wasn't a good decision.

What I don't like is that many people only blame Singer. What about WB ? They approved the project. They knew it was too similar to STM, they knew it lacked action, they knew Superman wouldn't talk much.

After this, I don't mind Harris and Doughery leaving, I think I wouldn't mind If Singer leaves too, either.

One thing I'm sure of, is that Routh was a great Superman. Watching him on SR, always brings a smile on my face. Whatever happens with this franchise, I hope Routh could play the man of steel again.
Glad you are finally seeing the light.

by the way, I never saw Underdog. I only said it's effects, which mimic those done in SR, were executed better, and with more realism in the shot. I also think the Posters were far better than anything SR had. So if your sig is addressed to me, I did not see the movie. And you don't have to like SR to be a Superman fan. In fact, many Superman fans hated SR. Even at the yearly Superman event in the real metropolis, there was a small SR presence, and many fans there expressed dislike to hate regarding the movie.

Showtime

10-23-2007, 05:21 PM

I am pretty sure of this myself.

The writing is on the wall.

nintendo nerd

10-23-2007, 05:56 PM

Glad you are finally seeing the light.

by the way, I never saw Underdog. I only said it's effects, which mimic those done in SR, were executed better, and with more realism in the shot. I also think the Posters were far better than anything SR had. So if your sig is addressed to me, I did not see the movie. And you don't have to like SR to be a Superman fan. In fact, many Superman fans hated SR. Even at the yearly Superman event in the real metropolis, there was a small SR presence, and many fans there expressed dislike to hate regarding the movie.

I still like SR, but not as much as I used to. WB gave a lot of power to Singer. SR doesn't look as one of the most expensive movies of all time, it just doesn't. And Singer should at least read some comic books to see there is more than STM. And many times feels boring and depressing. I feel bad for Routh he was a great Superman.

Thank for reminding me about my sig. I'm thinking about changing it. I thought you have watched Underdog.

charl_huntress

10-23-2007, 08:56 PM

YESSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

Thank the good Lord those fools are out of here!!!

Bring on the reboot!

p.s.

Buggs....what are the lovers' saying now????

:)

blueboy

10-23-2007, 10:35 PM

Yeah and its not like SR bombed but it really disappointed and failed to meet the expectations WB had for it I think that is safe to say. And while I enjoy the darkness of characters (which is probably why I love characters like Batman, The Punisher, etc. more) Superman Returns was way too gloomy IMO. The need to lighten it up a bit more not necessarily with humor or jokey Otis type moments but just moments where you don't make you feel depressed.

With that said I really can't stress how much I want to see a Singer Superman movie where he actually draws his inspiration from the comics rather than past film and television.

I'm with you on every statement! There has to be someone out there with enough balls to make their own great Superman movie while keeping the idealist/romantic nature of the donner films.

blueboy

10-23-2007, 10:36 PM

Let me ask, have they rolled their eyes at the COUNTLESS times its been done in the comics?

I guess it depends on the person my friend. In the context of the movie, it seemed just a bit forced.

Showtime

10-23-2007, 10:42 PM

Super Kal

10-23-2007, 10:43 PM

because no one can get their bums out of the seventies, blueboy... it's quite sad actually, because there are so much better origin storylines than what Donner did

blueboy

10-23-2007, 11:03 PM

kakrot069: It seems like the WB doesn't want to tell Superman's origin story again. I wouldn't mind seeing a "superman begins" of some sorts but I don't even think that's realistic now... They probably just want to dive right into the action.

As long as they maintain the sense of wonder/romance from the the first donner superman, I'll be good to go.

One of my favorite scenes is with Supes and Lois on their first interview/fly date. I'm sure there are tons of things people have yet to see superman do flying wise.

Showtime

10-23-2007, 11:10 PM

"Can you read my mind..."

charl_huntress

10-23-2007, 11:17 PM

Who the hell are you? :cwink:

Showey!!!! Hey there! :yay:

I just read the good news over at Supermanhomepage.com and I had to come here to give my thoughts. LOL...I see the thread is active, which means it must be a lively debate.

I'll be back :trans:

Showtime

10-23-2007, 11:38 PM

Showey!!!! Hey there! :yay:

I just read the good news over at Supermanhomepage.com and I had to come here to give my thoughts. LOL...I see the thread is active, which means it must be a lively debate.

I'll be back :trans:

Good to see you back.

Its been getting pretty active again around here, for obvious reasons.

mego joe

10-23-2007, 11:42 PM

Let me ask, have they rolled their eyes at the COUNTLESS times its been done in the comics?

It hasn't been done countless times in comics. That is not an iconic image of Superman.

\S/JcDc\S/

10-23-2007, 11:46 PM

kakrot069: It seems like the WB doesn't want to tell Superman's origin story again.

Based off of what?

Ya know I find it ridiculous that there are people who fight an origin movie (not saying you specifically) for Superman when the last FILM was in 1978 that told his origin. It's time for a new film to bring an updated take on his origin with just minor tweaks here and there to keep it fresh and bring a new audience.

For some people with Superman Returns, they didn't quite know who he was when he was here. The new fans could use this, the older fans could use an update... Win win situation.

Nightwing1977

10-23-2007, 11:53 PM

I personally don't think so... he's stuck too much on pleasing Donner than he is the fans.

I doubt it. If he is doing the sequel, he may change it. Seeing as it his first film & a homage one on Donner, he could use his own vision for the sequel. Like I said, I want to hear him mention if the sequel will be his film instead of another Donner's homage. If it his vision & use some more action, I want him to stay.

The Shredder

10-23-2007, 11:59 PM

That is utterly fantastic. :up:

chaoticreign

10-24-2007, 01:05 AM

Hmm interesting news. I wouldn't be completely opposed to a reboot. Really IMO there are only two issues with the idea. One of them is time. I know I'm not the only one who doesn't want to wait 5 or 10 years to see another superman movie. And the second is Routh. I really thought routh did an excellent job. To me he was Superman and I would really like to see him reprise the role.

Hell its a shame SR turned out the way it did. It certainly had potential. Just look at the "Up up and away" comic arc from last year. Superman was powerless for a year and returned. Lex used Kryptonian tech to build a kryptonian battle ship(instead of a stupid continent.) Epic battle ensues that leaves superman nearly powerless in a fist fight against lex that ends with him knocking him out before passing out himself. Very good story that runs in a similar vein to SR.

A decent origin could be amazing if it was done right. Personally I would go with something more modern. Perhaps something based around Birthright.

Motown Marvel

10-24-2007, 01:17 AM

They based Superman on the story of Moses.

partially. its one of many inspirations. my favorite inspiration for the character: sexual frustration. unable to get any chicks, siegel and shuster were dumbfounded as to what it would take to bag a braud...and in a fit of sarcastic frustration figured it'd take being a muscular super powered being who is so beyond ideal he couldnt be of this earth, in order to get a chick.

buggs0268

10-24-2007, 02:01 AM

I still like SR, but not as much as I used to. WB gave a lot of power to Singer. SR doesn't look as one of the most expensive movies of all time, it just doesn't. And Singer should at least read some comic books to see there is more than STM. And many times feels boring and depressing. I feel bad for Routh he was a great Superman.

Thank for reminding me about my sig. I'm thinking about changing it. I thought you have watched Underdog.
Nope. Didn't watch it. Just thought the effects that matched those in SR in the trailer were executed better in Underdog. Also, I thought the posters were more epic than the dower SR posters.

buggs0268

10-24-2007, 02:06 AM

YESSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

Thank the good Lord those fools are out of here!!!

Bring on the reboot!

p.s.

Buggs....what are the lovers' saying now????

:)
GOOD TO SEE YOU BACK GIRL! I decided not to gloat over this at all. There are some pretty upset people that wanted to see a Singer helmed SR2, so they are pretty upset. But you can scroll back and see in this thread and the JLA before SR 2 thread.

buggs0268

10-24-2007, 02:08 AM

The writing is on the wall.
Yep. What I have been saying for a long time. I am sure they will do the "Singer has moved on to other things." route. But you and I had talks about how this would most likely go, and it seems to be following that route.

teseract

10-24-2007, 03:48 AM

This news is very very good news. I seen this on other sites.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/1596/supercrowdcopylo2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

If that's what awaits us I'm not interested at all anymore. The books blow, they have blown hard since pretty much the Crisis.

teseract

10-24-2007, 03:51 AM

its not dead, unless people don't give the next incarnation a chance, but I understand where you are coming from, I was the same way when I heard that angs hulk wasn't getting a sequel and then hensleys punisher wasn't, but both of the new movies for each character has some potential so I can't help but think the next incarnation of superman might have the same potential.

I personaly won't give it a chance. The only Superman that ever resonated with me was Donner's and the Fleischer Superman every other incarnation of the character was ****. So, no connection to Donner= ****ty Post-Crisis Whinerman, don't care about that.

FVD

10-24-2007, 03:54 AM

I'm glad Dougherty and Harris are out too actually. As for Singer well I don't really care. I would actually prefer if he move on also. I do remember him saying he wasn't aware of Lexcorp. That's sad. Very sad.

Give the reigns to Mark Millar to write. It's really about that time we get an updated take on Superman. A reboot would be nice too even though we've already seen most of it. Need the battles with Metallo too. :D

Retroman

10-24-2007, 06:51 AM

I am assuming you are saying you find it hard to believe that Mike and Dan walked, not that Younis said it.
Yes.
I want Alex Proyas to direct this. Apparently he was the runner-up in case Singer didn't do it originally.
He posted this on his official message board when asked 3 years ago...
Posted - 10/03/2004 : 17:58:54
Actually for a moment it looked like I might do SUPERMAN but things didn't work out. I would definitely have cast an unknown.
Source:http://mysteryclock.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=990

I like how a scene costs more money than Routh's actual paycheck...lol.
Yeah i think that's scandolous actually.:o He was the star of the movie plus his image/voice used for the game and god knows how much SR merchandise. I don't care if he was an unknown he should have been paid more money than that.
Routh had actually finished shooting I believe, and Singer brought him back to add the bullet to the eye scene, which cost 2.3 million. This was Singer's answer to lack of action.and it was filmed with brandon on the set. then on the other hand some people are saying that it is 100% CGI. retroman posted the footage with greenscreen.

i am confused.

answer to lack of action.........hahahhahahahahahah singer stop it hahhahahahhhaha :woot:Yup, Brandon was def there. I remember the pic WB used to submit to the Academy Awards "For your consideration". It was Brandon sitting, with Singer standing behind him filming that scene.
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/59/supermanoscaradax2.jpg

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/8986/super01supermanreturnsda7.gif

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6467/bulletintheeyeta8.gif

Pics courtesy of vfxworld and oscarwatch.com

El Payaso

10-24-2007, 07:03 AM

I still like SR, but not as much as I used to. WB gave a lot of power to Singer. SR doesn't look as one of the most expensive movies of all time, it just doesn't. And Singer should at least read some comic books to see there is more than STM. And many times feels boring and depressing. I feel bad for Routh he was a great Superman.

I still don't see anything inherently bad about sadness in a movie. The same I don't see the 'not-very-expensive' look as a movie mistake ("they look expensive therefore they're good"?)

So, what can I say? I have my opinions clear from the first time but it was expectable to see people jumping on the bandwagon when the bad times arrive. Good luck following that way.

Thank for reminding me about my sig. I'm thinking about changing it. I thought you have watched Underdog.

I thought too. But well, anything goes to show off your hatred.

AVEITWITHJAMON

10-24-2007, 07:23 AM

It hasn't been done countless times in comics. That is not an iconic image of Superman.

Of the 22 Superman Graphic Novels i have read, i would say 80-90% of them had religious undertones/symbology in them.

AVEITWITHJAMON

10-24-2007, 07:28 AM

Superman_

10-24-2007, 07:44 AM

If you read what Millar had to say it looks like they are still going off a sequel to Singers movie. Just with another writer.

Showtime

10-24-2007, 08:09 AM

To me it doesn't seem like this sequel is happening. I do want to see a sequel and I am disappointed that there will not be one, but the reality is that WB is running a business and if there is no sequel, it is nothing but a business decision.

Either way, I enjoyed Superman Returns, I grew up on the Donner movies just like Singer. That being said, there is nothing wrong with pointing out a movies flaws. I've been talking about it's good points and bad points for months. No film is perfect, and Superman Returns is no exception.

If there is no sequel and Brandon is not Superman in another incarnation, which I think will unfortunately happen, he will be the one I feel bad for if his career doesn't pan out. It does look like he is getting some work done.

Bryan's career will go on and he will continue to direct movies that are important to him, Mike and Dan look like they are moving in other directions. Fans of Superman Returns got a movie they can appreciate, a movie that resonates with them. Now it seems that it is time for another version of Superman with JLA, and then maybe a restart or reboot later.

"Endless Possibilites."

Superman_

10-24-2007, 08:28 AM

At this point I don't even care. I just want to a Superman movie I enjoy and can see sequels made off of it. The WB needs to stop shooting for Spider-Man numbers IMO because that will not happen right now. If they feel the need for a reboot/revamp or doing a sequel to Singers Superman then so be it just hurry up and do something already.

nintendo nerd

10-24-2007, 08:29 AM

I still don't see anything inherently bad about sadness in a movie. The same I don't see the 'not-very-expensive' look as a movie mistake ("they look expensive therefore they're good"?)

So, what can I say? I have my opinions clear from the first time but it was expectable to see people jumping on the bandwagon when the bad times arrive. Good luck following that way.

I thought too. But well, anything goes to show off your hatred.

Never thought I would argue with "El payaso". I think my issues with SR related with the the sadness is because my first contact with Superman were the comic books and you rarely see that kind of sadness. Now, since SR is close to the Donner movies it should have the same kind of mood, it doesn't. IMO.

Don't get me wrong, I still like SR a lot. But I think there were some parts that could've been done better, and some scenes and dialogues feel a little bit rushed.

But don't worry my friend, you will never be on my ignore list. You are one of my favorite people on the hype. :cwink:

nintendo nerd

10-24-2007, 08:33 AM

Agreed, Superman being down and sad allowed us to both connect to him and feel sorry for him. Not to mention we saw him grow into something else towards the end.

It does seem like people are jumping on the bandwagon doesnt it :csad: .

God!!! Just because my perspective of SR has changed a little, doesn't mean I hate it. I don't. I still enjoy watching it. Routh for me is the best Superman ever. The cast was excellent, except for Bosworth. I still want a SR sequel as much as you do. It makes me sad when I hear bad news regarding MOS. I don't want JL. I want MOS.

Thank you. :yay:

FlawlessVictory

10-24-2007, 08:59 AM

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/59/supermanoscaradax2.jpg

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/8986/super01supermanreturnsda7.gif

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6467/bulletintheeyeta8.gif

Pics courtesy of vfxworld and oscarwatch.com

Yup, that's it! Thanks.

valnoren

10-24-2007, 09:20 AM

I for one am glad they are gone. I was really looking forward to this movie. I liked Routh as Supes but as a father and fan I sat there twinging in the theatre as my kids where watching.

Making Superman into an one night stand , illegitimate father
pissed me off to know end! :cmad:

As my kids where asking "Dad, was Superman the boy's Dad? I dont get it???" I wanted to explode.

teseract

10-24-2007, 09:21 AM

"The Origin of Superman: coming in 2010."

*Barfs*

teseract

10-24-2007, 09:33 AM

Super Kal

10-24-2007, 09:40 AM

Man, you must have really hated Superman 2 when he shagged Lois without being married.
I didn't like that scene either

teseract

10-24-2007, 10:01 AM

I didn't like that scene either
Oh, heaven beware that morals actually adabt to times, eh? Maybe Supes should insist that Lois wears a victorian dress in case her "immodest ankels" show.

Super Kal

10-24-2007, 10:08 AM

oh, so that makes it OK for Superman to completely give up his morals, just because the world thinks it's OK for people to have unprotected sex...

his morals is what makes him Superman. You take away his morals, then he's just a vigilante from another world.

Superman_

10-24-2007, 10:12 AM

Super Kal

10-24-2007, 10:13 AM

I really don't have a problem with that.

Superman_

10-24-2007, 10:17 AM

I really don't have a problem with that.Okay so it is wrong for him to sleep with Lois (since he iasn't married) but it is okay for him to sleep with Lana and have her staying with him while keeping in mind they are not married either.

FlawlessVictory

10-24-2007, 10:18 AM

So are your okay with him playing house with Lana on SV as well?

He can get away with more things on Smallville because he is younger, learning, going through changes and technically not yet Superman. :cwink:

Super Kal

10-24-2007, 10:18 AM

oh... well I didn't know that.

I don't keep up with that show

Superman_

10-24-2007, 10:21 AM

He can get away with more things on Smallville because he is younger, learning, going through changes and technically not yet Superman. :cwink:LOL I love that excuse.

FlawlessVictory

10-24-2007, 10:21 AM

oh... well I didn't know that.

I don't keep up with that show

Yea, and in Superman: Doomsday it's insinuated that Supes and Lois are bumping uglies and he hasn't revealed himself as Clark to her yet and to my understanding they are not married. :wow:

Super Kal

10-24-2007, 10:25 AM

haven't seen that either

Showtime

10-24-2007, 10:38 AM

I think the best way to trigger the emotion arc in a Superman story, is to have Lois find out that Clark & Superman are one in the same by accident.

blueboy

10-24-2007, 10:52 AM

Based off of what?

Ya know I find it ridiculous that there are people who fight an origin movie (not saying you specifically) for Superman when the last FILM was in 1978 that told his origin. It's time for a new film to bring an updated take on his origin with just minor tweaks here and there to keep it fresh and bring a new audience.

For some people with Superman Returns, they didn't quite know who he was when he was here. The new fans could use this, the older fans could use an update... Win win situation.

I made the assumption that Warner Bros. wouldn't want to do an origin story based on TV shows like Smallville and maybe Lois and Clark.... I guess you can blame it on Singer for wanting to keep Superman 78' as a vague history for the character too... But these are just my own personal asumptions... You know what they say about assuming!

I'm all for an Update. Reboot Reboot! I also think Routh will work well depending on the material he's given. But I don't see them using him for a reboot.

Nightwing1977

10-24-2007, 11:44 AM

I'm all for an Update. Reboot Reboot! I also think Routh will work well depending on the material he's given. But I don't see them using him for a reboot.

This is why I'm against reboot. Routh done a great job, that I want him to stay. Doing a sequel will help keep him as Superman. Beside, I'm sick of reboot every time. It just as bad as doing remakes & another origin film, when we got the perfect origin in the first Supes film. We don't need another origin film. Leave the origin alone. :p

nintendo nerd

10-24-2007, 11:54 AM

I think the best way to trigger the emotion arc in a Superman story, is to have Lois find out that Clark & Superman are one in the same by accident.

Was Byrne or Jurgens who revealed the identity to Lois? I don't remember. Do you know how it was revealed?

Showtime

10-24-2007, 11:55 AM

Was Byrne or Jurgens who revealed the identity to Lois? I don't remember. Do you know how it was revealed?

I don't recall actually.

nintendo nerd

10-24-2007, 12:23 PM

I don't recall actually.

just found this:
1990

In Adventures of Superman #466 Hank Henshaw first appears, who later becomes known as the Cyborg.
Clark Kent proposes to Lois Lane in Superman #50. 1991

In Action Comics #662, Clark tells Lois he is Superman.

nintendo nerd

10-24-2007, 12:24 PM

http://www.dcuguide.com/Sm/act662.gif

Showtime

10-24-2007, 12:26 PM

Ahhh there ya go. Thanks.

Mandrill

10-24-2007, 12:28 PM

I think the best way to trigger the emotion arc in a Superman story, is to have Lois find out that Clark & Superman are one in the same by accident.

As long as he doesn't trip over a pink bear rug again I can go along with that :oldrazz:

Showtime

10-24-2007, 12:29 PM

As long as he doesn't trip over a pink bear rug again I can go along with that :oldrazz:

Yeah...that doesn't work. :csad:

MFM

10-24-2007, 12:34 PM

Yea, and in Superman: Doomsday it's insinuated that Supes and Lois are bumping uglies and he hasn't revealed himself as Clark to her yet and to my understanding they are not married. :wow:Yeah, that, and S2's scene, and the implication in SR, I don't like those too. :oldrazz:

But I don't know, after SR, which follows Donner's universe, it seems that Superman in almost every other media tend to follow these:
- Martha only, no Jonathan (Smallvile, LOSH toon, Supes: Doomsday).
- Err... that "bumping uglies" stuff... (implied in Supes: Doomsday).

Come on, at least bring back Jonathan! :word:

Mandrill

10-24-2007, 12:35 PM

Yeah...that doesn't work. :csad:

I always hated that scene.

nintendo nerd

10-24-2007, 12:37 PM

As long as he doesn't trip over a pink bear rug again I can go along with that :oldrazz:

That was all Lester's wasn't it?

Mandrill

10-24-2007, 12:42 PM

Yeah, that, and S2's scene, and the implication in SR, I don't like those too. :oldrazz:

But I don't know, after SR, which follows Donner's universe, it seems that Superman in almost every other media tend to follow these:
- Martha only, no Jonathan (Smallvile, LOSH toon, Supes: Doomsday).
- Err... that "bumping uglies" stuff... (implied in Supes: Doomsday).

Come on, at least bring back Jonathan! :word:

As far as I know Smallville went with Jonathon dieing to tie in with SR just as they used the Crystal version of the FOS(I think the main entrance they use for the Daily Planet is the same or similar to SR too).I could be wrong though, if I am I apologize in advance but if I am right I don't think it's much of a jump to assume both LOSH and Supes:Doomsday went in this direction for the same reason.

Whilst not directly related they are the same character so keeping some things similar would make sense.

As I say I could be wrong ...

Mandrill

10-24-2007, 12:43 PM

That was all Lester's wasn't it?

I think so yeah Donner had the Lois shooting Clark with blanks scene that was used in the Superman 2 :Donner cut

nintendo nerd

10-24-2007, 12:46 PM

I think so yeah Donner had the Lois shooting Clark with blanks scene that was used in the Superman 2 :Donner cut

I haven't watch the Doner cut :(

Super Kal

10-24-2007, 01:00 PM

it's not all it's made out to be

nintendo nerd

10-24-2007, 01:03 PM

it's not all it's made out to be

But I suppose its better than Lester's.

Pickle-El

10-24-2007, 01:06 PM

GREAT sig Nintendo Nerd...just saw that! :D

El Payaso

10-24-2007, 01:06 PM

Never thought I would argue with "El payaso". I think my issues with SR related with the the sadness is because my first contact with Superman were the comic books and you rarely see that kind of sadness. Now, since SR is close to the Donner movies it should have the same kind of mood, it doesn't. IMO.

Ah, same here man. And because it's like that and because it is based on Donner movies is that I can appreciate the twist towards realism. While for Donner it was easy to drown the tragedy of STM and SII in time-reversing and amnesia kisses last minute devices is why I admire that Singer went with the tragedy until the end.

And both the time-revesing and the amnesia kiss are quite some cheap narrative devices to use. Both of them magically appear in the last second merely to solve a specific problem; they were never intended to be part of the story. Superman wasn't fast enough to catch two missiles and suddenly BAM he is fast enough to reverse time. What to say about the amnesia kiss which has never before (and after) been part of the Superman's super-powers. Both things simply appear to undo the problem that is done.

In SR, Superman doesn't get the girl and certainly the scenario with Jason and Richard is not easy to solve at all. Just like in real life where last minute good things don't happen when you need them. If for the Donner-approach, Superman would have been reversing time or some kind of cheap thing so he never went to Krypton and Lois never met Richard and Jason was never born. Ugly.

But don't worry my friend, you will never be on my ignore list. You are one of my favorite people on the hype. :cwink:

Worry not. You're not the hater I use to fight.

Oh and lol @ your signature :D

teseract

10-24-2007, 01:07 PM

Showtime

10-24-2007, 01:10 PM

it's not all it's made out to be

I thought it was average at best.

nintendo nerd

10-24-2007, 01:20 PM

Ah, same here man. And because it's like that and because it is based on Donner movies is that I can appreciate the twist towards realism. While for Donner it was easy to drown the tragedy of STM and SII in time-reversing and amnesia kisses last minute devices is why I admire that Singer went with the tragedy until the end.

And both the time-revesing and the amnesia kiss are quite some cheap narrative devices to use. Both of them magically appear in the last second merely to solve a specific problem; they were never intended to be part of the story. Superman wasn't fast enough to catch two missiles and suddenly BAM he is fast enough to reverse time. What to say about the amnesia kiss which has never before (and after) been part of the Superman's super-powers. Both things simply appear to undo the problem that is done.

In SR, Superman doesn't get the girl and certainly the scenario with Jason and Richard is not easy to solve at all. Just like in real life where last minute good things don't happen when you need them. If for the Donner-approach, Superman would have been reversing time or some kind of cheap thing so he never went to Krypton and Lois never met Richard and Jason was never born. Ugly.

Worry not. You're not the hater I use to fight.

Oh and lol @ your signature :D

Glad you and Pickle liked my new sig. And as you can see I respected most of the source material. You are still " El payoso". :woot:

Agreed about Singer having the balls not to reverse time or anything. I hated those scenes.

Super Kal

10-24-2007, 01:43 PM

But I suppose its better than Lester's.
Lester's cut is OK at best, but the International Cut is perfection

Showtime

10-24-2007, 01:44 PM

Lester's Cut > Donner's Cut

Super Kal

10-24-2007, 01:46 PM

lol, I'm just a sucker for the Concorde scene... I've been wanting to get my hands on that scene for 7 years now

FlawlessVictory

10-24-2007, 02:36 PM

Lester's Cut > Donner's Cut

I disagree. The way Lois finds out Superman is Clark is infinitely better in Donner's Cut, plus Superman being able to communicate to Jor-El one last time carried more emotion in that one scene than the entire Lester cut. We actually get an explanation on how Superman is able to get his powers back. Also, we have no fruit roll up S shield in Donner's Cut along with a lot of other silly scenes cut out. However, the endings for both movies are awful.

Super Kal

10-24-2007, 02:38 PM

I disagree... I thought the ending to the Lester cut was great

FlawlessVictory

10-24-2007, 02:39 PM

I disagree... I thought the ending to the Lester cut was great

The amnesia kiss? Because that is what I was referring to, I should have been clearer.

Showtime

10-24-2007, 02:45 PM

I disagree. The way Lois finds out Superman is Clark is infinitely better in Donner's Cut, plus Superman being able to communicate to Jor-El one last time carried more emotion in that one scene than the entire Lester cut. We actually get an explanation on how Superman is able to get his powers back. Also, we have no fruit roll up S shield in Donner's Cut along with a lot of other silly scenes cut out. However, the endings for both movies are awful.

How can you make fun of the \S/?

Super Kal

10-24-2007, 02:51 PM

The amnesia kiss? Because that is what I was referring to, I should have been clearer.
no, I meant the very end

FlawlessVictory

10-24-2007, 02:54 PM

How can you make fun of the \S/?

Haha, it looked tasty!

no, I meant the very end

Yes, the very end is great, with the President and American flag and then the flyby. :up:

But the amnesia kiss and turning back the world again(I know the whole story about why Donner had to use it there) is horrid.

Dark Knight

10-24-2007, 03:00 PM

AVEITWITHJAMON

10-24-2007, 03:03 PM

God!!! Just because my perspective of SR has changed a little, doesn't mean I hate it. I don't. I still enjoy watching it. Routh for me is the best Superman ever. The cast was excellent, except for Bosworth. I still want a SR sequel as much as you do. It makes me sad when I hear bad news regarding MOS. I don't want JL. I want MOS.

Thank you. :yay:

Ha ha, fair enough, i was only kidding anyway.

El Payaso

10-24-2007, 05:48 PM

Glad you and Pickle liked my new sig. And as you can see I respected most of the source material. You are still " El payoso". :woot:

Oh, then who could complain about it? Just make sure you're mostly doing your own version and not getting stuck in the past. ;)

hammy

10-24-2007, 06:52 PM

"Superman Returns" scribes Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris have opted not to come back and pen a sequel to the 2006 summer pic that would have reunited them with helmer Bryan Singer. The three also worked together on "X2: X-Men United."

This is good news for me. Now if they would just get rid of Singer, too, I'd be very happy.

Seriously, I remember when we used to argue about MG and Ratner. Now I wonder if they could have done any worse.

bgshw44

10-24-2007, 06:53 PM

Lester's Cut > Donner's Cut

no way, you have brando and the opening titles plus no stupid memory kiss or chain smoker lois. the only part of the lester cut that i enjoy is the alley shirt rip.

sure the music cues were off in the donner cut, but the scenes were better.

Showtime

10-24-2007, 09:31 PM

I disagree, therefore according to the rules of The Hype, I am right.

CrazyDavey

10-24-2007, 09:54 PM

Well, I really hope we don't get a "Superman Begins" because that story has been done to death! I really think Brandon should return, and I'll start a petiton if I have to. I really think Singer should return also. I'm a big SR fan, and I think Singer would have done a much better job with the 2nd film. X2 is proof that Singer would do a better job then the 2nd film.

Street Vendor

10-24-2007, 09:59 PM

no way, you have brando and the opening titles plus no stupid memory kiss or chain smoker lois. the only part of the lester cut that i enjoy is the alley shirt rip.

sure the music cues were off in the donner cut, but the scenes were better.

I think that the Brando Fortress sequences in the Donner cut are superior to the Susannah York footage in the Lester cut. Add the Brando stuff to Lester's cut, and that would be the perfect edition of SUPERMAN II IMHO.

blueboy

10-24-2007, 10:02 PM

This is why I'm against reboot. Routh done a great job, that I want him to stay. Doing a sequel will help keep him as Superman. Beside, I'm sick of reboot every time. It just as bad as doing remakes & another origin film, when we got the perfect origin in the first Supes film. We don't need another origin film. Leave the origin alone. :p

What do you say to the others who feel that there are better origin superman stories in the comics? I don't know Superman comics that well but if there is indeed a better origin story, I'd love to see it and be wowed a 2nd time around. :)

bgshw44

10-24-2007, 10:08 PM

I think that the Brando Fortress sequences in the Donner cut are superior to the Susannah York footage in the Lester cut. Add the Brando stuff to Lester's cut, and that would be the perfect edition of SUPERMAN II IMHO.

i like how all the cheese is cut out of the metropolis battle, and the blank bullet is far superior to that tripping over a pink bear scene, plus the opening credits are more powerful and no memory wipe kiss. Love the added hackman scenes and the scenes and angles donner used

bgshw44

10-24-2007, 10:22 PM

Now follow me here... Nobody wants a full ORIGINS movie right?

Well on SMALLVILLE they have shown how he lands, and is found on earth! But his departure from Krypton is not shown... EVER!

In a new Superman movie they can show all the Krypton scenes, and have the ship leave for earth, and after it crashes they could put a caption on the screne "25 years later" or something which helps us catch up to modern day, and the next scene picks up with Clark getting to the front doors of the Daily Planet. Maybe have the scene follow Clark walking in traffic a bit before he gets there as part of the scene build up... As Clark walks into the planet he sees old friends "Lois, Jimmy, and Chloe" (hope shes alive by then still) standing around talking, he walks up to them, and they don't seem to have any memory of who he is... I would make that part of my plot twist!

heh why did they forget him? Also this makes it easier for it to be believed that they don't notice that Clark Kent is also SUPERMAN!

Now this way you can skip the ENTIRE Smallville origin, and show something that shows us a part of these characters past we haven't scene like WHY Krypton exploded! There is a lot that can be done with this idea, and then tie it in with a new villain showing up in Metropolis. And yes my main villains in this movie would be DOOMSDAY! & Lex Luthor.

That's how I would write my Superman movie using the cast from Smallville.

you can make a SR sequel that has flashbacks to what led to the destruction, i thought that would be a great way to introduce braniac(ala STAS)

blueboy

10-24-2007, 11:40 PM

flashbacks flashbacks... ehhhh

charl_huntress

10-24-2007, 11:52 PM

Good to see you back.

Its been getting pretty active again around here, for obvious reasons.

It definitely seems that way. I've read a few of the posts and it's the same ole argument. You either love it or hate it. I don't think there is an in between.

As it is, I'm resigned to what was. SR was just a bad represenation of Superman and most of that had to do with the writing. It was especially bad after a twenty year wait. There aren't any two ways about it. Most of the reason I don't like this movie have to do with the writing, specifically the romance.

The fact that those fools are gone is a good sign. Hopefully, Singer will exit stage left shortly.

charl_huntress

10-24-2007, 11:57 PM

GOOD TO SEE YOU BACK GIRL! I decided not to gloat over this at all. There are some pretty upset people that wanted to see a Singer helmed SR2, so they are pretty upset. But you can scroll back and see in this thread and the JLA before SR 2 thread.

Yeah, I can just imagine. Still, I don't need to be the bigger person. I'm glad those clowns are out.

Bring on the reboot!!!!

:yay:

Nightwing1977

10-25-2007, 01:02 AM

Seriously, I remember when we used to argue about MG and Ratner. Now I wonder if they could have done any worse.

Oh believe me, McG & Ratner could have done worse. I believe Ratner plan for Supes show him having blond hair with red/white/blue (not sure if I got those right) suit & having lighting or something out of his eyes. And McG? 'Nuff said.

Nightwing1977

10-25-2007, 01:04 AM

What do you say to the others who feel that there are better origin superman stories in the comics? I don't know Superman comics that well but if there is indeed a better origin story, I'd love to see it and be wowed a 2nd time around. :)

You will find the majority love the origin in Superman 1, so no need to do another origin. I don't know why some think it wasn't good, 'cause it was as close as it is to the comics. Hence, no need to tell another origin. Why don't someone set up a poll & see if anyone like to see another origin? :p

X Knight

10-25-2007, 06:52 AM

well, the only problem is that Superman 1 came out....what.....20-30 years ago?

Also, that's assuming that everybody has seen, remembers, or is familiar with the Donner movies.........

That's also assuming that everybody cares for/likes the Donner universe. Maybe, some ppl would like something different than a Crystal Based Krypton, or Jonathan Kent dying........

Vaibow

10-25-2007, 07:22 AM

Hey all, first post! I truly believe they are scrapping the Superman Returns franchise and going for the JLA franchise. They're keeping Batman seperate as he is on to a winner in WB's eyes - they don't wan't to damage it anyway.
Let's face it, Superman to the modern audience has a lot of work to do to be 'big' again - the only way that is going to happen is to appeal to a slightly younger audience. Batman is dark where as JLA will be brighter and let's face it, right now, superman can't carry a film on his own; the kids that go watch it can relate to one of the characters and let's be honest, the toy line and merchandise will be immense - which is always a huge factor.
JLA will be a 3 movie arc which over this time will no doubt show origins of some form of all key characters (but Superman, the gerneral audience will have an idea, due to returns, smallville and cartoons) - this will be DC's Xmen.
Just my opinion

Super Kal

10-25-2007, 07:34 AM

i hope they scrap the SR franchise... it's not worth continuing IMO

dark_b

10-25-2007, 07:48 AM

i hope they scrap the SR franchise... it's not worth continuing IMOwell you didnt help them by watching it more then 5 times. :dry:

blueboy

10-25-2007, 07:51 AM

I wonder how will WB and Singer save face if the Superman Return franchise is scrapped.

Super Kal

10-25-2007, 07:52 AM

well you didnt help them by watching it more then 5 times. :dry:
and you'll never see me watch it or support it ever again either

blueboy

10-25-2007, 08:09 AM

dark_b

10-25-2007, 09:46 AM

and you'll never see me watch it or support it ever again either
nice avatar. :up:
i didnt know that you were that big bat-fan for a bat-avatar

dark_b

10-25-2007, 09:47 AM

Anyone think the general public won't ever accept a new guy as Superman instead of someone just replacing Reeves unless they actually do a new origin story. Let the people actually see this boy go from a man, into Superman?accept? the people who bring big money dont care. they only want a good action fun movie in the summer.

Matt

10-25-2007, 09:52 AM

So, any new updates or are we just *****ing about what a horrible choice Warners made for 30 pages?

Hunter Rider

10-25-2007, 09:55 AM

So, any new updates or are we just *****ing about what a horrible choice Warners made for 30 pages?
The latter, i was wondering when you'd pop up Matt, to busy torturing us with Survivor ? :woot:

blueboy

10-25-2007, 09:56 AM

accept? the people who bring big money dont care. they only want a good action fun movie in the summer.

Gotta love the people's standards.

Showtime

10-25-2007, 09:57 AM

The latter, i was wondering when you'd pop up Matt, to busy torturing us with Survivor ? :woot:

Not really torture for me, more like victories. :huh:

Showtime

10-25-2007, 09:57 AM

Gotta love the people's standards.

Which people, the movie going audience or the studios?

Hunter Rider

10-25-2007, 09:58 AM

Not really torture for me, more like victories. :huh:

I was referring to the long waiting periods, and Bella and Norm are carrying you:cmad:

Showtime

10-25-2007, 10:01 AM

I was referring to the long waiting periods, and Bella and Norm are carrying you:cmad:

Heh Heh. You know me better than that. It's quite a team effort. Although Norman is artistically gifted and Bella is smart and beautiful.

Hunter Rider

10-25-2007, 10:04 AM

Heh Heh. You know me better than that. It's quite a team effort. Although Norman is artistically gifted and Bella is smart and beautiful.

I know, i just wanted a spiky retort to your post:csad: Norm is kicking ass with the grids :up: and Bella is smart as she is pretty:cwink:

Street Vendor

10-25-2007, 11:09 AM

i like how all the cheese is cut out of the metropolis battle, and the blank bullet is far superior to that tripping over a pink bear scene, plus the opening credits are more powerful and no memory wipe kiss. Love the added hackman scenes and the scenes and angles donner used

I had forgotten about the stupid sight gags in Lester's Metropolis battle. So, you're correct, Donner's version of the fight,with the Brando footage, edited into the Lester cut(but I do prefer "General, would you care to step outside?" to "Haven't you heard of freedom of the press?", so that should stay).

I like the blank bullet scene, but the test footage used is pretty distracting, and doesn't really fit the movie. Plus, I really like Reeve's performance in the reveal scene in the Lester version.

I like both the Donner and Lester cut. I wish there was a way to integrate the two versions together in a professional way.

Showtime

10-25-2007, 11:14 AM

I know, i just wanted a spiky retort to your post:csad: Norm is kicking ass with the grids :up: and Bella is smart as she is pretty:cwink:

The retort was more sparky than spiky, but good nonetheless.

dark_b

10-25-2007, 11:15 AM

Gotta love the people's standards.i like oscar movies,comedies and of course fun summer movies.
fact is that you CAN not invest 150 milions in a deep story without tons of action. you just can not do it.

lets not forget that studios are making movies for profit. they dont do movies because they want make the people on the world happy.

I SEE SPIDEY

10-25-2007, 11:42 AM

I would love if studios made movies that were good to me and everybody else be dammed... but I'm not arrogant enough to think that that will happen, so it's just useless whinning to complain about a studio being leary of making a sequel to a 200 million dollar disappointment because lets face it there are in it for the money and nothing else. I like talking about the boxoffice and I like rooting on movies I like but at the end of the day ofcourse I don't really care about rather Warners makes money or not, I just wanted a good Superman movie and I don't believe I got that. What I'm saying is, it could have made 500mil at the boxoffice, I still wouldn't like it.

SuperDaniel

10-25-2007, 12:10 PM

Tom Cruise as General Zod? LMFAO.

Fist, super-stalker, deadbeat dad, superkid, now Tom Cruise was the most fearsome and ruthless character in the Superman universe...LOL..Whats next? Katie Holmes for Martha Kent?

The Guard

10-25-2007, 12:24 PM

Oh believe me, McG & Ratner could have done worse. I believe Ratner plan for Supes show him having blond hair with red/white/blue (not sure if I got those right) suit & having lighting or something out of his eyes. And McG? 'Nuff said.

What was so bad about McG/Ratner's take on Superman?

Sigh...the things people think they know about JJ Abrams/McG/Ratner SUPERMAN project.

McG wanted a fairly faithful Superman costume, albeit sans undies. It looks great as a concept, and as a suit, I'm sure it would have rocked. You can find pics of it floating around.

Storywise, McG and Ratner (both enormous Superman fans) wanted origins that delved into who Superman is, and were instrumental in getting new drafts with businessman Lex instead of Kryptonian Lex. Ratner was quoted about wanting the classic outfit, but did toy with the idea of Superman in blue and red leatherish stuff, a la the X-films (based on that one artist everyone loves so much), but it never came close to happening. That "red white and blue" concept you've seen with the blonde hair is just that, a concept done by someone not remotely connected to the actual project's conceptualizing.

Showtime

10-25-2007, 12:26 PM

I don't remember a concept with red, white, and blue hair?

I SEE SPIDEY

10-25-2007, 12:33 PM

Since I don't hate Ratner like alot of nerds do and I liked X3 more, I would have liked to see his take on Supes, hell he's a light airy filmaker to begin with. He would have been more suited for Big Blue then X-Men IMHO.

GhostPoet

10-25-2007, 02:06 PM

the only way I won't be dissapointed in another Superman film is if the bad guys are Lex and some super villain OTHER than Zod.
Brainiac would be ideal.

and Lex needs to be in charge of Lex corp.

Anything other than those things and I will be dissapointed...i'm sick of watered down superman.

Andy C.

10-25-2007, 02:26 PM

Tomar-Re

10-25-2007, 03:16 PM

Tom Cruise as General Zod? LMFAO.

Katie Holmes for Martha Kent?

No, Supergirl :)

blueboy

10-25-2007, 04:51 PM

Which people, the movie going audience or the studios?

the avg joes... come to think of it, the studios as well... WB has been really dissappointing with their whole JLA hack job... I'm sure Nolan is livid! But that's another story.

blueboy

10-25-2007, 04:55 PM

i like oscar movies,comedies and of course fun summer movies.
fact is that you CAN not invest 150 milions in a deep story without tons of action. you just can not do it.

lets not forget that studios are making movies for profit. they dont do movies because they want make the people on the world happy.

I'm with you. It's just irritating knowing they're dumbing things down and rushing things with the assumption that we'll see it no matter what... as sad as it is, they're right in their assumption... Although you won't catch me paying for Saw 4 this weekend:woot:

Grinder

10-25-2007, 05:08 PM

What is it with people obsessing over how Luthor "needs" to have Lexcorp? The character did just fine for 40 years before Byrne needed to throw that it, and all it really does is make Lex DC's analog to the Kingpin.
No. It will bring him into today's world and will make him actually interesting for today's audiences!
No one gives a hoot about cookie villains with land schemes anymore. Today's threats are politicians and global companies, not wacky bald guys who want to own worthless soil. They want to own the people!
Pre-Crisis Luthor would be a ruthless dictator. Post-Crisis Luthor would be a generally beloved leader, because no one would know what he was really up to! That's the actual plot point in the Post-Crisis stories: Superman needs to show and convince the people of who Lex really is to stop him!

Funny how you guys always ***** about "marvelising" the character when it's actually the main reason Superman is still around. That step was necessary for the comics (and worked perfectly) and it's damn well overdue for the movies! :o

blueboy

10-25-2007, 05:14 PM

Smallville Lex and the Lex from the cartoons is far superior to any incarnation in any of the films.

buggs0268

10-25-2007, 05:40 PM

But I suppose its better than Lester's.
It is far superior. Cute sig. And when I say that I mean it is funny. Okay we will have similar but oposite intentioned sigs.

nintendo nerd

10-25-2007, 08:42 PM

It is far superior. Cute sig. And when I say that I mean it is funny. Okay we will have similar but oposite intentioned sigs.

Glad you liked my new sig. And trust me, I didn't do it to be disrespectful or rude. I just thought it would be funny.

I'm trying to have a better relationship with the people here, incluiding you, my friend. :cwink:

I'd love to see Donner's cut. Unfortunately it's not available here in Mexico. Amazon doesn't bring movies or video games here. Fortunately, my mom will go to the states on Christmas and it will be on my top of the thing to ask her.

buggs0268

10-25-2007, 09:51 PM

Glad you liked my new sig. And trust me, I didn't do it to be disrespectful or rude. I just thought it would be funny.

I'm trying to have a better relationship with the people here, incluiding you, my friend. :cwink:

I'd love to see Donner's cut. Unfortunately it's not available here in Mexico. Amazon doesn't bring movies or video games here. Fortunately, my mom will go to the states on Christmas and it will be on my top of the thing to ask her.
No worries. I thought it was funny. I would say to go onto you tube. they have a lot of the changes there.

Angeloz

10-25-2007, 11:57 PM

Glad you liked my new sig. And trust me, I didn't do it to be disrespectful or rude. I just thought it would be funny.

I'm trying to have a better relationship with the people here, incluiding you, my friend. :cwink:

I'd love to see Donner's cut. Unfortunately it's not available here in Mexico. Amazon doesn't bring movies or video games here. Fortunately, my mom will go to the states on Christmas and it will be on my top of the thing to ask her.

Can't you order stuff from the U.S. or Canada from shops? Too expensive? 'Cos you can in Australia and we're half a world away. It's still expensive and we're Region 4 not Region 1. I'll note I order books and TPBs.

Angeloz

BloodyWolverine

10-26-2007, 12:21 AM

Yeah put a little Spike awe sorry aka James Marsters as Zod in the next movie.

Why don't they have Zod and Brainac join forces and Lex and Superman join forces reluctantly.
Recast Lois but keep the kid idea in that was the good Superman Returns part.
Routh was perfect to me. Better then the story.
The should maybe revamp it as another idea like Batman Begins with Returns.

Nightwing1977

10-26-2007, 12:50 AM

I don't remember a concept with red, white, and blue hair?

Not to mention didn't Ratner's idea was to have that Kryptionite never blew up? And McG is a hack. He can't direct a good film & just go with action. Charlie's Angels, anyone? ;)

Angeloz

10-26-2007, 01:01 AM

Not to mention didn't Ratner's idea was to have that Kryptionite never blew up? And McG is a hack. He can't direct a good film & just go with action. Charlie's Angels, anyone? ;)

I presume you mean Krypton. ;)

Angeloz

nintendo nerd

10-26-2007, 09:37 AM

Can't you order stuff from the U.S. or Canada from shops? Too expensive? 'Cos you can in Australia and we're half a world away. It's still expensive and we're Region 4 not Region 1. I'll note I order books and TPBs.

Angeloz

I think they do it, because there's a lot of piracy in Mexico. That's why you can't get those kind of products. Books, electronic stuff there's no problem.
Mexico is region 4 too. :cwink:

Angeloz

10-26-2007, 12:40 PM

I think they do it, because there's a lot of piracy in Mexico. That's why you can't get those kind of products. Books, electronic stuff there's no problem.
Mexico is region 4 too. :cwink:

I see. Do you have the same electricity voltage as the U.S. so you can get Region 1 DVD players to work? Too expensive? Or do you convert the players to play Region 1 as well? Or are multi-region players easy to get? I don't know much on these things I'll admit.

Angeloz

Super Kal

10-26-2007, 12:42 PM

Not to mention didn't Ratner's idea was to have that Kryptionite never blew up? And McG is a hack. He can't direct a good film & just go with action. Charlie's Angels, anyone? ;)
that was only his FIRST draft... the later drafts that he wrote no longer had Krypton not exploding or Jimmy being gay. the man who reviewed it said it was brilliantly done

Angeloz

10-26-2007, 12:45 PM

that was only his FIRST draft... the later drafts that he wrote no longer had Krypton not exploding or Jimmy being gay. the man who reviewed it said it was brilliantly done

Was he a fan? 'Cos we tend to love things or hate things. But rarely in the middle. So they might be slightly exaggerating. Or just plain wrong.

Angeloz

Super Kal

10-26-2007, 12:51 PM

I think he is

nintendo nerd

10-26-2007, 12:56 PM

I see. Do you have the same electricity voltage as the U.S. so you can get Region 1 DVD players to work? Too expensive? Or do you convert the players to play Region 1 as well? Or are multi-region players easy to get? I don't know much on these things I'll admit.

Angeloz

Yes, we do have the same voltage as the US. I have a playstation which is region 1 and it works quite well. In fact, my SR DVD is region 1 and I got it at the states last Christmas. Multi - region players are really easy too get. But most of the movies that you rent or buy in Mexico are region 4. You can get region 1 but they are twice as expensive. But I haven't found Donner's cut anywhere. :csad:

Hypestyle

10-26-2007, 01:17 PM

anybody have a link to ratner or mcG's drafts?

Super Kal

10-26-2007, 01:21 PM

they're floating on the net... but you won't find Ratner's later drafts. They were never leaked.

GhostPoet

10-26-2007, 01:42 PM

What is it with people obsessing over how Luthor "needs" to have Lexcorp? The character did just fine for 40 years before Byrne needed to throw that it, and all it really does is make Lex DC's analog to the Kingpin.

Probably because it's most peoples favorite version of Lex :) And he's far, FAR more deadly than Kingpin. With Lexcorp he has more freedom to get into the alien stuff a lot more.

Lightning54SC

10-26-2007, 01:43 PM

they're floating on the net... but you won't find Ratner's later drafts. They were never leaked.

i believe therss no finding it cuz they took parts from it and used them in SR

The Guard

10-26-2007, 01:54 PM

Not to mention didn't Ratner's idea was to have that Kryptionite never blew up? And McG is a hack. He can't direct a good film & just go with action. Charlie's Angels, anyone?

No. That was JJ Abrams idea, not Ratner or McG's. And the idea was that Krypton would be embroiled in Civil War, and Kal-El's people enslaved. Kal-El was rocketed to freedom so as to avoid his planet's fate.

However, it's not like Krypton was going to hang around. The franchise was conceived as a trilogy. Superman was going to leave Earth for the enslaved Krypton at the end of the first film, go back to rescue his people in SUPERMAN 2, and Krypton WOULD blow up at the end of the second film, with Superman now old enough to understand it's significance in his life.

fabman

10-26-2007, 02:20 PM

He did a good job directing (the first) Charlie's Angels. I mean, it's over the top, it has no logic... it's just pure fun. But the directing is very good.

Nightwing1977

10-26-2007, 06:17 PM

I presume you mean Krypton. ;)

Angeloz

Yeah. I was just a little sleepy last night. My spelling tend to look like I was typing while being drunk late at night. :p http://www.panthershuddle.com/forum/images/smilies/alcoholic.gif

El Payaso

10-26-2007, 06:23 PM

He did a good job directing (the first) Charlie's Angels. I mean, it's over the top, it has no logic... it's just pure fun. But the directing is very good.

Oh man. I can't be able of so much indulgence myself. Kudos to that. But the movie was as bad as it gets.

DavidTyler

10-26-2007, 07:13 PM

kararot,

The high lights of the origin, no matter who did it, would've still been exactly like Donner's, exactly like it is in the comic.

The origin can't and won't change because there's no need to do it. The basics never change, no matter what "original" elements you put in.

Strongly disagree. Bryne's origin in MOS made Jor-el a young man of action. He made Krypton a place of unearthly beauty but the victim of a society that had become so advanced that it was repressive. His Kryptonian culture was now devoid of family ... a thing that Jor-el was also rebelling against. His birthing matrix makes so much more sense than strapping a baby into a space going 'chandelier' and hoping he survives. On reaching Earth, his handling of young Clarks discovery of his abilities is the basis for Smallville. How Clark becomes Superman is so much more interesting. His first appearance in public sans costume and then arriving at costume.

It could be very interesting if it isn't glossed over. And much deeper than Donner's. Without taking anything away from Donner, it was OK for it's time, we have more sophisticated audiences for superhero films these days. They don't have to write them specifically for the younger crowd. That would allow them to redo the origin and make it better.

Eros

10-26-2007, 08:01 PM

Strongly disagree. Bryne's origin in MOS made Jor-el a young man of action. He made Krypton a place of unearthly beauty but the victim of a society that had become so advanced that it was repressive. His Kryptonian culture was now devoid of family ... a thing that Jor-el was also rebelling against. His birthing matrix makes so much more sense than strapping a baby into a space going 'chandelier' and hoping he survives. On reaching Earth, his handling of young Clarks discovery of his abilities is the basis for Smallville. How Clark becomes Superman is so much more interesting. His first appearance in public sans costume and then arriving at costume.

It could be very interesting if it isn't glossed over. And much deeper than Donner's. Without taking anything away from Donner, it was OK for it's time, we have more sophisticated audiences for superhero films these days. They don't have to write them specifically for the younger crowd. That would allow them to redo the origin and make it better.

The birthing matrix was a bad idea, that thankfully nobody uses, and most people ignore. Bryne reboot okay for its time, but really getting rid of so much history, was just a bad idea.

Spider-Bat

10-26-2007, 08:27 PM

They need to get a decent faithful story. I am so tired of Superman stories that are no where near Super.
WB and DC needs to take a look at the Spider-man movies.
In this day and age and with all the technology, they can do wonders with Superman. Instead all Superman gets is a boring lazy Donner rip off from stupid Singer.

They need to revamp Superman, get an avtual MAN to play the Man of Steel. They don't have to redo the origin again, maybe a quick recap abit more modern as a prologue. Something leading into the credits.

Get a Super Villian already. Superman's rogues gallery is not bad at all, Brainiac, Parasite, Bizarro, all could give as good as a Spider-man movie quality villian, I vote for Brainiac.

Luthor's been done to death, but they could still have him as the bad business man in the back ground, maybe have him progress through the films, have him emerge as the main villian in the third movie.
Just as he evolved in the modern comics.

Only thing I'd love to see return is Spacey as Lex, he was wonderful, not some bafoon like Hackman, his name sure fits, he is a hack.

I don't care about any of his other movies, I never thought he was all that special.

But Spacey, now there's a man who gave the character the respect he deserved, it is just a darn shame they went for the same old motives, land.

All because of stupid Singer, a total ignorant moron, doesn't care about the comics or the fans.

But if you do it respectfully to both you have a hit. The fact is, the faithful ones are the good successful ones.
It shouldn't even be a question, there should be no question of how can we change this, no you idiots, just look at the comic book and bring it to life, it has been popular for a reason, people like that character, they want to see that come to life, not some idiots idea of it that just ruins it and takes it away so far from what it is that it isn't any more.

NO MORE GENERIC SUPERMAN MOVIES. Just make a Superman movie.

Super Kal

10-26-2007, 09:06 PM