The Official Choose A Director Thread

[The Kid]

Hello friends. The topic for today is one I've been thinking of since I learned Lex would still be his old land-grabbing self in Returns for the fourth time in a superman film.

FOURTH.

So... ahem. It is time to choose. No more beating around the bush, avoiding the crust, picking out the seeds one by one etc.

Ever since that day I've been pondering this question: Which do I value more in regard to an ideal superman, Donner's version or well... Superman?

{By Superman, I mean the entire scope of his character from the beginning to present times.}

I know this poll question might not be easy for some. Obviously many in the public were more interested in something new. But on the internet I've realized that many are welcoming the idea to continue donner's movies instead of doing a superman for a new generation. In some ways I think this backfired in that kids today have spidey and a new batman and have found it much easier to move on from the 70s supes with all the recent animaed and television versions he's had. Personally I count myself in that catogory of people. I've let go of the donner franchise. I still love it as a part of superman history that'll be remembered forever, but like with burton's batman I think it's ok to move on from it. I'm ready for that.

I know it's probably not as easy to let go of Donner's supes as it is to let go of Burton's batsy. However it's inevitable. There will come a time when the modern superman will be adapted similar to batman in begins. Some say "Well you idiot, that's what smallvilles for, duh..." which is true I guess, but seriously though it's a fine tv program I'd never really consider it the ultimate supes origin with all the freak of the weak stuff etc. So I think people are giving it too much credit, though how it explores a new power supes gains each season is a great idea, and something that's very interesting because I don't think this exploration of his developement of all his powers was really ever done before. So that is batman begins-ish I guess.

Anyway to give you a perspective of where I'm coming from with this view of Donner vs superman, from what I've been reading across the internet, some refer to SR as: It's been called a funeral for the donner superman, or a love letter to Donner, the new superman III, then in one review I read someone said it was euligoy for christopher Reeve (not exact words but same meaning).

I'm as big a fan of STM as anybody, I'm sure, but isnt this idea of having a funeral for a movie, a product, a little nutty to anyone but me? :dew:

In donner's film I think he got it, where Singer did not. Superman is bigger than Him, donner, and needs to treated as if more respect is given to the character and doing him the justice he deserves than to copying/homagin/referrencing past actors or directors' work. He's Americana, not Donnercana. Batman's like that too. Thats why I don't buy the argument that since the public is familiar with the donner supes, that its better to play it safe and try to continue with it (of course there's a difference between continuing and requeling). Well that's what I believe anyway.

What about you? :huh:

[TheComicbookKid]

The argument is kind of bogus because Singer refrenced a lot of different things from Superman. The song the kid played was from SupesIII, Supes costume was a update of the Fleischer Superman, the listening post, Lois and Clark's relationship was more to Siegel and Shuster,and Lex was straightout of Donner's Supes I.

To me the movie was kind of a pause. The movie actually stands on its own without you having to have seen the previous movies. But for people that have, it's a standstill to catch everyone else up.

[Caliber]

Donnoers films sucked and Superman Returns sucked so make it like the comic now and it will good.

[GreenKToo]

I like donner's superman, but now it needs to move on. No zod, no more land grabbing Lex.
We need something new now. Maybe Brainiac or metallo. Hell, i'd even take Doomsday...

[The Sage]

Since you say the entire scope of Superman from beginning to now, then I say Superman. Donner's take is a great source, but it's a source and not the end be all, like all other sources.

And right now I don't think there is an ultimate Supes origin.

[Immortalfire]

Donner's take is a great source, but it's a source and not the end be all, like all other sources. Indeed. Now if only we could convince Bryan of that.

[buggs0268]

It isn't that he reffered to Donner's stuff, or expanded on it, it was that he stole lines od dialog and ideas. Did the damn Kryptonite rock have to be from Addis Abbaba again. Did Lois have to faint again. It was that he did a requel of it. It was just too too much of what was already done to the point that it felt stolen. We did not need to take that same journey again Bryan. How about a new journey.

And another thing Bryan. It is great that Perry said "Great Ceasar's Ghost" back in the 40's, but when that showed up in the movie people just went "whaaaaa?" and "who the hell would say that?" It was as out of place as Clark saying "Swell" and Lois letting him know it in STM.

[Superman4ever!]

Donnoers films sucked and Superman Returns sucked so make it like the comic now and it will good.Agreed, and i Vote Superman Not donner, his continuity is way past its Experation Date, Chris reeves was the only thing Good and great about the donner Films, Thats it, when u look at it now, it wasnt really that faithful to the comics besides,the origin, and jorel putting ka-lel in a Lame-ass cheesy Crystal ship? the ship was an Actual SpaceSHip in the freaking comics, and in the comics Krypton did NOT look like some lame imitation crystal Chees 70's palace or HOFF from star wars, there were Trees, children, people flying on speeeders, Krypton had two red Moons, it was a colorful place, and there werent just corny ass Geriatrich counsel members there were many young people as well, Donner & singer's version of Krypton =YAAAAAAAAAAAAWN! the comics Version=AWESOME!!

[Super Kal]

I want to see something other than Donner... I'm sick of Donner now, and that means NO ZOD FOR SEQUEL either.

[Superman4ever!]

I want to see something other than Donner... I'm sick of Donner now, and that means NO ZOD FOR SEQUEL either.YES kakarot!! exactly thank u!!lol I love u Hun! NO PHUCKING ZOD! BRAINIAC, METALLO, DOOMSDAY!, PARASITE!, LIVEWIRE, TOYMAN, DARKSEID, MXYZPTLK!! BUT ABSOULUTLEY NO PHUCKING ZOD!!

[JamalYIgle]

This subject is somewhat ironic considering that Richard Donner is going to be cowriting Action Comics with Geoff Johns. So It would seem that Dick Donner's influence on Superman is very important to DC Comics.

[The Kid]

I know. And it's great because I think donner really understands superman's bigger than and can go beyond just his first film's interpretation so I'm interested in what he plans to do.

The question now is what's personally more important, donner's superman, the reeve version that's now outdated, or the character itself that's evolved since then like batman has?

[The Sage]

Are all of the elements of Donner's Superman outdated?

[Venom71]

Are all of the elements of Donner's Superman outdated?
If so wouldn't that mean that the Superman suit Mr. Reeve wore is outdated?

[The Kid]

Are all of the elements of Donner's Superman outdated?

That's a good question. Now that I think of it, yeah, pretty much... like vhs. Some of it's still definitely good today to me, especially the supes theme by williams, but in the bigger scheme, superman's not pre-crisis anymore and all that. Is it like comparing superfriends to JLU? LOL i'm probably not the one to answer that. Ask Jamal.

[The Kid]

If so wouldn't that mean that the Superman suit Mr. Reeve wore is outdated?

Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answers, ven?

[batman44]

Superman.

[The Sage]

That's a good question. Now that I think of it, yeah, pretty much... like vhs. Some of it's still definitely good today to me, especially the supes theme by williams, but in the bigger scheme, superman's not pre-crisis anymore and all that. Is it like comparing superfriends to JLU? LOL i'm probably not the one to answer that. Ask Jamal.

Well the thing is, Superman still contains a lot of pre-crisis elements. The "Lex Luthor would've been a great person if Superman didn't exist", that came from pre-crisis. The costume originating from the blankets in his ship, that's pre-crisis. In terms of the movie, yeah I'd say Donner's Krypton is outdated, though the FOS is a keeper to me, IMO. Reporter CK as a disguise, that's still in the modern take. Lex being a demented sociopath, we had a bit of that as well. All of those things to me aren't just Donner's Superman, they're part of Superman as well.

[The Kid]

Well the thing is, Superman still contains a lot of pre-crisis elements. The "Lex Luthor would've been a great person if Superman didn't exist", that came from pre-crisis. The costume originating from the blankets in his ship, that's pre-crisis. In terms of the movie, yeah I'd say Donner's Krypton is outdated, though the FOS is a keeper to me, IMO. Reporter CK as a disguise, that's still in the modern take. Lex being a demented sociopath, we had a bit of that as well. All of those things to me aren't just Donner's Superman, they're part of Superman as well.


Well that's the thing. I don't really know much about pre-crisis vs post crisis. When I came here, I learned what it was. I also learned that I am more familiar with post crisis superman than the pre-crisis superman. So Jamal would be the one to ask about how everything compares, (whether xyz is outdated compared to the modern version etc) being in that business, I assume. :ninja:

The great thing about the second poll choice is that it's all encompassing. You can have it all, or whatever you want, respecting the past and the present on one hand... On the other hand you can continue with vague sequels to an old superman franchise.

[The Sage]

Well that's the thing. I don't really know much about pre-crisis vs post crisis. When I came here, I learned what it was. I also learned that I am more familiar with post crisis superman than the pre-crisis superman. So Jamal would be the one to ask about how everything compares, (whether xyz is outdated compared to the modern version etc) being in that business, I assume. :ninja:

The great thing about the second poll choice is that it's all encompassing. You can have it all, or whatever you want, respecting the past and the present on one hand... On the other hand you can continue with vague sequels to an old superman franchise.

I didn't think the vague sequel concept was a bad idea. You could easily use the previous movies and just introduce new ideas and concept from the past and present that were never seen before or just not paid attention to.

[WhatsHisFace]

Donner.

His version of Superman is so much better than the one in the comics.

[The Kid]

Just superman from donners movie, or all the landgrabbing wig wearing, otis, teschmacher and stuff?

[The Kid]

I didn't think the vague sequel concept was a bad idea. You could easily use the previous movies and just introduce new ideas and concept from the past and present that were never seen before or just not paid attention to.

The vague sequel concept was first used for Superman IV and it was a terrible idea. And I really see no difference here. It'll just confuse the hell out of everyone imho.

[The Sage]

The vague sequel concept was first used for Superman IV and it was a terrible idea. And I really see no difference here. It'll just confuse the hell out of everyone imho.

I'd use the concept the same way the old Bond franchise did in the sense that the story would just be another chapter and that it isn't required for you to see the other movies. Sort of like Goldeneye.

[Venom71]

Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answers, ven?
You are the one that said the Reeve version of Superman is outdated..I would think that would mean the suit also and just so you know...I voted :super:

[The Kid]

I'd use the concept the same way the old Bond franchise did in the sense that the story would just be another chapter and that it isn't required for you to see the other movies. Sort of like Goldeneye.

wait, I misread. I'm not a bond fan so I don't know much about his movies. I guess he's a very episodic character rather than continuous. I never understand why some want the continuity to be messy and confusing. Well supes as an episodic character can be done, I guess, like on his tv show from the 50s (I assume there wasn't a continuity beyond the origin episodes.) and of course the super friends. My issue with that would be how much of it can appear to be a sequel to a previous film and how much will simply be a new episode in his new adventure.

Like take begins for example. After seeing it, I tried to find ways it could really be a prequel to 89 you know... but it didn't work. It really just isn't.

Now what would happen if every supes movie singer makes is a vague sequel that only uses bits and parts of the movie it's playing as a sequel to. Same actors and all, but suddenly crazy stuff is introduced that just comes out of no where. This, to me would be confusing. Judging by x2, singer won't do this of course.

The only films that really uses the vague sequel idea a lot are b-movies, I think.

[The Kid]

You are the one that said the Reeve version of Superman is outdated..I would think that would mean the suit also and just so you know...I voted :super:

It's an costume made during the 70s. what do you think? Now go away, you always cause trouble for me...

[Venom71]

It's an costume made during the 70s. what do you think? Now go away, you always cause trouble for me...
Ahhh that makes me sad :csad:

[The Kid]

Ahhh that makes me sad :csad:

yeah right...

hey. Did you get that lego star wars game? I heard it was pretty good.

[Venom71]

yeah right...

hey. Did you get that lego star wars game? I heard it was pretty good.
No not yet...I would like to have it though...I did pick up the new set of the Original Trilogy yesterday. So I beleive I now have 2 sets of DVDs of the original trilogy and also at least one set on VHS. But one of my sets of DVDs my cousin has and has had for over a year..it is the set that came out in 04.

[The Kid]

meh it's good that it's out on dvd now, but still I'd say it's a waste of mone to get it now. I'll wait to buy the originals in better quality than they're presented on these new dvds.

[C. Lee]

I'd use the concept the same way the old Bond franchise did in the sense that the story would just be another chapter and that it isn't required for you to see the other movies. Sort of like Goldeneye.
If there had been a couple of Superman movies made betwen Reeve's last one and this one...then I think that way would have worked. But since so much time was between them....I feel a renewal of the storyline was needed.

[Super Kal]

you mean like a restart?

[C. Lee]

you mean like a restart?
Yep. With so much time between the Superman movies...this should have been a whole new take on it...no connection to the Donner or Reeve films.

[Super Kal]

Yep. With so much time between the Superman movies...this should have been a whole new take on it...no connection to the Donner or Reeve films.
yeah, that would of been nice to see... but what about story wise?... would a villain suffice, or a villainless movie and just Luthor?

[C. Lee]

yeah, that would of been nice to see... but what about story wise?... would a villain suffice, or a villainless movie and just Luthor?
There should have been a villian...with more than human abilities...and Lex needed to be in it too, as the billionaire corporate genius manipulating events behind the scenes in his plans to rule the world.

[WhatsHisFace]

Just superman from donners movie, or all the landgrabbing wig wearing, otis, teschmacher and stuff?
Just the Superman from his movies. The sincere, nice, etc... gentleman. The Superman from the comics doesn't have the same righteousness that the Donner and, to a somewhat lesser extendt, the Superman Returns Superman had.

I couldn't care less about the campy Lex Luthor, re-used plots and goofy scenarios. Just give me the Superman I love and have him save people.

That's basically what Superman Returns was, but it wasn't quite the homerun I wanted it to be.

[M.O.Steel]

this isn't even a fair poll. Who in their right mind in a superman message board would pick Donner (regardless of how good STM is) over the rich history of superman?


(oh wait, i forgot about singer...oops)

[nogster]

this isn't even a fair poll. Who in their right mind in a superman message board would pick Donner (regardless of how good STM is) over the rich history of superman?


(oh wait, i forgot about singer...oops)

lol!! oops.

[The Kid]

Hello friends. The topic for today will be about what you'd like the director to watch or read to get ideas for the sequel.

What episodes of a cartoon or tv show episode is so fascinating, that it deserves some consideration? Any comics you can suggest too?

Here's mine:

I just watched the metallo episode of superman TAS and I think it's a great episode showing luthor's manipulativeness and Corben's inner struggle with his loss of humanity, how it drives him insane. That'd be great to see.

Then I watched an episode with brainiac. This was definitely a missed oportunity for SR because supes could have found brainiac in space and learned about his past and everything like in this episode and really have a conflict about destroying brainiac and his legacy at the same time or using brainiac to get more information about his people etc. And revealing brainiac as being partly responsible for krypton's destruction was cool. That'd have been great too.

From the comics, I'd take the idea of superman being cloned. I can't remember what issue or anything. I just know he was at some point.:yay:

How about you?

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I'm not even going to read what you posted, no offense. This thread will likely contain the generic answer of doing everything like STAS.

[The Kid]

Well usually instead of being a troll and posting that I would not like to participate in a discussion, I just don't click on the thread and continue my life doing what I intended to do, which is not participate since I'm not a troller.:hyper: :yay: :heart: :heart: :heart:

[matrix_ghost]

Well for reference purposes , i'd actually not make then watch STAS but rather anime movies of people flying. Stuff like DBZ ( tv series plus movies) , X and so forth

There's is a fluidity that those characters have and not only that , it's incredibly graceful.
I know that they way they shot superman flying was 1) either brandon in waires , 2) brandon in the custom built rig , 3) mocap sessions for CG superman.
No doubt that if they are going to ramp up the action , they're just going to go with full on animation which just can't be mocapped. For that reason i think the animators as well as the directors could really benefit from watching those anime series and movies.

Storywise , you're obviously left with the comics . S:TAS is based around the comics right :huh: , so i don't really see why you need to watch S:TAS unless you want to see just how the action scenes play out.
I'd love to see the Doomsday Wars graphic novel being used.

[Kabuki_Jo]

The Twilight of the Gods episode of JL can be a pretty good source of ideas.

[Eros]

COMICS singer should read:
For the man who has everything-Alan moore
Superman:Man of Steel -John Bryne
Whatever happened to the man of Tommorrow-Alan Moore
Kingdom Come

TV:
watch Superman the animated series [all of it]
Watch the first 2 seasons of Lois and Clark
watch some stuff from George Reeves superman


If singer can borrow elements from all these sources, he can create a great sequel which pays homage to every incarnation of superman[save for smallville].

[BobJM]

I haven't really read many of the Superman comics, (Yes, I'll admit to it) but I have seen the animated series, which initially got me hooked on the character.

From my understanding of the character and his history, S:TAS was a pretty accurate adaptation of the comicbook hero. There were really great elements that really made the show a classic. Whether they were storylines or character relationships, S:TAS was sophisticated and cool, yet child friendly.


Here's what I would like to see in a Superman Returns sequel:

- Make Clark like he was in S:TAS. In the series, he had some quirks, but he
wasn't anything like Christopher Reeves' interpertation. Clark was a quiet
guy and blended in, but he was normal. Not geeky and certainly no "swell"
in his vocab. I mean, come on, this is 2006 (the sequel will be in 2009).
That might have worked in the 70's, but times have drastically changed
and no one talks like that anymore.

- Give Lois more of a punch. I loved the human/maternal side shown in
Superman Returns, but I want to see the fiery reporter that I fell in love
with on the series. I want to actually see her, you know, reporting.
Maybe put Luthor on the spot like she did continually on the television
show. Or have her constantly competing with Clark to get top spot. I'm
sick of Jason going where ever she goes. GET A BABYSITTER!

- Lex Luthor. This is a tough one. While I would love to say, GIVE HIM
LEXCORP, I don't know if that's a possibility anymore. I mean, he is a
convicted criminal with serious felonies under his belt. No way in hell would
the government allow Luthor to become such a serious mogul (especially
one who's bascially in control of Metropolis city). But perhaps, Lois could
make a comment on how the government keeps a close eye on him, but
they never act; mainly because Luthor's got some of the greatest art-of-
war technologies being developed. (So, basically, it could be explained
that the government and Luthor have reached some sort of agreement).

- Make Jimmy more like a 20-something year old just out of college, living in
a major city. No 20 year old is going to be wearing a bow-tie or saying
"Mr. Kent". If the two are really friends, Jimmy would call him Clark. I think
his S:TAS adaptation was accurate, while still quirky (as true to his iconic
personality).

[bosef982]

Since when did making an original motion picture mean just copying other people's work? I mean, isn't that just a fanscript?

[BobJM]

No, it's called an adaptation.

[The Kid]

We all know singer plans to use wrath of khan as a template or whatever.

Give him other films to draw inspiration from. Come on! Let's help him!

[The Kid]

I haven't really read many of the Superman comics, (Yes, I'll admit to it) but I have seen the animated series, which initially got me hooked on the character.

From my understanding of the character and his history, S:TAS was a pretty accurate adaptation of the comicbook hero. There were really great elements that really made the show a classic. Whether they were storylines or character relationships, S:TAS was sophisticated and cool, yet child friendly.


Here's what I would like to see in a Superman Returns sequel:

- Make Clark like he was in S:TAS. In the series, he had some quirks, but he
wasn't anything like Christopher Reeves' interpertation. Clark was a quiet
guy and blended in, but he was normal. Not geeky and certainly no "swell"
in his vocab. I mean, come on, this is 2006 (the sequel will be in 2009).
That might have worked in the 70's, but times have drastically changed
and no one talks like that anymore.

- Give Lois more of a punch. I loved the human/maternal side shown in
Superman Returns, but I want to see the fiery reporter that I fell in love
with on the series. I want to actually see her, you know, reporting.
Maybe put Luthor on the spot like she did continually on the television
show. Or have her constantly competing with Clark to get top spot. I'm
sick of Jason going where ever she goes. GET A BABYSITTER!

- Lex Luthor. This is a tough one. While I would love to say, GIVE HIM
LEXCORP, I don't know if that's a possibility anymore. I mean, he is a
convicted criminal with serious felonies under his belt. No way in hell would
the government allow Luthor to become such a serious mogul (especially
one who's bascially in control of Metropolis city). But perhaps, Lois could
make a comment on how the government keeps a close eye on him, but
they never act; mainly because Luthor's got some of the greatest art-of-
war technologies being developed. (So, basically, it could be explained
that the government and Luthor have reached some sort of agreement).

- Make Jimmy more like a 20-something year old just out of college, living in
a major city. No 20 year old is going to be wearing a bow-tie or saying
"Mr. Kent". If the two are really friends, Jimmy would call him Clark. I think
his S:TAS adaptation was accurate, while still quirky (as true to his iconic
personality).

Nice. :ninja:

I definitely like the ideas for Jimmy. He was too goofy in Returns. Tone it down, make him a little smarter.:heart:

[deathfromabove]

Originally Posted by BoBByJoMo
I haven't really read many of the Superman comics, (Yes, I'll admit to it) but I have seen the animated series, which initially got me hooked on the character.

From my understanding of the character and his history, S:TAS was a pretty accurate adaptation of the comicbook hero. There were really great elements that really made the show a classic. Whether they were storylines or character relationships, S:TAS was sophisticated and cool, yet child friendly.


Here's what I would like to see in a Superman Returns sequel:

- Make Clark like he was in S:TAS. In the series, he had some quirks, but he
wasn't anything like Christopher Reeves' interpertation. Clark was a quiet
guy and blended in, but he was normal. Not geeky and certainly no "swell"
in his vocab. I mean, come on, this is 2006 (the sequel will be in 2009).
That might have worked in the 70's, but times have drastically changed
and no one talks like that anymore.

- Give Lois more of a punch. I loved the human/maternal side shown in
Superman Returns, but I want to see the fiery reporter that I fell in love
with on the series. I want to actually see her, you know, reporting.
Maybe put Luthor on the spot like she did continually on the television
show. Or have her constantly competing with Clark to get top spot. I'm
sick of Jason going where ever she goes. GET A BABYSITTER!

- Lex Luthor. This is a tough one. While I would love to say, GIVE HIM
LEXCORP, I don't know if that's a possibility anymore. I mean, he is a
convicted criminal with serious felonies under his belt. No way in hell would
the government allow Luthor to become such a serious mogul (especially
one who's bascially in control of Metropolis city). But perhaps, Lois could
make a comment on how the government keeps a close eye on him, but
they never act; mainly because Luthor's got some of the greatest art-of-
war technologies being developed. (So, basically, it could be explained
that the government and Luthor have reached some sort of agreement).

- Make Jimmy more like a 20-something year old just out of college, living in
a major city. No 20 year old is going to be wearing a bow-tie or saying
"Mr. Kent". If the two are really friends, Jimmy would call him Clark. I think
his S:TAS adaptation was accurate, while still quirky (as true to his iconic
personality).


this is right on:supes:

[Dark_Lord]

Hello friends. The topic for today will be about what you'd like the director to watch or read to get ideas for the sequel.

What episodes of a cartoon or tv show episode is so fascinating, that it deserves some consideration? Any comics you can suggest too?

Here's mine:

I just watched the metallo episode of superman TAS and I think it's a great episode showing luthor's manipulativeness and Corben's inner struggle with his loss of humanity, how it drives him insane. That'd be great to see.

Then I watched an episode with brainiac. This was definitely a missed oportunity for SR because supes could have found brainiac in space and learned about his past and everything like in this episode and really have a conflict about destroying brainiac and his legacy at the same time or using brainiac to get more information about his people etc. And revealing brainiac as being partly responsible for krypton's destruction was cool. That'd have been great too.

From the comics, I'd take the idea of superman being cloned. I can't remember what issue or anything. I just know he was at some point.:yay:

How about you?

Maybe thats why he wont show (according to Singer) the Krypton scene on DVD. Maybe he wants to use this scene in the sequel to show us how Brainiac got to earth or something.
He could have downloaded himself at Kal-Els ship and then as the ship was heading towards earth he could have downloaded himself to a sattellite or the Fortress...:huh: :woot:

[Steelsheen]

since we're talking about the sequel, i would like Singer to familiarize himself with Brainiac from all mediums that the character has appeared in: Pre and Post Crisis comics, Superman cartoons, JLU, the works. this is just a specific character less popular than Lex Luthor so maybe that shouldnt be too daunting for him hmm?

[Immortalfire]

I think Bryan and company watched some of the animated series. At least the first episode. Superman saves a falling plane in it, and it was practically done shot-for-shot in SR.

[romeogbs19]

Not sure if Singer ever read these, but since he's introduced the "Son of Superman," he better read the graphic novel of the same name. It's a really good book/story that I certainly wouldn't mind if Singer took some cues from.

As for Clark, I think Singer would be helped a great deal if he read Busiek's "Secret Identity" -- sure, that story is about a man who lives in a world where Superman is a fictional character (Whom he becomes), but it captures the outsider story very well -- as well as the "family" component of Clark/Lois.

As I've suggested, the kid is a great direction for Superman -- Singer needs to make sure though that this takes a direction seen in the above books. Treated well, he has an opportunity to win over a LOT of people -- even those who've crapped all over SR.

[romeogbs19]

Not sure if Singer ever read these, but since he's introduced the "Son of Superman," he better read the graphic novel of the same name. It's a really good book/story that I certainly wouldn't mind if Singer took some cues from.

As for Clark, I think Singer would be helped a great deal if he read Busiek's "Secret Identity" -- sure, that story is about a man who lives in a world where Superman is a fictional character (Whom he becomes), but it captures the outsider story very well -- as well as the "family" component of Clark/Lois.

As I've suggested, the kid is a great direction for Superman -- Singer needs to make sure though that this takes a direction seen in the above books. Treated well, he has an opportunity to win over a LOT of people -- even those who've crapped all over SR.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Ok so if you had a choice between seen Singer do a sequel to an arguably successful Superman Returns film with possible villains such as Metallo or Brainiac... OR if you could have Brett Ratner film what he wanted to a "reimagining" of Superman.

Which would you choose and why?

Yep that's right only 2 choices. Singer of Ratner...

To help those who didn't know what Ratner envisioned:

First off some old stuff about a Ratner Superman movie.

First one sounding a bit ironic of course with the public outing on Singer about his budget problems... Also we see that he believed in an unknown for Supes as well.

http://www.comics2film.com/FanFrame.php?f_id=19534

The reason for leaving SUPERMAN had to do with the budget according to Ratner.

"My version of it which was with J.J. was so expensive, because we were shooting on a planet," explains Ratner. "We were shooting a civil war on Krypton so to build the planet was a little expensive especially for Warner Bros. and with an unknown actor. So I just couldn't see myself as doing ‘Tom Cruise as Superman.’ I just thought that it had to be unknown the same way Christopher Reeve was an unknown."

http://www.latinoreview.com/moviereviews/2002/reddragon/brettratner.html

What would you like to do the franchise that hasn't been done before?
BR: I see a man in a red and blue suit, a man flying through the air. That's basically my vision.
Come on!!
BR: [Laughing} What? That's what I see. I see a guy flying through the air in a blue and red suit. Again it's in the script. J.J. Abrams delivered a *beep* amazing script and that's why I'm doing it. They [WB] talked to me about it when Tim Burton fell out of it the first time, and I think it was Kevin Smiths script? Right? It wasn't there [the script]. This movie [script] has heart, it has soul, and its different enough you know? It's got emotion, its real, you care about the character. Kids today don't know those movies; they [movies] were done 20 years ago. 10-year-old kids know SUPERMAN, but they don't know the mythology.
They've got SMALLVILLE! [Outburst of laughs] <ha ha, sorry sv fans their choice to rib on the show>


http://movies.about.com/library/weekly/aa092602a.htm
The new "Superman" movie will not be an origin story but instead will be a 're-imagining' of the Superman legend. In a press release issued by the studio, President of Warner Bros Alan Horn said, "'Superman' is an American icon and a timeless hero who shares a rich history with Warner Bros. We are very happy to be working with Brett, Jon and J.J. on this important new chapter in the 'Superman' legacy."


Known proposed cast

Superman- Matthew Bomer
Lois Lane- Lara Flynn Boyle
Lex Luthor- Ralph Fiennes
Perry White- Christopher Walken
Jor-el- Anythony Hopkins


http://www.gregweiner.com/photos/greg's%20web%20images/portraits/matt%20bomer.jpg
http://www.wchstv.com/abc/thepractice/laraflynnboyle.jpg
http://www.movie-gazette.com/directory/img/christopher+walken.jpg
http://hpvirtual.weblogger.terra.com.br/img/vcsabequem.jpg
http://64.191.144.130/pix//anthony_hopkins.jpg

[Michael Corleone]

I wasn't a fan of Boomer. Hopkins was a great choice for Jor-EL however. I prefer Singer, but Ratner's would certainly have had some great eye candy.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Never big on Bomer for Supes either.

[The Kid]

Anyone but Singer.

Let someone who's not in another director's shadow do it.

We dealt with Lester trying to continue doing donner's superman and now a billion years later it's the same thing with Singer.

It's time to end it once and for all and get someone to Nolanize Superman.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I'm torn because I think SR is a very good film, however I always wanted a more origin based film too start things off. Hmm

[Thespiralgoeson]

I'm torn because I think SR is a very good film, however I always wanted a more origin based film too start things off. Hmm

I'm the opposite. I didn't necessarily want a sequel to the Reeve/Donner films, but the last thing I wanted was an origin story. We've all seen it before, even if it had been almost 30 years. I know it could be done in a new and interesting way, but bottom line I just don't want to see Krypton blowing up and baby Kal-El flying to earth in a rocket ship, crashlanding in Smallville, being raised by Ma and Pa Kent, and have to rediscover his powers and become Superman all over again. Batman Begins worked because we hadn't seen a Batman origin-story on film before.

I honestly think Singer had the right approach with Superman Returns in starting the series midstroak, with Superman already at the top of his game. However I wish instead of using the Donner films as his backstory and inspiration, use *gasp* the comics. Maybe use some non-linear story telling to vaguely explain the backstory, only briefly hinting at or referring to Superman's origin.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a comic-purist by anymeans. And I actually did enjoy Superman Returns a great deal. Enough to want to see it more than once. I just would've liked to have seen a fresh take on the characters and story instead of trying to remake the original. I mean, Kevin Spacey was a great choice for Luthor. How awesome would it've been to see him play the businessman Lex Luthor we're all used to? The deciptively charming, maniacle, CEO of LexCorp, almost anitchrist Lex Luthor? It would've been amazing. But no, we got to see Kevin Spacey do his best Gene Hackman impression.

All that being said, what's done is done, you can't just simply start a whole new franchise now. All we can hope for is a damn good sequel. A good start would be to have Brainiac as the villain and introduce either Darkseid or Doomsday for the third.

[The Kid]

Don't give up. I don't believe we're stuck with anything.

Just recount the origin begins style using flashback or even a montage over the credits during the opening. Heck Batman 89 didn't really have more than a quickie flashback to the pivotal moment in batman's life and it was alright. Bam, five minutes and the origin's done. Continue with the adventure.

Nobody cares about seeing Jason become superboy or Richard getting told to screw off, and nobody cares to see lex and his bimbo henchwoman trying to sell land again so no big loss if all that's gone in the sequel thingy I'm sure.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Don't give up. I don't believe we're stuck with anything.

Just recount the origin begins style using flashback or even a montage over the credits during the opening. Heck Batman 89 didn't really have more than a quickie flashback to the pivotal moment in batman's life and it was alright. Bam, five minutes and the origin's done. Continue with the adventure.

Nobody cares about seeing Jason become superboy or Richard getting told to screw off, and nobody cares to see lex and his bimbo henchwoman trying to sell land again so no big loss if all that's gone in the sequel thingy I'm sure.

The Batman 89 analogy is a good one. That's actually immediately what I thought of, when I saw SR, the way I wished it would've been done I mean.

You're right though. While SR grossed a great deal at the box office, it still didn't live up to WB's expectations, and there has been a great deal of backlash concerning certain elements, so it's probable that Singer will change things up a bit for the sequel, assuming he stays on. Too bad we have to wait 2-3 years or so to see. :(

[Antonello Blueberry]

The first draft of the JJ Abrams script is online if you want to read it.
http://www.supermanhomepage.com/movies/Superman-JJAbrams.pdf
It's basically Donner's Superman I & II mixed together with some unnecessary changes to the mithology, great action scenes, and a well written Lois. It wasn't that original.

[Kroc1138]

After the X3 disaster Ratner should stay away from Superhero movies. Singer all the way!!

[Dark_Lord]

Singer of course! But IF WB didnt want Singer for some reason (from what we've read they do) for the sequel I wouldnt want them to start again.

I dont understand why some of you guys dont want Singer for the sequel. Yeah SR didnt have a lot of action, which from what I can tell lack of action was the problem most of you had, but he wanted to introduce and develop the characters in the first movie so he can bring in the action in the next film(s). I know we have been introduced to the characters many times but I think it was a great way to start.

IF you dont like the sequel either then I could see why you'd guys would want to replace Singer.

[Super Kal]

I'm on the fence with this one...

[Dark_Lord]

Plus....Matthew Bomer??? Come on. I'm so happy Routh got the role... Everyone I've talked to about the move, even if they didnt like it much or at all (very few didnt like it a lot) were telling we that Routh did a good job and he was awesome as Supes/Clark/Kal-El.

[Cyrusbales]

singer can direct better, I think SR was similar to the original and was very uninteresting because Singer wants to continue the story, but also refresh it, so it's accessible to old fans and new ones, which means he was only half meeting both.

I think Singer's next Superman would be amazing if he will do a space villain, something new and exciting, something we haven't seen before, I think Singer will re-invent superman subtlely!

[The Kid]

C.Lee or anyone who was around back then, I'm curious, is this ^ kind of thing what people were saying after Superman III? Or even Batman forever?

I feel dejavu. Like I'm still back in the 90s after batman forever came out.

[Cyrusbales]

C.Lee or anyone who was around back then, I'm curious, is this ^ kind of thing what people were saying after Superman III? Or even Batman forever?

I'm going off of singer's track record, I'm interested in seeing the next superman, not massively hyped, but interested, however if that flops, i'll prob not see the last in his trilogy until it's on DVD or sumthin

[matrix_ghost]

I'm a bit torn.

Ratner obviously fits into the category of Michael Bay , in that he'll create a very action packed and thoroughly entertaining movie .
Say what you want about X3, but he did introduce many mutants . Whether they were wasted is another matter. But he did it , something that SInger simply could never do.

And with Red Dragon especially , i think that Rattner is a person who'd make a fine movie should he have an impressive cast. And looking at his cast list ( Ralph Fiennes as Lex Luthor , SWEET LORD THAT WOULD'VE ROCKED BIG TIME :wow: ) , Hopkins as Jor El and Walken as Perry White , it does looks impressive .
And after watching X3 , i'm confident to say that Rattner can handle big VFX sequences properly.
I'm not so sure about Lara Flynn Boyle as Lois tough ( too skinny , althought the same can be said Kate Bosworth:oldrazz: ; as well as the fact that Boyle hasn't really impressed me enough with her acting) but it could probably work.

The onlly problem would be the script. Now granted it would've featured lots of action and destruction , but the last thing many people want such a drastic reimagining of the history of superman.
I dunno to what extent the draft of Abrams was changed , but the lex being an kryptonian agent , Jor El sendin his son away cause of Kata Zor was a bit too much actually.

As for the Superman doing aerial Kung Fu. Well i'd rather would've like to see that actually :woot:


Still given how Returns turned out to be and with Singer not being someone who takes risks ( see X2 , improvement over X1 but it's still the wolverine show) , i'd want to see Rattner's version.

[The Kid]

I'm going off of singer's track record, I'm interested in seeing the next superman, not massively hyped, but interested, however if that flops, i'll prob not see the last in his trilogy until it's on DVD or sumthin

no, yeah, that's cool. I'm just curious because I feel like I've seen this before where someone hopes the sequel to a sequel to a sequel is better.

Oh and I'm going to own you in Risk :cmad:

[Cyrusbales]

no, yeah, that's cool. I'm just curious because I feel like I've seen this before where someone hopes the sequel to a sequel to a sequel is better.

Oh and I'm going to own you in Risk :cmad:

The more I think about SR, the more I like it, but if i watch it again, i'll prob be disapointed lol. There were really good bits in it, just badly linked. I think the major floor was writing on SR!

I'll give him one more chance, then it's over for him, lol.

BTW, don't I own europe at the moment?

[Antonello Blueberry]

The Lara Flynn Boyle thing is new to me...

[Super Kal]

I liked Bomer when I saw a manip of him in the suit...

[The Kid]

The more I think about SR, the more I like it, but if i watch it again, i'll prob be disapointed lol. There were really good bits in it, just badly linked. I think the major floor was writing on SR!

I'll give him one more chance, then it's over for him, lol.

BTW, don't I own europe at the moment?

Well I gave him a fair chance and now not even the prettiest fx and promises for wrath of khan can make me want him back. Promise me wrath of Superman comics instead.

And so what... You've got... let me see, Afgahnistan, India, china... wow real world powers there...:whatever: I've got ukraine, baby. :cmad: UKRAINE RULES!

[Steelsheen]

my problems with SR was how it treated the source material, then the alternative is a re-imagining? you know where my vote goes.

[Orko Is King]

Singer isn't perfect, but I don't want Ratner anywhere near Superman.

[CGHulk]

I want Richard Donner to direct the SR sequel!

[DavidTyler]

If my only two choices are Singer and Ratner, I'm going out drinking.

On the one hand we have unimaginative Singer aping Donner and combining it with weak soap opera. On the other we have Ratner who completely doesn't understand or respect the source material and will absolutely destroy the franchise.

No choice at all really.

Mischa, ... I'll have a Blue light and get me a Miller light for my buddy.

[Cyrusbales]

we all know it is singer, he's signed the contract, so we should wait and see, then flay him alive if it's bad! Then again, superman isn't exactly the most interesting of superhero's anyway!

[Excel]

im cool with singer coming back, but i de.f liked ratners vision.

a modern day superman; sitll his clasis csel fbut his surrounding modern and bright.

singers were retro and dark.

[Superbaty77]

After the X3 disaster Ratner should stay away from Superhero movies. Singer all the way!!

If you ask me. Both them should stay away from Superman.

[DavidTyler]

we all know it is singer, he's signed the contract, so we should wait and see, then flay him alive if it's bad! Then again, superman isn't exactly the most interesting of superhero's anyway!

This is exactly the wrong attitude to take.

Any character can be boring if not presented properly.

It's always been my feeling that the best way to present Superman in a way that makes him interesting is to have an antagonist who can give him a real battle and to have some great character exploration with his supporting cast.

AND ... to set him in today's world and have him a full part of it... not like a visitor from the 1930's.

Nerd Clark, nerd Jimmy ... they just don't work. Jimmy becomes comic relief .. as a clown. Clark .. well, he just looks like a nebbish.

Let Clark be a quiet, intelligent but anassuming guy like Dean's take on the character.

And Jimmy.. for pete's sake ("love is understanding, don't you know that this is true ....") let him be normal like in the animated series. In fact, he could have little adventures within the adventure. Imagine if they used Darksied in one of the films. Darksied takes half of Metropolis to Apokolips as hostages in an attempt to force Superman into servitude while Jimmy takes charge in freeing himself and some of his fellow captives. It could be really exciting.

Not every Superman adventure has to be limited to Metropolis or even Earth. It isn't that way in the comix and it doesn't need to be that way in films.

Superman can be a GREAT science fiction figure if someone would only let him be.

[superbaby]

both are no good.

i wouldn't mind for new and young director.

[DrMylesOBoogie]

It's like asking me to choose between dog***** and horse*****.

But then again I already know how the Singer movie turned out and that was pretty bad.

[lordofthenerds]

Singer by a landslide. Just look at what happened to the X-Men series.

[Matt]

Ratner, despite the initial negativity, buzz on the re-writes were really positive. Plus Christopher Walken automatically makes it better than Superman Returns.

[Excel]

x3 was more entertaining then sr though

[Thespiralgoeson]

x3 was more entertaining then sr though

I disagree. X3 was visually stunning, and Kelsey Grammar was awesome as Beast, but other than that I thought the movie was a heaping, steaming, disgusting, revolting pile of crap.

SR, OTOH, I thoroughly enjoyed. Sure, it had pleny of flaws, and I certainly didn't enjoy it nearly as much as Batman Begins, but I still liked enough to see it more than once.

[batman strikes]

I thought Kerri Russell was the actor that Brett Ratner wanted for the role of Lois Lane?

[Super Kal]

I say a mix of the two... a Brett Singer.

[Alonsovich]

None of them. I'm still of the opinion that the ideal person to direct the JJ Abrams script was JJ Abrams himself...

[Excel]

^exactly. in the sequels forum i made a thread a while back-if singer left whode oyu pick?

i said jj.

[The Singularity]

None of them. I'm still of the opinion that the ideal person to direct the JJ Abrams script was JJ Abrams himself...

Testify, my brother...!

He actually lobbied to direct it. Pitched the film and everything. WB said thanks but no thanks... Tom Cruise said come work for me... Paramount said thanks for bringing us JJ but, Tom, your services are no longer required... Tom returned to sucking on placenta and now plots his next move for world domination...

Just goes to show that WB have no idea what they were doing... they were gagging to get JJ's script made... JJ was the man that could have made it but they passed on a golden opportunity. Instead Singer turns up.

[Lightning54SC]

at least singer had a remaked story.... ratner had garbage.... i scratched my head too many times trying to wonder what the heck was going kinda like in POTC2... which was also a terrible movie

[The Kid]

I say a mix of the two... a Brett Singer.

This is why i love you.:heart:

[KalMart]

Singer Sequel or a Ratner Reimagine? VOTE!

Why not both?

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/2228/xsaveoc3.gif

[kal-el1990]

i would love to see in a movie with the returns cast a proper superman movie with a real villan like bizarro metallo or darksied or braniac!!!! is that so hard to do. out of the 2 i would go with singer cuz i loved superman returns

[Lightning54SC]

Singer Sequel or a Ratner Reimagine? VOTE!

Why not both?



Kal im with you on this my BT buddy :cwink: .....

i think singer has great vision but was held back by the studio a bit... remember the studio wanted the ladys to be involved in this movie....so i say let singer do his vision of the love triangle and let ratner do the action....

but some changes id like to see is....

1. a NEW JOR-EL like form the comics i want someone in there late 30's to do the role... jor-el was young when he shipped Kal-el off... and id like him to dress triditional like in the comics if possible

2. no shooting movies back to back.... set up a villain for the sequal and LEAVE IT THERE.... dont do a POTC or Matrix shoot

3. DONT BE SCARED of a 2:30 over running time if you need time to explain a story then make a 3 hour flick just try to keep the movie watchers on there toes rather then staring at there watch make 3 hours feel like an hour and half

4. DOnt be afraid to explore krypton, meaning the history... if done right it could possibly be one of the most memorble scenes in hollywood history

[Man_of_Steel]

Look, Brett Ratner ruined the X-Men franchise. Okay, maybe that's taking it a bit too far. It was mostly 20th Century Fox's fault for attempting to rush the movie out without Singer. Ratner was just the man they put in charge of the disaster. However, seeing Superman Returns after seeing X-Men 3 made me so relieved that Singer had directed it instead of Ratner. Plus, I have a feeling Singer will redeem himself with those who hated the movie with uh...Superman Returns...again....

[Tony Stark]

I don't mind a direct sequal, but I don't want Singer near this project.

[Retroman]

Singer isn't perfect, but I don't want Ratner anywhere near Superman.
My thoughts exactly.

[Retroman]

Singer Sequel or a Ratner Reimagine? VOTE!

Why not both?

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/2228/xsaveoc3.gif
Cool vid KM.:word: :woot:

[Delete]

Can I chose neither?

[BooST eD]

I don't mind a direct sequal, but I don't want Singer near this project.

well he's ehre to stay so hopefully we get something really juicy this time :woot:

[TKing]

If Ratner tries to pull anything like he did with X3 on Superman, I ain't watching it.

[ScottishFogg]

i want a Singer sequel. we've all seen what Ratner does when he takes over one of Singer's visions -- and no-one wants THAT again. :whatever:

[romeogbs19]

Nope -- don't want a Ratner vision of Supes. Singer's is fine. It wasn't the best movie and sure, there were problems with it, but there is a LOT of potential here for a great sequel and 3rd film.

I'm hoping Singer and co. have read "Son of Superman" and Busiek's "Secret Identity" -- if they haven't, they should. Many elements from those storylines could be weaved into the next two installments, and I for one would be more than happy with that addition.

[DavidTyler]

I'm not putting in a poll. There are just too many decent directors out there.

So, just post who you would like to see replace Singer for the next Superman film and why. Show some examples of their work and why you think it's applicable to the world of Superman.

Me, I'm thinking George Lucas or Steven Spielberg.

Either can handle both the fantastic and the ordinary and make you believe and enjoy it.

Their work is everywhere and you can easily see how Star Wars and THX 1138 fit into Krypton and the science fiction aspect of the character. We could easily have Darksied or Brainiac under Lucas. American Graffitti gives us a look at how he might handle Jimmy.

Speilberg, on the other hand, can handle deep drama and still give us the fantastic while keeping us grounded in reality. We could possibly get a very deep Clark, Lois, and Perry from this director.

Unlike many here, I have a deep respect for Mark Steven Johnson's work on Daredevil. I think it's a much underated work with some nice performances.
I actually would rank Johnson higher than either Lucas or Speilberg for a Superman film just on the basis of his ability to present fantastic characters in a believable setting - and for the amount of depth he tries to bring to the characters without changing them too much from source. Respect of source is key.

Those are only a few of the directors I would pick.

I'd love to hear yours.

[The Sage]

I'd like to see Singer continue, but if he doesn't, then I'd definitely go with Steven Spielberg. I think he'd be more suited for Green Lantern than Superman though. We all know he can handle sci-fi and fantasy. But my favorite Spielberg films are Minority Report and Munich, the latter moreso because it's a great character study, and shows Spielberg can get in the head of his characters.

Peter Jackson would be another good choice, as I liked King Kong and his 1930s New York, which is somewhat similar to my idea of Metropolis. Also can't forget his work on LOTR.

The Wachowski Brothers are another choice, on the strength of the first Matrix film and V for Vendetta. I think they'd have a better time adapting Superman due to the plethora of stories to choose from. They would just need someone to keep their CGI usage in check.

And I too loved MSJ's work on Daredevil, mainly the Director's Cut which is one of the best superhero flicks I've seen.

[BasinCityBlues]

I would be happy to see Singer continue. I might be one of the only people to think this, but I brought depth to Superman. Yet if I had to choose a new director, I would say Richard Donner. I would like to see what he would do.

[sithgoblin]

Speilberg would never touch Superman. There's no point in even speculating that he'd direct it. At the most he might produce, but even that's unlikely considering he's never shown any interest in the genre.

I think Alfonso Cuaron would be a good choice.

[CGHulk]

Speilberg would never touch Superman. There's no point in even speculating that he'd direct it. At the most he might produce, but even that's unlikely considering he's never shown any interest in the genre.

I think Alfonso Cuaron would be a good choice.
That's not tue. Spielberg wanted to direct Superman the Movie years before they chose Donner, but the Salkinds later kicked themselves when he made it big with Jaws.

[sithgoblin]

That's not tue. He wanted to direct Superman the Movie years before they chose Donner, but the Salkinds later kicked themselves when he made it big with Jaws.
That was 30 years ago. He's changed a lot since then. Look at the kinds of films he makes now compared to the 70s. His filmmaking style has changed.

He also wanted to direct a James Bond movie back in the day. Fat chance of that ever happening.

If Speilberg really wanted to do Superman, he would have been involved with it before now. He had plenty of chances to take the helm back when SR was in development hell, and he could have easily joined Singer's production as a producer, the same way he joined Transformers.

But he didn't. Why? Because he has no interest in it.

[zanos]

Peter Jackson but at this point I could care less. Singer has done enough damage that I don't think a new director will add much to the films.

[matthooper]

Anyone but Singer.

I thought JJ Abrams did a great job with MI:3. He brought real emotion to a crappy franchise. The action was great too. I'd like to see him film a Supes script written by some really talented writers who happen to be Superman fans, and know his character from more than just one 70's film.

Unfortunately, SR did just mediocre enough box office to keep Singer.

[DavidTyler]

Alfonso Cuaron? This is a name I'm not familiar with.

Can you list some of his films and what he might bring to 'the party'?

[DavidTyler]

BTW, I don't think the franchise is completely unsalvageable.

There are fixes that could be done to eliminate some of the more objectionable Singer additions: i.e. Jason and Richard.

I've thought of three ways just now while writing this. I'm sure whoever took over the helm would be able to do at least that if not better.

But, I don't want to sidetrack this thread. The subject is who would you like to see step in to direct the next film and why.

[Antonello Blueberry]

Alfonso Cuaron? This is a name I'm not familiar with.

Can you list some of his films and what he might bring to 'the party'?
"Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" or the very good and upcoming "Children of Men".
But I think he will be busy in the neùxt few years with other projects
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0190859/
He's very good both with the actors and with the camera.
In "Children of men" there are some unmbeleavable shots.

[Motown Marvel]

singer needs to stay. and since he IS staying, this thread is pointless. it should be closed.

[KaptainKrypton]

Singer. I don't want the flavor of the series to change once it's been established. I liked SR and feel it's a solid start to a franchise. Others who dislike it, will of course disagree, and I wouldn't expect anything less. As far as I'm concerned, I'd love to have Spielberg take a crack at Big Blue, but Superman lost any chance of seeing Steven direct when Alexander Salkind pissed the opportunity away in the '70s by waiting for someone "better" to come along (thankfully Donner did a good job, in my eyes) so he's a pipe dream at best. Zemeckis or Whedon would be the only other choices I'd go for in terms of a director. Someone above mentioned Cuaron, and he's also pretty solid. Honestly, with his visual styling, he'd be the most suited to take over from Singer because his color palette is almost like Singer's.

[DavidTyler]

Before this thread starts to go off track, let me reitterate the theme here:

This is not a debate thread about Singer. This thread is intended to see who you would like to see take over the reigns and why - whether you like Singer or don't.

It's Batman cousin is a thread about who should take over if Nolan chose to leave.

[The Punisher]

Singer should come back and continue the franshise. Like he's stated, now that the characters are established, we'll now be able to see alot more. And I hope one of those things is more action. I look forward to what Winger will bring.

[DavidTyler]

OK, but is there any OTHER director you'd like to see step in if Singer doesn't? And, if so, who and why?

[Spider-jedi]

i think Singer should continue with the series

[DavidTyler]

Spider, you're missing the point of the thread. You like Singer. Fine. But if he weren't to return, who would you like to see take the helm?

[Lighthouse]

singer needs to stay. and since he IS staying, this thread is pointless. it should be closed.
I don't understand why it can't stay open for discussion. Some of us aren't satisfyed with the movie and we'd like to discuss it. If we closed every thread that was pointless, we wouldn't have many threads.

[antariksh]

Joel schumacer will make the prefect superman movie.

[GreenKToo]

"IF" singer did not return,I would be happy with either Spielberg,or Alfonso Cuaron.

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

I vote for you david..you obviously think yourself and many other complainers could do better..

go david.!

[Kenji Li]

Brett Ratner.lawL



but seriously peter jackson FTW!!!

[DrMylesOBoogie]

If Spidey 3 is Raimi's last Spidey movie then I'd like him to deliver the Superman film we deserve. If not then Ridley Scott.

[C. Lee]

Having just rewatched a couple of John Woo films....I would like to see his take on the character. He does exciting visuals and wild character storylines in his movies....so yeah, I'd like to see what he would do.

[Showtime]

I thought about Woo taking it on, that would definately be a different take on Superman. What about Gore Verbinski, I heard he might be available soon?

[C. Lee]

I thought about Woo taking it on, that would definately be a different take on Superman. What about Gore Verbinski, I heard he might be available soon?
Not too sure about him. I absolutely love "Mouse Hunt".....his other movies are good, but just seem a little overblown to me....I'd have to think about it more.

[Showtime]

I think he really has a grasp on "fun action" which Superman should go hand in hand with.

[C. Lee]

But he tends to lean towards more slapstick than I think the character needs.

[Showtime]

I agree, it would have to be a middle ground that I am not sure he even understands.

[DavidTyler]

I vote for you david..you obviously think yourself and many other complainers could do better..

go david.!

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Get me the funding.

I'll certainly make the kind of Superman movie that some of us seem to want.

and, yes, I have experience with small independent films.

[dpm07]

I'd like to see Singer continue, but if he doesn't, then I'd definitely go with Steven Spielberg. I think he'd be more suited for Green Lantern than Superman though. We all know he can handle sci-fi and fantasy. But my favorite Spielberg films are Minority Report and Munich, the latter moreso because it's a great character study, and shows Spielberg can get in the head of his characters.

Peter Jackson would be another good choice, as I liked King Kong and his 1930s New York, which is somewhat similar to my idea of Metropolis. Also can't forget his work on LOTR.

The Wachowski Brothers are another choice, on the strength of the first Matrix film and V for Vendetta. I think they'd have a better time adapting Superman due to the plethora of stories to choose from. They would just need someone to keep their CGI usage in check.

And I too loved MSJ's work on Daredevil, mainly the Director's Cut which is one of the best superhero flicks I've seen.

We don't always agree on everything, but you really said everything I was thinking with regard to possible directors. :up:

Loved the comment on the DD Director's Cut as well. I completely agree with you there. :up:

[Showtime]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Get me the funding.

I'll certainly make the kind of Superman movie that some of us seem to want.

and, yes, I have experience with small independent films.

Unfortunately even if you make a movie that some posters might want, there will be loads of others who will be against it and they will be ripping you day and night on the boards. "Tylerman Sucks". You can't win my friend.

[DavidTyler]

Unfortunately even if you make a movie that some posters might want, there will be loads of others who will be against it and they will be ripping you day and night on the boards. "Tylerman Sucks". You can't win my friend.

Yeah, but I'd be willing to take that chance.

Superman can be a great character if handled properly. I see it as a serious blend of science fiction, action, heavy drama, heavy character interation, and strong human emotion.

There should be a sadness and a great joy to the character. Lois should be vibrant and a lioness, ready to take on any challenge. I see that as what attracted Clark to her in the first place.

And I firmly believe that if you don't use Science Fiction themes with Superman, then you're completely missing the boat w/the character. He was born of the science fiction that Siegel and Shuster were familiar with as kids. He faced and continues (in the comix) to face down science fiction type adversaries. Hell, even Luthor in the comix has a strong bent in that direction. We really need to see Supes as more than the hero of Metropolis ... he needs to be the hero of Earth. He needs to face down adversaries of global proportion. By the same token, however, he needs to face difficult problems on the small scale. Problems such as the wife beater from 'Crisis At Hand'.

And the supporting cast ... Perry needs to be a great bear of a man, growling at those around him while still having a huge heart. Sure, he barks at Jimmy but he loves him like a son. He's concerned about Lois and her recklessness but he's proud of her at the same time.

Oh... and Jimmy .. I can't say this enough: Jimmy needs to be representative of the average 20 somethings today not the 1930's. I want to see him the way he's presented in STAS. And I want to go farther. I want him messing around w/skateboards and constantly hooked up to his iPod. The bow tie would only come up for some dress up occassion .. other than that it's a black tee shirt and some thing flashy over it. He'd have better than average computer skills but not enough to be totally techno. He would be an asset to the Lois and Clark instead of a home baker. And just as courageous and reckless as Lois. Clark's work would be cut out for him just keeping these two safe.

Clark..... No more nerdy Clark. He'd be a quiet type who exhibits an insatiable curiosity. That's the quality that made Perry hire him in the first place.

I'd bring in Maggie Sawyer and Dan Turpin. The Kent's would both still be alive and well and living happily in Smallville. Smallville would be Clark's recharge emotionally. When he's having trouble sorting out his life, he goes home and bales hay with Jonathan while talking out the problem. Martha would be a resource to him in the same way.

But I need to stop. This isn't what the thread is about.

[GreenKToo]

That would be interesting to see.Having just rewatched a couple of John Woo films....I would like to see his take on the character. He does exciting visuals and wild character storylines in his movies....so yeah, I'd like to see what he would do.

[SamuraiSon6]

i think singer knows what he has to do for the next one to save his name and WB's.

if they do change to another person and he just does all amazing action action with no real plot and the general public loves it, singer is gonna look like an idiot

[patrickbateman]

Peter Jackson but at this point I could care less. Singer has done enough damage that I don't think a new director will add much to the films.
:woot: we need to pull of a nolan on the whole thing

[blueboy]

Hmm.. I'd go with someone with a sense of Idealism... Someone like J.J. But only if he has a writer along the lines of a Nolan/Goyer combination.

[patrickbateman]

GET PAUL DINI AND Brad Bird to make a live action movie

[patrickbateman]

Robert Zemeckis

will do a forest gump on superman i've said it several time if there's one guy who can do superman the right way it this man.


did ya even see the energy in 'run forest run' thats what i want to see in young CK not a looney toon bouncing here and there.

[DavidTyler]

Zemeckis is an interesting choice but isn't his strong suit a bit more cartoony? Wasn't he the director on some of those late 80's early 90's films like "Back To Future" and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"?

I know he did some more serious films, "Castaway" and "What Lies Beneath", but he seems to have more of the other on his resume.

Still, I think it's a very interesting choice ... and an unusual one.

[Mr. Socko]

He did Forest Gump too.......

Know what that means, he knows how to switch back and forth between serious and cartoony/comedic

You want a big name, go with him or Peter Jackson.

Want a smaller name go with MSJ, he knows comic book characters inside and out and I'd trust he wouldn't just remake and rip something done in the 70s.

[Bruce_Wayne29]

Wolfgang Peterson.

[DavidTyler]

Mostly war movies but he did do 'Enemy Mine' so he could do something nice with the science fiction aspect... which brings to mind ....

How about Ridley Scott or Peter Hyams?

[C. Lee]

Scott is a great director....but I'm not too sure how he would do with something not dark gritty.

[igotatromboner]

Ratner with a really good script, and a team to keep him in check.......because X3 was actually pretty entertaining.

[Weadazoid]

Having just rewatched a couple of John Woo films....I would like to see his take on the character. He does exciting visuals and wild character storylines in his movies....so yeah, I'd like to see what he would do.

I can't see John Woo

I wouldn't mind seeing them go with a real a list dram guy who also understands action and suspense, and no I am not talking about Peter Jackson


I would go with Brian Depalme, Ridley Scott or Johnathen Demme. Esspecaily if they go with Brainiack, they would bring a sense of real terror to the character that has not yet been seen in the comics or in the animated series

[asgarzaei]

James Cameron
Ridley scott
Nolan - Raimi
Scorsese

Cameron, even though he hasn't done diddly for a while, cause I loved Terminator 2 (soo ahead of its time), and I liked Titanic as well. Action (T2), love story (Titanic), combine the 2 and you have the premise of SR.

Scott cause, well, Gladiator. :)

Nolan - Raimi, I put the two together since they are doing superhero flicks already, but I would have like to see how they would have approached Supes. They've done such a great job with their franchise.

Scorsese, now this is not his realm. BUT, he can be so dark, humerous, wild, and tell one heck of a story. I would have liked to see his approach.

Spielberg, because he impresses me with every flick, from Jurassic Park to AI (hey, I liked it), to Minority Report and War of the Worlds. There's one thing he's become a master at though, and that's special effects, so at least he would have that going for him.

J.J. Abrams, adding this for future reference. He needs more time to practice since he's a beginner when it comes to major motion flicks, needless to say, I loved how he handled MI3.

Might as well add people who I would hate to see do it since I don't post much.

Michael Bay
Wachowski - matrix sequels looked fake to me
Bret Ratner
McG - I can't believe he was even considered (although we are Marshall actually looks nice).

[hippie_hunter]

Well this thread has become pointless. Singer has signed back on.

[matthooper]

Well this thread has become pointless. Singer has signed back on.

We can still dream can't we?

....Or has Singer ruined our dreams too?

[hippie_hunter]

We can still dream can't we?

....Or has Singer ruined our dreams too?

:rolleyes:

[bosef982]

If I could pick a director to step in, it'd be Bryan Singer......oh wait, that already happened. :woot:

[Xybalba69]

not only that but...

[...] A few calls later, other studio insiders confirmed that the deal was finalized last week and the team that brought Superman (http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=581&Itemid=99#) Returns to theaters earlier this year will return for the sequel.[...]

meaning Singer's 3-some...

[DavidTyler]

Maybe but the point of this thread wasn't about trying to get the studio to replace him... it was about who YOU would like to see replace him. Who YOU think might make a very interesting Superman film.

So, having said that, let the game go on..

Who's next?

[explode7]

Sam Riami.

[toddly6666]

Katherine Bigelow (she's the best female action movie director - she could do a better chick flick with action than Singer can)
Guillermo Del Tora (Hellboy, Blade 2, Pan's Labyrinth - he could direct a Superman with Darkseid, space, fantasy and still make it reality based)
Terry Gilliam (he's due to make a superhero movie with all his flops)
Jeuneut (Alien 4, Amelie, Delicatessan - it would be the best visual superhero movie)
Kevin Smith (a funny Superman movie?)
Ridley Scott (an epic Superman movie?)

[DavidTyler]

Terry Gilliam? Hmmm... he should have made V for Vendetta.. perfectly in his style

[Super Kal]

I would of liked to have seen what Christopher Nolan would of done with Superman...

[skruloos]

The usual contenders for me would be James Cameron or Steven Spielberg.

Lesser known directors/unlikely choices would be:
Alfonso Cuaron
Steven Soderbergh
John McTiernan

I love John Woo as a director but he wouldn't be my first choice. As far as Asian directors go, I'd give it to Andrew Lau (who directed The Stormriders and Infernal Affairs). If not him then the following:
Ronny Yu
Zhang Yimou
Tsui Hark
Ryuhei Kitamura

[KaptainKrypton]

Katherine Bigelow (she's the best female action movie director - she could do a better chick flick with action than Singer can)
Guillermo Del Tora (Hellboy, Blade 2, Pan's Labyrinth - he could direct a Superman with Darkseid, space, fantasy and still make it reality based)
Terry Gilliam (he's due to make a superhero movie with all his flops)
Jeuneut (Alien 4, Amelie, Delicatessan - it would be the best visual superhero movie)
Kevin Smith (a funny Superman movie?)
Ridley Scott (an epic Superman movie?)
I totally forgot about Bigelow. I loved Point Break. She can really do a lot with a little. That's a great dark-horse choice.:yay:

[Silvermoth]

Singers great for me even though I wish he'd come back to the X-franchise

[The Shredder]

Definately James Cameron. :up:

[Crowforge]

No one, just bring in the big guns and have him fight a powerful foe.

[GreenKToo]

edit.

[C. Lee]

Terry Gilliam? Hmmm... he should have made V for Vendetta.. perfectly in his style
Gilliam would have been fine for V....but not so sure for Supes...he and Burton tend to do their own thing a little too much.

[bunk]

Lord...I haven't seen a single suggestion that makes more sence than Singer. Spielberg? He's my favorite director but its not like he knows the character any better. That pretty much goes for all these suggestions. We'd just get somebody elses "vision" of superman, probably more outrageous than Singer's. A Raimi Superman would be way too cheesy, his style works for Spidey but his version would end up being goofy. James Cameron is overrated and would take forever. Ridley Scott could be okay depending on the script. I like Steven Soderbergs style but he's more of a producer really. If anything should change its the writers, I guess Singer wouldn't like that tho.

[fangrl06]

Sam Raimi....he's the only director who knows how to do a Superhero movie right....with a few exceptions.

[DavidTyler]

Lord...I haven't seen a single suggestion that makes more sence than Singer. Spielberg? He's my favorite director but its not like he knows the character any better. That pretty much goes for all these suggestions. We'd just get somebody elses "vision" of superman, probably more outrageous than Singer's. A Raimi Superman would be way too cheesy, his style works for Spidey but his version would end up being goofy. James Cameron is overrated and would take forever. Ridley Scott could be okay depending on the script. I like Steven Soderbergs style but he's more of a producer really. If anything should change its the writers, I guess Singer wouldn't like that tho.

I disagree. I've seen some pretty interesting suggestions here.

As to Spielberg.. I actually think that he and Lucas grew up reading comics so he might actually be a good choice from that perspective.

What actually might be a problem is that he may want to approach it as a nostalgia peice.

[DavidTyler]

BTW, I want to thank everyone who's participated in this thread. It's been really thought provoking.

[Showtime]

Sam Raimi....he's the only director who knows how to do a Superhero movie right....with a few exceptions.

Sam Raimi just borrowed the "Template" from STM and made his Spiderman movies. He is applauded for it. Singer actually did a Superman movie with the same template and his ripped for it. Funny isnt it. :cwink:

[DarkSuperman]

"Before SM3 was even in the works. Raimi made it known that he wasn't very keen on using Venom for any of the films. Citing that "lack of humanity" he saw in the character. It was only after he was convinced by then Marvel Studios Executive Producer Avi Arad how popular the character was with fans that he decided to use him. "Avi made me aware that we can't just do the things that are our personal favorites," Raimi said. "We also have to listen to the fans and bring their favorites to the screen. And in the learning about Venom, I really developed a great appreciation for him. I was a more 60s and 70s Spider-Man guy. But the moment I really fell in love with Venom was when [screenwriter] Alvin Sargent wrote him as a character and a moreso finally when Topher played him."


Alright, now some of you may be wondering what Spider-Man 3 has to do with Superman, well my observation is a simple one. Upon reading this paragraph in the new wizard movie issue. It made me think about the thought processes of directors given the opportunity to become the caretakers of cherished and beloved characters. On the one hand you could get a guy like Raimi who loves, understands, and respects the source material immensely...then on the other you could get a guy like Singer, who isn't a bad director, he's just someone who doesn't mind completely ignoring the source material and essence of characters to fit his limited vision.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if more of these big film directors conducted themselves like say the Sam Raimi's and Robert Rodriguez's of this world. Trying their best to bring these characters to the screen, not only as they want...but as the FANS want, I think that films based on graphic novels would be more hugely successful than they already are. The track record for films who stay true to the essence of the comics are significantly higher than those who do not.

I dont know hopefully, someone on singer's team or possibly Singer himself will read that and understand what I've been trying to get people to see. Write back and give me your thoughts. :supes:

[Kabuki_Jo]

agree with ya, man.
but Singer will never read this and even if he did, he's too stubborn to implement the changes necessary.
I'm still wondering how the guy was able to ignore 70 years of comic books, cartoons and stuff which are much more faithful to the Superman character than the Donner movies.

[Super Kal]

if you want it read, post it over at bluetights.net... that's the unofficial site for the movie.

[GreenKToo]

I cant remember where I read it, (its been awhile,but maybe someone else remembers it to) but singer said that after the first X-men film,that he would never again visit forums,nor listen to the fan-boys...So I doubt he'll change his mind for the sequel to S.R.,unless he has a big change of heart....

[lexlives]

"Before SM3 was even in the works. Raimi made it known that he wasn't very keen on using Venom for any of the films. Citing that "lack of humanity" he saw in the character. It was only after he was convinced by then Marvel Studios Executive Producer Avi Arad how popular the character was with fans that he decided to use him. "Avi made me aware that we can't just do the things that are our personal favorites," Raimi said. "We also have to listen to the fans and bring their favorites to the screen. And in the learning about Venom, I really developed a great appreciation for him. I was a more 60s and 70s Spider-Man guy. But the moment I really fell in love with Venom was when [screenwriter] Alvin Sargent wrote him as a character and a moreso finally when Topher played him."


Alright, now some of you may be wondering what Spider-Man 3 has to do with Superman, well my observation is a simple one. Upon reading this paragraph in the new wizard movie issue. It made me think about the thought processes of directors given the opportunity to become the caretakers of cherished and beloved characters. On the one hand you could get a guy like Raimi who loves, understands, and respects the source material immensely...then on the other you could get a guy like Singer, who isn't a bad director, he's just someone who doesn't mind completely ignoring the source material and essence of characters to fit his limited vision.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if more of these big film directors conducted themselves like say the Sam Raimi's and Robert Rodriguez's of this world. Trying their best to bring these characters to the screen, not only as they want...but as the FANS want, I think that films based on graphic novels would be more hugely successful than they already are. The track record for films who stay true to the essence of the comics are significantly higher than those who do not.

I dont know hopefully, someone on singer's team or possibly Singer himself will read that and understand what I've been trying to get people to see. Write back and give me your thoughts. :supes:


Its a holisitc approach Raimi takes to Spiderman. He obviously is open to all the source material - even considering again what he may not have to begin with. He is flexible in his approach to Spiderman, devoted to the material and a perfectionsist who takes a strong interest in marketing his Spiderman films. Its why you never see a poor Spiderman PR photo.

If only Superman had gotten this type of outlook in its director.

Rimi is sensitive to fans in a way Singer and WB seem not to be. Love it that here you have Avi pushing fan interests on the film - for consideration anyway.

Could you ever see Alan Horn doing that?

The scary thing is that this disconnect between Singer and a more full/total view of the Superman character has apparently not been ameliorated by the poor BO and less than great reception SR had - from fans especially.

To whit - he said the kid would have a bigger role in the sequel. Now that is scary and disheartening - especially when you read something like this. Singer is a good director - he is simply not the right director for Superman. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[DarkSuperman]

Its a holisitc approach Raimi takes to Spiderman. He obviously is open to all the source material - even considering again what he may not have to begin with. He is flexible in his approach to Spiderman, devoted to the material and a perfectionsist who takes a strong interest in marketing his Spiderman films. Its why you never see a poor Spiderman PR photo.

If only Superman had gotten this type of outlook in its director.

Rimi is sensitive to fans in a way Singer and WB seem not to be. Love it that here you have Avi pushing fan interests on the film - for consideration anyway.

Could you ever see Alan Horn doing that?

The scary thing is that this disconnect between Singer and a more full/total view of the Superman character has apparently not been ameliorated by the poor BO and less than great reception SR had - from fans especially.

To whit - he said the kid would have a bigger role in the sequel. Now that is scary and disheartening - especially when you read something like this. Singer is a good director - he is simply not the right director for Superman. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I totally Agree with you. Man, I just want a great and spectacular Superman film that hits all the beats correctly and makes me feel the magic that Spider-Man did when it first came out. Didnt matter that he was spiderman for only about 30% of the film. What mattered is that he made a comic book come to life! The same way Sin City was made real, Raimi seemlessly constructed a moving comic book that enthralled me like no other comic book movie to date. After seeing how greatly he did it, it gave me hope for Superman. To see him like he is in the comics, strong, confident, powerful, and cool. I wanted to see Lois & Clark have their witty banter, I wanted to see Superman be smooth with Lois, then put foot to ass to some maniacal villain after saving Metropolis from some incredible diabolical plot that no one could find a solution to but SUPERMAN.

Singer, just didnt deliver any of that. Honestly, I just don't have the words to express my sincere disappointment and sorrow.

[lexlives]

I totally Agree with you. Man, I just want a great and spectacular Superman film that hits all the beats correctly and makes me feel the magic that Spider-Man did when it first came out. Didnt matter that he was spiderman for only about 30% of the film. What mattered is that he made a comic book come to life! The same way Sin City was made real, Raimi seemlessly constructed a moving comic book that enthralled me like no other comic book movie to date. After seeing how greatly he did it, it gave me hope for Superman. To see him like he is in the comics, strong, confident, powerful, and cool. I wanted to see Lois & Clark have their witty banter, I wanted to see Superman be smooth with Lois, then put foot to ass to some maniacal villain after saving Metropolis from some incredible diabolical plot that no one could find a solution to but SUPERMAN.

Singer, just didnt deliver any of that. Honestly, I just don't have the words to express my sincere disappointment and sorrow.

Yeah, the feeling I get is sadness over what could have been.

Singer like I said is a good director just not right for Superman. The studio/Alan Horn obviously does not value the franchise the way Avi does Spiderman. Look at the comparitive marketing strategies/efforts.

Let's hope for a belated XMAS gift - that they choose to go in a different direction rather than continue with Singer's vision. The controversy over Singer's vision just continues - you see it at movie site MBs where they are now discussing the 2006 films. WB has interns and gets feedback on the internet buzz - even if Singer does not read it. IMO it becomes increasingly untenable for WB to continue with Singer's vision as the controvery does not let up.

[Super Kal]

I cant remember where I read it, (its been awhile,but maybe someone else remembers it to) but singer said that after the first X-men film,that he would never again visit forums,nor listen to the fan-boys...So I doubt he'll change his mind for the sequel to S.R.,unless he has a big change of heart....

that's where he messes up as a superhero movie director.

[Lightning54SC]

I cant remember where I read it, (its been awhile,but maybe someone else remembers it to) but singer said that after the first X-men film,that he would never again visit forums,nor listen to the fan-boys...So I doubt he'll change his mind for the sequel to S.R.,unless he has a big change of heart....

and this is where he will FAIL as a director and a REAL FAN.... i guess its peoples wallets that will have to do the talking cuz thats the only way to get through peoples heads these days... if he wont change then get rid of him

[FlawlessVictory]

but singer said that after the first X-men film,that he would never again visit forums,nor listen to the fan-boys...

that's where he messes up as a superhero movie director.

And then Singer went onto direct a superhero movie(X2) that most people enjoyed and put towards the top of their all time favorite superhero movies. You don't need to visit forums or listen to fanboys to make a solid/great superhero movie that satisfies both the casual fans and hardcore fans, just look at Christopher Nolan. Nolan refuses to deal with computers and the internet and message boards and I'm glad he doesn't. IMO, it can only complicate matters once a director starts listening to fanboys and tries to meet their wishes.

I wish we would have gotten Raimi's original idea/vision for Spider-Man 3 instead of what we are gonna get. I think Sandman and Harry are more than enough for Peter Parker/Spider-man to deal with. But instead we have Avi's interference compromising Raimi's original plan. Although I have some serious problems with SR, I can appreciate and respect that Singer stuck to his plan and that he did not compromise himself in any manner.

[DarkSuperman]

And then Singer went onto direct a superhero Although I have some serious problems with SR, I can appreciate and respect that Singer stuck to his plan and that he did not compromise himself in any manner.

By not compromising himself, you mean he refused to see Superman for what he is and means to million of people and instead decided to remake him as he saw fit. A man who is untruthful and has casual sexual relationships with a woman he supposedly loves. All the while laughing about it as his alter ego? Its okay to be not compromising when the result is Gold as is Spiderman, Sin City, etc. But not when you have the character doing decidely unsuperman like things, just because you think the movie needs more melodrama.

Its Superman, he's above all that life time television for women crap. Singer shoulda read a couple of the comics from the past few years and he would have understood what sort of man Superman is. Uncompromising and steadfast in the decision to do right over wrong, no matter how difficult. Ya know like coming clean with Lois before you knock her up OR telling her your secret ID before you take for untold years.

But maybe I'm wrong and Superman quite often does those things.

[lexlives]

By not compromising himself, you mean he refused to see Superman for what he is and means to million of people and instead decided to remake him as he saw fit. A man who is untruthful and has casual sexual relationships with a woman he supposedly loves. All the while laughing about it as his alter ego? Its okay to be not compromising when the result is Gold as is Spiderman, Sin City, etc. But not when you have the character doing decidely unsuperman like things, just because you think the movie needs more melodrama.

Its Superman, he's above all that life time television for women crap. Singer shoulda read a couple of the comics from the past few years and he would have understood what sort of man Superman is. Uncompromising and steadfast in the decision to do right over wrong, no matter how difficult. Ya know like coming clean with Lois before you knock her up OR telling her your secret ID before you take for untold years.

But maybe I'm wrong and Superman quite often does those things.

You are as upset as many about this. Makes it frustrating when Singer does not apparently listen. To whit - he said the kid will have more airtime in a sequel.

One little thing I am doing when I get back to work this week is shooting off a letter to WB - very polite of course - expressing my desire that they seriously consider going in a new direction with the franchise.

It may not make a difference, but it will make me feel better for at least calling foul so to speak.

The studio monitors the internet and reads letters it receives and the more it realizes that this vision has not gone over the better. Remember - WB has not given Singer a hard green light yet.

[kiuju2k]

About time guys. About time :)

[FlawlessVictory]

By not compromising himself, you mean he refused to see Superman for what he is and means to million of people and instead decided to remake him as he saw fit. A man who is untruthful and has casual sexual relationships with a woman he supposedly loves. All the while laughing about it as his alter ego? Its okay to be not compromising when the result is Gold as is Spiderman, Sin City, etc. But not when you have the character doing decidely unsuperman like things, just because you think the movie needs more melodrama.

Its Superman, he's above all that life time television for women crap. Singer shoulda read a couple of the comics from the past few years and he would have understood what sort of man Superman is. Uncompromising and steadfast in the decision to do right over wrong, no matter how difficult. Ya know like coming clean with Lois before you knock her up OR telling her your secret ID before you take for untold years.

But maybe I'm wrong and Superman quite often does those things.

I have a lot of the same problems with SR as you do and I too feel Superman was out of character in some of the situations he was put in. In a strange way, I just respect the fact that Singer was allowed and able to tell the story that he wanted to tell, without others telling him what to do. I just don't feel that fanboys or discussion boards should be involved in a director's process of making a film. You do make an excellent point though with Singer just needing to look at the comics, both past and present. IMO, this would override the need of having to listen to fanboys.

[GreenKToo]

I think at the VERY least, they need some C.B. writers to consult....

[DorkyFresh]

hopefully Singer is learning from Raimi this time around...

...he's already told us that SR2 will have a lot more action and WON'T have Zod, both are things fans made well known that they wanted.

[DarkSuperman]

hopefully Singer is learning from Raimi this time around...

...he's already told us that SR2 will have a lot more action and WON'T have Zod, both are things fans made well known that they wanted.

Unfortunately, the sequel won't abrakadabra away that "accidental we don't remember how he was concieved love child" or make Lois more witty and loveable. I dont know, I just think they've painted themselves into a corner with this whole Requel thing they've done. Why put limitations on yourself like using old footage of actors from 20 years ago or trying to connect a 21st century film of a character that has evolved and grown over the years to something thats already been done. Its like 1 step forward, 2 steps back.

And you know what...I'm over blaming the writers, cause at least 90% of SR was Singers Idea. He basically MADE them write the story to his specifications, if left to their own devices who knows, maybe they coulda crafted something exciting and endearing, the way the fans wanted.

[I Am The Knight]

I think Singer staying out of message boards is the best thing he can do.

Frankly, who wants to listen to nitpicky fanboys who keep complaining about Teh suit and the lack of action, Superman iz teh peeping tom, Super-Stalker, Mopey Man, OMG Teh Kid, OMG REAL ESTATE LEX!!! blah blah blah....

I just want Singer to do his own movie, without listening to all the crap that goes around the net.

[lexlives]

I think Singer staying out of message boards is the best thing he can do.

Frankly, who wants to listen to nitpicky fanboys who keep complaining about Teh suit and the lack of action, Superman iz teh peeping tom, Super-Stalker, Mopey Man, OMG Teh Kid, OMG REAL ESTATE LEX!!! blah blah blah....

I just want Singer to do his own movie, without listening to all the crap that goes around the net.

He does so at his own risk - look at the BO. Its not just fanboys complaining - go to a generic movie site MB and see how non-fanboy moviegoers feel about these things.

[lexlives]

Unfortunately, the sequel won't abrakadabra away that "accidental we don't remember how he was concieved love child" or make Lois more witty and loveable. I dont know, I just think they've painted themselves into a corner with this whole Requel thing they've done. Why put limitations on yourself like using old footage of actors from 20 years ago or trying to connect a 21st century film of a character that has evolved and grown over the years to something thats already been done. Its like 1 step forward, 2 steps back.

And you know what...I'm over blaming the writers, cause at least 90% of SR was Singers Idea. He basically MADE them write the story to his specifications, if left to their own devices who knows, maybe they coulda crafted something exciting and endearing, the way the fans wanted.

They inded have written themselves into a creative dead end. No where to go - unless they kill the kid which they won't.

Some of us might have liked to see another potential love interest for Supes in the film. Can't happen now - unless you want to make him a cad.

Yes its Singer's fault more than the writers. But in the end it is Alan Horn's fault and the studios fault for oking the script that gave Lois a child. They could have said no - should have said no.

But its coming home to roost, poor BO, poor toy sales, poor videogame sales and its looking like nothing special about the DVD sales too.

[El Payaso]

**** the BO. If he's gonna be a sell-out Hollywood type as he has been with Spiderman, I welcome Singer even more. Cinematography should be more than toy-selling and happy executives.

[lexlives]

**** the BO. If he's gonna be a sell-out Hollywood type as he has been with Spiderman, I welcome Singer even more. Cinematography should be more than toy-selling and happy executives.


How about selling out to the movie going audience? Gee, there is a novel idea.

[DarkSuperman]

I think Singer staying out of message boards is the best thing he can do.

Frankly, who wants to listen to nitpicky fanboys who keep complaining about Teh suit and the lack of action, Superman iz teh peeping tom, Super-Stalker, Mopey Man, OMG Teh Kid, OMG REAL ESTATE LEX!!! blah blah blah....

I just want Singer to do his own movie, without listening to all the crap that goes around the net.

Its about quality. Like I've said before fans WILL forgive things they find lacking if they feel the spirit of the character was done justice. I mean you dont hear anyoen complaining about spidey's organic web shooters anymore do ya? No. And you wanna know why? Cause Raimi completely nailed the world and essence of the character.

in 30+ years when people go back and look at those spidey films, they're going to have a 90% accurate portrayal of the comic book counterpart without having to pick up a comic book. They'll understand the drama between the osbournes and spiderman, they'll get his unrequited love for MJ, they'll laugh at J. Jonah Jameson, they'll be amazed at this guy who can "Do whatever a spider can". All because 1 dude, named Raimi understood what made the comic sooooooooo beautiful in the first place. Thats ALL the fans are asking for Superman!

Colossal battles aside (which they shoulda got without asking), the costume (which they woulda overlooked had the story delivered), and whatever else they "nitpicked" about...none of those insignificant things would have mattered HAD THEY CAPTURED THE SPIRIT OF THE COMIC AND IN DOING SO PORTRAYED THE CHARACTERS AS THEY HAVE BEEN FOR THE PAST 60+ YEARS. I mean geez...its basically the equivalent of having Batman wear a purple and tangerine suit, having him trip over his own cape, and say cheesy lines like "You're right old chum!" Some things are just Soooooo far removed form the source material that even those not die hard fans can see that its not right.

I'm sorry, but as an intelligent fan of the source material and writer myself. I can't just sit back and accept whatever 1 man tells me is Superman. I know who Superman is, I have an entire closet full of his adventures and I didnt see love children or lame moral choices anywhere.:supes:

[lexlives]

Its about quality. Like I've said before fans WILL forgive things they find lacking if they feel the spirit of the character was done justice. I mean you dont hear anyoen complaining about spidey's organic web shooters anymore do ya? No. And you wanna know why? Cause Raimi completely nailed the world and essence of the character.

in 30+ years when people go back and look at those spidey films, they're going to have a 90% accurate portrayal of the comic book counterpart without having to pick up a comic book. They'll understand the drama between the osbournes and spiderman, they'll get his unrequited love for MJ, they'll laugh at J. Jonah Jameson, they'll be amazed at this guy who can "Do whatever a spider can". All because 1 dude, named Raimi understood what made the comic sooooooooo beautiful in the first place. Thats ALL the fans are asking for Superman!

Colossal battles aside (which they shoulda got without asking), the costume (which they woulda overlooked had the story delivered), and whatever else they "nitpicked" about...none of those insignificant things would have mattered HAD THEY CAPTURED THE SPIRIT OF THE COMIC AND IN DOING SO PORTRAYED THE CHARACTERS AS THEY HAVE BEEN FOR THE PAST 60+ YEARS. I mean geez...its basically the equivalent of having Batman wear a purple and tangerine suit, having him trip over his own cape, and say cheesy lines like "You're right old chum!" Some things are just Soooooo far removed form the source material that even those not die hard fans can see that its not right.

I'm sorry, but as an intelligent fan of the source material and writer myself. I can't just sit back and accept whatever 1 man tells me is Superman. I know who Superman is, I have an entire closet full of his adventures and I didnt see love children or lame moral choices anywhere.:supes:

Good point which I had not thought of. 30 years from now if people look at the Spidey films they will have about all they need to know. If they look at SR they will not have anywhere near the picture of who this character is. Great point.

You are a writer? You are frustrated? You need to follow my take and write WB on this. Letters, internet buzz - who knows, maybe it can make a difference.

[Eros]

I think it lies in that Raimi is a huge comicbook fan, like he said he was reading spider-man comics in the 60s and 70, and is a huge fan of the comic book,cartoons etc interprtation of the character. Singar was never a fan of superman comics,cartoons, and etc. He was only a fan of superman through the Donner movies. Which is where the problem lied, you need to use all sources of information about the character, before you make a superhero movie.

Now i liked Superman Returns, but i was expecting something fresh and new. Instead what we got was a tribute to a long dead movie franchise, that didn't need any further ecolades.

[El Payaso]

Raimi's Spiderman couldn't be less fresh and new.

[FlawlessVictory]

Letters, internet buzz - who knows, maybe it can make a difference.

It certainly worked for Superman 2: The Donner Cut! I find it funny though that at the time of the San Diego Comic Con these Superman boards were buzzing with the idea of how Singer was not gonna show up(for fear of hearing the displeasure of fanboys) or how Singer was gonna get railed if he did show up. Well, I listened to the audio from his appearance and one woman(I remember her mentioning how the character of Superman was compromised in the film, which I agreed with) and perhaps one other person even remotely gave Singer a hard time. The audience that was present fully applauded his appearance. The members of the audience who got a chance to ask Singer a question(besides the two) all mentioned how they loved the film and what he did with the character. Now, keep in mind, these are supposed to be "fanboys". So, my question is, if SR is so disliked among your common fanboy, then where were they at this comic con when they had a chance to speak up? Now I know many of you who who dislike this film considerably would not be able to make it out there, which is understandable and fair. But I would think that the fanboy group that was present would at least have been somewhat representative of the sentiment towards SR. So, what happened then?

[lexlives]

It certainly worked for Superman 2: The Donner Cut! I find it funny though that at the time of the San Diego Comic Con these Superman boards were buzzing with the idea of how Singer was not gonna show up(for fear of hearing the displeasure of fanboys) or how Singer was gonna get railed if he did show up. Well, I listened to the audio from his appearance and one woman(I remember her mentioning how the character of Superman was compromised in the film, which I agreed with) and perhaps one other person even remotely gave Singer a hard time. The audience that was present fully applauded his appearance. The members of the audience who got a chance to ask Singer a question(besides the two) all mentioned how they loved the film and what he did with the character. Now, keep in mind, these are supposed to be "fanboys". So, my question is, if SR is so disliked among your common fanboy, then where were they at this comic con when they had a chance to speak up? Now I know many of you who who dislike this film considerably would not be able to make it out there, which is understandable and fair. But I would think that the fanboy group that was present would at least have been somewhat representative of the sentiment towards SR. So, what happened then?

Oh, look at the BO. But if you talk fanboys and gals look at the toy sales and games sales. Its the fanboys/glas who mostly drive that - and it turned out what - nada, non, nyet.

Singer has a major problem on his hands if he is allowed to do a sequel. The good vibes he got when it was first announced he would do Superman are, like, gone. As in totally gone.

He would enter this sequel with a lot of antipathy and, frankly, I cannot see him pulling it off. Unless he kills the kid - now there is a screenplay - but he won't.

But do not take my word for it - go to a BB sequel board, a Spidey 3 board, a FF2 board - heck a Hulk board. Read the posts, feel the excitement - the way those fans are embracing their next film. Then go to any Superman site - even BT - and look at the split, the controvery, the polarization. If WB allows Singer to do a sequel they are, IMHO, playing with fire.

Tell me this is good?!

[darwinwins]

spiderman 1 and 2 aren't classics. they're light hearted and popcorn fluff. there's very little thought that goes into actually watching those movies -- pretty much like with most of his films. they're deeply fun sometimes, but it's not rocket science. the melodrama bogs down the spiderman films and wouldn't really be bringing anything new to superman cos there was enough melodrama that singer brought. there was just less pop music to go along with superman. that's probably what pisses me off most about the spiderman films -- the music. there's no timeless quality to them.

[darwinwins]

It certainly worked for Superman 2: The Donner Cut! I find it funny though that at the time of the San Diego Comic Con these Superman boards were buzzing with the idea of how Singer was not gonna show up(for fear of hearing the displeasure of fanboys) or how Singer was gonna get railed if he did show up. Well, I listened to the audio from his appearance and one woman(I remember her mentioning how the character of Superman was compromised in the film, which I agreed with) and perhaps one other person even remotely gave Singer a hard time. The audience that was present fully applauded his appearance. The members of the audience who got a chance to ask Singer a question(besides the two) all mentioned how they loved the film and what he did with the character. Now, keep in mind, these are supposed to be "fanboys". So, my question is, if SR is so disliked among your common fanboy, then where were they at this comic con when they had a chance to speak up? Now I know many of you who who dislike this film considerably would not be able to make it out there, which is understandable and fair. But I would think that the fanboy group that was present would at least have been somewhat representative of the sentiment towards SR. So, what happened then?
yes, the letter writing and fan feedback campaign really worked ... after more than 20 years, they give us the donner cut! whoohoo!! 20 years is such a short wait.

[DarkSuperman]

It certainly worked for Superman 2: The Donner Cut! I find it funny though that at the time of the San Diego Comic Con these Superman boards were buzzing with the idea of how Singer was not gonna show up(for fear of hearing the displeasure of fanboys) or how Singer was gonna get railed if he did show up. Well, I listened to the audio from his appearance and one woman(I remember her mentioning how the character of Superman was compromised in the film, which I agreed with) and perhaps one other person even remotely gave Singer a hard time. The audience that was present fully applauded his appearance. The members of the audience who got a chance to ask Singer a question(besides the two) all mentioned how they loved the film and what he did with the character. Now, keep in mind, these are supposed to be "fanboys". So, my question is, if SR is so disliked among your common fanboy, then where were they at this comic con when they had a chance to speak up? Now I know many of you who who dislike this film considerably would not be able to make it out there, which is understandable and fair. But I would think that the fanboy group that was present would at least have been somewhat representative of the sentiment towards SR. So, what happened then?

I'm assuming all this happy happy joy joy reaction they gave singer was before they saw the finished product right? I mean up until I saw the film I myself was giving him the benefit of the doubt. I'd like to see what knowledgeable people think about the film, post scriptum. I'm more than sure they have some harsh words for him. And yes, I've never been able to attend comiccon because I do live so far away from it, but I can assure you if I am in attendance at future events and singer happens to be there (which he wont...) I'm positive there isn't enough aspirin and vodka in the world to alliviate the headache I will become to that man.

[FlawlessVictory]

Oh, look at the BO. But if you talk fanboys and gals look at the toy sales and games sales. Its the fanboys/glas who mostly drive that - and it turned out what - nada, non, nyet.

Singer has a major problem on his hands if he is allowed to do a sequel. The good vibes he got when it was first announced he would do Superman are, like, gone. As in totally gone.

He would enter this sequel with a lot of antipathy and, frankly, I cannot see him pulling it off. Unless he kills the kid - now there is a screenplay - but he won't.

But do not take my word for it - go to a BB sequel board, a Spidey 3 board, a FF2 board - heck a Hulk board. Read the posts, feel the excitement - the way those fans are embracing their next film. Then go to any Superman site - even BT - and look at the split, the controvery, the polarization. If WB allows Singer to do a sequel they are, IMHO, playing with fire.

Tell me this is good?!

I'm not defending Singer. I'm just curious as to why, if there is such a displeasure among fanboys towards SR, weren't they heard more from during the San Diego Comic Con? They literally had a chance to have their voices heard. You are absolutely right about the polarization SR has caused, which I think is a shame. That should not have happened. However, now you are saying that there is an excitement among fans on the FF2 and Hulk boards. But weren't both FF and Hulk both universally disliked more than SR was?

[FlawlessVictory]

I'm assuming all this happy happy joy joy reaction they gave singer was before they saw the finished product right?

Singer appeared at the San Diego Comic Con on July 21st.

[lexlives]

I'm not defending Singer. I'm just curious as to why, if there is such a displeasure among fanboys towards SR, weren't they heard more from during the San Diego Comic Con? They literally had a chance to have their voices heard. You are absolutely right about the polarization SR has caused, which I think is a shame. That should not have happened. However, now you are saying that there is an excitement among fans on the FF2 and Hulk boards. But weren't both FF and Hulk both universally disliked more than SR was?

I don't know about ComicCon 2005. I do know fans then had not seen much and most still fantasized the kid was not Superman's. Heck, that oh so reliable BT site was trying to deny the kid was Supe's well into 2006. So WB, Singer and some sites were trying to finesse it. Something many of us find hard, if not impossible to forgive.

Hulk was disliked about like SR. Poor BO and poor DVD sales - as it is now looking for SR. The studio cut its ties to the Hulk after that and put it on hold. It is now reviving it and, go to the sites - making absolutely clear the new Hulk film has no relation to the failure of 2003. You'd think WB would take a clue - -wouldn't you?

As for FF, yest it was panned but it cost "just" 100 million to make and made 154 million or so domestic box. Well exceeding its cost domestically and money-wise doing easily better than SR -in terms of profit which is the bottom line I am told. The lesson - if you are going to scrimp on either action or story - in a superhero film - scrimp on story. Maybe sad, but true for this particular genre which Singer fails to get. Look at X-Men3 - great action and not the best of stories but it blew SR away at the BO.

The new FF film has a great script and the new teaser is better than anything Singer released teaser-wise for SR. That is why FF2 has such positive buzz right now.

And that brings us back to SR - go read the MBs and tell me - do you think it's wise that WB continue with Singer's vision? When half or more seem to be not buying it? If they continue this vision with a sequel, IMO, that will kill the franchise for decades to come.

[GreenKToo]

well,like it or not,its a pretty good bet singer will do the sequel,and prolly another after that...truth be told,I wouldnt mind a new director,but its not gonna happen,so i'm not gonna worry to much about it.

[lexlives]

well,like it or not,its a pretty good bet singer will do the sequel,and prolly another after that...truth be told,I wouldnt mind a new director,but its not gonna happen,so i'm not gonna worry to much about it.

I would not bet on that just yet. If the DVD sales cone in mediocre, as it is now looking is a possibilty, you can bet WB is going to have second thoughts. The best thing that can happen right now for Superman fans is for WB to put it all on hold for a while.

[FlawlessVictory]

I don't know about ComicCon 2005. I do know fans then had not seen much and most still fantasized the kid was not Superman's. Heck, that oh so reliable BT site was trying to deny the kid was Supe's well into 2006. So WB, Singer and some sites were trying to finesse it. Something many of us find hard, if not impossible to forgive.

Wait, did you mean Comic Con 2006? Because Singer appeared at San Diego Comic Con on July 21, 2006. This was about a month after the film was released so everyone in attendance had pretty much seen it.

[GreenKToo]

you do know that after it crossed 200 mill dom.they annonced the sequel with singer at the helm right?.If they were henging their bets on the DvD sales for a sequel,it looks like they would have waited to see the sales results before making an announcement like that..I know they could change their mind about singer,(heck,anythings possible)but I seriously doubt it.I would not bet on that just yet. If the DVD sales cone in mediocre, as it is now looking is a possibilty, you can bet WB is going to have second thoughts. The best thing that can happen right now for Superman fans is for WB to put it all on hold for a while.

[lexlives]

you do know that after it crossed 200 mill dom.they annonced the sequel with singer at the helm right?.If they were henging their bets on the DvD sales for a sequel,it looks like they would have waited to see the sales results before making an announcement like that..I know they could change their mind about singer,(heck,anythings possible)but I seriously doubt it.


I think that annoucement was more to boost DVD sales than anything else. I remain unconvinced Singer will get a hard greenlight.

But since you brought the 200 million figure up, are you aware of the curious phenomena that occurred after it? Like the daily SR take dropped 80% the week after it hit 200 million. That never happens week to week when the theatre count is bsically the same. Don't beleive me - go to boxoffice mojo for early October. Go to their daily total week before and after weekend it hit 200 million. Does that not seem odd? Like so much has with SR.

Star-crossed if ever a film was.

Its why I'm not buying this sequel talk.

[GreenKToo]

yes,I know about that,and it is curious...I really believe that their threat of.."no 200 mill dom,no sequel" was true,because it did drop afterwards,and thats when they announced it, with Bryan back.I think that annoucement was more to boost DVD sales than anything else. I remain unconvinced Singer will get a hard greenlight.

But since you brought the 200 million figure up, are you aware of the curious phenomena that occurred after it? Like the daily SR take dropped 80% the week after it hit 200 million. That never happens week to week when the theatre count is bsically the same. Don't beleive me - go to boxoffice mojo for early October. Go to their daily total week before and after weekend it hit 200 million. Does that not seem odd? Like so much has with SR.

Star-crossed if ever a film was.

Its why I'm not buying this sequel talk.

[lexlives]

yes,I know about that,and it is curious...I really believe that their threat of.."no 200 mill dom,no sequel" was true,because it did drop afterwards,and thats when they announced it, with Bryan back.

Its almost like the studio was somehow buying tickets ot what not. Just another thing about this whole SR effort that seems not right. Superman should have earned a sequel on its own right. I do not think that happened, and that does not bode at all well for a Singer sequel. Like I said, better they put it on hold for a while and then reboot. The odd BO numbers are very troublesome to me.

[FlawlessVictory]

And that brings us back to SR - go read the MBs and tell me - do you think it's wise that WB continue with Singer's vision? When half or more seem to be not buying it? If they continue this vision with a sequel, IMO, that will kill the franchise for decades to come.

It's a shame because WB did try doing the right thing by hiring Singer, a pretty well respected and talented filmmaker. In the end, I guess it just didn't work out as well as it should have for everyone who saw the film. Even with the problems I had with the film, I'm willing to give Singer another chance just as long as we get a new villain he can go toe to toe with. Just as I hear people getting excited about Silver Surfer being in the new FF movie(despite the general dislike towards the original FF movie) I think people would get excited to see a new Superman movie(still helmed by Singer) that featured a new villain from the comics and a couple of great fight sequences with a good story throughout.

[DarkSuperman]

There are tons of respected film makers out there, however thats not enough, you have to be talented and be intimately familiar with the source material. When they are the results are stellar.

Examples you ask?

Sin City Production Budget: $40 million
Worldwide Gross: $158,733,820

Spider-Man Production Budget: $139 million
Worldwide Gross: $821,708,551

Say what you want, but NUMBERS DON'T LIE. Stick to the source material and people will love you. Mostly the only times Comic Movies don't work is when full hardy directors wanna put their own little artistic spin on things. Like Ang Lee's boring, convuluted , and incoherent hulk film and Singer's Lifetime television for women approach to the man of steel.

The movies above deserve sequels cause they made like 400% profit. In order for SR to be in their league they would have had to make 500million. Which the WB said, and the last time I checked 200 million is 300 million away from 500 million. So, thats a 300 million dollars loss! All of which could have been avoided had they delivered on what the brand name of Superman inherently promises by its very nature, Action and Adventure, not Sadness and Sorrow.

Superman Returns Production Budget: $270 million
Worldwide Gross: $391,081,192

Now cut that in half and thats how much money they made cause 50% goes to the theaters and all those other 3rd parties involved. So, really...its almost as if they lost money on Superman. Its laughable, Superman shouldn't be losing to spider-man. Likewise, a movie shouldn't cost more and make less. Its just doesnt add up no matter how you slice it.

"Like his core principles, described here as truth, justice and something other than the American way, the Man of Steel is ultimately reduced to near-mortal status. Director Bryan Singer tried to have it every which way—soap opera, epic, modern relevance—and ended up with too much movie and not much to say. That Superman is downsized comes with today's cultural territory: he aches and he broods, the hero with hospitalized feet of clay—this is Superman, right?—and, when he does take flight, he's a speck on the horizon; humbled, insignificant and noticeably smaller than life."

[The Overlord]

Raimi's Spiderman couldn't be less fresh and new.

Raimi's Spider-Man movies aren't rehashes of movies that were released in 1978.

[GreenKToo]

singer said the budget was 210 mill not 270 mill,the only one reporting 270 mill is B.O.M.also they..(W.B.,alan horn)..were expecting 500 mill WORLD WIDE not DOM.

[DarkSuperman]

singer said the budget was 210 mill not 270 mill,the only one reporting 270 mill is B.O.M.also they..(W.B.,alan horn)..were expecting 500 mill WORLD WIDE not DOM.

Hahaha, Either way it didnt meet its quota did it?

[Pickle-El]

I would not bet on that just yet. If the DVD sales cone in mediocre, as it is now looking is a possibilty, you can bet WB is going to have second thoughts. The best thing that can happen right now for Superman fans is for WB to put it all on hold for a while.


Ahhhhh.

The return of lexlives......

One of the biggest jokes ever played on the Hype.

:o

Still, I welcome your posts.....at least you keep me entertained. :up:

[I Am The Knight]

Raimi's Spider-Man movies aren't rehashes of movies that were released in 1978.

Yes, they are. :o

[bosef982]

"Before SM3 was even in the works. Raimi made it known that he wasn't very keen on using Venom for any of the films. Citing that "lack of humanity" he saw in the character. It was only after he was convinced by then Marvel Studios Executive Producer Avi Arad how popular the character was with fans that he decided to use him. "Avi made me aware that we can't just do the things that are our personal favorites," Raimi said. "We also have to listen to the fans and bring their favorites to the screen. And in the learning about Venom, I really developed a great appreciation for him. I was a more 60s and 70s Spider-Man guy. But the moment I really fell in love with Venom was when [screenwriter] Alvin Sargent wrote him as a character and a moreso finally when Topher played him."


Alright, now some of you may be wondering what Spider-Man 3 has to do with Superman, well my observation is a simple one. Upon reading this paragraph in the new wizard movie issue. It made me think about the thought processes of directors given the opportunity to become the caretakers of cherished and beloved characters. On the one hand you could get a guy like Raimi who loves, understands, and respects the source material immensely...then on the other you could get a guy like Singer, who isn't a bad director, he's just someone who doesn't mind completely ignoring the source material and essence of characters to fit his limited vision.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if more of these big film directors conducted themselves like say the Sam Raimi's and Robert Rodriguez's of this world. Trying their best to bring these characters to the screen, not only as they want...but as the FANS want, I think that films based on graphic novels would be more hugely successful than they already are. The track record for films who stay true to the essence of the comics are significantly higher than those who do not.

I dont know hopefully, someone on singer's team or possibly Singer himself will read that and understand what I've been trying to get people to see. Write back and give me your thoughts. :supes:

This is the funny part. You try to slide this in as a part of your argument. One, how exactly is Singer's vision limited? He introduced a child and a fiance into Lois Lane's life! That is quite a break in the previous visions and opened up a whole new world of possibilities for Superman...not limited. Different, perhaps? Sure. But not liking something is not limited...remember that.

Also, Singer didn't have respect for the source material:

1) Directly adapted and merged the costumes from 4 different eras of Superamn.
2) Superman's landing on New Krypton, completely from Fleischer's cartoon as was the deleted scene of him changing in the closet.
3) Luthor as a mad man genius (which is Silver Age, but still legit cannon).
4) The numerous references to Superman: The Movie, which is considered pop culture canon for Superman and thrusted him into pop culture icon status.
5) The landing of the Kitty's car and the bouncing bullets, both plucked of the front covers of Superman comics.
6) Superman as the last son of Krypton, who is in love with Lois Lane.

I fail to see where Singer failed to respect source material, or is it YOUR OWN LIMITED, NARROW CENTERED VISION on post-1990s comic book that you cosnidered the "source material.' If you reference only that period as your spectrum for Superman then YOU my friend, are showing a very limited and narrow view.

But, go figure, surprise.

[El Payaso]

Say what you want, but NUMBERS DON'T LIE.

Talking about quality, yes they lie almost all the time.

Stick to the source material and people will love you.

Then why Batman 89 did more than B Begins? Lying numbers?

Raimi's Spider-Man movies aren't rehashes of movies that were released in 1978.

Yes, they are, ripping off the Superman shirt opening and all.

[DarkSuperman]

This is the funny part. You try to slide this in as a part of your argument. One, how exactly is Singer's vision limited? He introduced a child and a fiance into Lois Lane's life! That is quite a break in the previous visions and opened up a whole new world of possibilities for Superman...not limited. Different, perhaps? Sure. But not liking something is not limited...remember that.

Also, Singer didn't have respect for the source material:

1) Directly adapted and merged the costumes from 4 different eras of Superamn.
2) Superman's landing on New Krypton, completely from Fleischer's cartoon as was the deleted scene of him changing in the closet.
3) Luthor as a mad man genius (which is Silver Age, but still legit cannon).
4) The numerous references to Superman: The Movie, which is considered pop culture canon for Superman and thrusted him into pop culture icon status.
5) The landing of the Kitty's car and the bouncing bullets, both plucked of the front covers of Superman comics.
6) Superman as the last son of Krypton, who is in love with Lois Lane.

I fail to see where Singer failed to respect source material, or is it YOUR OWN LIMITED, NARROW CENTERED VISION on post-1990s comic book that you cosnidered the "source material.' If you reference only that period as your spectrum for Superman then YOU my friend, are showing a very limited and narrow view.

But, go figure, surprise.

Limited Vision = Defication of Superman's Character.

A Batman who wears pink and is too scared to jump from a rooftop isn't exactly batman now is it? Same applies to a superman who makes irreprehensible moral decisions.

Geez...you people really make me sick sometimes. You didnt hear anything I said did you? I'm more than familiar with the history of Superman I wrote a research paper on him and got an A+. But that Aside, open up your ears and listen, Powers and a fancy costume DO NOT A CHARACTER MAKE! If you were going to make a movie about mother theresa you wouldn't include a scene where she starts out as a hooker for the sake of drama would you? No! Then how come you can't see that Superman having a child out of wedlock and not being truthful about his identity, not to mention taking off for 5 years WITHOUT AN EXPLINATION is decidedly UNSUPERMAN!

"Well...Singer gave you a costume...and he made superman lift a car...and well, there was a bald dude with an evil scheme..."

And?! WTF Am I supposed to be greatful that he redid that movie that was already done? I've seen Superman lift cars and confront malevolent bald dudes my whole life! The only difference with singers version is that Superman is sooooooooo humanized...that he's no longer SUPER! Try to look past the fancy plane catching scene or the wow a bullet bounce off his eye and try to see what was done to the character of superman.

And ALL that stuff you just named 1 - 6 is superficial. I could pack cow crap into a pleasing circular shape then coat it with a thick chocolate Icing...does that mean you'd wanna take a bite? For that matter I guess you're one of the ones who thought that Batman & Robin was truthful to the source material, huh?

[El Payaso]

^ Limited vision = everything I don't like. pft.

[The Overlord]

Talking about quality, yes they lie almost all the time.



Then why Batman 89 did more than B Begins? Lying numbers?



Yes, they are, ripping off the Superman shirt opening and all.

Spider-Man ripping his shirt happened for about a second in the movie, SR lifted the entire plot structure of Superman I. Big difference.

[lexlives]

Spider-Man ripping his shirt happened for about a second in the movie, SR lifted the entire plot structure of Superman I. Big difference.

Very good rebuttal - I will have to keep that in mind.

[Maze]

Spider-Man ripping his shirt happened for about a second in the movie, SR lifted the entire plot structure of Superman I. Big difference.
Yup

And Rami lifted pratically the entire story of Superman 2 and the tone of the Donner movies.

That's a big difference ;)

[explode7]

I wonder if Riami would mind doing a superman movie???

[Maze]

Limited Vision = Defication of Superman's Character.

A Batman who wears pink and is too scared to jump from a rooftop isn't exactly batman now is it? Same applies to a superman who makes irreprehensible moral decisions.

Geez...you people really make me sick sometimes. You didnt hear anything I said did you? I'm more than familiar with the history of Superman I wrote a research paper on him and got an A+. But that Aside, open up your ears and listen, Powers and a fancy costume DO NOT A CHARACTER MAKE! If you were going to make a movie about mother theresa you wouldn't include a scene where she starts out as a hooker for the sake of drama would you? No! Then how come you can't see that Superman having a child out of wedlock and not being truthful about his identity, not to mention taking off for 5 years WITHOUT AN EXPLINATION is decidedly UNSUPERMAN!

"Well...Singer gave you a costume...and he made superman lift a car...and well, there was a bald dude with an evil scheme..."

And?! WTF Am I supposed to be greatful that he redid that movie that was already done? I've seen Superman lift cars and confront malevolent bald dudes my whole life! The only difference with singers version is that Superman is sooooooooo humanized...that he's no longer SUPER! Try to look past the fancy plane catching scene or the wow a bullet bounce off his eye and try to see what was done to the character of superman.

And ALL that stuff you just named 1 - 6 is superficial. I could pack cow crap into a pleasing circular shape then coat it with a thick chocolate Icing...does that mean you'd wanna take a bite? For that matter I guess you're one of the ones who thought that Batman & Robin was truthful to the source material, huh?
DarkSuperman,


Well i assume that you don't know a lot Bosef..if that's the case i understand why you think that he is in superficial stuff.. the thing is not only Bosef really has an eye to look past the fancy stuff but that , he is not into Batman and Robin style cbm movie no.and neither "faithful" cbm movies *but rather simply in good movies.

Mother Theresa? Mother Theresa has not one "hundreth different version" of her character..and no, the "changes" ( or rather the character crisis ) was quite less drastic than the Byrne Treatement for example.. and was quite understandable in the context of this movie..Personnaly i saw a man ..a good man.. in pain ..and because of that making mistakes ..( such as leaving without explanation..) and a Superman.. admirable.Because able,ultimately, to overcame his flaws ..and his pain..

ps: yup good for you for the A :yay: and i have always collected A in cinema classes. So what do we do , we do a competition ? or we simply share our knowledge? :) i'm sure that i can learn some new things on Superman :) ( i read the comics in the late 80 ,a little in late 90 and some Curt Swan comics.. )

Merry Christmas :) (a little late , but hey it's never too late ! )

[Sun_Down]

I definitely like how Raimi has approach Spider-Man, but I don't think giving the fans what they want is necessarily a good thing. Look at X3, for example. All we heard after X2 was "more characters!" and "more action!" They tossed in all of these cameoes to try and please the fans and we in turn got the weakest X-Men film in the trilogy. The OP cites Venom as an example of listening to the fans being a good thing, but we haven't even seen the movie. We know for a fact that he's only on-screen for a few minutes and Raimi admits that he was basically thrown in, but you're already praising him for it? I dunno, doesn't seem like we should be cannonizing Sam Raimi and throwing stones at Bryan Singer for that.

[lexlives]

I definitely like how Raimi has approach Spider-Man, but I don't think giving the fans what they want is necessarily a good thing. Look at X3, for example. All we heard after X2 was "more characters!" and "more action!" They tossed in all of these cameoes to try and please the fans and we in turn got the weakest X-Men film in the trilogy. The OP cites Venom as an example of listening to the fans being a good thing, but we haven't even seen the movie. We know for a fact that he's only on-screen for a few minutes and Raimi admits that he was basically thrown in, but you're already praising him for it? I dunno, doesn't seem like we should be cannonizing Sam Raimi and throwing stones at Bryan Singer for that.

But Raimi has done more than please fans - go to a Spiderman 3 movie board and those guys and gals are totally stoked, completely different from the tone on SR boards this time last year and now for that matter - he has pleased general audiences and critics. Fans love the films, critics love the films and audiences do based on the huge BO.

Now compare that to SR.

[Maze]

But Raimi has done more than please fans - go to a Spiderman 3 movie board and those guys and gals are totally stoked, completely different from the tone on SR boards this time last year and now for that matter - he has pleased general audiences and critics. Fans love the films, critics love the films and audiences do based on the huge BO.

Now compare that to SR.
Well , compare the many incarnation of Superman to those of Spiderman ( without forgetting that there were at last two Superman movies that were embraced by the fans) Raimi was not exactly in the same position as Singer.

Now yes , Raimi has done two good (and much more commercial imo)spiderman movies. as Singer has done one good movie (and despite its flaws more sophiscated and less commercial imo )

[lexlives]

Well , compare the many incarnation of Superman to those of Spiderman ( without forgetting that there were at last two Superman movies that were embraced by the fans) Raimi was not exactly in the same position as Singer.

Now yes , Raimi has done too good (but very commercial imo)spiderman movies.

I agree the first 2 Superman films were embraced by fans, audiences and critics. Very similar to the Spiderman films today.

But SR is a totally different situation.

Go to any FF2 MB, BB 2 or Spiderman 3 MB and the fans are just totally stoked and excited about those sequels.

Go to any Superman MB and the fans are totally split. Many are not at all interested in a sequel.

Something is way off with that picture because the diffeence between an SR sequel and these others is not just a little in terms of anticipation. There is a huge diffference in anticipation levels.

Its just fans some say - well fans can make a difference in the BO. I think the split over SR among fans that played out on the internet during production hurt SR at the box office. I definitely know where I work lots of eemployees have screen savers up for Spiderman 3 or FF2. Free advertising - 6,000 in the building. I saw nothing like that with Superman.

WB has their peeps out I am sure and they have got to be concerned about this. They would be foolish if they were not.

[FlawlessVictory]

I definitely like how Raimi has approach Spider-Man, but I don't think giving the fans what they want is necessarily a good thing. Look at X3, for example. All we heard after X2 was "more characters!" and "more action!" They tossed in all of these cameoes to try and please the fans and we in turn got the weakest X-Men film in the trilogy. The OP cites Venom as an example of listening to the fans being a good thing, but we haven't even seen the movie. We know for a fact that he's only on-screen for a few minutes and Raimi admits that he was basically thrown in, but you're already praising him for it? I dunno, doesn't seem like we should be cannonizing Sam Raimi and throwing stones at Bryan Singer for that.

I feel the same way. Some people are going nuts because Venom will be in the new Spider-Man movie and they are praising Raimi for listening to Avi who had been suggesting to Raimi that this is what the fans want. But what happens if Venom only turns out to be in the film for 10 minutes and Brock ends up being killed? Would it still be worth it then? I would have much rather waited for another film to show Venom rather than have his story share screentime with so many other characters and other storylines. It will be real interesting to see what the fan reaction will be if Venom does indeed get shafted in this film(short screentime and death).

[DarkSuperman]

To Clarify...

I'm not praising Raimi for the lnclusion of Venom into spider-man 3, I'm praising him for understanding the characters that he is making a movie about. Superman's greatest power is his inherent understanding of what is good and what is evil. Its this understanding that makes him so good at what he does.

Is having sex with a woman you claim to love under false pretenses IE. Not telling her who you really are, then leaving her without saying goodbye, wrong or right? I'd like to think thats pretty wrong. Simply put, Superman wouldn't do that because it is wrong. He's strong enough to make the tough decisions and tell her the truth or at the very least say I'm leaving.

Bottom Line: Raimi hasn't had Peter Parker making any decisions that compromise his character, the same goes for the other characters in the film. Aunt May would never sell peters secret ID to the Bugle for a few bucks. Why? Cause its not in her character...

I'm only saying that in Singer's film...Superman, did things that isn't in his character. By humanizing Superman to such a degree, Singer took away his most admirable power...his inexorable ethics and moral nature. Superman quite frankly is better than us, so he shouldn't make those sorts of mistakes.

Do you think I'm wrong to feel this way?

[GreenKToo]

well peter did ignore the guy getting mugged in spidey 2..he just turned his head,and walked away.

[lexlives]

To Clarify...

I'm not praising Raimi for the lnclusion of Venom into spider-man 3, I'm praising him for understanding the characters that he is making a movie about. Superman's greatest power is his inherent understanding of what is good and what is evil. Its this understanding that makes him so good at what he does.

Is having sex with a woman you claim to love under false pretenses IE. Not telling her who you really are, then leaving her without saying goodbye, wrong or right? I'd like to think thats pretty wrong. Simply put, Superman wouldn't do that because it is wrong. He's strong enough to make the tough decisions and tell her the truth or at the very least say I'm leaving.

Bottom Line: Raimi hasn't had Peter Parker making any decisions that compromise his character, the same goes for the other characters in the film. Aunt May would never sell peters secret ID to the Bugle for a few bucks. Why? Cause its not in her character...

I'm only saying that in Singer's film...Superman, did things that isn't in his character. By humanizing Superman to such a degree, Singer took away his most admirable power...his inexorable ethics and moral nature. Superman quite frankly is better than us, so he shouldn't make those sorts of mistakes.

Do you think I'm wrong to feel this way?

Not me - the character of Superman - his uniquness, his stand for truth and justice yes even his corny morality was lost in this script and in the film that ensued.

The funny thing is fans blasted Ratner and other director's ideas for a Superman film. They were just proposing costume changes mainly - but here we have a core change to the character himself. Far more wrong IMO than the Peter's suit change.

Superman would not leave w/o saying goodbye and the whole kid thing.

Superman stands apart - is better than us, but Singer made him just one of us and in the process the essence was lost. He becomes no different that Peter Parker/Spiderman or Bruce Wayne/Batman. And that is one battle - appealing on the same level as those characters - that Superman can't win.

This is why this film does not sit right with so many. The vibe is just wrong. That is not going to change.

I don't see Singer or WB "fixing" it or even trying. But failure to do so will make any sequel as ill-embraced by many as SR was.

The only way out for this version of the franchise, and Singer/WB don't have the what it takes to do this, is to kill Jason off in a Singer sequel.

Let Superman feel rage and a desire for vengeance as he has never felt before. That gives you the kick a** action as he goes after whomever did it.

Let it split Lois and Superman apart opening doors maybe for Lana. Let it bring Lois and Clark together - taking Lois/Clark/Supes and their triangle to a whole new place.

Its going to take something radical like this to save this incarnation of the franchise IMO.

[bosef982]

Limited Vision = Defication of Superman's Character.

A Batman who wears pink and is too scared to jump from a rooftop isn't exactly batman now is it? Same applies to a superman who makes irreprehensible moral decisions.

Geez...you people really make me sick sometimes. You didnt hear anything I said did you? I'm more than familiar with the history of Superman I wrote a research paper on him and got an A+. But that Aside, open up your ears and listen, Powers and a fancy costume DO NOT A CHARACTER MAKE! If you were going to make a movie about mother theresa you wouldn't include a scene where she starts out as a hooker for the sake of drama would you? No! Then how come you can't see that Superman having a child out of wedlock and not being truthful about his identity, not to mention taking off for 5 years WITHOUT AN EXPLINATION is decidedly UNSUPERMAN!

"Well...Singer gave you a costume...and he made superman lift a car...and well, there was a bald dude with an evil scheme..."

And?! WTF Am I supposed to be greatful that he redid that movie that was already done? I've seen Superman lift cars and confront malevolent bald dudes my whole life! The only difference with singers version is that Superman is sooooooooo humanized...that he's no longer SUPER! Try to look past the fancy plane catching scene or the wow a bullet bounce off his eye and try to see what was done to the character of superman.

And ALL that stuff you just named 1 - 6 is superficial. I could pack cow crap into a pleasing circular shape then coat it with a thick chocolate Icing...does that mean you'd wanna take a bite? For that matter I guess you're one of the ones who thought that Batman & Robin was truthful to the source material, huh?


Presume all you will that I'm wrapped up in spectacle, but your tirade accomplished very little other than to ffer more points for me to show how you're wrong. And as a note, doing a research paper on Superman and getting an A+ doesn't really speak about your credentials to lecture others on morality or Superman -- it simply says that your teacher thought you had a well-researched paper. Also, if we are to relegate one's legitmacy to lecture and define Superman by something like an A+ paper, I could easily come back and make the point that Bryan Singer is an accomplished filmmaker who has created a 2 1/2 hour Superman film that was endorsed by nearly every legendary figure in Superman's history, won rave reviews, has Oscar considerations, and grossed over 300 million dollars worldwide. Your measly A+ paper on good writing skills hardly seems to weather the comparison in terms of who can speak legitmately on Superman, does it? That is of course, if we go by your "I wrote a paper on Superman" angle -- which is bunk.

Moving on...

First and foremost, you CANNOT win a debate about the quality of Superman Returns by ascribing and relying on your own subjective moral standards and interpretations.

Comparing Superman to Mother Teresa and a hooker are simply nonsense. Mother Teresa is governed by the laws of our world, by the laws of our existence and we can say, using the past as a reference point, that there is a moral conflict between being Mother T and a hooker. Plain and simple.

However, I have yet to see the Bible, Koran, Talmud, or any other holy book from which most people derive an awfully subjective morality EVER speak on the morality of an ALIEN coming to Earth and falling in love with a human woman. Let's indulge your moral argument for a moment, and endorse for the time being your own moral value code which has been abandoned by most of mainstream society in favor of a more inclusive, realistic moral system.

Superman and Lois have sex. This would be your first objection. Sex before marriage is bad. The only reason having a child out of wedlock is evil in many eyes is because it follows as a function of having sex before marriage, an act that is typically frowned upon by Judeo-Christian sectors. However, most of society has left this idea behind in the days where we felt women should cook and take care of the kids and shouldn't work in offices. When we decided that the color of a person's skin doesn't neccessary speak much about their character, we also decided to become fairer and more realisitc in other areas -- sexuality included. For the most part, it's work. Abandoning our Victorian stiffness for a more progressive stance has allowed a greater freedom for many people, including many religions who can now attract more into their ranks by offering a more inclusive, realistic lifestyle guide.

So, the idea of Superman and Lois having a child out of wedlock being immoral is outdated. But, let us say that it still is "immoral" to have sex outside of marriage and to have a child from such a union. This ascribes to HUMANITY -- not to quasi-Gods from other planets. Superman, realistically, could not marry Lois. Although its been done in the comics, it is a dangerous scenario to have Superman wedding Lois, not to mention extremely difficult. Thus, Lois and Superman's relatiosnhip already operates on a level above human morality. Remember, Lois and Superman have sex after Superman gives up his powers to be with her. This, in and on itself, is its own sort of commiment surpassing marriage in many ways. It is ironic that you make the point that Superman is "not us" and is "above us" yet ensare him with our own moral laws which were designed as a safeguard against what more narrow-minded people saw as your inherent base weakness. But that' sjust one of many contradictions in your argument.

Now, as to the child. As usual, Moral Guardians throw logic and common sense to the wind in ordre to mount their soap boxes and preach. Superman leaving Lois after they had sex is not a violation of any moral code. He did not know he impregnated her -- for all he knew it was impossible due to their DNA. They had a relationship prior to him leaving. It wasn't like Superman screwed her, and the next morning left Earth.

Now, to also say Superman is "immoral" because he left Lois without saying a word is bunk. Morality is something inherent to human existence. It is a violation of sorts of a natural code. If my friend fails to call me back when they said they would, I have no right to call them up the next day and tell them that they are "immoral." Rude? Yes. Inconsiderate? Of course. Superamn has never been painted as being ABOVE fallacy, in either the comics or the movies. Donner's Superman used his powers to show up the people who bullied him; comics Superman killed two Phantom Zoners...there are many occassions where the ethical line of Superman's power use is blurred if we ascribed onto them a subjective, outdated morality.

But Superman leaving is not a moral issue. It's a issue of rudness, of manners, of common courtesy. All of which are admitted by Superman as having been abandoned when he left. However, the way you write about Superman leaving insinuatse that Superman left as a CAUSE OF LOIS AND HE HAVING SEX. But we both know that's not true, don't we? Superman left because he had hope of finding his homeworld, after spending yeras alone and feeling like the last of his kind. He couldn't say goodbye to Lois because he was afraid it'd make him stay...he panicked and left. Wrong? Of course. Understandable? Absolutely. And its' not like he doesnt' apologize. He comes back and makes amends to Lois. Also notice that undercurrent of his respose to "how could you leave us like that?" It's essentially because "I hear everything." He's speaking about how constantly being on-call, hearing all of humanity, being alone in the universe produces such a desire, a need to find his brethern when hope is presented...and Lois gets it, why? Because she realizes she cannot possibly understand his burden because HE IS NOT ONE OF US...something you pointed out in defense of your poitns, but that you failed to follow through on because of its conflict with disproving many of your points. We cannot judge what we cannot relate to...period. You, again with your presumptous morality, do.


Not immoral at all. Not anything less than Superman. And certaintly not comparable to Mother Teresa being a Hooker.

Lifting cars? You've seen that before. This is the irony of you naysayers.

You ***** and complain about not seeing anything new...you're giving something new and you throw up your hands and whine about not liking what you got. You got a more emotional Superman. You got Superman and Lois' relationship elevated to a new lelve whereby she is Martha kent and Richard is Jonahthan kent for Superman's now son. Not new? Nothing different.

Let me explain something to you: after having existed for 60+ years, there is nothing that is going to grace that screen in terms of action that you HAVEN'T already seen before, Dark Superman. Persuaded yourself to believe in the unrealistic alternative, but you're just not. The way to do it is construct a emotional, dramatic storyline that offers a different context in which these action sequences which we've seen in movies are elevated and resonate in a different way.

So, instead of Superman saving a plane from a freefall. We have Superman returning to the world, Lois sensing him saving them, and his dramatic reveal to the world as he returns. Instead of Superman just stopping bullets, we have Superman leaving, devesated after hearing Lois never loved hiim, finding his perch (which we've never seen before) and zooming down to distract himself with an robbery. Instead of Superman simply saving Lois, we have Superman having to save Metropolis first thereby allowign Richard to be the hero. The emotional context of the scene elevates and manipulates teh traditional action in such a way whereby its no longer unoriginal.

About Superman being anything less than super. Not only did he save the world at the near-expense of his life -- which, I guess isn't super enough for you Dark Superman. But Superman respects totally the realtionship and life that Lois has created in his absence. Not only that, but for the safety and sake of his own son's life, he gives his son up to Lois and Richard to be rasied by them, despite his own undying love for Lois. Is that not "super" not only on a phsyical level but also on a spiritual and integrity-level?

My point is this:

Don't come on these boards passively flaunting your Bible or whatever other book you subscribe to as if 1) anyone's interested and 2) as if it relates to the topics at hand. Deriding Superman as an immoral person is as ignorant and futile an attack as trying to prove that women are inferior to men and should be left iin the home.

You're comments on having "seen this before" are a result of your own desperate attempts to sustain an argument that has nothing to do with having seen it before, but instead a subjective morality that we've alreayd realized has no place here. They are also Catch-22, for the things that you are offered as different aren't different enough, despit them totally changing the "flash and glam" aspects of the film by their own dramatic contexts.

Plain and simple: you didn't get what you want and now you're pouting about it. Regardless of how many papers you wrote about Superman, despite how well you may construct your arguments, despite how high you stack your soap boxes before you stand atop it and preach, you are still nothing more than a disgruntled fanboy who's only LIMITED AND EXCLUSIVE VISION OF SUPERMAN was not given to him and now, as many with their own self-righteous agendas, have to make a moral case out of your own inablity to widen your horizons to new and different interpretations of a traditional hero who was already on his way out the door due to more relevant and realsitic heroes like Spider-Man and Batman.

Superman is back, where he is your Superman or not is irrelevant.

[Immortalfire]

On the flip side, if Spidey had been done the Bryan Singer way, we'd have had a follow up to the live action show of the 70's.

[bosef982]

On the flip side, if Spidey had been done the Bryan Singer way, we'd have had a follow up to the live action show of the 70's.


Yours is an oversimplification and misreprestation of the issue for the sake of sarcasm.

The Spider-Man live-action series did not cement into an ENTIRE CULTURE a hero. Donner's Superman movies produced an American icon not only in Christopher Reeve but in Superman himself, elevating him to an altogether unheard of fame for comic book heroes. It was universal. It was on the level of Star Wars in our collective consciosness and our pop culture idealogies. The Spider-Man live action series was nowhere near this. It was a fart in the wind.

Singer felt the need to pay homage to this prior history out of its importance and permeanance in society. It was a succesfful franchise that elevated and created a hero for the common public....for decades!!! He decided it was unwise to retell an already famous story and instead create a launching pad for newer stories while paying respect to a fondly remembered past.

Not to mention, that Singer pulled not only from Donner, but many other prior Superman sources like the Fleishcer cartoons and the George Reeve serials. This is agian soemthing that despite whining and *****ing, many naysayers cannot change.

Your sarcasm was quick and somewhat funny, but it loses its punch because its simply not true.

[The Overlord]

Yup

And Rami lifted pratically the entire story of Superman 2 and the tone of the Donner movies.

That's a big difference ;)

Wrong, that story was done in ASM# 50 way before Donner put it on screen.