Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion

[Sam]

I don't know about Punisher WZ (never saw it) but they definitely rebooted The Hulk.

Thats what the studio says, but Incredible Hulk didnt rebooted the franchises. U can watch it pretty much as a sequel with different actors.

Second movie even starts with Bruce in Brazil.. where he was at the end of the first one? Amazon, right?

Incredible Hulk is a semi-sequel, semi-reboot kind of thing.

Batman Begins IS a reboot.

[NeoRanger]

I don't know about Punisher WZ (never saw it) but they definitely rebooted The Hulk.
With the only difference that The Incredible Hulk didn't under-perform, because it was a reboot, it under-performed despite being a reboot. And mainly because of the bad impression the first Hulk had made.

The comparison with TDK is illogical. TDK did well for several reasons, including the fact that "Batman Begins" left audiences mostly with a good taste in their mouths and enough excitement for a sequel... something Superman Returns, just like Lee's Hulk had failed to do.

[I Am The Knight]

I don't think TIH was superior to Lee's Hulk, but it clearly stablishes itself as a reboot, even though it awkwardly came off as a sequel to general audiences.

Thats what the studio says, but Incredible Hulk didnt rebooted the franchises. U can watch it pretty much as a sequel with different actors.

Second movie even starts with Bruce in Brazil.. where he was at the end of the first one? Amazon, right?

Incredible Hulk is a semi-sequel, semi-reboot kind of thing.

Batman Begins IS a reboot.

Look, I know what you're trying to say, but...No, it's a reboot. SR is a vague/semi sequel. TIH is not.

[hippie_hunter]

If they move forward with a direct sequel that comment will come back and haunt them. It doesn't go well publically when you have a top WB exec denouncing a film that they end up making a sequel to. It makes those on the fence regarding the franchise lose confidence in it. If there is no full confidence and commitment by a top exec, why should others believe in the Singer franchise? What does Robinov even say if they do move forward with a sequel. "I was just kidding". :huh:

But he really didn't denounce the film. He pretty much just admitted the truth that Superman Returns was a financially disappointing movie.

Whether you're in the absurd belief that the film was a downright bomb that lost tens of millions of dollars or was a financially successful film for Warner Bros., it's pretty undebatable fact that Superman Returns did not make the money that Warner Bros wanted. And even though it was a critical hit, it wasn't the hit that they wanted with the fans and general audience.

And really he said "reintroduce" Superman. That can easily be interpreted as a reboot or a sequel or even a vague sequel. Superman Returns was a reintroduction of Superman and it was a sequel to Superman the Movie and Superman II.

[hippie_hunter]

With the only difference that The Incredible Hulk didn't under-perform, because it was a reboot, it under-performed despite being a reboot. And mainly because of the bad impression the first Hulk had made.

The comparison with TDK is illogical. TDK did well for several reasons, including the fact that "Batman Begins" left audiences mostly with a good taste in their mouths and enough excitement for a sequel... something Superman Returns, just like Lee's Hulk had failed to do.

I would say that people liked Superman Returns far more than Ang Lee's Hulk.

[sdc10]

Thats what the studio says, but Incredible Hulk didnt rebooted the franchises. U can watch it pretty much as a sequel with different actors.

Second movie even starts with Bruce in Brazil.. where he was at the end of the first one? Amazon, right?

Incredible Hulk is a semi-sequel, semi-reboot kind of thing.

Batman Begins IS a reboot.

The only reason someone may take it as a pseudo sequel is because they didnt dedicate half of the movie retelling the origin. Quite frankly they didnt need to, I think the movie set set a good example of how most of a superhero movie does not need to be about the origin.

[sdc10]

I would say that people liked Superman Returns far more than Ang Lee's Hulk.

Thats like picking the lesser of two evils in my opinion:csad:

[Excel]

I dont see why theyd go direct sequel; the franchise has so much potential that wont be reached in the same directiom.

I dont care if people agree/disagree, what I am about to say IS very accurate assessment of what happened to Superman at the box office.

1. INCREDIBLY unmarketable movie.
-Roughly half the special effects used in the film couldnt be used in promotional matiriel:

A) The New Krypton continue was incredibly ugly and dull, not exciting in the least.

B) The return to Krypton crap got cut.

Superman himself looked dated in his dark, retro costume. The retro and dark look of the film as a whole simply looked out of date and couldnt be shown in trailers. There were not many quick action cuts for money shots; Singer preferred for these long sweeping shots during his action scenes, making them both less exciting AND more expensive.

This, obviously, led to...

2. A horrible, hideous marketing campaign (save for a few posters)
-The marketing effort RETURNS kicked off the unnappealing and very unoriginal cartoonish teaser poster. Then we got that hideous teaser with Harry Potter 4 that made the film look incredibly boring and totally unnessecary. It did get awareness up, but I would bet anything W.B. would tell right now that trailer was a disaster.

Then they wisely held off on new matirel until that even WORSE trailer with MI3 in May. That had a decent opening build but the 2nd half went totally down hill, the look boring and messy. The tv spot campaign was good given how hard it was to sell a Superman film with very little action outside ofthe plane scene.

3. It had arguably the WORST release date of a big blockbuster in the past 25 years.

Peopel can think whatever they want, but TRUST ME ON THIS ONE, ANYBODY who followed the box office KNEW Pirates 2 was going to break Spidey 1s record the day they announced Pirates 2 release date. W.B. made a downright IDIOTIC and COLLOSAL blunder, releasing it so close.

So, you got a horrible marketing campaign because the film was unmarketable, combined with the fact that the film, along with a sure to be dissappointing opening due to horrible marketing, would get CRUSHED from its 2nd weekend on from the competition.

And what happened? The film STILL managed to make 200 million dollars in the United States In fact, if Pirates 2 isnt so close, it is EXTREMELY likely that SR, the boring, hard to market movie that it was, TOPS 250 million in the U.S.

Now, just think if superman WAS marketable (ala Transformers, Iron Man, Spidey), WAS exciting/not boring (ala Batman Begins, TDK, ect), AND had a good release date?

It would be hard to see 250 million as the starting point, to put it simply.

[FaT_tONle]

And really he said "reintroduce" Superman. That can easily be interpreted as a reboot or a sequel or even a vague sequel. Superman Returns was a reintroduction of Superman and it was a sequel to Superman the Movie and Superman II.

So you are saying we need another SR mold for the next film??? I get what you are saying... I just think it's a bad idea when the film makers are unsure of what exactly they want to make. Punisher: WZ did nothing... TIH did nothing unless making your budget back counts for anything... the worst thing you can do is go half and half again. It will fail.

[dark_b]

SR with a better realese date and 10 minutes of more action(including a short fight) would make enough profit for a sequel in 2009.

[dark_b]

3. It had arguably the WORST release date of a big blockbuster in the past 25 years.

Peopel can think whatever they want, but TRUST ME ON THIS ONE, ANYBODY who followed the box office KNEW Pirates 2 was going to break Spidey 1s record the day they announced Pirates 2 release date. W.B. made a downright IDIOTIC and COLLOSAL blunder, releasing it so close.

So, you got a horrible marketing campaign because the film was unmarketable, combined with the fact that the film, along with a sure to be dissappointing opening due to horrible marketing, would get CRUSHED from its 2nd weekend on from the competition.

And what happened? The film STILL managed to make 200 million dollars in the United States In fact, if Pirates 2 isnt so close, it is EXTREMELY likely that SR, the boring, hard to market movie that it was, TOPS 250 million in the U.S.

Now, just think if superman WAS marketable (ala Transformers, Iron Man, Spidey), WAS exciting/not boring (ala Batman Begins, TDK, ect), AND had a good release date?

It would be hard to see 250 million as the starting point, to put it simply.http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=202318
:cwink:

[hippie_hunter]

I dont see why theyd go direct sequel; the franchise has so much potential that wont be reached in the same directiom.

I dont care if people agree/disagree, what I am about to say IS very accurate assessment of what happened to Superman at the box office.

1. INCREDIBLY unmarketable movie.
-Roughly half the special effects used in the film couldnt be used in promotional matiriel:

A) The New Krypton continue was incredibly ugly and dull, not exciting in the least.

B) The return to Krypton crap got cut.

Superman himself looked dated in his dark, retro costume. The retro and dark look of the film as a whole simply looked out of date and couldnt be shown in trailers. There were not many quick action cuts for money shots; Singer preferred for these long sweeping shots during his action scenes, making them both less exciting AND more expensive.

This, obviously, led to...
A reimagined sequel can make a marketable movie. Have Superman in a more traditional costume and don't cut out a lot of cool parts of the film.
A sequel would need to have changes, but it can be marketed.

2. A horrible, hideous marketing campaign (save for a few posters)
-The marketing effort RETURNS kicked off the unnappealing and very unoriginal cartoonish teaser poster. Then we got that hideous teaser with Harry Potter 4 that made the film look incredibly boring and totally unnessecary. It did get awareness up, but I would bet anything W.B. would tell right now that trailer was a disaster.

Then they wisely held off on new matirel until that even WORSE trailer with MI3 in May. That had a decent opening build but the 2nd half went totally down hill, the look boring and messy. The tv spot campaign was good given how hard it was to sell a Superman film with very little action outside ofthe plane scene.
Considering how Warner Bros. is marketing Watchmen and marketed the Dark Knight, I think they really improved their marketing skills.

3. It had arguably the WORST release date of a big blockbuster in the past 25 years.

Peopel can think whatever they want, but TRUST ME ON THIS ONE, ANYBODY who followed the box office KNEW Pirates 2 was going to break Spidey 1s record the day they announced Pirates 2 release date. W.B. made a downright IDIOTIC and COLLOSAL blunder, releasing it so close.

So, you got a horrible marketing campaign because the film was unmarketable, combined with the fact that the film, along with a sure to be dissappointing opening due to horrible marketing, would get CRUSHED from its 2nd weekend on from the competition.

And what happened? The film STILL managed to make 200 million dollars in the United States In fact, if Pirates 2 isnt so close, it is EXTREMELY likely that SR, the boring, hard to market movie that it was, TOPS 250 million in the U.S.

Now, just think if superman WAS marketable (ala Transformers, Iron Man, Spidey), WAS exciting/not boring (ala Batman Begins, TDK, ect), AND had a good release date?

It would be hard to see 250 million as the starting point, to put it simply.
True

[FaT_tONle]

SR with a better realese date and 10 minutes of more action(including a short fight) would make enough profit for a sequel in 2009.

Not really... I mean what were they gonna do... have Superman lift a few more things or contain a few more explosions. You can't make an action packed Superman like that. There has to be something that can physically challenge Superman that is obviously alive... not hand to hand combat of humans armed with Kryptonite. At least with Hancock they extended some of those sequences with ordinary bad guys. SR barely did that... other than a bullet catch with the eye ball.

And back to the release date which is sort of a favorite topic of mine... if last week of June pretty much two weeks prior to POTC 2 is the worst release date... can't wait to see how Supes fairs against an Avengers type film two weeks later. That's why 2011 is too soon and a bad idea altogether.

[hippie_hunter]

So you are saying we need another SR mold for the next film???
No, personally I think the next Superman film should be an origin reboot with Routh so that all Superman fans can get on board.

I'm just simply saying that it's pretty easy to interpret Robinov's comments into completely different ideas.

I get what you are saying... I just think it's a bad idea when the film makers are unsure of what exactly they want to make. Punisher: WZ did nothing... TIH did nothing unless making your budget back counts for anything... the worst thing you can do is go half and half again. It will fail.
Punisher: War Zone failed because it looked stupid and pissed off the fans by being an unnecessary reboot.

The Incredible Hulk wasn't a box office hit mostly because of the previous Hulk film's reputation.

Superman on the other hand is different. He's a much bigger character than Punisher and Hulk. I think that any Superman film, whether it be reboot or sequel, can be a huge hit if made right, marketed correctly, and put in a good opening day slot.

That's what Warner Bros. did with Batman in the Dark Knight. The film before it wasn't the box office hit they wanted it to be, but it had a very good reputation. But Warner Bros. did everything perfect with the Dark Knght. They let Nolan put out his excellent vision onto film the way he wanted it to. They excellently marketed it. And they put it in the perfect opening day spot that allowed it to be #1 for weeks.

[bgshw44]

A reimagined sequel can make a marketable movie. Have Superman in a more traditional costume and don't cut out a lot of cool parts of the film.
A sequel would need to have changes, but it can be marketed.


Considering how Warner Bros. is marketing Watchmen and marketed the Dark Knight, I think they really improved their marketing skills.


True


agree on all fronts. i think wb knows this and since its less risky, will go ahead with a sequel of some sorts under their terms.

[hippie_hunter]

Not really... I mean what were they gonna do... have Superman lift a few more things or contain a few more explosions. You can't make an action packed Superman like that. There has to be something that can physically challenge Superman that is obviously alive... not hand to hand combat of humans armed with Kryptonite. At least with Hancock they extended some of those sequences with ordinary bad guys. SR barely did that... other than a bullet catch with the eye ball.

And back to the release date which is sort of a favorite topic of mine... if last week of June pretty much two weeks prior to POTC 2 is the worst release date... can't wait to see how Supes fairs against an Avengers type film two weeks later. That's why 2011 is too soon and a bad idea altogether.

1. Superman had a little over a week prior to Pirates of the Caribbean 2. And since that film was a massive juggernaut, it really killed what legs Superman Returns could have had since people wanted to see that film more than Superman.

2. At the rate things are looking, I think that Avengers might end up getting pushed back.

[hippie_hunter]

agree on all fronts. i think wb knows this and since its less risky, will go ahead with a sequel of some sorts under their terms.

To be fair, I think a sequel is just as risky as a reboot.

The only thing that isn't risky with a Superman Returns sequel is that it would be easier for Warner Bros. to set up a DC Movie Universe that has Superman the Movie, Superman II, Superman Returns, Green Lantern, and if they can work around it, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and Batman: Gotham Knight.

[Excel]

Routh is quite simply the only reason I think they are even still considering a sequel. Finding Superman was impossible and they found a great one; they obviously know it wont be easy to just move on after one film to somebody else because the film sucked even if Routh was good.

Personally I would just go flat out reboot all the way.

A reimagined sequel can make a marketable movie. Have Superman in a more traditional costume and don't cut out a lot of cool parts of the film. A sequel would need to have changes, but it can be marketed.

The #1 change it would need is director and writer. Imo the best bet is to do a prequel.

Yeah, I know, unoriginal, but the actors are the right age, we can see the origin, it can get rid of the Jason/Richard problem. It would let them reinvent Lex into pretty much whatever they wanted to, while keeping together what was a solid cast for Supes, Lois, Lex, Jimmy, Perry, ect. In fact id like this idea a lot- same cast with new director telling an original.

Some stuff-story stuff-just HAS to be changed. Fortrss of Solitude look has to go. Brando as Jor-el has to go. All of that has to be completely redone. Alien villain has to come in. We have to see Krypton; a modern sci fi element is a must. Id say Williams score has to go. New light and bright suit; maybe with muscles padded under it. Superman and Lois need to be tanner with more modern style. The look of everythign should be light bright, futuristic and modern.

The action scenes should be riveting quick cuts, not long pans of supes flying past a plan or the plane swing by us. You have the occassional long **** i.e. after a series of quick cuts in a mid air fight, we follow supes and the villain as they smash through and otu of a building 80 stories in the air. The pans in a action scene only work if they are rare, Singer was too greedy.

Considering how Warner Bros. is marketing Watchmen and marketed the Dark Knight, I think they really improved their marketing skills.

Well, TDK recieved a huge boost from Ledgers detah, but its marketing was excellent anyway. Watchmen was great as was 300, and w.b. habve nailed T4's marketing thus far.

They are clearly much better now then they were in 2006, but it still would make much of a difference.

[FaT_tONle]

Punisher: War Zone failed because it looked stupid and pissed off the fans by being an unnecessary reboot.

What choice did they have? Jane walked off the set...

The Incredible Hulk wasn't a box office hit mostly because of the previous Hulk film's reputation.

And it was a mediocre attempt at a superhero film given the past eight years... not Elecktra/Catwoman bad... but not much better than the FF's and DD's...


That's what Warner Bros. did with Batman in the Dark Knight. The film before it wasn't the box office hit they wanted it to be, but it had a very good reputation. But Warner Bros. did everything perfect with the Dark Knght. They let Nolan put out his excellent vision onto film the way he wanted it to. They excellently marketed it. And they put it in the perfect opening day spot that allowed it to be #1 for weeks.


And what's to say SR won't create the same stigma Ang Lee created that doomed TIH??? I think people downplay that factor. "Oh Superman is Superman and Hulk is Hulk..." Hulk is one of the most iconic characters in the comic lure... and his films basically flopped. No reason to think Superman can't suffer the same fate.

1. Superman had a little over a week prior to Pirates of the Caribbean 2. And since that film was a massive juggernaut, it really killed what legs Superman Returns could have had since people wanted to see that film more than Superman.

2. At the rate things are looking, I think that Avengers might end up getting pushed back.

Says who? Because we don't hear some news once a month? Until Thor or IM2 or Cap get delayed... no reason to think the schedule won't fall through. 2012 could even be more jammed than 2011 if Marvel waits or delays.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

After 2 plus years I still think that the only reason Superman's movie underperformed is because it wasn't entertaining enough for the general audience. I think that an entertaining Superman would have made over 250mil even with 400mil Pirates coming out a week later.

[Excel]

^ It isnt that simple.

but not much better than the FF's and DD's...

SR was literally 10x as good as either FF.

And what's to say SR won't suffer from the same stigma from Ang Lee that doomed TIH???

Hulk was HATED. If the scale is 1 out of 100 wth Hulk as a 20 and Batman Begins as a 90, Superman was probably a 60. The general consesus was a well made movie that could have been a lot more fun' the consensus of Hulk was "dont see it".

Hulk is one of the most iconic characters in the comic lure... and his films basically flopped. No reason to think Superman can't suffer the same fate.

Hulk isnt even close to Superman. Superman Returns is about as a low as a modern Superman filmc an go. The combo of horrible marketing and even worse release date is incredibly rare, not to mention they sure as hell wont make the same mistake again.

[hippie_hunter]

What choice did they have? Jane walked off the set...
Jane walked off because they were taking too damn long. And still even without Jane, they didn't need to reboot it.

And it was a sort of mediocre attempt at a Superhero film given the past eight years... not Elecktra/Catwoman bad... but not much better than the FF's and DD's...
The Incredible Hulk was awesome :cmad:

And what's to say SR won't create the same stigma Ang Lee created that doomed TIH??? I think people downplay that factor. "Oh Superman is Superman and Hulk is Hulk..." Hulk is one of the most iconic characters in the comic lure... and his films basically flopped. No reason to think Superman can't suffer the same fate.
Very true. Superman can suffer because of the mixed reception of Superman Returns. But it would still be a much more successful movie than Hulk or Punisher.

Says who? Because we don't hear some news once a month? Until Thor or IM2 or Cap get delayed... no reason to think the schedule won't fall through. 2012 could even be more jammed than 2011 if Marvel waits or delays.
But look at how Thor and Iron Man are looking right now. How can they make Avengers and not have it feel rushed?

[sdc10]

And it was a mediocre attempt at a Superhero film given the past eight years... not Elecktra/Catwoman bad... but not much better than the FF's and DD's...

Wow, I could not possibly disagree with you more

[X-Maniac]

After 2 plus years I still think that the only reason Superman's movie underperformed is because it wasn't entertaining enough for the general audience. I think that an entertaining Superman would have made over 250mil even with 400mil Pirates coming out a week later.

And Singer doesn't seem to have learned much either. I just saw Valkyrie.

[Excel]

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=202318
:cwink:

And some doubt my box office expertise :up: :up:

W.B.s hideous handling of the film began was back in Jan. 2005 when they announced the release dates for their big summer films. They gave POSEIDON the first week of May and Supes July 4th. It should have been the other way around.

[Antonello Blueberry]

And Singer doesn't seem to have learned much either. I just saw Valkyrie.
Really, Tom Cruise should have fought an alien or a giant robot in the movie...

[I SEE SPIDEY]

And Singer doesn't seem to have learned much either. I just saw Valkyrie.I'm sure you are correct.

And some doubt my box office expertise :up: :up:

W.B.s hideous handling of the film began was back in Jan. 2005 when they announced the release dates for their big summer films. They gave POSEIDON the first week of May and Supes July 4th. It should have been the other way around.You and I have been arguing about this for about 3 years I reckon...and you are still wrong.:oldrazz:

[Ultimate_Superman]

I think you can get away with a direct sequel for Superman Returns if they just add more action and fix the Jason storyline in a way that will make all fans happy. Although I think the time for a sequel passed a year ago I still think it could work. I do however ever think the best way to go was to have a reboot with Routh that way you would be pleasing most fans. How ever I do think a sequel could work and be a huge hit but at the same time I think you have alot of work to do then. Because I don't think you have to kill or depower Jason but you do have to have to movie take place right after Superman Returns that way Superman won't look bad waiting years or months to tell Lois who he really is. That was my main problem and a lot of fans problems was not that he had a kid but how it was done. It is fixable but very hard to fix as well. I also think that they should bring Johns or Rucka in to help with the story as well.

[FaT_tONle]

The combo of horrible marketing and even worse release date is incredibly rare, not to mention they sure as hell wont make the same mistake again.

No you THINK they won't...

But look at how Thor and Iron Man are looking right now. How can they make Avengers and not have it feel rushed?

Yes it may be rushed... but Marvel is an independent studio. They are making all the preparations as we speak. Unless there is just a huge fall out with a major player... like one of their directors... or there are scheduling conflicts with RDJ or the Cap/Thor actors (which I doubt there will be if they go with unknown actors) then I don't see what evidence there is right now to delay it. In an ideal world they'd take another year off. Not saying it won't be delayed... we'll have to wait and see.

Wow, I could not possibly disagree with you more

Whatever... you guys want to settle for mediocrity that's fine. That was easily one of Norton's worst performances I have seen from him. That's the one thing I like about DC... they at least TRY to push the envelope.... with Marvel it's the same generic crap over and over again that gets the 13 year old's **** hard. But hey there is a kid inside all of us that has an appreciation for those characters so it won't get old for a while. I think that formula can work for a film or two... but it gets old rather quick. Which is why I don't expect another solo Hulk movie... which is why I think Spiderman franchise will end similar to the Schumacher Batman films that will basically kill the genre again... and I am a Marvel guy. Anyhow... rant over (hoping for the best though... :cwink:)

[Excel]

No you THINK they won't...

Its less likely then Heath accepting his award tonight, put it that way. Stop playing devils advocate :o

[X-Maniac]

Really, Tom Cruise should have fought an alien or a giant robot in the movie...

Tom Cruise shouldn't even have been in the movie. It was a shockingly forgettable film, I was stunned - I expected a gripping, electrifying thriller. Boy, was I wrong.

[FlawlessVictory]

I think you can get away with a direct sequel for Superman Returns if they just add more action and fix the Jason storyline in a way that will make all fans happy.

How do you fix the Jason storyline when there are those who feel he should have never existed to begin with, under the circumstances he was in. For people like me, ANYTHING that recognizes Jason's existence from SR is unwatchable.

Although I think the time for a sequel passed a year ago I still think it could work. I do however ever think the best way to go was to have a reboot with Routh that way you would be pleasing most fans.

I agree. I have no problem with Routh. If you keep Routh and do a Routhboot, I think this would be the best compromise that could be made. Of course, not everyone will be onboard, but it's the best solution I think that can be reached.

How ever I do think a sequel could work and be a huge hit but at the same time I think you have alot of work to do then. Because I don't think you have to kill or depower Jason but you do have to have to movie take place right after Superman Returns that way Superman won't look bad waiting years or months to tell Lois who he really is.

Absolutely. And since Tristan is a growing boy, you would need to recast, to capture the proper timeframe set right after SR. So, you are not only recasting him but also recasting Lois(word is Kate is out). So, is it worth even keeping Jason around? Any connection between those two characters from SR is gone.

That was my main problem and a lot of fans problems was not that he had a kid but how it was done. It is fixable but very hard to fix as well. I also think that they should bring Johns or Rucka in to help with the story as well.

You hit the nail right on the head.

[Anita18]

Considering how Warner Bros. is marketing Watchmen and marketed the Dark Knight, I think they really improved their marketing skills.
I heard that they hired a new head of marketing guy before TDK.

We need to send him cookies. The websites, in particular, look FANTASTIC.

How do you fix the Jason storyline when there are those who feel he should have never existed to begin with, under the circumstances he was in. For people like me, ANYTHING that recognizes Jason's existence from SR is unwatchable.
Exactly. There are only two ways to go about with Jason - get rid of him somehow, or incorporate him into the story. Either option is meh for me. But who knows.

[Ultimate_Superman]

How do you fix the Jason storyline when there are those who feel he should have never existed to begin with, under the circumstances he was in. For people like me, ANYTHING that recognizes Jason's existence from SR is unwatchable.
See I use to feel that way but then I said it could work much like how Damion is working in Batman it's just a matter of how you handle that subject because if the movie does turn out to be a direct sequel to Returns. How you handle Jason could make or break the movie. Even if you killed him you would have to do it in a classic way and have a lasting effect on Superman and Lois. Unlike how Chris Kent does or Cir-El.

[FlawlessVictory]

See I use to feel that way but then I said it could work much like how Damion is working in Batman it's just a matter of how you handle that subject because if the movie does turn out to be a direct sequel to Returns. How you handle Jason could make or break the movie. Even if you killed him you would have to do it in a classic way and have a lasting effect on Superman and Lois. Unlike how Chris Kent does or Cir-El.

Another thing that bothered me with going with the Jason storyline was how young Routh and Kate looked in SR. So many scenes he looked more like SuperBOY than SuperMAN. Singer wanted to have his cake and eat it too. Go with young actors but do the whole Jason storyline. Should have went with older actors IMO, if you are going to do that storyline.

[Ultimate_Superman]

Another thing that bothered me with going with the Jason storyline was how young Routh and Kate looked in SR. So many scenes he looked more like SuperBOY than SuperMAN. Singer wanted to have his cake and eat it too. Go with young actors but do the whole Jason storyline. Should have went with older actors IMO, if you are going to do that storyline.My guess with that was Singer was looking for the actors to grow into their roles over 3 films and I think Routh and Kate could have done so but I think you would have had to recast Jason regardless because of how he was brought in. In order for a sequel to work IMO the movie has to take place no less then two weeks after the events of Returns so Superman would not look worse then what he did with Jason.

[mego joe]

See I use to feel that way but then I said it could work much like how Damion is working in Batman it's just a matter of how you handle that subject because if the movie does turn out to be a direct sequel to Returns. How you handle Jason could make or break the movie. Even if you killed him you would have to do it in a classic way and have a lasting effect on Superman and Lois. Unlike how Chris Kent does or Cir-El.

The circumstances of Damian in the Bat-books are completely different than Jason in SR though. Batman is the victim in that storyline and in the SR subplot Superman is the bad guy. That is the inherent problem with Jason storyline.

[Ultimate_Superman]

The circumstances of Damian in the Bat-books are completely different than Jason in SR though. Batman is the victim in that storyline and in the SR subplot Superman is the bad guy. That is the inherent problem with Jason storyline.
No because Lois knew before Jason used his powers that it was Superman's child and hinted at it on the rooftop (a scene that was also cut out). Richard knowing is another question. Superman however is not the bad guy in this. Like I said before after reading the shooting script I was okay with Jason more I just wish most of that ended up on the cutting floor.

[FlawlessVictory]

No because Lois knew before Jason used his powers that it was Superman's child and hinted at it on the rooftop (a scene that was also cut out). Richard knowing is another question. Superman however is not the bad guy in this. Like I said before after reading the shooting script I was okay with Jason more I just wish most of that ended up on the cutting floor.

What's in the shooting script is irrelevant. What we can only go by is the final product.

[Nightwing1977]

I heard that they hired a new head of marketing guy before TDK.

We need to send him cookies. The websites, in particular, look FANTASTIC.



Peanut Butter flavor FTW! :D:up:

[Webhead2006]

if WB still ends up going for a direct sequel to SR, well I think it would be kind of ironic, especially since this particular thread was started based on the comments by that WB guy that they wanted to "reintroduce Superman."

I mean, that's like them saying to Singer......."You failed. SR sucked. We want to reintroduce the character in a different direction." But, after several months of trying that route, they now go back to Singer and say "Ok, we give up....even though you failed and SR sucked, please make us a sequel to SR.....pretty please with a cherry on top....."

If I were Singer, I'd say to them....."Kneel before.....Singer!!"
I would really hate that.

[sdc10]

Whatever... you guys want to settle for mediocrity that's fine. That was easily one of Norton's worst performances I have seen from him. That's the one thing I like about DC... they at least TRY to push the envelope.... with Marvel it's the same generic crap over and over again that gets the 13 year old's **** hard. But hey there is a kid inside all of us that has an appreciation for those characters so it won't get old for a while. I think that formula can work for a film or two... but it gets old rather quick. Which is why I don't expect another solo Hulk movie... which is why I think Spiderman franchise will end similar to the Schumacher Batman films that will basically kill the genre again... and I am a Marvel guy. Anyhow... rant over (hoping for the best though... :cwink:)

DC has two good superhero flicks and they are pushing the envelope? Marvel is able to recognize its mistakes and go forward. Hell dc needed one bad superman movie to gum up the works and all of a sudden nobody know what the hell is going on anymore.

[mego joe]

No because Lois knew before Jason used his powers that it was Superman's child and hinted at it on the rooftop (a scene that was also cut out). Richard knowing is another question. Superman however is not the bad guy in this. Like I said before after reading the shooting script I was okay with Jason more I just wish most of that ended up on the cutting floor.

SUperman is the bad guy b/c he ditched Lois w/o a good bye while sexually involved with her. It's that simple. It doesn't matter what Lois knew. SUperman is the bad guy. Period.

[DavidTyler]

Honestly? I'm almost to the point where I don't care if another Superman film comes out.

If they're going to continue in the direction of SR, they can count me out. I thought we were getting a fresh start and now, with this 'Unleashed' news.. we may not be.

Are the suits at the WB not paying attention?

Do they not remember what happened with B&R?

[mego joe]

Honestly? I'm almost to the point where I don't care if another Superman film comes out.

If they're going to continue in the direction of SR, they can count me out. I thought we were getting a fresh start and now, with this 'Unleashed' news.. we may not be.

Are the suits at the WB not paying attention?

Do they not remember what happened with B&R?

I'm not there yet, but I will be soon- especially if we get the dreaded direct SR sequel. Just reboot the darn thing. Realize Singer's going to get his paycheck and be done with it. WB can write off the cost in the next Batman film.

[Webhead2006]

Yea i said this before many times i am so sick of this flip floping with wb stick with a direction and just go with it. If its a direct sequel to SR previews and what not will dicate if i will see it or not in theaters. I rather see them clean the slate away and restart the character over like SR should have done.

[bgshw44]

i think bottom line is, and i hope wb knows this. people will come see it if it looks good through marketing and trailers/tv spots. even if there isnt a huge opening weekend, if the film is of solid quality people will see it through word of mouth.

this is regardless if its a direct sequell, reboot, routhboot or whatever

[hockeyboy89]

SUperman is the bad guy b/c he ditched Lois w/o a good bye while sexually involved with her. It's that simple. It doesn't matter what Lois knew. SUperman is the bad guy. Period.

I wouldn't say he "ditched" her. Sure, he had relations and Jason came of it. But he felt a callinga nd he went to persue it. After all he's done for Lois/the rest of the world, I for one felt he earned it. Was Jason's arrivel unfortunate, sure. But Superman has ALWAYS felt lonely. He wanted to know it he was the only one of his kind, how could ANYONE ask him not to persue that?? He has always in some part wanted a "normal" life but accepted who he was and what he could do to help mankind. The arrival of Jason gives him some piece of that, although it's a bit unusual.

To call him a bad guy, for following his heart..........lame.

[The Batman]

DC has two good superhero flicks and they are pushing the envelope? Marvel is able to recognize its mistakes and go forward. Hell dc needed one bad superman movie to gum up the works and all of a sudden nobody know what the hell is going on anymore.

IMO, he's basically right. Say what you will about any of them, but BB, SR, V for Vendetta, TDK, and soon Watchmen arent slavishly following the same old template like Marvel does. "The Incredible Hulk" simply didnt do well because it wasnt that good a movie. It was more of the same, except fans like it because it was alot of fanwanking. Marvel recognizes its mistakes? Is that why people are currently complaining about how deadpool is being ****ed up in the wolverine movie? How Marvel's personal studio is trying to make IM2 on the cheap?

[FlawlessVictory]

I wouldn't say he "ditched" her. Sure, he had relations and Jason came of it. But he felt a callinga nd he went to persue it. After all he's done for Lois/the rest of the world, I for one felt he earned it. Was Jason's arrivel unfortunate, sure. But Superman has ALWAYS felt lonely. He wanted to know it he was the only one of his kind, how could ANYONE ask him not to persue that?? He has always in some part wanted a "normal" life but accepted who he was and what he could do to help mankind. The arrival of Jason gives him some piece of that, although it's a bit unusual.

To call him a bad guy, for following his heart..........lame.

And all he had to do was tell Lois and explain to her the situation. He supposedly loves her, doesn't he?

[hockeyboy89]

And all he had to do was tell Lois and explain to her the situation. He supposedly loves her, doesn't he?

True and if she loved him she'd support his decision and understand, wouldn't she?? Since when is Superman "perfect"? He's still human inside.

[Webhead2006]

technically not human at all, just have human emotions due to being raised a human.

[hockeyboy89]

technically not human at all, just have human emotions due to being raised a human.

You had to go there......you just had to.....

[Sam]

In my opinion, Warner has 2 choices for Superman franchise.. and ONLY 2:

1. Total reboot

2. Direct sequel

Nothing about semi-sequel/prequel reintroduce crap. Choose one of above and go fwd with it.

[Webhead2006]

yea really a semi/quasi/prequel to an already vauge/quasi sequel just would not kick it.

[FaT_tONle]

DC has two good superhero flicks and they are pushing the envelope? Marvel is able to recognize its mistakes and go forward. Hell dc needed one bad superman movie to gum up the works and all of a sudden nobody know what the hell is going on anymore.

WB at least takes some chances... Nolan going all realistic... giving Singer control... going easy on Snyder with Watchmen. They want to target the older audience. I respect them for that.

[smoothbody]

this (unleashed) thing sounds like a cop out. this just sounds like news they want everybody to spread. it's all bs,imo.. reboot the franchise & make it good. you can't make a sequel to a crap movie,it's unheard of!!!

[GL's Light]

you can't make a sequel to a crap movie,it's unheard of!!!
Yet Columbia is developing Ghost Rider 2.

[El Payaso]

you can't make a sequel to a crap movie,it's unheard of!!!

Spiderman 3 is getting a sequel. And Fantastic Four 2 already happened.

[Cool Monty]

you can't make a sequel to a crap movie,it's unheard of!!!

Dude, honestly, you've never seen a crappy movie (I don't think SR was crap at all, though) get a sequel? :huh:

[Webhead2006]

yea their has been tons of crappy films to get sequels though for me personally i dont want to see a sequel to SR that was already a sequel to the first two reeve films. I want to see a new take on the character and not forever to be stuck in the donnorverse the film series has been due to singer wanting SR to be like donnor's.

[Nightwing1977]

you can't make a sequel to a crap movie,it's unheard of!!!

Ever heard of Superman 3 & Blood Rayne? :oldrazz:

[smoothbody]

wow, all valid points!!!

but it doesn't make it right!!!

[Ultimate_Superman]

Superman Homepage has posted an update on the production weekly. Apparently Thomas Tull and William Fay are producing the movie with Singer directing.

Here is the link:

http://supermanhomepage.com/images/superman-returns12/Unleashed.pdf

[dark_b]

superman homage that posted months ago casting news for the new superman movie?

[X-Maniac]

Superman Homepage has posted an update on the production weekly. Apparently Thomas Tull and William Fay are producing the movie with Singer directing.

Here is the link:

http://supermanhomepage.com/images/superman-returns12/Unleashed.pdf

Doesn't feel quite right somehow. Although it's a current issue of Production Weekly, the date alongside Superman Unleashed is 5-15-08 and the webpage Slashfilm mentioned has been taken down. Is this some sort of weird attempt to make the movie seem like it's still alive?

[GreenKToo]

interesting. I have to say that I wont follow another Singer directed Superman film blindly like I did with S.R.
If Singer does indeed direct a sequel then i'll give him a chance of course. But at the first hint of something I dont like, i'm outta there.
The man is gonna have to win me over.

[NeoRanger]

I'll fully support it, like I was prepared to do with the sequel. But the first thing I don't like, I'll be vocal and ruthless. None of that moderate appreciation or indifference I originally used to feel about SR. No benefit of the doubt and no suspension of disbelief. A SR sequel, especially one directed by Singer, is going under exhausting nitpicking.

[GreenKToo]

I'll fully support it, like I was prepared to do with the sequel. But the first thing I don't like, I'll be vocal and ruthless. None of that moderate appreciation or indifference I originally used to feel about SR. No benefit of the doubt and no suspension of disbelief. A SR sequel, especially one directed by Singer, is going under exhausting nitpicking.
I agree. I was just happy before to be getting a new Superman film after so long. Not this time tho. I want it done right or not at all.
I won't bi#ch and gripe about it if its not what I want tho. I just simply wont see it.
Of course, for all we know, it could be getting a new director. Afterall, we've been hearing rumors of that happening for months now, so i'm not worried too much yet.

[Nixon]

yea really a semi/quasi/prequel to an already vauge/quasi sequel just would not kick it.


Why not? It's worked for Bond for years.

[FlawlessVictory]

Superman Homepage has posted an update on the production weekly. Apparently Thomas Tull and William Fay are producing the movie with Singer directing.

Here is the link:

http://supermanhomepage.com/images/superman-returns12/Unleashed.pdf

Interesting, thanks for posting.

Doesn't feel quite right somehow. Although it's a current issue of Production Weekly, the date alongside Superman Unleashed is 5-15-08 and the webpage Slashfilm mentioned has been taken down. Is this some sort of weird attempt to make the movie seem like it's still alive?

Who knows what to make of all this, but by the looks of it, Singer's sequel seems to have a lot of life. I've said it before, I'll be extremely disappointed if Singer returns and the storyline from SR is continued. But there's not much that I can do, I will just not pay to watch it.

[bgshw44]

I'll fully support it, like I was prepared to do with the sequel. But the first thing I don't like, I'll be vocal and ruthless. None of that moderate appreciation or indifference I originally used to feel about SR. No benefit of the doubt and no suspension of disbelief. A SR sequel, especially one directed by Singer, is going under exhausting nitpicking.

yep same here, lets get this thing going already!

[GreenKToo]

The only bright spots I can see with a singer directed sequel would be new writers, more control by WB, and a much bigger routh.

[Sam]

Why not? It's worked for Bond for years.

Yet, to make franchise reborn and be a success again, they had to make Cassino Royale.. an "origin" movie of James Bond...

[Sam]

Yet Columbia is developing Ghost Rider 2.

Ghost Rider 2 is in development, Punisher got a sequel, FF got a sequel, Blade had 3 movies, Hulk got a sequel...

SR is better than any of those, and make 400 million ww. Really, why is so hard to make a decision? 3 years after SR, and no news.

Really weird.

[Sam]

Superman Homepage has posted an update on the production weekly. Apparently Thomas Tull and William Fay are producing the movie with Singer directing.

Here is the link:

http://supermanhomepage.com/images/superman-returns12/Unleashed.pdf

15/05/2008?

9 months ago?

If this is true, Warner is going back and fwd with the franchise...

[FlawlessVictory]

The only bright spots I can see with a singer directed sequel would be new writers, more control by WB, and a much bigger routh.

That's cool, I'm glad people can find a silver lining. I really can't. The second Jason comes onscreen, movie ruined. :csad:

[afan]

Krypto Unleashed?

Great Scott!!!! Mistakes are only useful if lessons are learned. If this rumor is true, then SR was truly useless.

[Nixon]

Yet, to make franchise reborn and be a success again, they had to make Cassino Royale.. an "origin" movie of James Bond...

Casino Royale didn't get people excited about Bond again because it was an origin movie, rather, it got people excited about Bond again because it was a good movie. See GoldenEye, a movie that was still considered by many to reinvigorate the Bond franchise after the Dalton films underperformed. It wasn't an origin or a reboot or whatever, but it got the job done.

[FlawlessVictory]

Superman Homepage has posted an update on the production weekly. Apparently Thomas Tull and William Fay are producing the movie with Singer directing.

Here is the link:

http://supermanhomepage.com/images/superman-returns12/Unleashed.pdf

Steve Younis comments:

I don't know if the information in the Feb 09 issue is the same information that was published in their May 08 issue. I just know that the date indicates the last time the movie was listed in a Production Weekly issue. I'm trying to find out what was published in that May 08 edition and how it differs from the Feb 09 listing.

http://supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=6066#comments

All of this is so confusing!

[bgshw44]

yeaim interested to see what he comes up with from production weekly

[GreenKToo]

That's cool, I'm glad people can find a silver lining. I really can't. The second Jason comes onscreen, movie ruined. :csad:
lol. thats all I can do. Have hope.
Part of me wants to say ''no way W.B. could be that stupid''.
Then the other part says, "hey stupid, this is WB we're talking about here"

[Man of Tomorrow]

I dig the Superman Unleashed title. I remember hearing it suggested on here a few years back.

Straight to the point and promises the popcorn summer audiences what to expect.

[GreenKToo]

Not that it matters but a poll on the front page has 56% in favor of a reboot.
32% want singer's story continued.

[FlawlessVictory]

Not that it matters but a poll on the front page has 56% in favor of a reboot.
32% want singer's story continued.

Shows how divided the fanbase is, but we already knew that. Best route to go, IMO, is a Routhboot. It's a nice compromise. I know we still won't get every single person onboard, but I think it can get the most onboard as far as the fans are concerned for the next film.

[bgshw44]

Shows how divided the fanbase is, but we already knew that. Best route to go, IMO, is a Routhboot. It's a nice compromise. I know we still won't get every single person onboard, but I think it can get the most onboard as far as the fans are concerned for the next film.

after thinking about it the last few days, i think a sequel is the way to go, but with a different director. if it looks good, those haters will see it anyway.

[FlawlessVictory]

after thinking about it the last few days, i think a sequel is the way to go, but with a different director. if it looks good, those haters will see it anyway.

Why go a different director to continue the story? Might as well just bring back Singer, it's his story that he started. What director in their right mind would want to pick up where SR left off? Directors are reluctant enough to start a Superman franchise from scratch. I can't imagine how it would be for another director to helm a direct sequel.

And yes, "haters", which I guess I am one of will see it. Like I said, I, and imagine some others, just won't pay to see it. :hehe: They don't deserve my money if they continue with this storyline.

[Sam]

Casino Royale didn't get people excited about Bond again because it was an origin movie, rather, it got people excited about Bond again because it was a good movie. See GoldenEye, a movie that was still considered by many to reinvigorate the Bond franchise after the Dalton films underperformed. It wasn't an origin or a reboot or whatever, but it got the job done.

Of course it was a good movie.. not matter what u want to do, it needs to be a good movie. A bad origin movie would suck.

But believe me... make a movie about Bond's origins helped A LOT, simply because it reintroduce the character to a whole new audience, that learned who he is, what he does, and why he does.

Audience needs that to relate with the character and care about him. Otherwise, it fails.

George Lucas did prequels - not sequels - of Star Wars. He shows the origin of Darth Vader, Empire, etc. Now, they are making origin of Star Trek.

Ppl like it, they want to know how those characters come to be who they are. Its that simple.

[bgshw44]

Why go a different director to continue the story? Might as well just bring back Singer, it's his story that he started. What director in their right mind would want to pick up where SR left off? Directors are reluctant enough to start a Superman franchise from scratch. I can't imagine how it would be for another director to helm a direct sequel.

And yes, "haters", which I guess I am one of will see it. Like I said, I, and imagine some others, just won't pay to see it. :hehe: They don't deserve my money if they continue with this storyline.

the GA makes or breaks a film anyway, and that will come down to word of mouth and how the film looks. they dont care if it is a sequel reboot or whatever because to be honest 95% of them wont know the difference.

im not sure how you can write a direct sequel that takes place so close after SR, but hey, im not getting paid to do it. there are creative people out there who will figure out what to do.

[bgshw44]

Of course it was a good movie.. not matter what u want to do, it needs to be a good movie. A bad origin movie would suck.

But believe me... make a movie about Bond's origins helped A LOT, simply because it reintroduce the character to a whole new audience, that learned who he is, what he does, and why he does.

Audience needs that to relate with the character and care about him. Otherwise, it fails.

George Lucas did prequels - not sequels - of Star Wars. He shows the origin of Darth Vader, Empire, etc. Now, they are making origin of Star Trek.

Ppl like it, they want to know how those characters come to be who they are. Its that simple.

what i think would be perfect would be a non linear sequel to SR that has alot of origion elements in it to set up the villan.

that way you
A) set up the villain
B) show a new generation how superman came to be without doing a whole origion reboot movie
C) keep continuity

i think it makes everyone happy. WB you should listen to me!

[FlawlessVictory]

the GA makes or breaks a film anyway, and that will come down to word of mouth and how the film looks. they dont care if it is a sequel reboot or whatever because to be honest 95% of them wont know the difference.

I agree. The most passionate ones are of course the fans that either desperately want a reboot or those that want a sequel. I think a lot of the GA, after seeing SR, were sort of indifferent towards it. So perhaps making a sequel, that looked great could still work for a large portion of the GA.

[bgshw44]

I agree. The most passionate ones are of course the fans that either desperately want a reboot or those that want a sequel. I think a lot of the GA, after seeing SR, were sort of indifferent towards it. So perhaps making a sequel, that looked great could still work for a large portion of the GA.

thank you for being rational, that is the way i am trying to approach it.

[NeoRanger]

I agree. The most passionate ones are of course the fans that either desperately want a reboot or those that want a sequel. I think a lot of the GA, after seeing SR, were sort of indifferent towards it. So perhaps making a sequel, that looked great could still work for a large portion of the GA.
It probably would. But it'd still carry baggage from SR (good luck convincing me that a sequel would have a daddy Superman, locked in a love triangle and still have him fight super-villains for two hours non-stop). So, moving away at least from the core elements of "Returns" isn't exactly a bad plan.

[FlawlessVictory]

It probably would. But it'd still carry baggage from SR (good luck convincing me that a sequel would have a daddy Superman, locked in a love triangle and still have him fight super-villains for two hours non-stop). So, moving away at least from the core elements of "Returns" isn't exactly a bad plan.

Oh, it won't get me onboard, that's for sure. But I just don't know how hung up the GA is on those elements that we are not fond of. If a movie comes out that still has Richard and Jason, but Superman is shown fighting Braniac, then maybe that's enough of a sell for a lot of the GA. It won't be for me though.

[Brian Braddock]

I happen to agree with that wholeheartedly;

I wonder what percentage of the GA, if they were sitting in the theatre watching an SR sequel trailer featuring Routh trashing some alien super-foes on a distant world, wouldnt go 'Ooo' and 'Aaah' with excitement (or at the very least, intrigue)?

The gripes that we, the fans, largely had with SR probably didnt even register with the GA; they just perhaps found it boring.

That's an aspect that can certainly be remedied.

[NeoRanger]

Oh, it won't get me onboard, that's for sure. But I just don't know how hung up the GA is on those elements that we are not fond of. If a movie comes out that still has Richard and Jason, but Superman is shown fighting Braniac, then maybe that's enough of a sell for a lot of the GA. It won't be for me though.

No, I know. That's what I'm saying. They really wouldn't have a problem; they'd buy it. But I find it extremely hard to believe that a Superman movie could be as explosive as it would need to be to sell itself, after SR, when the story has to dig itself out of the hole Singer threw it in with the first movie. It's baggage that will backfire- either it will slow the pace of the movie, risking its popularity with the general audience, or it will go full-on money-making mode, and SR fans will be eating each-others' fleshes out for not delivering on the story department.

I can't imagine a company, a new writer or a new director wanting to deal with this kind of baggage- thus, reboot, at least to some extend.

[bgshw44]

I happen to agree with that wholeheartedly;

I wonder what percentage of the GA, if they were sitting in the theatre watching an SR sequel trailer featuring Routh trashing some alien super-foes on a distant world, wouldnt go 'Ooo' and 'Aaah' with excitement (or at the very least, intrigue)?

The gripes that we, the fans, largely had with SR probably didnt even register with the GA; they just perhaps found it boring.

That's an aspect that can certainly be remedied.

yes. i think legendary knows this, i just wish wb was as cunning. make the movie lighter and brighter, fix the obvious mistakes, get a solid script with action that can only be done in a superman movie and go!

the world is going through a tough time right now, how nice would it be to see a trailer for a character so widley seen as a symbol for hope and inspiration, the ultimate superhero \S/ and be wowed by it

[Man of Tomorrow]

Shows how divided the fanbase is, but we already knew that. Best route to go, IMO, is a Routhboot. It's a nice compromise. I know we still won't get every single person onboard, but I think it can get the most onboard as far as the fans are concerned for the next film.

I'd be down with that.

But we could also get a Requel like JJ Abram's Star Trek.

A film that reboots SR's story within itself.

[GreenKToo]

I certainly dont envy Singer *IF* he is doing the sequel.
I also think he will be alot more tight lipped with the fans this time around.

[Webhead2006]

Why not? It's worked for Bond for years.
Bond is a whole different beast in the film world then Say comic book films.

[Mostpowerful]

Ghost Rider 2 is in development, Punisher got a sequel, FF got a sequel, Blade had 3 movies, Hulk got a sequel...

SR is better than any of those, and make 400 million ww. Really, why is so hard to make a decision? 3 years after SR, and no news.

Really weird.

Agreed.


I happen to agree with that wholeheartedly;

I wonder what percentage of the GA, if they were sitting in the theatre watching an SR sequel trailer featuring Routh trashing some alien super-foes on a distant world, wouldnt go 'Ooo' and 'Aaah' with excitement (or at the very least, intrigue)?

The gripes that we, the fans, largely had with SR probably didnt even register with the GA; they just perhaps found it boring.

That's an aspect that can certainly be remedied.

Exactly. Just look at BB and then to TDK.

I'm of the belief that most of the GP liked SR but just expected more action (aka Superman punching some supervillain). So, Just add more action and adventure to the sequel, which Singer said he was going to do.. and good marketing and I'm sure the sequel would be a bigger hit. At least that's what I gather from the people I know who saw the film, and who are just casual Superman fans. None of them had a problem with Jason. And neither do I. Really, they don't really care much as long as the whole thing is entertaining and fun.

[bgshw44]

I'm of the belief that most of the GP liked SR but just expected more action (aka Superman punching some supervillain). So, Just add more action and adventure to the sequel, which Singer said he was going to do.. and good marketing and I'm sure the sequel it'd be a bigger hit. At least that's what I gather from the people I know who saw the film, and who are just casual Superman fans. None of them had a problem with Jason. And neither do I. Really, they don't really care much as long as the whole thing is entertaining and fun.


agreed

[GreenKToo]

Jason didnt really bother me that much. Neither did Richard.
Lack of action (save for a couple of good scenes) and Spacey's Luthor are what irked me.
Things that would make me feel better about Singer doing the sequel, even with Jason and Richard there, would be...
A) a brighter sequel with LOTS more action.
B) a supervillain.
C) a better portrayal of Lex.
D) a superpowered throwdown in the streets of Metropolis and beyond. People, i'm talking buildings collapsing here from the impacts.
E) fix the suit, please. Brighter red, lower the neckline, put the \S/ back on the cape, and the boots need touched up.

Is that to much to ask for? I mean really, this is Superman here we're talking about. Anything less is a waste.

[Brian Braddock]

^^^ I agree with everything in that post.

[GreenKToo]

Ty. Supes is like THE ultimate Hero. None can touch his strength or heart. I think its time we finally get a film that reflects that. S.R. had Glimmers of it, just not enough.

[RachelDawes]

I'm feeling :dry: about the news of Singer returning, but I guess I could handle it if a more competent set of writers were hired. Jason is my biggest hangup from SR. I didn't hate him, which surprised me, but I also have no real desire to see any more of his story or his relationship with Supes. Maybe he could become something like Superman's sidekick or apprentice. I usually hate sidekicks but it would be a way to get Jason involved in the story without sacrificing action.

[GreenKToo]

If this turns out to be true i'll be watching very closely, with my hand on the ship's rail.

[bgshw44]

If this turns out to be true i'll be watching very closely, with my hand on the ship's rail.

likewise, i wont be "assuming" that singer knows what he is doing with blind faith. but i am willing to have faith until they give me a reason not to

[regwec]

I would argue that Kate Bosworth was a problem. I just couldn't warm to her Lois at all.

[GreenKToo]

Routh was really the only casting I liked. The rest I could live without, but thats not very likely if singer directs.

[bgshw44]

Routh was really the only casting I liked. The rest I could live without, but thats not very likely if singer directs.

hmm i think jamie and showtime said bosworth was gone regardless. i like langella, i just wish they had perry be more like perry! spacey did a poor mans impersination of hackman, i wish spacey would just be spacey.

[GreenKToo]

Hugh Laurie was originally going to be Perry. Spacey was just, I dunno, so not Lex. Not for me anyway.
I wasnt feeling him from the start and I like Spacey, but not as Lex I don't.

[Brian Braddock]

Bosworth will be like the Katie Holmes of the Superman movies.

No real loss whatsoever; easily replaced.

[regwec]

She was all wrong for Lois. I would actually endorse an actress who is slightly older than Routh for that role; she should have presence and maturity.

[mego joe]

I wouldn't say he "ditched" her. Sure, he had relations and Jason came of it. But he felt a callinga nd he went to persue it. After all he's done for Lois/the rest of the world, I for one felt he earned it. Was Jason's arrivel unfortunate, sure. But Superman has ALWAYS felt lonely. He wanted to know it he was the only one of his kind, how could ANYONE ask him not to persue that?? He has always in some part wanted a "normal" life but accepted who he was and what he could do to help mankind. The arrival of Jason gives him some piece of that, although it's a bit unusual.

To call him a bad guy, for following his heart..........lame.

He's not a bad guy b/c he followed his heart, he's a bad guy b/c he didn't tell Lois goodbye and explain that he was leaving, possibly forever. That's the issue at hand and what makes him a jerk. He was having sex with her, he has a responsibility.

He did not earn the right to leave Lois w/o a goodbye. It doesn't give him a free pass from his responsiblities as a man in a sexual relationship.

[Brian Braddock]

She was all wrong for Lois. I would actually endorse an actress who is slightly older than Routh for that role; she should have presence and maturity.

Indeed.

[mego joe]

Ghost Rider 2 is in development, Punisher got a sequel, FF got a sequel, Blade had 3 movies, Hulk got a sequel...

SR is better than any of those, and make 400 million ww. Really, why is so hard to make a decision? 3 years after SR, and no news.

Really weird.

SR is better than none of those films. BTW, Hulk got a reboot.

[mego joe]

yes. i think legendary knows this, i just wish wb was as cunning. make the movie lighter and brighter, fix the obvious mistakes, get a solid script with action that can only be done in a superman movie and go!

the world is going through a tough time right now, how nice would it be to see a trailer for a character so widley seen as a symbol for hope and inspiration, the ultimate superhero \S/ and be wowed by it

SR didn't really set up SUperman as this. It set him up as a screw up in his personal life who has a lot of baggage now. And his Super heroics are now in direct contrast as the absentee/ jerk who ditched Lois. He's an ironic character now who's personal life and morality contrasts his public persona. Perhaps an interesting character, but clearly not Superman.

[Showtime]

hmm i think jamie and showtime said bosworth was gone regardless. i like langella, i just wish they had perry be more like perry! spacey did a poor mans impersination of hackman, i wish spacey would just be spacey.

She was alread given walking papers regardless.

[mego joe]

Hugh Laurie was originally going to be Perry. Spacey was just, I dunno, so not Lex. Not for me anyway.
I wasnt feeling him from the start and I like Spacey, but not as Lex I don't.

I think Spacey could've been and still could be a great corporate Lex. He's got a lot of charisma and could pull of the public charade of the benificent corporate Luthor.

[bgshw44]

She was alread given walking papers regardless.

have you heard anything else about what this unleashed is all about?

[Chris B]

In the case of a vague sequel, couldn't they get away with just pretending as though Jason never existed? I mean if this is is only vaguely connected, and not a direction continuation, they would just need to keep a few plot elements from SR and ignore what they don't like.

[Mostpowerful]

Jason didnt really bother me that much. Neither did Richard.
Lack of action (save for a couple of good scenes) and Spacey's Luthor are what irked me.
Things that would make me feel better about Singer doing the sequel, even with Jason and Richard there, would be...
A) a brighter sequel with LOTS more action.
B) a supervillain.
C) a better portrayal of Lex.
D) a superpowered throwdown in the streets of Metropolis and beyond. People, i'm talking buildings collapsing here from the impacts.
E) fix the suit, please. Brighter red, lower the neckline, put the \S/ back on the cape, and the boots need touched up.

Is that to much to ask for? I mean really, this is Superman here we're talking about. Anything less is a waste.

I think WB, Legenday, and Singer KNOW that a great supervillain and more action are definitely needed.

I enjoyed Spacey as Lex very much, but he needs to be a tiny bit more serious in a sequel/revamp. He was already an improvement from Hanckman's Lex, IMO. He was more serious, sinister and even had a sadistic side.

I like the SR suit. But agree on the brighter red, neckline (not too low), and the boots. But I don't want an S on the cape; other incarnations of the character (STAS, Justice League:NF, Fleischer's, Alex Ross) don't use it and it looks fine and more regal without it, IMO.

[Excel]

I think this "Unleashed" stuff is prob. a year or so old, and we are just very late.

[Kokomo29]

It is after all, dated May of last year, so A LOT of things could have changed since then. I agree with Excel; I think we just be late seeing all this. It was August of last year that WB announced a "reintroduction" so... who knows.

[Ita-KalEl]

I think this "Unleashed" stuff is prob. a year or so old, and we are just very late.

Yes, it's an old thing.
We have to know the "new" strategy for something concrete about Superman. If before there isn't any official press release about Green Lantern, don't expect anything about Supes.

[Excel]

The new stuff is a reboot, I would bet, or atleast hope.

[Showtime]

have you heard anything else about what this unleashed is all about?

No idea. No comments on it so far from WB on my end, most of the webmasters I have talked to never have heard of any of the possible Superman projects called Unleashed.

It is all rather amusing if you think about it.

[GL's Light]

We won't know anything until we know something.

[Showtime]

Thanks Yogi.

[Immortalfire]

Thanks Yogi.

:lmao:

[GL's Light]

I almost put "As Yogi Berra would say" when I posted that, but it wasn't even necessary. :woot:

[Webhead2006]

This stuff is getting just plain rediculousy i really wished wb could get things confirmed already on one story/idea and go with it already. 3yrs now and all we get is sequel will come soon/we want to reintroduce-reboot the series. I just want to see it go somewhere already.

[Showtime]

Nope. We're all over it. Well played.

[Nightwing1977]

The only bright spots I can see with a singer directed sequel would be new writers, more control by WB, and a much bigger routh.

Same here.

Routh was really the only casting I liked. The rest I could live without, but thats not very likely if singer directs.

Beside Routh, I really like Langella & Huntington as well. Huntington was a great Jimmy Olsen IMO. :)

She was all wrong for Lois. I would actually endorse an actress who is slightly older than Routh for that role; she should have presence and maturity.

I got to agree here. We need an actress who is a little bit older than Routh or at least the same age. She need to look a little bit older but still young.

Thanks Yogi.

Yogi Bear? He sure is smarter than the average bear. :D :D

http://www.barkbarkwoofwoof.com/Yogi%20Bear%20Cropped%2012-11-05.JPG

[wellsy]

I've just been giving some thought to this Superman Unleashed as a sequel business. Singer has been fairly coy about his future projects, and hasn't mentioned Superman. As I recall, he is currently on holiday.

Would it be possible, Showtime, FNJ, for Singer to have accepted directorship of a sequel, said "I want a holiday first, if you don't mind", and WB decides to announce a new Superman movie in the wake of the Oscars (since Nolan is working on Inception) for 2011, giving Nolan time for a 2012 release (and, for those sceptical of a 2012 release for Batman 3, I present JJ Abrams Star Trek which isn't released until May, as I recall, and has been essentially finished since December)?

I just want to know if it's at all possible. Likelihood notwithstanding.

Also, I feel obliged to point out that those who are claiming that Superman Unleashed is old news... well, I hate to dissapoint, but Production Weekly put it out just this week, so I'm afraid such dismissal is hard to justify.

[hippie_hunter]

SR is better than none of those films. BTW, Hulk got a reboot.
Superman Returns is a million times better than those films.

[hippie_hunter]

Hugh Laurie was originally going to be Perry. Spacey was just, I dunno, so not Lex. Not for me anyway.
I wasnt feeling him from the start and I like Spacey, but not as Lex I don't.

Spacey was great as Lex. Lex's problems in the movie lied with the script by relying too much on Hackman's out of date interpretation of Lex.

[bgshw44]

No idea. No comments on it so far from WB on my end, most of the webmasters I have talked to never have heard of any of the possible Superman projects called Unleashed.

It is all rather amusing if you think about it.

gives more credence to it being very recent, and wb taking it down because they werent ready for a formal announcement?

[bgshw44]

Spacey was great as Lex. Lex's problems in the movie lied with the script by relying too much on Hackman's out of date interpretation of Lex.

yes, and in my opinion, he didnt play that version of lex ANYWHERE close to the way hackman did

[hippie_hunter]

yes, and in my opinion, he didnt play that version of lex ANYWHERE close to the way hackman did

Spacey would have been amazing if Lex was the corporate Lex that most people want.

[solidsnake86]

Spacey was really good in the scenes where they didnt play up the hackman factor, its really to bad it turned out the way it did because I still think SR had a solid cast. I would even go so far as to say that given the right material for boswroth I think there couldve been a different outcome on peoples opinions of her.

[hippie_hunter]

Spacey was really good in the scenes where they didnt play up the hackman factor, its really to bad it turned out the way it did because I still think SR had a solid cast. I would even go so far as to say that given the right material for boswroth I think there couldve been a different outcome on peoples opinions of her.

Bosworth had the right material and she did a good job as well, but she was just horribly miscast. The Lois of Superman the Movie/Superman II should be a woman in her early/mid 30's. Someone who's in their incredibly early 20's is just far too young for the Lois of Superman Returns.

[RachelDawes]

Spacey was just, I dunno, so not Lex. Not for me anyway.
I wasnt feeling him from the start and I like Spacey, but not as Lex I don't.

I feel the same way. I don't want Spacey back at all, not even if his Lex is given a new personality.

[FlawlessVictory]

Also, I feel obliged to point out that those who are claiming that Superman Unleashed is old news... well, I hate to dissapoint, but Production Weekly put it out just this week, so I'm afraid such dismissal is hard to justify.

What's strange about that appearance in PW though is the fact that it has a date of 5/15/08 appearing next to it. What does that mean exactly?

Edit: Steve Younis comments with this:

[Note: The date shown in the PDF file (5/15/08) is the previous Production Weekly publication date in which the Superman film was listed.]

[Man of Tomorrow]

What's Production Weekly anyway?

[bgshw44]

What's strange about that appearance in PW though is the fact that it has a date of 5/15/08 appearing next to it. What does that mean exactly?

over at the superman homepage, steve younis said that is the date superman first appeared in the publication. he is trying to find out what was said in that issue and how it coimpares to what is said in this issue

[FlawlessVictory]

What's Production Weekly anyway?

The Superman Homepage has discovered that Production Weekly, a publication that provides the entertainment industry with a comprehensive breakdown of projects in pre-production, preparation, and active development for film and television, has "Superman Unleashed" listed in issue #649 (dated February 26, 2009).

Upon request, the page in question was sent to the Superman Homepage direct from the Production Weekly offices as a PDF file and lists the status of "Superman Unleashed" as being in "Development".

Thomas Tull and William Fay are listed as Producers, with Bryan Singer as Director.

Although I've tried, I've been unable to find out where Production Weekly sources its information from.

[Note: The date shown in the PDF file (5/15/08) is the previous Production Weekly publication date in which the Superman film was listed.]

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=6066

[FlawlessVictory]

over at the superman homepage, steve younis said that is the date superman first appeared in the publication. he is trying to find out what was said in that issue and how it coimpares to what is said in this issue

Yea, I decided to post his exact comments to make life easier here. :yay:

[Man of Tomorrow]

Thanks.

I'm not really thrilled with Bryan Singer up to direct. His fallout with WB was the reason this thing got delayed for so long. Too many egos on both sides.

I'm not sure this franchaise has a future with him in the directors chair.

[hippie_hunter]

If Singer does end up directing, it'll probably be because of the poor economy. Warner Bros. themselves have laid off people, even though they had an amazing 2008 thanks to the Dark Knight, Sex and the City, Gran Torino, etc. And they're also spending less on frivolous things such as Oscar promotion for Benjamin Button and the Dark Knight. They've given up on acquiring Eidos to Square-Enix. We're living in times where every penny is pinched and not wasted.

Warner Bros. signed a pay or play deal with Singer to direct the next Superman. Even if he doesn't make it, he's still going to get paid a rather decent sum of money. Perhaps Warner Bros. is thinking that they don't want that money that is contractually obligated to Singer go to absolute waste and not have to pay two directors.

[bgshw44]

If Singer does end up directing, it'll probably be because of the poor economy. Warner Bros. themselves have laid off people, even though they had an amazing 2008 thanks to the Dark Knight, Sex and the City, Gran Torino, etc. And they're also spending less on frivolous things such as Oscar promotion for Benjamin Button and the Dark Knight. They've given up on acquiring Eidos to Square-Enix. We're living in times where every penny is pinched and not wasted.

Warner Bros. signed a pay or play deal with Singer to direct the next Superman. Even if he doesn't make it, he's still going to get paid a rather decent sum of money. Perhaps Warner Bros. is thinking that they don't want that money that is contractually obligated to Singer go to absolute waste.

it was a $10 million deal, so you figure a movie without him would have to make an extra $20 million at the BO just to break even on his deal.

[Showtime]

gives more credence to it being very recent, and wb taking it down because they werent ready for a formal announcement?

Anything is possible. Can't confirm that.

What's strange about that appearance in PW though is the fact that it has a date of 5/15/08 appearing next to it. What does that mean exactly?

Edit: Steve Younis comments with this:

The star and the date means the last time the Superman project was featured in Production Weekly. It was featured under a different name I believe, ie Man of Steel.

[Immortalfire]

Thanks.

I'm not really thrilled with Bryan Singer up to direct. His fallout with WB was the reason this thing got delayed for so long. Too many egos on both sides.

I'm not sure this franchaise has a future with him in the directors chair.

Bryan Singer in charge? Count me out. :o

[FlawlessVictory]

The star and the date means the last time the Superman project was featured in Production Weekly. It was featured under a different name I believe, ie Man of Steel.

Wow, so I would say the facts are pretty indisputable. Legendary website and Production Weekly. I was hoping that maybe the date meant there was some kind of error or that it was outdated, but apparently not.

So we have it labelled as a sequel and with Singer directing. Oh well, looks like I'll just have to stick wth Superman: The Animated series.

Bryan Singer in charge? Count me out.

You and me both. :csad:

[Webhead2006]

Yea i really hope things get cleared up soon or wb finally comes out officially on whats the real plan.

[Nixon]

Of course it was a good movie.. not matter what u want to do, it needs to be a good movie. A bad origin movie would suck.

But believe me... make a movie about Bond's origins helped A LOT, simply because it reintroduce the character to a whole new audience, that learned who he is, what he does, and why he does.

Audience needs that to relate with the character and care about him. Otherwise, it fails.

George Lucas did prequels - not sequels - of Star Wars. He shows the origin of Darth Vader, Empire, etc. Now, they are making origin of Star Trek.

Ppl like it, they want to know how those characters come to be who they are. Its that simple.

And it's possible for people to care about a character and to relate to them without knowing their origins. For examples of this, see Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars (or, if you're a Warsie like myself Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope), Dr. No, etc.

If fact, it's often that established affinity for the character that breeds interest in their origins. Would people have cared about Anakin Skywalker all that much without the Original Trilogy? Would they have cared about Bond's origins without that nearly forty-year familiarity with the world's premiere super spy?

Probably not.

[hippie_hunter]

Wow, so I would say the facts are pretty indisputable. Legendary website and Production Weekly. I was hoping that maybe the date meant there was some kind of error or that it was outdated, but apparently not.

So we have it labelled as a sequel and with Singer directing. Oh well, looks like I'll just have to stick wth Superman: The Animated series.

Even if it is a sequel, there really hasn't been anything to confirm that Bryan Singer is directing it.

[Nixon]

Wow, so I would say the facts are pretty indisputable. Legendary website and Production Weekly. I was hoping that maybe the date meant there was some kind of error or that it was outdated, but apparently not.

So we have it labelled as a sequel and with Singer directing. Oh well, looks like I'll just have to stick wth Superman: The Animated series.


Really though, with no new official information to the contrary, PW might simply have left those fields as is for this listing.

I mean, there hasn't been an official statement that Singer is no longer directing or an official statement that the next Superman movie won't be a sequel has there?

[Lighthouse]

Superman Unleashed could have been a pre-title title for Man of Steel. Anyone remember Batman: Intimidation Game?

[Webhead2006]

their is so many things the unleashed news could be but untill wb makes it clear all we got is the same dam old rumors we keep talking about. It does blow that they just cant pick something already and make 100% confirmed plans. And then just do it.

[dark_b]

some people really think that because of a 10 millions contract they would hire him again ? it would make to me mroe sense that you pay him the 10 milions and make a 300 millioins domestic BO superman movie and show him the finger.

they made 1 billion with TDK and now that they would think about 10 millions.i say ha ha ha. i think a lot of directors dont want to do superman. and it looks like singer is the only one he he he. the ones who want to do the movie are maybe like Uwe Boll :)

[GreenKToo]

Spacey was great as Lex. Lex's problems in the movie lied with the script by relying too much on Hackman's out of date interpretation of Lex.
Maybe. But it's really hard for me to picture him as the ''Corporate Lex'' now after the way he was portrayed in S.R.
That said, it's possible he could pull it off I guess, and i'm not crazy enough to sit here and say I won't give him a chance, but I will be watching the production closely. We shall see what will be. (and soon I hope)

[Man of Tomorrow]

Spacey can play anything. He's brilliant.

But I'm skeptical he'll be back for this. He's pretty much done film acting.

[GreenKToo]

Well, if Singer is back, at least he will know (or he should anyway) that the fanbase is totally split over S.R., and they will be watching very closely. Think he cares? I think he does...nobody likes for their work to be criticized.
As for Spacey, i'd prefer another actor in the role as Lex, but what can you do you know.

[Showtime]

Wow, so I would say the facts are pretty indisputable. Legendary website and Production Weekly. I was hoping that maybe the date meant there was some kind of error or that it was outdated, but apparently not.

So we have it labelled as a sequel and with Singer directing. Oh well, looks like I'll just have to stick wth Superman: The Animated series.


I wouldn't get to into this news either way. We all remember how WB has been. If this whole Unleashed thing is 100%, it is only in "development" which pretty much means at the story and scripting stage. My advice, be as patient as you can be and wait to see what happens. "Development" certainly doesn't mean set in stone. Plus we have had conflicting info, Robinov mentioning "Reintroduction" but Levitz saying Routh is still Superman. This isn't made up by Slashfilm, this isn't made up by Legendary, Production Weekly isn't making it up, but we don't know exactly what this Superman movie really is.

Patience is always the key with WB.

Hey...that rhymes.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Yeah, there are those who are claiming that this is all a complete scam started by Legendary Pictures, /film, Production Weekly and whomever first broke the story. Sure, it is. :whatever:

[X-Maniac]

On a positive note for Superman Returns, I thought SR was in some senses (themes, characterisation, depth) better than Valkyrie, which was mostly such a hollow and unmemorable affair...

[FilmNerdJamie]

Would it be possible, Showtime, FNJ, for Singer to have accepted directorship of a sequel, said "I want a holiday first, if you don't mind", and WB decides to announce a new Superman movie in the wake of the Oscars (since Nolan is working on Inception) for 2011, giving Nolan time for a 2012 release (and, for those sceptical of a 2012 release for Batman 3, I present JJ Abrams Star Trek which isn't released until May, as I recall, and has been essentially finished since December)?

It's possible, sure. But I'd be shocked if Singer wound up directing the sequel.

[GreenKToo]

Nope. I believe something is up. What tho is the question.

[dark_b]

Singer would have to be desperate to make a big budget movie like WB wants. WB would have to be stupid to give singer 150 millions and let him do what he wants.

[mego joe]

Superman Returns is a million times better than those films.

Couldn't disagree more. the only comic book film I rate worse than Superman Returns is 'The Spirit,' but that's why they are opinoins.

[GreenKToo]

For me, S.R. is in the middle of the road as far as CB films go.

No offense to anyone who likes them, but F4 1&2, GR, Blade 3, B&R, catwoman, X-3, and Spidey 3 are all waaaay worse than S.R.(imvho)

I.M., Spider-Man 1&2, and TDK are loads better. Maybe Watchmen will soon be added to this list as well? Some prolly think the first two X-films should be here, and thats kool if u do.

For me, S.R. is in the same class of CB films as B.B., Hellboy 1&2, Blade 1&2, The Hulk, TIH, X-men 1&2, and V for Vendetta. Not bad company at all if you ask me but it should do lots better than this seeing as how its freakin' Superman we're talking about here.

There is no excuse to not be able to put a Superman film right up there with a Spidey or I.M. film, no excuse at all.

[mego joe]

For me, S.R. is in the middle of the road as far as CB films go.

No offense to anyone who likes them, but F4 1&2, GR, Blade 3, B&R, catwoman, X-3, and Spidey 3 are all waaaay worse than S.R.(imvho)

I.M., Spider-Man 1&2, and TDK are loads better. Maybe Watchmen will soon be added to this list as well? Some prolly think the first two X-films should be here, and thats kool if u do.

For me, S.R. is in the same class of CB films as B.B., Hellboy 1&2, Blade 1&2, The Hulk, TIH, X-men 1&2, and V for Vendetta. Not bad company at all if you ask me but it should do lots better than this seeing as how its freakin' Superman we're talking about here.

There is no excuse to not be able to put a Superman film right up there with a Spidey or I.M. film, no excuse at all.

Overall Ranking
The Dark Knight 9.75
Batman Begins 9.5
Spider-Man 9.0
Spider-Man II 9.0
The Rocketeer 8.5
The Phantom 8.5
Daredevil: The Director’s Cut 8.5
Iron Man 8.5
The Incredible Hulk 8.5
Superman: The Movie 8.0
X2: X-Men United 8.0
Daredevil 8.0
Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut 7.75
Spider-Man III 7.5
Batman (1989) 7.5
Batman Forever 7.5
Superman II 7.0
Batman Returns 7.0
Swamp Thing 7.0
X-Men 7.0
X-Men 3: The Last Stand 7.0
V for Vendetta 7.0
Ghost Rider 7.0
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer 6.5
Batman (1966) 6.0
Fantastic Four 5.0
Elektra 5.0
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace 4.0
Supergirl 4.0
Superman III 3.5
The Hulk 3.5
Batman and Robin 3.5
Superman Returns 3.25
The Spirit 3.0


If it's not on the list, I didn't see it.

[GreenKToo]

Oh wow. well I respect your opinion, but B&R over S.R.?
the spirit must be a real stinker. I havent saw it but i've only heard bad things about it.

[JAK®]

Haha, that's ridiculous.

[Superark]

I don't think Singer is coming back, but I don't know what to make of this as far as it being a sequel or simply the reintroduction WB talked about back in the fall.

However, Singer was mentioning in recent interviews that he wanted to work on a big sci-fi film next. I reckon it's possible he has worked something out with the studio

[GreenKToo]

I'd place S.R. about halfway up, or slightly above, and move alot of em' toward the bottom, but thats just me.
S:TM is still my favorite, followed by Spidey 2. TDK is in my top 5 tho.

[GreenKToo]

I don't think Singer is coming back, but I don't know what to make of this as far as it being a sequel or simply the reintroduction WB talked about back in the fall.

However, Singer was mentioning in recent interviews that he wanted to work on a big sci-fi film next. I reckon it's possible he has worked something out with the studio
From what we've heard in the past it seemed like they were wanting a reboot, but perhaps things fell through and now their looking at a sequel again.
I have a feeling things will change again before all is said and done.

[Superark]

From what we've heard in the past it seemed like they were wanting a reboot, but perhaps things fell through and now their looking at a sequel again.
I have a feeling things will change again before all is said and done.

It seems like the reports go back and forth all the time on this movie. It would seem easier for WB to go ahead with a sequel, production wise I mean since they already would have a lot of pieces in place from the previous film. Maybe WB is deciding/finding out that getting a whole new Superman film up off the ground from scratch is too much trouble.

[GreenKToo]

It seems like the reports go back and forth all the time on this movie. It would seem easier for WB to go ahead with a sequel, production wise I mean since they already would have a lot of pieces in place from the previous film. Maybe WB is deciding/finding out that getting a whole new Superman film up off the ground from scratch is too much trouble.
It sounds like a case of to many cooks in the kitchen.

[El Payaso]

Oh wow. well I respect your opinion, but B&R over S.R.?

I know, it is a too dramatic way to express his disliking. More passionate than convincing. :yay:

[FlawlessVictory]

It seems like the reports go back and forth all the time on this movie. It would seem easier for WB to go ahead with a sequel, production wise I mean since they already would have a lot of pieces in place from the previous film. Maybe WB is deciding/finding out that getting a whole new Superman film up off the ground from scratch is too much trouble.

It's nothing new, the studio's inability to get Superman on the big screen has been documented quite well. It's mind boggling a studio the size and experience of WB could have so much trouble adapting this character to the big screen. Just look at the development hell that went on through the 90's all the way up to SR.

WB just doesn't know how to handle this character. They constantly flip flop on the direction the character and story should take. They make it much harder than it needs to be. It's not brain surgery, yet to them it appears they are dumbfounded. I question sometimes whether WB should be allowed to make Superman films. Maybe it's for the better if they lose the rights to the character.

I do agree with your assessment though. They probably tried shopping the reboot/re-introduction idea to other directors and writers and for whatever reason they declined. People are scared to touch Superman now. Some think the audience is too cyncial now and the movie just won't work which I disagree with. But yea, WB saw the reboot wasn't really working out and thought at this point it would be easier to go the sequel route again. That's my guess at least.

[GreenKToo]

I agree, and I think thats where we're at (for the moment anyway).
stick around tho. i'm sure it will change like the weather again....and again....and aga....

[Superark]

It sounds like a case of to many cooks in the kitchen.

:csad:

It's nothing new, the studio's inability to get Superman on the big screen has been documented quite well. It's mind boggling a studio the size and experience of WB could have so much trouble adapting this character to the big screen. Just look at the development hell that went on through the 90's all the way up to SR.

WB just doesn't know how to handle this character. They constantly flip flop on the direction the character and story should take. They make it much harder than it needs to be. It's not brain surgery, yet to them it appears they are dumbfounded. I question sometimes whether WB should be allowed to make Superman films. Maybe it's for the better if they lose the rights to the character.

I do agree with your assessment though. They probably tried shopping the reboot/re-introduction idea to other directors and writers and for whatever reason they declined. People are scared to touch Superman now. Some think the audience is too cyncial now and the movie just won't work which I disagree with. But yea, WB saw the reboot wasn't really working out and thought at this point it would be easier to go the sequel route again. That's my guess at least.

WB is Superman's real kryptonite!

Well I can see a lot of director's passing on the proeject because if you look at the history of getting Superman on film, a lot of trouble occurs with the character and WB.

Burton did his radical thing, both Ratner and McG left, and then red hot Singer signed on & got a film on-screen, then started having problems with WB.

Maybe many of these directors think Superman is more trouble then he's worth.

[Superfreak]

Overall Ranking
The Dark Knight 9.75
Batman Begins 9.5
Spider-Man 9.0
Spider-Man II 9.0
The Rocketeer 8.5
The Phantom 8.5
Daredevil: The Director’s Cut 8.5
Iron Man 8.5
The Incredible Hulk 8.5
Superman: The Movie 8.0
X2: X-Men United 8.0
Daredevil 8.0
Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut 7.75
Spider-Man III 7.5
Batman (1989) 7.5
Batman Forever 7.5
Superman II 7.0
Batman Returns 7.0
Swamp Thing 7.0
X-Men 7.0
X-Men 3: The Last Stand 7.0
V for Vendetta 7.0
Ghost Rider 7.0
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer 6.5
Batman (1966) 6.0
Fantastic Four 5.0
Elektra 5.0
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace 4.0
Supergirl 4.0
Superman III 3.5
The Hulk 3.5
Batman and Robin 3.5
Superman Returns 3.25
The Spirit 3.0


If it's not on the list, I didn't see it.

there certainly is some bias in here.

[Mostpowerful]

Maybe the Superman fanbase is just too demanding, skeptical and too difficult to please? As a casual Superman fan that I was before watching SR, I was blown away by the film. I thought it was a good and respectful reintroduction of the character to new audiences. It was probably too serious and a little slow on the action factor for young audiences, which is easily fixable in a sequel. But that's me.

[Mostpowerful]

there certainly is some bias in here.

hyperbole

[NeoRanger]

Maybe the Superman fanbase is just too demanding, skeptical and too difficult to please?
Not really.

[Excel]

WB is Superman's real kryptonite!

No they aren't. They wanted to make a big action packed sci fi adventure but got so desperate they just gave Singer control. Now they are back to the begining.

[GL's Light]

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace 4.0
Supergirl 4.0
Superman III 3.5
The Hulk 3.5
Batman and Robin 3.5
Superman Returns 3.25
The Spirit 3.0


Well, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but yours is wrong. :cwink: :oldrazz:

[FlawlessVictory]

Not really.

Ask Superman fans how they feel about S:TAS and then ask how they feel about SR. I guarantee you'll get a more positive reaction for the former. They can be pleased. The studio just gets a major brainfart when it comes to live action for some reason. Follow the blueprint for S:TAS and we would get an amazing Superman film!:super:

[Mostpowerful]

No they aren't. They wanted to make a big action packed sci fi adventure but got so desperate they just gave Singer control. Now they are back to the begining.

They can still make a big action packed sci fi adventure with plenty of heart with the SR storyline. :cwink: All the pieces are there.

[Superark]

No they aren't. They wanted to make a big action packed sci fi adventure but got so desperate they just gave Singer control. Now they are back to the begining.

I love how people blow off WB as simply desperate and that's the reason they gave Singer full control. :whatever:

Singer was red hot off the X-Men fanchise and wanted to make a Superman film badly. He wrote a treatment and showed it to WB and, WB LOVED it!

It had nothing to do with desperate with Singer. Desperate would have been some hack-director who they just hired to get a film off the ground. There were plenty of valid reasons for them to hire Singer.

But obviously Singer's movie did not bring it the money they and everyone else projected.

Stope drinking the kool-aid

[sdc10]

They can still make a big action packed sci fi adventure with plenty of heart with the SR storyline. :cwink: All the pieces are there.

The problem is not everyone likes the pieces that are in place. One mention of the kid is enough to drive many people away.

[Superark]

Ask Superman fans how they feel about S:TAS and then ask how they feel about SR. I guarantee you'll get a more positive reaction for the former. They can be pleased. The studio just gets a major brainfart when it comes to live action for some reason. Follow the blueprint for S:TAS and we would get an amazing Superman film!:super:


While I enjoyed S:TAS and it definitely will garner the more positive reaction, there are more things you can do and get away with in a cartoon/animation then in live action, just like there is in a comic book.

I don't think you can just throw the animated series right up on-screen and still have it hold up.

Having said that, while I loved SR to death and have no problems with the movie, it's apparent that there should have been more action in the movie for the GA and Singer and WB made a big mistake not considering this.

[dark_b]

Maybe the Superman fanbase is just too demanding, skeptical and too difficult to please? As a casual Superman fan that I was before watching SR, I was blown away by the film. I thought it was a good and respectful reintroduction of the character to new audiences. It was probably too serious and a little slow on the action factor for young audiences, which is easily fixable in a sequel. But that's me.didnt you say that if brandon routh is not in the next superman movie that you wont watch it?

sounds like you are only a BR fan. nothing wrong with that.

[dark_b]

They can still make a big action packed sci fi adventure with plenty of heart with the SR storyline. :cwink: All the pieces are there.how after 2 years you dont understand that people didnt like how lex luthor acted,the kid,lois lane,.....

[Webhead2006]

It's nothing new, the studio's inability to get Superman on the big screen has been documented quite well. It's mind boggling a studio the size and experience of WB could have so much trouble adapting this character to the big screen. Just look at the development hell that went on through the 90's all the way up to SR.

WB just doesn't know how to handle this character. They constantly flip flop on the direction the character and story should take. They make it much harder than it needs to be. It's not brain surgery, yet to them it appears they are dumbfounded. I question sometimes whether WB should be allowed to make Superman films. Maybe it's for the better if they lose the rights to the character.

I do agree with your assessment though. They probably tried shopping the reboot/re-introduction idea to other directors and writers and for whatever reason they declined. People are scared to touch Superman now. Some think the audience is too cyncial now and the movie just won't work which I disagree with. But yea, WB saw the reboot wasn't really working out and thought at this point it would be easier to go the sequel route again. That's my guess at least.
That does seem like what is going on which sucks. This blows alot they just cant really get things working out well and get everyone on board. Yes a SR sequel is probably the easier option for them to go with(which i dont want to see). But i still think with the right writers they could probably get a full on reboot to happen. But untill wb knows how to handle the character better all we get is the conflicting/changing reports we have been getting for 3yrs now.

[FlawlessVictory]

Maybe the Superman fanbase is just too demanding, skeptical and too difficult to please? As a casual Superman fan that I was before watching SR, I was blown away by the film. I thought it was a good and respectful reintroduction of the character to new audiences. It was probably too serious and a little slow on the action factor for young audiences, which is easily fixable in a sequel. But that's me.

didnt you say that if brandon routh is not in the next superman movie that you wont watch it?

sounds like you are only a BR fan. nothing wrong with that.

Good point. Some of us certainly do have our demands(with how things currently stand). I won't pay to watch it if it's a direct sequel. MP won't watch it unless BR is Superman. The actor is NEVER bigger than the character and that includes Ledger, Bale, Maguire, etc... So that definitely sounds like more of a fascination/obsession with the actor moreso than a fan of the character to make that kind of statement. To each their own though. But geez, talk about demanding! :wow:

[Excel]

I love how people blow off WB as simply desperate and that's the reason they gave Singer full control. :whatever:

Singer was red hot off the X-Men fanchise and wanted to make a Superman film badly. He wrote a treatment and showed it to WB and, WB LOVED it!

It had nothing to do with desperate with Singer. Desperate would have been some hack-director who they just hired to get a film off the ground. There were plenty of valid reasons for them to hire Singer.

But obviously Singer's movie did not bring it the money they and everyone else projected.

Stope drinking the kool-aid

They liked Singers story, but they had wanted a reboot for years and it wasnt working. Plus McG Charlies Angels 2 was horrible and a bomb. When Bryan Singer, fresh off a slew of big hits and acclaimed movies, comes over saying hell do it if he can do his story, its a no brainer. His story was good though Im sure w.b. woulda prefered the origin still, but that fact is at that point in time they were not gonna tell Singer no.

[Superark]

They liked Singers story, but they had wanted a reboot for years and it wasnt working. Plus McG Charlies Angels 2 was horrible and a bomb. When Bryan Singer, fresh off a slew of big hits and acclaimed movies, comes over saying hell do it if he can do his story, its a no brainer. His story was good though Im sure w.b. woulda prefered the origin still, but that fact is at that point in time they were not gonna tell Singer no.

Singer is no different than most writers/directors who present a story to studios. They present their story/pitch because that's the film they want to make and see. Every filmmaker comes in with a preconcieved notion of what they want. So I fail to see your point.

Singer presented his story and WB said "hey this is great, we love it and think this is the right way to go, so here we are giving you free reign to do what you want"

If WB didn't think it was the best option they would have said no. They liked Singer's story, then add to the fact he had a huge money making franchise under his belt, and was a critically acclaimed director that wanted to make a Superman movie then everything WB did made perfect sense.

There is nothing desperate about their choice. If the studio was so desperate they would have gotten a movie out long ago with one of their other choices.

[JAK®]

Singer is no different than most writers/directors who present a story to studios. They present their story/pitch because that's the film they want to make and see. Every filmmaker comes in with a preconcieved notion of what they want. So I fail to see your point.

Singer presented his story and WB said "hey this is great, we love it and think this is the right way to go, so here we are giving you free reign to do what you want"

If WB didn't think it was the best option they would have said no. They liked Singer's story, then add to the fact he had a huge money making franchise under his belt, and was a critically acclaimed director that wanted to make a Superman movie then everything WB did made perfect sense.

There is nothing desperate about their choice.
I don't think Excel was saying that. Its true that before Singer was hired, WB was clearly interested in an origin.

[FlawlessVictory]

Singer is no different than most writers/directors who present a story to studios. They present their story/pitch because that's the film they want to make and see. Every filmmaker comes in with a preconcieved notion of what they want. So I fail to see your point.

Singer presented his story and WB said "hey this is great, we love it and think this is the right way to go, so here we are giving you free reign to do what you want"

If WB didn't think it was the best option they would have said no. They liked Singer's story, then add to the fact he had a huge money making franchise under his belt, and was a critically acclaimed director that wanted to make a Superman movie then everything WB did made perfect sense.

There is nothing desperate about their choice. If the studio was so desperate they would have gotten a movie out long ago with one of their other choices.

Agreed. I've heard the argument at times that WB had no choice but to go with Singer. What does that even mean? No choice? So like if they didn't choose Singer they would lose rights to Superman? Was the studio in danger if WB didn't pick Singer at that time? WB ALWAYS had a choice. They liked Singer's pitch. Singer didn't hold a gun to their head and they weren't up against any time constraints. They could have just as easily passed on Singer and continued to wait.

[Excel]

Singer is no different than most writers/directors who present a story to studios. They present their story/pitch because that's the film they want to make and see. Every filmmaker comes in with a preconcieved notion of what they want. So I fail to see your point.

How?? The film was 2 years late already and clearly going nowhere. They could

1)continue with Mcg and let him keep working
or
2)Throw away 3 years of work and money and time and just let Singer run with Returns story.

They were fed with McG and the castign struggles, espec. given McGs uneven track record, and gave Singer total control (because he had credibilty), something didnt give McG or Ratner.

Singer presented his story and WB said "hey this is great, we love it and think this is the right way to go, so here we are giving you free reign to do what you want"

They liked his idea a lot, I wont deny that. My point is, a big reason they liked was because it was SINGERS idea. Had McG come up to them in spring 2004 and said "guy, I wanna do this story instead" and then told Singers story, they would have said "GTFO. Supes with a kid? No alien villains? How do we sell it?". But at that point they just said "Singer knows what hes doing, let him run wild".

If WB didn't think it was the best option they would have said no.

They thought Singer running the show was the best option. Theres a differnce.

They liked Singer's story, then add to the fact he had a huge money making franchise under his belt, and was a critically acclaimed director that wanted to make a Superman movie then everything WB did made perfect sense.

They did like his story, my point was all along w.b. wanted an origin movie to start a franchise and make sequels; why the hell do you think the only condition W.B. gave Singer was to cast YOUNG actors and sign them to multi year deals?

There is nothing desperate about their choice.

Other than that they threw away years of work, millions of dollars, and countless efforts of others over the course of a 3 hour meeting...

If the studio was so desperate they would have gotten a movie out long ago with one of their other choices.

Where were you from 2002-2004? They tried DESPERATELY but simply couldnt come up with an actor. Fraser and Bomer were both signed for the role; all they had to do was pick one, and Abrams 2nd draft was good to go for Summer 2004. They couldnt pick one and elected to destroy the contracts, and were forced to push Harry Potter 4 back instead for the 2nd half of summer 2004 tentpole as Superman wasnt going to make it.

[Immortalfire]

Ask Superman fans how they feel about S:TAS and then ask how they feel about SR. I guarantee you'll get a more positive reaction for the former. They can be pleased. The studio just gets a major brainfart when it comes to live action for some reason. Follow the blueprint for S:TAS and we would get an amazing Superman film!:super:

Agreed, I prefer the Clark/Lois relationship in the animated series than any live action version. In the 'toon there is an attraction between them, but they keep things professional, and Clark doesn't continually pine for her. Lois doesn't even have to be in constant peril, or even around the crisis area for Superman to do his job.

[Excel]

Agreed. I've heard the argument at times that WB had no choice but to go with Singer. What does that even mean? No choice? So like if they didn't choose Singer they would lose rights to Superman?

No, it means that if they did not go with Singer, there was no way the film would be out in for 2006. It was semi rushed as is seeing Singer signed about 22 months before the release and they started from scratch (by comparison, Nolan was 31 months and Raimi was 29). Seeing as the film was SUPPOSED to be out in Summer 2004 (it was considered a lock for July 4th by just about every studio, but when it got pushed back Spidey 2 snagged it), having out in summer 2006 became the to priority of w.b.

They wanted shooting in early 2003 with set construction even underway; here are some imdb articles form back then:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0711840/news?year=2003

[dark_b]

yeah the contract with Singer really was fast. and he still got a new contract.
maybe he can manipulate people? :)

[Superark]

I think the best response to Excel' last post is what Flawless posted before. So here it is...

Agreed. I've heard the argument at times that WB had no choice but to go with Singer. What does that even mean? No choice? So like if they didn't choose Singer they would lose rights to Superman? Was the studio in danger if WB didn't pick Singer at that time? WB ALWAYS had a choice. They liked Singer's pitch. Singer didn't hold a gun to their head and they weren't up against any time constraints. They could have just as easily passed on Singer and continued to wait.

Exactly!

[Excel]

I think the best response to Excel' last post is what Flawless posted before. So here it is...



Exactly!

They WERE under their own time restraints. It looks terrible when studios push a movie back, espec. when Horne publically said "Well Superman on July 4th in 2004" backn in 2002 and it didnt happen. Wheres somebody else who was around here then, they were more than desperate to get the film going. Heres some more from the chaos:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000409/news?year=2003

[Excel]

Had W.B. had their way, a star wars esque, action packed Superman starring Josh Hartnett as Supes, Anthony Hopkins as Jor-el, Bruce Willis as Lex, and Keri Russel as Lois directed by Brett Ratner would have opened over July 4th 2004. It would be a decent movie that was awesome to watch, and made a ton of cash.

[Nixon]

Or it might've flopped hard and we'd be right where we are now. There's no way to know.

[Excel]

Or it might've flopped hard and we'd be right where we are now. There's no way to know.

It wouldnt have. As I explained elsewhere, Superman Returns 200 million is about as low as a Supes film will get. That had huge competition, terrible marketing, and an even worse release date.

2004 Supes woulda had a MUCH better release date and been MUCH more marketable. Even if it was the worst film of the year it would have topped 250 million simply because the opening week would have been enormous.

[Superark]

They WERE under their own time restraints. It looks terrible when studios push a movie back, espec. when Horne publically said "Well Superman on July 4th in 2004" backn in 2002 and it didnt happen. Wheres somebody else who was around here then, they were more than desperate to get the film going. Heres some more from the chaos:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000409/news?year=2003

Had W.B. had their way, a star wars esque, action packed Superman starring Josh Hartnett as Supes, Anthony Hopkins as Jor-el, Bruce Willis as Lex, and Keri Russel as Lois directed by Brett Ratner would have opened over July 4th 2004. It would be a decent movie that was awesome to watch, and made a ton of cash.

I am well aware of the history behind Superman on film since I've been following it for years.

WB had been pushing back Superman for years and years. Pushing it back again wouldn't have been anything new or a game changer.

Basically everything you said just further illustrates the point that if WB was so deperate just to get a Superman film out, they would have went with all those other ideas and choices before and not had battled with those directors.

What happened then was Singer came along and presented something they thought would work great, especially since the Donner movie was so well loved, and the rest is history. There were no problems between Singer and WB during production because they were totally behind him and his script.

Then not only did they like his script, but Singer had so many other positives about him that made him an obvious choice.

To me a desperate pick just to get a Superman film would have been Ratner (although he had BO success himself, so I guess he really wasn't a desperate pick, just not that great), or McG.

I mean would Speilberg be a desperate choice? Would Raimi?

[Excel]

I have a lot of trouble believing w.b. "loved" the idea of making a sequel to the donner movies after spending years wanting something totally different.

[GreenKToo]

Its kinda the fault of the fans. I remember well alot wanted the donnerverse continued on.

[Superark]

^^ Good point GreenKToo. Another thing to consider that enough time went by after the last Superman movie, which was a complete flop, both critically and commercially, which is why WB started over. There were no Donner "movies" since he only made one.

But Singer came along with a story WB went nuts over and said "Hey forget Superman III and IV when it comes to my movie, just consider the Donner movie everyone loves and Lester's Superman II." The logic there is hey, go with what worked.

[dark_b]

Its kinda the fault of the fans. I remember well alot wanted the donnerverse continued on.funny how all the donner obsession stoped after SR hahahhahahahhahaha :hehe:

[GreenKToo]

^^ Good point GreenKToo. Another thing to consider that enough time went by after the last Superman movie, which was a complete flop, both critically and commercially, which is why WB started over. There were no Donner "movies" since he only made one.

But Singer came along with a story WB went nuts over and said "Hey forget Superman III and IV when it comes to my movie, just consider the Donner movie everyone loves and Lester's Superman II." The logic there is hey, go with what worked.
The only problem with that logic was that it was about 15 yrs too late.
It shoulda started from scratch. Krypton, smallville, putting the suit on for the first time, etc.
Imagine the plane scene in S.R. being in an origin film, and its Superman's first appearence to the world.

[GreenKToo]

funny how all the donner obsession stoped after SR hahahhahahahhahaha :hehe:
haha yeah. I think it would be nutts to continue it on, but hey, its not my money if thats what they wanna do.

[NeoRanger]

I'm pretty sure they loved Singer's pitch, but I find it hard to believe that they didn't get carried away one bit and rushed things a little. Singer came on board in '04 for an '06 release. Batman in '05 and Superman in '06, a perfect plan that comes off a bit too much of a coincidence to just fall in line, after they had struck out with the property so many times before. So, yeah, I personally hold my reservations about how much they examined all options and possible outcomes from not only going with Singer's pitch, but giving him free reign over Superman.

[Superark]

This is debatable, and obviously just my opinion, but I don't think reverting back to the Donner's film had anything to do with SR underperforming.

The lack of action and a supervillian was the problem. Singer could have still stayed in the universe Donner created and used those two things and made a huge difference.

[afan]

IMO.
There is nothing inherently flawed in carrying the Donnerverse forward.
Singer's "vague history" morass was the problem.

[dark_b]

the problem was obviously the lack of action and of course it was waaaaaaaaay to serious.

[Superark]

I'm pretty sure they loved Singer's pitch, but I find it hard to believe that they didn't get carried away one bit and rushed things a little. Singer came on board in '04 for an '06 release. Batman in '05 and Superman in '06, a perfect plan that comes off a bit too much of a coincidence to just fall in line, after they had struck out with the property so many times before. So, yeah, I personally hold my reservations about how much they examined all options and possible outcomes from not only going with Singer's pitch, but giving him free reign over Superman.


The timeline between when Singer came on-board and when SR was released is not unusual. That was plenty of time to make the movie they made. Most big-budget action movies take about the time SR took.

And WB stopped examining options after Singer because they liked what he presented. That's not uncommon.

[Superark]

the problem was obviously the lack of action and of course it was waaaaaaaaay to serious.

When it comes to the General Audience, it is as simple as that.

[NeoRanger]

The timeline between when Singer came on-board and when SR was released is not unusual. That was plenty of time to make the movie they made. Most big-budget action movies take about the time SR took.
That's exactly my point. They're at loss on what to do and suddenly Singer shows up and their seemingly perfect plan just falls in place. It must have seemed too good not to follow, at least to some extend.

[Superark]

edit

[sdc10]

When it comes to the General Audience, it is as simple as that.

Even the non general audience had a problem with that, as a comic book fan i love a good story as much as the next person but sakes have him at least hit SOMETHING. Hes Superman for crying out loud.

[dark_b]

When it comes to the General Audience, it is as simple as that.well after all he is superman. he is an human looking alien that is super strong and super fast. and the guy can even fly. you need to show something incredible with 200 millions.

[Mostpowerful]

The problem is not everyone likes the pieces that are in place. One mention of the kid is enough to drive many people away.

Yes, apparently, but it's mostly among the internet fanboys. The GP could careless, as long as the action and entertainment factors are there, they are happy.



didnt you say that if brandon routh is not in the next superman movie that you wont watch it?

sounds like you are only a BR fan. nothing wrong with that.

I'm a fan of both. I even buy the comics. And yes, nothing wrong with that. It is what it is.


Good point. Some of us certainly do have our demands(with how things currently stand). I won't pay to watch it if it's a direct sequel. MP won't watch it unless BR is Superman. The actor is NEVER bigger than the character and that includes Ledger, Bale, Maguire, etc... So that definitely sounds like more of a fascination/obsession with the actor moreso than a fan of the character to make that kind of statement. To each their own though. But geez, talk about demanding! :wow:

It is what it is. You yourself seem quite 'obsessed with hating the kid storyline'...

And it seems that WB, DC and Legendary also like Brandon Routh a lot.


Or it might've flopped hard and we'd be right where we are now. There's no way to know.

Exactly. We don't know for sure.


the problem was obviously the lack of action and of course it was waaaaaaaaay to serious.

Agreed. I loved the movie as is, but it wasn't exactly an action flick, just like XMen.

[Nixon]

It wouldnt have. As I explained elsewhere, Superman Returns 200 million is about as low as a Supes film will get. That had huge competition, terrible marketing, and an even worse release date.

2004 Supes woulda had a MUCH better release date and been MUCH more marketable. Even if it was the worst film of the year it would have topped 250 million simply because the opening week would have been enormous.


Nah, the twenty million or so that Superman IV: The Quest for Peace made is probably as low as a Superman movie will go.

As to the rest, a better release date? Maybe. But the rest is all stuff we can't do more than speculate on. We're still talking about a movie that was never made. More marketable? Maybe, but maybe not. The footage could look terrible, the trailers horrible, and the reviews overwhelmingly negative. Whatever star wattage Hopkins or Willis might've brought or the benefits of a better release date would be negated if that were the case.

Could the movie have been successful? Sure. Could it have bombed? Sure. We can't know.

[Mostpowerful]

Ask Superman fans how they feel about S:TAS and then ask how they feel about SR. I guarantee you'll get a more positive reaction for the former. They can be pleased. The studio just gets a major brainfart when it comes to live action for some reason. Follow the blueprint for S:TAS and we would get an amazing Superman film!:super:

I know many Superman fans who think STAS is overrated. I think there are many good elements in it, but it is just a cortoon mostly for young audiences, it's not fleshed out enough to my tastes. For instance, Superman wasn't powerful enough. I think the Donner/Singer universes are superior in quality, and way more famous and well-known worldwide.

[Excel]

Nah, the twenty million or so that Superman IV: The Quest for Peace made is probably as low as a Superman movie will go.

that was 20 years ago

[Nixon]

So, bad movies can't flop anymore?

[FlawlessVictory]

I know many Superman fans who think STAS is overrated. I think there are many good elements in it, but it is just a cortoon mostly for young audiences, it's not fleshed out enough to my tastes. For instance, Superman wasn't powerful enough. I think the Donner/Singer universes are superior in quality, and way more famous and well-known worldwide.

Sure, it's overrated, because it's not Singer's Superman. So I guess we can add S:TAS to BB and TDK as being overrated to you. Well I know a lot of Superman fans who feel S:TAS is superior to SR in every way imaginable. And of course the Donner/Singer movies are more famous and well-known worldwide. I would hope so. But popularity does not make it better in quality.

And at least the creators behind the S:TAS bothered to look past Donner's Superman movie and show there is more to his universe, not just crystals and evil real estate plans.

[Kryptonian Warrior]

the problem was obviously the lack of action and of course it was waaaaaaaaay to serious.
IMO, the purpose of SR was to re-introduce the character to the world, since it had been 20 years since he was on the big screen. Plus today's generation, from the early '90s to the present, didn't really know too much of the Donner Superman films, so they wanted to show a film that would kind of give a backstory to the character, but update it with a new look and feel. Also IMO, I believe that the balance between the action and character development was just right. That was one of the complaints with Transformers (which I LOVED), too many humans and not enough robots. For some reason nowadays, people mostly want ALL action and NO story. I just don't get it. Most people want twinkies, but don't want the filler.:oldrazz:

[dark_b]

IMO, the purpose of SR was to re-introduce the character to the world, since it had been 20 years since he was on the big screen. Plus today's generation, from the early '90s to the present, didn't really know too much of the Donner Superman films, so they wanted to show a film that would kind of give a backstory to the character, but update it with a new look and feel. Also IMO, I believe that the balance between the action and character development was just right. That was one of the complaints with Transformers (which I LOVED), too many humans and not enough robots. For some reason nowadays, people mostly want ALL action and NO story. I just don't get it. Most people want twinkies, but don't want the filler.:oldrazz:yeah you dont get it. TDK and IM. :o

i really dont get why people think that since i want more action that i want zero story. but i guess this is just how you all are.

[NeoRanger]

I'd love to meet whoever complained that "Transformers" had too much story and not enough action. And then kill them. And conserve oxygen for me.

[Kryptonian Warrior]

yeah you dont get it. TDK and IM. :o

i really dont get why people think that since i want more action that i want zero story. but i guess this is just how you all are.
You read what I wrote, but you obviously didn't understand. I said people MOSTLY want all action and no story, so don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say.

[Kryptonian Warrior]

I'd love to meet whoever complained that "Transformers" had too much story and not enough action. And then kill them. And conserve oxygen for me.
Again that is not what I said. In the Transformers quote, I said that people complained about there not being enough robots but too many humans.

[dark_b]

You read what I wrote, but you obviously didn't understand. I said people MOSTLY want all action and no story, so don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say.its summer ,expensive tickets and its f.... superman. what do you expect from them?

you think they came to watch hamlet in a 200 milions movie?

[NeoRanger]

But how is that relevant? I guess you can say it's comparable to how people complained about not enough Superman in SR, but I'd hardly call it an issue with the people who actually want to see the title characters not taking a backseat to the supporting cast.

[mego joe]

Oh wow. well I respect your opinion, but B&R over S.R.?
the spirit must be a real stinker. I havent saw it but i've only heard bad things about it.

I can watch B&R in the right frame of mind ala the Batman T.V. show. It's entertaining and it has a fun element. But SR is just so slow and boring it is not very interesting to watch. Just not the right story for the character. The idea has a lot of merit, but the actual execution of the idea with the story they came up with and the use of S:TM as a scene by scene template just doesn't add up to a fun experience. That's one of the biggest issues with SR, it's just not fun or really entertaining.

Yeah, the Spirit is bad. If you think SR is slow and boring you haven't seen anything. The characters are about as shallow as they get and it's entirely predictable.

[mego joe]

there certainly is some bias in here.

It's honestly just my opinion.

[mego joe]

They liked Singers story, but they had wanted a reboot for years and it wasnt working. Plus McG Charlies Angels 2 was horrible and a bomb. When Bryan Singer, fresh off a slew of big hits and acclaimed movies, comes over saying hell do it if he can do his story, its a no brainer. His story was good though Im sure w.b. woulda prefered the origin still, but that fact is at that point in time they were not gonna tell Singer no.

That's the biggest mistake W.B.made. His story wasn't good. At least for a Superman story. The idea of Superman coming back to a world that had moved on was a good idea, but the actual story we got was not a good story. I often wonder just what the pitch included and sounded like versus what was actually filmed.

[mego joe]

Its kinda the fault of the fans. I remember well alot wanted the donnerverse continued on.

They those fans need to ante up and bail WB out of SInger's pay or play contract so we can get a reboot.

[mego joe]

the problem was obviously the lack of action and of course it was waaaaaaaaay to serious.

Not too serious, just a bad Superman story. Or a story that wasn't really a Superman story. It's a 'hit-and-run boyfriend' story. Not a Superman story. That's the biggest problem.

[Immortalfire]

That's the biggest mistake W.B.made. His story wasn't good. At least for a Superman story. The idea of Superman coming back to a world that had moved on was a good idea, but the actual story we got was not a good story.

Yup. Their plan of "a world that has moved on without him"..really wasn't addressed. It seemed to me, Lois was the only one that seemed to snub his return. Most everyone seemed pretty glad he was back. :huh:

[Kryptonian Warrior]

But how is that relevant? I guess you can say it's comparable to how people complained about not enough Superman in SR, but I'd hardly call it an issue with the people who actually want to see the title characters not taking a backseat to the supporting cast.
That is what the inevitable sequel is for. The first in a series is USUALLY designed to introduce the characters, and then go all "Wrath of Kahn" in the next film. :woot: