Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion

[GreenKToo]

Somebody is about to get filthy rich.

[afan]

Just wondering......Does anyone own the rights to flying?
For the sake of argument/discussion ...say the Seigel family "license" the details they now own to another film producer and in the course of that story Superman develops a flight power. Isn't the power of flight generic enough in super-herodom as to not be owned.

This reminds me of the Tarzan properties back in the '30s when several studios were allowed to produce films featuring the character.

In the end it just simply seems that WB in making a Superman film will need to pony up a fee to the Seigel family.

[BlackLantern]

not the rights to flying...but flying as a concept in the DC universe as it applies to Superman, then yes if DC introduced that as a facet of the character, they own it

[afan]

Somebody is about to get filthy rich.

Ya know I don't really begrudge them. When you consider the amount of money Superman properties have generated over the decades, and the pittance the Seigel family has recieved.....more power to 'em.

[RogueDK]

^^^Agreed.

[afan]

not the rights to flying...but flying as a concept in the DC universe as it applies to Superman, then yes if DC introduced that as a facet of the character, they own it

Are you referring to the yellow sun gifted power of flight. What if the power is otherwise explained.

[BlackLantern]

Are you referring to the yellow sun gifted power of flight. What if the power is otherwise explained.

yes

[Angeloz]

Ya know I don't really begrudge them. When you consider the amount of money Superman properties have generated over the decades, and the pittance the Seigel family has recieved.....more power to 'em.

Agreed.

Are you referring to the yellow sun gifted power of flight. What if the power is otherwise explained.

That's why there needs to be a deal. The families own some of it and the WB own other parts of the story. It's just the WB have to face facts and do the deal. Presumedly a more permanent one. Or piece by piece. Because otherwise they won't have him. And the families have limitations with him (no flying nor some vision powers nor kryptonite, etc.). So it's get together time.

Angeloz

[Blackman]

I understand receiving money compensation or a cut off of movies, shows, cartoons, etc. but why give them right to Superman's origin

and I agree Angeloz it really is "get together time" or somebody is gonna f*** up the character even worse

[afan]

Agreed.



That's why there needs to be a deal. The families own some of it and the WB own other parts of the story. It's just the WB have to face facts and do the deal. Presumedly a more permanent one. Or piece by piece. Because otherwise they won't have him. And the families have limitations with him (no flying nor some vision powers nor kryptonite, etc.). So it's get together time.

Angeloz

Kryptonite sure as it is specific to Superman, but flying? not so sure....... Peter Pan flew long before Superman.

And speaking of kryptonite if the Seigels get Krypton.... where does kryptonite come from?

[afan]

I understand receiving money compensation or a cut off of movies, shows, cartoons, etc. but why give them right to Superman's origin

and I agree Angeloz it really is "get together time" or somebody is gonna f*** up the character even worse

As I understand it the judgement is seperating the aspects of the character that were developed outside of employment by a company from those developed while being paid to do so.

[Antonello Blueberry]

Cornfields in Smallville?
They will reach an agreement, the rights they got back are only for the USA. DC and WB still owns 100% of Superman outside the USA.

[C. Lee]

Kryptonite sure as it is specific to Superman, but flying? not so sure....... Peter Pan flew long before Superman.

And speaking of kryptonite if the Seigels get Krypton.... where does kryptonite come from?

The concept of Kryptonite was invented by the writers of the radio program....so the families can't have control of it....and you don't have to call it by name, just show green rock and everyone knows what it is.

[Angeloz]

Kryptonite sure as it is specific to Superman, but flying? not so sure....... Peter Pan flew long before Superman.

And speaking of kryptonite if the Seigels get Krypton.... where does kryptonite come from?

In the early comics he could jump real high. Flying came later. That's why it's mixed. I'll admit I'm not completely knowledgeable with his history in the forties. Or any decade in depth.

Angeloz

[Crook]

The concept of Kryptonite was invented by the writers of the radio program....so the families can't have control of it....and you don't have to call it by name, just show green rock and everyone knows what it is.
They just own the name? Isn't there some sort of copyright violation if it looks exactly the same?

[ultimatefan]

Basically the family owns one piece and wb owns another piece. There going to work something out because now the family can make money off of their piece. There not going to sell it to marvel or start producing there own comic book.They want there cut and now they can get it cause WB is going to have to pony up some money.

And if they do an origin, who says they need to start off with krypton and his parents. Sorry ultimatefan your not making any sense in justifying that there not doing an origin because they dont want to pay. Especially if the family owns the name clark kent, superman, lois they're going to have to pay anyways.

I´m making perfect sense. What I always meant with not do an origin movie, is not get back to Krypton blowing up and his parents sending him to Earth. And quite frankly,how many fans will want an origin story that takes a big chunk of the movie and is not that? Remember the JJ Abrams script that Had Krypton not blowing up, Superman as part of a prophecy, etc.? Fans were pissed as hell about that, imagine if you don´t even use the name Krypton. And I´m even less interested in showing Clark discovering his powers, Smallville milked that cow pretty much to the last drop.

Quite frankly, to me this is more of an opportunity than a problem. I´ve always defended, there are over 70 years of Superman stories, it shows tremendous lack of confidence from the fans to insist on retelling a story that´s been told in every media Superman has been explored, including movies, like there´s no way you can start the movie with an established, ongoing Superman and just tell a good, exciting Superman story. There are tons of ways to make the audience get invested and care for Superman without just making the damn planet blow up for the billionth time.

[Angeloz]

As I've said before how can they make a Superman film without the names of Superman nor Clark Kent. Slight problem. I think you know the answer to.

Angeloz

[TheComicbookKid]

No, I think they now own the name and the original blue/red suit. Just not the Modern S which they will never get. The Daily Planet, Jimmy, and Perry were radio creations I believe so they probably won't get those.

When did Metropolis get named? And Lex might be up for grabs if they can prove they invented it before coming to DC.

[TheComicbookKid]

As I've said before how can they make a Superman film without the names of Superman nor Clark Kent. Slight problem. I think you know the answer to.

Angeloz

The WB/DC were already paying them for Superman/Clark Kent. That's what they were using to say Superboy was their concept since it's the same character.


Now they have to pay for the Lois/Clark/Superman love triangle dynamic.

[ultimatefan]

As I've said before how can they make a Superman film without the names of Superman nor Clark Kent. Slight problem. I think you know the answer to.

Angeloz


The article never mentioned that they own the names Superman and Clark Kent, just Kal-El and his parents.

[rocco2216]

The article never mentioned that they own the names Superman and Clark Kent, just Kal-El and his parents.


Just baby Kal-El, right?

[Angeloz]

The WB/DC were already paying them for Superman/Clark Kent. Now they have to pay for the Lois/Clark/Superman love triangle dynamic.

Interesting. How do you know this? Just wondering. I'll admit I don't know the nitty gritty details.

Angeloz

[Angeloz]

The article never mentioned that they own the names Superman and Clark Kent, just Kal-El and his parents.

I read a different article Double Down posted at Bluetights that said they do own him. I think it was a Variety article.

Angeloz

[BenReilly]

The article never mentioned that they own the names Superman and Clark Kent, just Kal-El and his parents.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007269.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

In 2008, the same court order ruled on summary judgment that the Siegels had successfully recaptured (as of 1999) Siegel's copyright in Action Comics No. 1, giving them rights to the Superman character, including his costume, his alter-ego as reporter Clark Kent, the feisty reporter Lois Lane, their jobs at the Daily Planet newspaper working for a gruff editor, and the love triangle among Clark/Superman and Lois.

[ultimatefan]

One way or another, if before I didn´t see reason to get back to the whole Krypton blowing up thing, I see even less reason now.

[ultimatefan]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007269.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

So they were already paying for the love triangle as well. The thing is, you can´t tell any Superman story without the name Superman - it has to be on the cover, or the movie´s title,etc. - and a lenghty one without Clark Kent. But you can perfetly well tell a story without mentioning the origin. That´s the difference.

[TheComicbookKid]

Interesting. How do you know this? Just wondering. I'll admit I don't know the nitty gritty details.

Angeloz

I saw that in another article. I'll try and find it( unless I'm going crazy).

[Angeloz]

So they were already paying for the love triangle as well. The thing is, you can´t tell any Superman story without the name Superman - it has to be on the cover, or the movie´s title,etc. - and a lenghty one without Clark Kent. But you can perfetly well tell a story without mentioning the origin. That´s the difference.

Wouldn't that include not mentioning Krypton. So I disagree.

Angeloz

[Timstuff]

If they want to reintroduce Superman the right way, they have to include his origin in some manner. Ideally the movie should be made for everyone, not just people who have some pre-existing knowledge of Superman. That's part of what hurt Superman Returns-- if you're introducing the character to a new generation, you shouldn't expect them to do homework prior to watching it. Also, they need to pay for the rights if they want to talk about Krypton, so they might as well get their money's worth out of it.

[Angeloz]

I saw that in another article. I'll try and find it( unless I'm going crazy).

I look forward to seeing it if you can find it.

Angeloz

[Crook]

ultimatefan is right in the sense that you don't need the origin (pre-Metropolis) in the first film to tell a proper reintroduction story of the character. BUT, to completely ignore it throughout the entire franchise would be a disservice to the mythos. You have to address Krypton and his heritage at some point.

Which means these 2 will have to reach an agreement. Both have essential parts that don't work exclusively without the others.

[Angeloz]

ultimatefan is right in the sense that you don't need the origin (pre-Metropolis) in the first film to tell a proper reintroduction story of the character. BUT, to completely ignore it throughout the entire franchise would be a disservice to the mythos. You have to address Krypton and his heritage at some point.

Which means these 2 will have to reach an agreement. Both have essential parts that don't work exclusively without the others.

Yep. It's logical and sensible. Now the question is will it be done. Or when will it be done is probably more accurate. I hope.

Angeloz

[Timstuff]

The way things are, Warner Bros. can't make money off of Superman unless they pay the family, and the family cant make money off of Superman unless they lease the rights to Warner Bros. They are in a mutually dependent situation, so I wouldn't expect to see Marvel publishing Superman any time soon.

[rocco2216]

So they were already paying for the love triangle as well. The thing is, you can´t tell any Superman story without the name Superman - it has to be on the cover, or the movie´s title,etc. - and a lenghty one without Clark Kent. But you can perfetly well tell a story without mentioning the origin. That´s the difference.


Where on that article does it say that the Seigels own the name Superman and Clark Kent? :huh:

[TheComicbookKid]

I look forward to seeing it if you can find it.

Angeloz

Nevermind. I'm crazy!:oldrazz::yay:

[Angeloz]

Where on that article does it say that the Seigels own the name Superman and Clark Kent?

It's in a Variety article.

Angeloz

[TheComicbookKid]

Scratch that ThinkMcFly backed me up. It was in the previous ruling.

"What does this all mean? The Siegels now own the rights to most of Superman's origin that we are familiar with from the comics and the Donnverse. This includes; Superman's Kryptonian parents, infant Kal-El, the explosion of Krypton, the infant Kal-El being sent from Krypton in a ship, and infant Kal-El crash landing on earth. This is in addition to their ownership of Action Comics #1 which was awarded to the Siegels in 2008. That previous ruling allows them rights to reporter Clark Kent, reporter Lois Lane, their jobs at the Daily Planet working for an obsessive editor, and the romantic dyanmic between Lois, Clark, and Superman."


Aside from Metropolis, the powers, and Jimmy/Perry and the S they have a lot of stuff now.

[Angeloz]

Scratch that ThinkMcFly backed me up. It was in the previous ruling.

"What does this all mean? The Siegels now own the rights to most of Superman's origin that we are familiar with from the comics and the Donnverse. This includes; Superman's Kryptonian parents, infant Kal-El, the explosion of Krypton, the infant Kal-El being sent from Krypton in a ship, and infant Kal-El crash landing on earth. This is in addition to their ownership of Action Comics #1 which was awarded to the Siegels in 2008. That previous ruling allows them rights to reporter Clark Kent, reporter Lois Lane, their jobs at the Daily Planet working for an obsessive editor, and the romantic dyanmic between Lois, Clark, and Superman."


Aside from Metropolis, the powers, and Jimmy/Perry and the S they have a lot of stuff now.

Thanks. :)

Are you sure about Metropolis? I know the newspaper used to be the Daily Star. But it was a newspaper.

Angeloz

[afan]

Where does all this leave Supergirl?

Will this finally be the impetus for an Elastic Lad film?:yay:

[TheComicbookKid]

Thanks. :)

Are you sure about Metropolis? I know the newspaper used to be the Daily Star. But it was a newspaper.

Angeloz

According to Wiki, Metropolis wasn't named until Action Comics 2.

[Angeloz]

According to Wiki, Metropolis wasn't named until Action Comics 2.

The complicating factor is they (Siegels) also own two weeks worth of newspaper strips, Action Comics #4 and some of the pages of Superman #1. Which will probably mean Metropolis is mentioned (Superman Homepage News though I'm not sure about Metropolis).

Angeloz

[TheComicbookKid]

The complicating factor is they (Siegels) also own two weeks worth of newspaper strips, Action Comics #4 and some of the pages of Superman #1. Which will probably mean Metropolis is mentioned (Superman Homepage News though I'm not sure about Metropolis).

Angeloz

Yeah, but I think it has to do with where it was named. They got Superman's origin but not Ma and Pa Kent apparently though they were seen in those pages? But were only called as the Kents and they took him to an orphanage.


According to Wiki

Although a "passing motorist" is described as having found the infant Kal-El (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Kal-El) in the character's first appearance in 1938's Action Comics (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Action_Comics) #1, 1939's Superman #1 introduces Superman's adoptive parents to the mythos, with "Mary Kent" being the only parent given a name. The Kents' first names vary in stories from the 1940s




This whole thing is a headache. DC is the one who explains Superman's costume origin so they retain that right, but the Siegels have the rights to the red/blue suit but not the modern emblem?

[Man of Tomorrow]

So would a potential Superman movie in development by 2011 be able to use any of the properties that the S+S families acquired??

[Octoberist]

i think no matter what, WB would have to pay them up for some of the rights that they own, when the movie starts.

[TheComicbookKid]

Yes. The Shuster family doesn' t own anything before 2013. DC is co-owner of everything(including the stuff from the origin). DC just has to pay the Siegel family just for using the stuff they officially now co-own.

[ultimatefan]

Wouldn't that include not mentioning Krypton. So I disagree.

Angeloz

You can perfectly well tell a Superman story without mentioning Krypton. Absolutely. Even in the movies it has been mentioned to death already.

[ultimatefan]

ultimatefan is right in the sense that you don't need the origin (pre-Metropolis) in the first film to tell a proper reintroduction story of the character. BUT, to completely ignore it throughout the entire franchise would be a disservice to the mythos. You have to address Krypton and his heritage at some point.

Which means these 2 will have to reach an agreement. Both have essential parts that don't work exclusively without the others.

They can at least make one movie to reenergize the franchise with fresh ideas instead of going back to the origin yet again and build up its popularity again without mentioning the origin or Krypton. Once the franchise is on solid ground again, you can work that stuff out.

[solidsnake86]

They can at least make one movie to reenergize the franchise with fresh ideas instead of going back to the origin yet again and build up its popularity again without mentioning the origin or Krypton. Once the franchise is on solid ground again, you can work that stuff out.

Thats the thing though, they need to reenergize this franchise. I don't think many people are arguing for STM part 2- better FX. Most posters here want to see it redone on the big screen adding in new elements. I see that your argument is basically we've seen it a dozen times, but have we seen it done properly with todays technology.... no.

[ultimatefan]

Thats the thing though, they need to reenergize this franchise. I don't think many people are arguing for STM part 2- better FX. Most posters here want to see it redone on the big screen adding in new elements. I see that your argument is basically we've seen it a dozen times, but have we seen it done properly with todays technology.... no.

Just updating FX is nowhere near enough reason to go and retell it all over again. And it was done fairly properly in 1978, it´s not like comparing the 1933 King Kong with the modern one.

[solidsnake86]

It's not just todays technology though. They've added new layers to it, not to mention they're releasing another book called secret origins. Not everyone agrees that STM is the be all and end all.

[Angeloz]

Yeah, but I think it has to do with where it was named. They got Superman's origin but not Ma and Pa Kent apparently though they were seen in those pages? But were only called as the Kents and they took him to an orphanage.


According to Wiki

Although a "passing motorist" is described as having found the infant Kal-El (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Kal-El) in the character's first appearance in 1938's Action Comics (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Action_Comics) #1, 1939's Superman #1 introduces Superman's adoptive parents to the mythos, with "Mary Kent" being the only parent given a name. The Kents' first names vary in stories from the 1940s




This whole thing is a headache. DC is the one who explains Superman's costume origin so they retain that right, but the Siegels have the rights to the red/blue suit but not the modern emblem?

Yeah DC has the modern symbol. That's why they need to do a deal. Because bye-bye DC otherwise when it comes to Superman. They both want money so that's what needs to happen.

You can perfectly well tell a Superman story without mentioning Krypton. Absolutely. Even in the movies it has been mentioned to death already.

So why does Superman have his powers? Yes you can mention the sun but you'd also have to note he's alien. Which would mean they could sue them for it even without the mention of Krypton. That said they also own Clark Kent and Superman. So if you do a deal for names why not all of them?

Angeloz

[ultimatefan]

Yeah DC has the modern symbol. That's why they need to do a deal. Because bye-bye DC otherwise when it comes to Superman. They both want money so that's what needs to happen.



So why does Superman have his powers? Yes you can mention the sun but you'd also have to note he's alien. Which would mean they could sue them for it even without the mention of Krypton. That said they also own Clark Kent and Superman. So if you do a deal for names why not all of them?

Angeloz


All of that has been explained more times than almost anything in the history of pop culture. In movies as well. The lawsuit is specific to the use of the term Krypton and the origin story, you can mention he´s alien without mentioning Krypton. Of course in the comics you need to mention it and even in a new ongoing movie series eventually, but each mention is a different pay, and for one movie, again, you can skip all that, easily.

The lawsuits are different, they´re ´paying for Superman and Clark Kent cuz they need them anyway, but for a single movie, you can well do it without Krypton and the origin. Simple.

[BATZARRO WWD]

If they where to charge them a fine very time the mention that Superman came from Krypton, they could change it so his past is unknown. He just happened to apear on some undescribed technological pod(no indication h came from space) when he was found by James Kenner and Lily Kenner.

I don't know, can't thy cut a general deal, where they pay an amount for everything for, say, ten years?

[Sam]

The lawsuits are different, they´re ´paying for Superman and Clark Kent cuz they need them anyway, but for a single movie, you can well do it without Krypton and the origin. Simple.

WB cant fail again. Thay can and should pay for every single aspect of Superman, including origin.

Come one. Its not that expansive have an agreement and pay some extra to Siegels in favor to make the movie with all elements. Superman Returns did cost over 200 million dollars, for gods sake!

For a 20 years deal with DC, WB pay around 12 million. An agreement with Siegels wont cost a billion dollar to WB.

I dont see problem, its just sit with them, discuss and sign an agreement.

[mego joe]

I have no doubt that WB/DC will work out a deal with the Siegels that is mutually beneficial.

Unless they relaunch Superman as a 'Jason White' human/alien hybrid with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.

[zerohour films]

The concept of Kryptonite was invented by the writers of the radio program....so the families can't have control of it....and you don't have to call it by name, just show green rock and everyone knows what it is.

Technically it was created by Siegel, but the story was rejected by DC at the time. The story was called: 'K-Metal from Krypton'

Some people have created a comic based on the old notes/sketches here:
http://superman.nu/k-metal/splash.php

I bet it can and will be argued that the substance while maybe not the name belongs to the family.

Not only does this story introduce "kryptonite" but it also introduces Perry White by name long before the published editions did and changes Supermans leaps to "skyjumps" more akin to flight and it is the first time Superman becomes aware he is from another world.

It's some very interesting stuff.

[Showtime]

"Pieces of his home-world"

[Webhead2006]

All this copyright stuff who owns what and all that is getting into a huge mess now. I dont even get all the stuff i know the sigels own this and dc/wb own other stuff. But what happens when the shuster family comes into play in 2013? Then also i do hope wb can get another film going by the 2011 deadline, but then their is the origin rights/other elements siegels own currently they would have to be paid for. In the end i really do hope some sort of deal can be worked out so superman could stay 100% intact and all that. I am sure between all the money that can be made off of the character their could be either for the siegels/shuster family/wb and dc comics. It will be an interesting next few years to see what happens.

[Octoberist]

Thats the thing though, they need to reenergize this franchise. I don't think many people are arguing for STM part 2- better FX. Most posters here want to see it redone on the big screen adding in new elements. I see that your argument is basically we've seen it a dozen times, but have we seen it done properly with todays technology.... no.

This is why non-Superman fans who are ignorant of the mythos don't like Superman: the lack of progression of the series. They think Superman is boring and while rethreading new ground might work, it may not be enough. If it's Superman's origins, or him fighting Lex Luthor again, then forget the non-fans But that's the thing: you may need their support because that's pretty much the general public.

I think a new Superman film should draw new fans, and in a post Dark Knight/Iron Man world, the competion is steep. You need to show why Superman is the *****, without sacrifcing its legacy or integrity.

That's why I think we should move on and do a new storyline, with Brainaic or whomever.

[Master Blaster]

The way I see it, They're either going to have to start the series all over again from scratch or just tell us to pretend that Superman Returns never happened.

[GreenKToo]

I think they were gonna do that anyway with a reboot, or at least I think they were.
who knows now tho.

[merced]

I would guess that would apply to anything published under the Superman banner

I think that DC could reprint Superman stories from before 1999 - when they owned all the rights. I think they could also re-issue Reeve Superman DVDs. Anything done before the Siegals got 50% ownership in 1999.

[merced]

well, im sure both families are trying to figure out what would be the best move for them and the character...ideally they could put the rights up to the highest bidder

That would seem logical.

A big problem for another studio doing Superman is that WB will own the international distribution rights. WB could demand a huge liscense fee or refuse to co-operate at all. WB can block a film by another studio if they want to.

[BULLITT]

That would seem logical.

A big problem for another studio doing Superman is that WB will own the international distribution rights. WB could demand a huge liscense fee or refuse to co-operate at all. WB can block a film by another studio if they want to.

In 2013 when all the rights move back to the families, WB will not be able to block a fart.

[BULLITT]

If they where to charge them a fine very time the mention that Superman came from Krypton, they could change it so his past is unknown. He just happened to apear on some undescribed technological pod(no indication h came from space) when he was found by James Kenner and Lily Kenner.

I don't know, can't thy cut a general deal, where they pay an amount for everything for, say, ten years?


Creatively, writers would probably love this. The possibilities would be endless. Just as a lengthy investigation into his background is seemingly coming to a conclusion.......nope....another one is postulated.

[merced]

In 2013 when all the rights move back to the families, WB will not be able to block a fart.

WB retains the international film distribution rights to Superman.

WB can sit back and collect a hefty distribution rights liscensing fee from Marvel/ whatever studio makes a film.

Or WB can play in your face and not liscense back the international rights.

After 2013 the Siegals still have to deal with WB to get a film done.

[GreenKToo]

Its all too obvious as an outsider looking in, that the only viable option for both parties is to come to an agreement. Will they tho, now that's the question.

[merced]

Its all too obvious as an outsider looking in, that the only viable option for both parties is to come to an agreement. Will they tho, now that's the question.

I read a while ago that the industry is surprised this fight has gone on so long. Guess most assumed things would be resolved sooner than later.

According to the Newsarama blog, the judge seemed to be nudging the parties to come to an agreement. For all the good it's done so far. Neither side seems to be listening.

[Dark Knight]

A friend of mine is bugging me to post his halfway finished Superman outline here, so here it is. :oldrazz:



Interesting read.....I would love to see both Mercy and Cat Grant in the next Supes film.

[Webhead2006]

I too would love to have more support supes character like ron/cat/mercy/turpin/sawyer/general lane etc...... pop in/have a small role/ or at least their character gets a mentioned by another character or by a byline on a daily planet paper seen throughout the film.

As for the zanyness of the ongoing court stuff. Hopefully yea all parties can work out some dam reasonable deal and the character stays fully intact. Cause personally yea i would check out a 60/70% supes at another place but it would be very disapointing to see the 70+ yrs known supes pretty much gone. I rather have 100% supes. And this is coming from a guy who doesnt even read much if any superman comics. Their is just so many things it would change for the company and all that.

[Blackman]

double post.........

[Blackman]

On the topic of reintroducing Superman: I still dont see why some ppl are steadfast against an origin film.
The reasoning I always see is: "Everybody knows his origin" and I think there are 3 main points against that
1) There probaly is a whole younger generation that doesnt know about Superman's origin. He has no recent cartoon, and Smallville isnt the most reliable source for Superman's origins
2) Everybody knew Batman & Spiderman's origin and those worked out well. Weren't you happy to see those in film.
3) Wouldn't it be more interesting to see Supes on a learning curve like Kirk/Spock in Star Trek, or Batman in BB, or Bond is Casino Royale? I mean instead of the Superman who knows what to do all the time, wouldnt it be more interesting to see Clark question himself, his methods, his morals, etc.?

[Venom'sDad]

1) There probaly is a whole younger generation that doesnt know about Superman's origin. He has no recent cartoon, and Smallville isnt the most reliable source for Superman's origins


I think it's more that the younger generation have not seen his origin recent on the silver screen.... this generation needs to see his origin played out, with a more modern re-telling and new, more advance technological cgi of this day and age. Give this generation, or people of this era, a chance of remembrance, of his origin, as did those from the "Disco Era" did. :)

[Webhead2006]

Looking at it their is alot of pros and alot of cons doing another origin. I made my case as it is if its a clear on reboot for everything if they get another film their needs to be some form of origin mentioned so we know what is different this time around compared to all other known origin takes.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

There are no cons to doing an orgin story in old SPIDEY'S opinion.

I think everybody already knows how much I want a new orgin story so I'll forego rambling about it again.

[GreenKToo]

At this point, I would take an origin, a requel, an established superman film, etc etc.

[Webhead2006]

I perfer to take a straight on new origin to show us things are different. Or even start up with an established supes but then bits and pieces of his origin(different then donner/etc....) are seen.

[Fresh Prince]

Why not a Godfather Part 2 like movie. Were they have past and present storylines. Past shows Superman's orgins, growing up on his home planet, then growing up as a teen in Smallville. Even show him traveling the world after high school is over.

In the present he is in his 3 year crime fighting. Lex Luthor is a mad scientists instead of corporate buisnessman. And has Braniac take down Superman.

[Webhead2006]

i rather have corp lex who is smart/genius inventer but i dont want him to just be a crazed scientist/petty criminal any more.

[Fresh Prince]

He can still be great as a mad scientists and not a petty criminal. Him making cure for diseases would garner him billinos of dollars. Why would he do petty crimes if he has tons of money. Besides he can be an inventor as a scientists. He would not be the Donnerverse Conman we seen for 4 Superman films.

[mjbull23]

I think that at this point it's almost a foregone conclusion that when the Superman Franchise gets reinvented, one of the primary characters that will undergo a severe makeover is Lex. We will see the scientific innovator, the corporate power player.

[Kal-El Fan]

Why not a Godfather Part 2 like movie. Were they have past and present storylines. Past shows Superman's orgins, growing up on his home planet, then growing up as a teen in Smallville. Even show him traveling the world after high school is over.

In the present he is in his 3 year crime fighting. Lex Luthor is a mad scientists instead of corporate buisnessman. And has Braniac take down Superman.
Not a bad idea. I prefer Lex as the scientist who builds Lexcorp from the money he makes off of his work, but as long as it isn't the "Donner" version, I'm cool with it.

[Webhead2006]

that is what i want corp lex.

[Fresh Prince]

I want mad sicentists Lex. We can get corporate Lex later.

[Octoberist]

why not have both? Did Grant Morrison do that with his Lex in All Star Superman?

[Wally West]

I like the idea of Luthor finding Kal-El's space ship, or the fortress and using genius level intellect to unlock some of that alien tech to start Lexcorp. So you have some mad scientist/some corporate elements to his character, and it ties into the story nicley.

[Octoberist]

Wally,

wow. that was my idea for my alternative Superman Returns storyline (tieing in the old movies with the new series), tranforming Lex into the genius/tycoon that we all know and love when Superman was away. Sweett.

[Octoberist]

Wally,

wow. that was my idea for my alternative Superman Returns storyline (tieing in the old movies with the new series), tranforming Lex into the genius/tycoon that we all know and love when Superman was away. Sweett.

[Fresh Prince]

Sadly they did not use that storyline for Superman Returns.

[Christmas]

And tying in Brainiac to Superman's return trip to Krypton. They also missed out on that.

[Webhead2006]

Yea so many missed things they could have done in SR. As for your ideas guys of genius lex then become corp lex i could see that working if they have a good reason for it. I just dont want to see dam petty criminal/donner lex any more for film series. Since the lex character has grown alot since the 70s. I rather have more corp/political take this go around then foot around in silver age stuff again.

[Blackman]

There are no cons to doing an orgin story in old SPIDEY'S opinion.

I think everybody already knows how much I want a new orgin story so I'll forego rambling about it again.
exactly I dont see any downside to an origin story either

[Mostpowerful]

And tying in Brainiac to Superman's return trip to Krypton. They also missed out on that.

I disagree. That could have been done in a sequel, easily.

Bryan Singer definitely planted some interesting seeds in SR for potentially great sequels, IMO.

[Mostpowerful]

exactly I dont see any downside to an origin story either

I do. It's been done, and very well.

I LOVE STM, and highly doubt that they will surpass that origin with another origin movie. It isn't always about the new technology and especial FX, it's about the heart and the level of storytelling, which was done so well in STM, IMO.

[Venom'sDad]

exactly I dont see any downside to an origin story either
Exactly... there is none.

[Fresh Prince]

Yeah I do not wanna see crooked/conman Lex either anymore. That persona of him was straight up lame.

[Blackman]

Yeah I do not wanna see crooked/conman Lex either anymore. That persona of him was straight up lame.
Yep Yep

Exactly... there is none.
BOOM. I have yet to hear good reasoning it's not like Superman's origin has been shown on the bigscreen recently or in live action in general

I mean come on would you really tell someone who had no idea about Superman's origin to watch Smallville?

[Ita-KalEl]

So Spiderman is again on track while Superman is struggling to be considered a franchise...

[Wally West]

Wally,

wow. that was my idea for my alternative Superman Returns storyline (tieing in the old movies with the new series), tranforming Lex into the genius/tycoon that we all know and love when Superman was away. Sweett.

Yeah, they dropped the ball in a big way with Lex in SR. It should have been a no-brainer - They had an excuse for him to get off the hook in court, he knew about the fortress and it's technology, there was a five year gap for him to get Lexcorp off the ground and running...

They had a perfect opportunity to have that character evolve from the 70's/80's films into something that resembles who Lex is today and instead they chose to basically rehash old story-lines with another silly over-the-top real estate scheme.

[GreenKToo]

Yeah, they dropped the ball in a big way with Lex in SR. It should have been a no-brainer - They had an excuse for him to get off the hook in court, he knew about the fortress and it's technology, there was a five year gap for him to get Lexcorp off the ground and running...

They had a perfect opportunity to have that character evolve from the 70's/80's films into something that resembles who Lex is today and instead they chose to basically rehash old story-lines with another silly over-the-top real estate scheme.
Alot of us have had similar ideas.

I would still have had Lex steal the crystals, but it would have been to create new tech, not to create a land mass. He would have studied the crystals and learned their secrets and sold all kinds of new inventions and cures for diseases to the highest bidders, and then in turn formed Lex-corp from the proceeds.

Lex also would have created metallo from some of the tech he created.

The people of Metropolis would have forgotten all about Superman and replaced him with Lex as their hero. Lex of course would have cared nothing for the little people.
That's when Superman would have returned. He would have found a world that had truly moved on without him.

[Nightwing1983]

I was asked to repost this thread here. It's sort-of a devil's advocate thing in an attempt to argue a pro-sequel argument.

If the formula to the success of 2009's Star Trek was the fact that it cut ties with the past, then why even make a Star Trek movie?

I mean, yeah yeah, things gotta evolve or die. But why couldn't it die? Why not just say, "oh well, it had a good run?"

Oh wait, maybe the name value added to the marque value. Why, though? Oh, because it was familiar to people.

And even if it had to have the Star Trek name, it didn't have to be Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. I mean, the second Star Trek: the Next Generation film, Star Trek: First Contact was a sizable hit and so why not just make another spin-off?

...

Maybe the problem wasn't that it was too stagnant. Maybe it was that there was no other way to go. Maybe it was time for a back-to-basics approach.

"Oh, but it established a new continuity." True... well, sort-of. It certainly did so, but they didn't just say, "those movies never happened," but much like with Crisis on Infinite Earths, it was still rooted in the timeline of the original, PLUS what else could they do? If they wanted Spock and Kirk, they had to go to the past, but if they did so, it would bind them with the events of the original series.

Okay, but why not get a new actor to play Old Spock? Why Leonard Nimoy? Oh, because he's an awesome actor and popular in fan groups.

But why so many homages? Well, everyone knows the "I'm a doctor, not a..." quip and because some fans like homages to more esoteric stuff like, "you are my superior officer, you are also my friend. I have been and always will be yours."

Gee. It's almost like this WAS my father's Star Trek and if there wasn't, there wouldn't be a point in making it.

[The Guard]

STAR TREK honored the past, and was almost constant fun. It's pretty much that simple.

[The Guard]

It's pretty obvious the creators of SUPERMAN RETURNS never wanted to use modern corporate Lex. It's not that they wouldn't have been able to...they just didn't want to.

[Mostpowerful]

Star Trek success? Sure, to a point. Superman Returns still Outgrossed Star Trek worldwide..

Success is so relative.

[Nightwing1983]

Thanks, guys. I realize I did a lousy job of tying it in to Superman, so I'm glad you got what I was saying.

[Venom'sDad]

Hence... the movie failed.

[Crook]

Success is so relative.
To a point. I'd say "after-market" reaction holds more water for franchises today. Which is to refer to the anticipation level of the mainstream/geekdom, long after the movie's release hype has died down. Staying-value, I guess you would call it.

BB got it's sequel, and so will Star Trek, despite both getting less box office than SR. The more important issue, which is I think where the studios smartly gauge future projects, is the audience response. A sequel will always rest on the previous movie's success. Which is why TDK and X2 did huge compared to their predecessor. And as I'll predict, SM4 and Wolverine 2 will do worse because of the lukewarm response.

[Webhead2006]

I disagree. That could have been done in a sequel, easily.

Bryan Singer definitely planted some interesting seeds in SR for potentially great sequels, IMO.
Most may i ask what seeds you think he planted that would have gave some potential sequel stuff?

[Venom'sDad]

If he planted seeds, he would still be there cultivating the soil.

[Webhead2006]

personally i liked the new trek film alot, it honored the past, while giving things a new spin and it was a hit with the general audience.

[GreenKToo]

SR may have out grossed trek, but I doubt it made more. I also doubt there is near the division amongst ''its'' fans, but I could be wrong.
I betcha a sequel to Trek is made before another superman film is.

[Webhead2006]

Yea from what i seen online a good majority of trekies loved the film just as much as the average general viewer which is the group they were trying to get to more then the trekies.

[GreenKToo]

^ ha ha.:pal:
N.K. floating in space, with the three dead henchmen on board, would more than likely been the focus of the next film.

[GreenKToo]

If only we could have gotten that with the last superman film.

[M.O.Steel]

the crystal on NK, the kid being used as bait

[8wid]

How can Star Trek have cut its ties with the past when the entire film was a prequel? Abrams simply added richer special effects, a simplified story fit to carry the enormous amounts of action that was included. Many of the original elements were still there, but everything was not slow and boring any longer. Superman Returns could have done the same thing if it added some action and removed some absolutely pointless story elements , such as the kid. If that happened the reaction would have been the exact same.

[VenomsMom]

Most may i ask what seeds you think he planted that would have gave some potential sequel stuff?
Well.......Theres the Nk floating in space and Supes has a kid with powers and Lex is on a deserted island about to eat a dog. Sounds more like a bunch of weeds than planted seeds.

[Christmas]

It's pretty obvious the creators of SUPERMAN RETURNS never wanted to use modern corporate Lex. It's not that they wouldn't have been able to...they just didn't want to.


Singer himself acknowledged his familiarity with the comics was pretty cursory. So I kind of doubt the idea of Lex as a modern CEO was fully fleshed out between him Dougherty and Harris. The possibilities it could have presented were probably not given the time they needed to be expanded upon. Again Donner's film was a cornerstone to much of what we saw in LL in SR.

[Webhead2006]

hopefully the next folks wont make the same mistakes there just basing the film on one take of the character. And use all past incarnations best elements and as i said mix and match ideas/thoughts from all those different periods/incarnations and make a well rounded charactered rooted with more of the better known comic stuff.

[VenomsMom]

Alot of us have had similar ideas.

I would still have had Lex steal the crystals, but it would have been to create new tech, not to create a land mass. He would have studied the crystals and learned their secrets and sold all kinds of new inventions and cures for diseases to the highest bidders, and then in turn formed Lex-corp from the proceeds.

Lex also would have created metallo from some of the tech he created.

The people of Metropolis would have forgotten all about Superman and replaced him with Lex as their hero. Lex of course would have cared nothing for the little people.
That's when Superman would have returned. He would have found a world that had truly moved on without him.
BINGO. Could have been a better concept. Instead of this Lex languished in prison for five years. The world forgot about him as well.

[Christmas]

If only we can get GreenKToo into a time machine and send him back to July 04 to the writers' meetings.

[8wid]

NO DONNERVERSE!!! :cmad: This is not the 1970s!

[Christmas]

Seriously GreenK, those few little paragraphs sound like they could have been so awesome.

[Blackman]

I agree about no Donnerverse...I dont see why ppl are so hung up on it.

I mean the Donnverse Superman reception reminds me of the pre BB Batman films receptions

1st film was good (Batman, Superman: The Movie)
2nd was good (BR, Superman II)
3rd was step in the wrong direction/bad
4th was horrible

I dont see why if the Batman series could move on why cant the Superman series. If the freaking Bond & Star Trek series which have had the same continuities for over 20 yrs move on, why couldnt Superman?

[Webhead2006]

i know blackman i hope this time around we can finally move past donner/singer's takes on the character, bring the character into more modern better liked elements, a new and different story/origin and all that.

[Fresh Prince]

Donnerverse wans overrated and lame to begin with. But sadly thats how Superman was back then and his characters.

[VenomsMom]

Its a francise that existed in the late 70's. Why criticize that now. They knew they should have started a brand new francise for the new millenium by starting over. Now they are stuck in mud tryin to figure out what to do. I have nothing against those Donner movies but be realistic they should not have tried to continue it 30 years later.

[Blackman]

Its a francise that existed in the late 70's. Why criticize that now. They knew they should have started a brand new francise for the new millenium by starting over. Now they are stuck in mud tryin to figure out what to do. I have nothing against those Donner movies but be realistic they should not have tried to continue it 30 years later.
exactly... I mean it doesnt even make sense so the events of Superman II I guess happened in the 80s...so then Supes leaves for 5 years and suddenly we're in the new millennium. Unless we're suppose to believes the events of Superman II happened in like 01

[VenomsMom]

I dont even know what they recognized or ignored any more. They just kind of made up their own s***. Its not even a direct sequel to those movies. Its just used as a basis for the story. Horrible ideas IMO.

[Webhead2006]

I know it was silly making SR be a vague/qausi sequel to a 30+ yr film. When they just rebooted batman the year before to sucess superman should have gotten that treatment too in 2006. Now hopefully they See using the past was a mistake and will do things differently this time. I have nothing again homage's and using past supes actors in a small role, but i dont want to see next film be another lets totally rehash the past and role some silly things like super kid in the film.

[Blackman]

Random: Honestly DC superhero films are so f***ed

Superman = Courtroom cases out the whazoo

Batman = Good.

Wonder Woman = Whedon signed on. Then (from what Ive read) spent over a year writing basically a glorified outline and then eventually left due to creative differences with the studio. Then some guys wrote a spec script that is a period piece that the studio bought because they didnt want it floating around. Now, I dont even know

The Flash = Goyer was on board and Reynolds was interested, then WB said the script was too dark and that collapsed. Next Shawn Levy was on board, so was Reynolds; that fell through. Then David Dobkin and that crashed. Now Dan Mazeau is writing and hes an unknown which is fine, but Geoff Johns is on board to produce. And honestly the only thing I like Johns doing is GL comics but at least the project might be having some headway

GL = Hey well here the hope. I dont know though, its been really quiet no casting since Reynolds and besides the screenwriter and I think the producer I havent seen anybody else really seem that passionate about it. But hey theres a good script and they have a good director so cool

Aquaman = I mean Aquaman I guess would be risky given his status. But I think a badass Aquaman film. Didn't DiCaprio get invovled recently like as a producer?

And then Green Arrow= So apparently there's SuperMax and then there developing another different GA film at the same time....wtf? And SuperMax, while it would be original sounds like a bad idea for GA maybe for the Punisher it would be cool but not for Green Arrow

and not to mention all the other projects that were announced that really didnt go anywhere. Zatanna, Lobo, Bizarro (why?), Plastic Man, Shazam (because it wasnt dark enough), Teen Titans, and there might be more

I understand being cautious, but it's one thing to be cautious and another just to not do anything at all

I would think that with Superman being tied up they would look forward to character's they dont have legal disputes to make them money. The hold up is probaly the fact WB has alot of other franchises.

I really wonder what's going on.

[Wally West]

Singer himself acknowledged his familiarity with the comics was pretty cursory. So I kind of doubt the idea of Lex as a modern CEO was fully fleshed out between him Dougherty and Harris. The possibilities it could have presented were probably not given the time they needed to be expanded upon. Again Donner's film was a cornerstone to much of what we saw in LL in SR.

From what I understand Lex finding Kryptonian Tech and using that knowledge to start Lexcorp was in one of J.J. Abrams screenplays. The idea was right in front of them, they just decided to take the character backwards instead of moving him forward. (btw I know they didn't use the Abrams script for SR but I'm sure they were aware of it's contents)

[Wally West]

Star Trek success? Sure, to a point. Superman Returns still Outgrossed Star Trek worldwide..

Success is so relative.

Superman Returns grossed $391 million world wide - Star Trek grossed $382 million world wide. The budget for Star Trek was 120 million dollars less than SR...it was indisputably a success. The film was extremely well recieved by critics as well as audiences. Soon the DVD will hit stores and the people who missed out in theaters will find out how good it was, which will raise anticipation for it's sequel even further. That franchise is in great shape. The Superman franchise (SR continuity at least) is not in very good shape right now to say the least...

[Wally West]

SR may have out grossed trek, but I doubt it made more. I also doubt there is near the division amongst ''its'' fans, but I could be wrong.
I betcha a sequel to Trek is made before another superman film is.

If you manage to place that bet, you're gonna cash in.

I read an interview with Chris Pine recently where he said that they were aiming for a sequel in 2011.

[mego joe]

Seriously GreenK, those few little paragraphs sound like they could have been so awesome.

...and there's probably a dozen other posters on this board who've had much better ideas than what was in SR. And oddly (sarcasm) I don't think anyone of us would have come up with the SR storyline for a Superman film.

[mego joe]

To a point. I'd say "after-market" reaction holds more water for franchises today. Which is to refer to the anticipation level of the mainstream/geekdom, long after the movie's release hype has died down. Staying-value, I guess you would call it.

BB got it's sequel, and so will Star Trek, despite both getting less box office than SR. The more important issue, which is I think where the studios smartly gauge future projects, is the audience response. A sequel will always rest on the previous movie's success. Which is why TDK and X2 did huge compared to their predecessor. And as I'll predict, SM4 and Wolverine 2 will do worse because of the lukewarm response.

WHile not in those exact words I've said the exact same thing in respect to SR. Everyone wants to talk about money, but it's all about the potential for a sequel based on audience reaction/ response. BB, Star Trek connected with their audiences. SR did not.

Crook, you've hit the nail on the head.

[Wally West]

...and there's probably a dozen other posters on this board who've had much better ideas than what was in SR. And oddly (sarcasm) I don't think anyone of us would have come up with the SR storyline for a Superman film.

Hindsight is 20/20. It's also the stuff internet movie message boards are made of - that, and wild speculation, rumors and occasional spoilers of corse.:cwink:

[sf2]

...and there's probably a dozen other posters on this board who've had much better ideas than what was in SR. And oddly (sarcasm) I don't think anyone of us would have come up with the SR storyline for a Superman film.
we are no match to singer.
and we never thought singer had such a "huge ball" to do such a story at the time. lol

in singer we trust. remember?

[mego joe]

Hindsight is 20/20. It's also the stuff internet movie message boards are made of - that, and wild speculation, rumors and occasional spoilers of corse.:cwink:

I didn't need hindsight to tell me SR was doomed as soon as I heard about the connection to the Donner films and the kid storyline...

[Octoberist]

I have to be honest..the topic of this thread makes no sense.

[Octoberist]

From what I understand Lex finding Kryptonian Tech and using that knowledge to start Lexcorp was in one of J.J. Abrams screenplays. The idea was right in front of them, they just decided to take the character backwards instead of moving him forward. (btw I know they didn't use the Abrams script for SR but I'm sure they were aware of it's contents)

I think Hackman's Lex was..amusing for its time. For that, I kinda accept it but overall, it was too hammy. With the cartoony theme for Otis and the wigs for Lex's bald head.

But to bring that Lex into the 21st Century was a huge mistake. It's now just dated and sadly disconnected; once again, Lex and Superman barely has any screentime together. I just never liked that aspect of that particular versions of Lex and Supes in the Donner movies, and Singer's movie too.

[Wally West]

I didn't need hindsight to tell me SR was doomed as soon as I heard about the connection to the Donner films and the kid storyline...

Yeah, the son of superman thing was really the last straw for me. But I didn't know about it until I saw it in theaters.

[Octoberist]

I think my problem with Superman Returns was that it had great ideas but nothing was explored. NOr was it progressive in the right way: the kid for example.

[dark_b]

Star Trek success? Sure, to a point. Superman Returns still Outgrossed Star Trek worldwide..

Success is so relative.
more people want a star trek sequel then a superman sequel.
people smiled when they walked to the car and talked about what happened in the movie.i dont think this happened with SR. not saying that they were sad. but they were not jumping happy around because superman has a son.

and as you like to always mention the BO for SR for a lot of movies i remember very good that you also like to mention reviews.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/


BO matters. but the budget for star trek was huge. like with SR. and is it just me or was in ST more action on an epic scale. where in SR he lifted a rock :huh:

thank you.

[Octoberist]

the sad thing is that Superman Returns feel so irrevlent. I don't dislike the movie but man, it just feels irrelevant to the masses, and Superman shouldn't be like that.

[dark_b]

Superman Returns grossed $391 million world wide - Star Trek grossed $382 million world wide. The budget for Star Trek was 120 million dollars less than SR...it was indisputably a success. The film was extremely well recieved by critics as well as audiences. Soon the DVD will hit stores and the people who missed out in theaters will find out how good it was, which will raise anticipation for it's sequel even further. That franchise is in great shape. The Superman franchise (SR continuity at least) is not in very good shape right now to say the least...if SR budget is somewhere around 220-240 millions then wouldnt this mean that the budget for ST was 100 millions?

i mean WTF?

[DavidTyler]

I was asked to repost this thread here. It's sort-of a devil's advocate thing in an attempt to argue a pro-sequel argument.

If the formula to the success of 2009's Star Trek was the fact that it cut ties with the past, then why even make a Star Trek movie?

I mean, yeah yeah, things gotta evolve or die. But why couldn't it die? Why not just say, "oh well, it had a good run?"

Oh wait, maybe the name value added to the marque value. Why, though? Oh, because it was familiar to people.

And even if it had to have the Star Trek name, it didn't have to be Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. I mean, the second Star Trek: the Next Generation film, Star Trek: First Contact was a sizable hit and so why not just make another spin-off?

...

Maybe the problem wasn't that it was too stagnant. Maybe it was that there was no other way to go. Maybe it was time for a back-to-basics approach.

"Oh, but it established a new continuity." True... well, sort-of. It certainly did so, but they didn't just say, "those movies never happened," but much like with Crisis on Infinite Earths, it was still rooted in the timeline of the original, PLUS what else could they do? If they wanted Spock and Kirk, they had to go to the past, but if they did so, it would bind them with the events of the original series.

Okay, but why not get a new actor to play Old Spock? Why Leonard Nimoy? Oh, because he's an awesome actor and popular in fan groups.

But why so many homages? Well, everyone knows the "I'm a doctor, not a..." quip and because some fans like homages to more esoteric stuff like, "you are my superior officer, you are also my friend. I have been and always will be yours."

Gee. It's almost like this WAS my father's Star Trek and if there wasn't, there wouldn't be a point in making it.

And there you have why the Trek movie worked. However, I don't see that working for a follow up (not a sequel) to any of the previous Superman movies.

Superman requires a clean break from Donner and from Singer. The film makers need to go back to basics with Superman (just like Byrne and Wolfman did with MOS). A fresh take on Krypton based on current science fiction sensibilities (the origin by Siegel and Shuster was considered that in it's day), a return to the finalized costume that has been the iconic vision of the character for over 40 years, and a Clark who is a crusading reporter.

While your title says this, what your post states is the opposite. Trek didn't really cut ties while Superman needs to.

[GreenKToo]

Well, you got to hand it to singer for doing one thing. He had the power to convince WB to let him make HIS superman film, one for HIM, and not the fans or the public.

I'm as diehard of fan as anyone here, but I had no desire to see a repeat viewing of SR.
I didnt hate it, but it didnt wow me enough to care about it either.
Now how sad is that? A superman fan not wanting to see a superman film on the big screen twice.. VERY I say.

[Superfreak]

I'm pro sequel. I am so, because I'm not down with seeing an origin. I'm not down for seeing a 2 hour superman movie, where the first hour is used to rehash a background story (that's all it is) that I already know. It's just a waste of my time, and forces me to wait 2 years minimum on top of the time it would take to barf out an origin, for the story to move beyond the 'introductory' phase.

I want a sequel, to SR. It doesn't have to be a direct continutation (like that between Star Trek II and Star Trek III), but rather more like a Star Trek VI (as SR kind of counts as a Star Trek IV and V: the sub par transitional movies). A sequel that plunks the audience into the familiar atmosphere, without having to redefine everything AGAIN, and delivering a quality story.

I want a disconnected SR sequel, that acknowledges SR, but doesn't have to be a direct continuation of that narrative. (ie. things like Jason could be acknowledged, but not be part of the sequel narrative in any way shape or form... they merely have to mention the name once). It's so simple in my mind.

Simply put: make a sequel that acknowledges that SR happened, but that is completely original, and disconnected from the SR narrative.

[VenomsMom]

I am a firm believer that if you are going to do something then you should do it right. Start this thing over with a clean slate and no ties to any previous movie. I dont give a damn about sitting through an origin on the big screen again because you can set up your potential future sequels with new stories villains and cast. I think it is necessary to launch a new Superman francise to just start from scratch like it should have been done. SR should just be considered the conclusion to the old Donner francise.

Everything should be reinvented. It is worth the wait IMO to give a 70 year old character who is still very popular the proper respect he deserves in a transition to the 21st century. And if that means Krypton origin for Supes and a new origin for an updated Lex Luther then so be it.

[Venom'sDad]

I think my problem with Superman Returns was that it had great ideas but nothing was explored. NOr was it progressive in the right way: the kid for example.
There should have never been a Superman Returns... it should have been a reboot, a new beginning. Period.

I didn't need hindsight to tell me SR was doomed as soon as I heard about the connection to the Donner films and the kid storyline...mego joe, :heart:ya man... i couldn't agree more. The first time we heard the script was a loose sequel to Donner's film I was like OMG!?! Than, when we found out that Superman would have an asthmatic son, I was completely like WTF!?!. I felt uneased about this bastardization of a film, from that point on. I agree with you 100%.

I really felt portrayed, because I was really expecting a retelling of the origin story, that what have the potential of setting up other villains tied to his home planet, that would feature Corporate Lex, back-engineering the FoS technology, in becoming a worthy adversary to Superman. I got completely nothing of the sort from Singer. How disappointing.

I'm as diehard of fan as anyone here, but I had no desire to see a repeat viewing of SR.

I didnt hate it, but it didnt wow me enough to care about it either.
Now how sad is that? A superman fan not wanting to see a superman film on the big screen twice.. VERY I say.I hated it, but your sentiments are very well said.

[X Knight]

y'know....I tried to keep an open mind and stay optimistic about SR....even when I started to learn it wasn't exactly a reboot but "vaguely" connected to the Donner movies......and even when I learned that the kid might actually be Superman's.

In regards to the kid issue, I just couldn't believe that anyone in their right mind, who really knew the character of Superman, would do something like that. I held out hope, until the day I saw the movie, that the kid issue was part of an older draft idea and changed for the final film ( as some here were claiming......ahem ).

Even after I saw SR, I was still pretty gung-ho and positive about the movie. But, I think that had more to do with my excitement of finally seeing Supes on the big screen. However, a few days later, "reality" sunk in.....and as I pondered over what they actually did to my beloved Superman in SR.......well.......my opinions changed drastically.....

I wonder though....if SR had been more successful in spawning a new franchise...and if we already had a sequel or two......would this whole court ruling business have turned out differently?

[Nightwing1983]

I am a firm believer that if you are going to do something then you should do it right. Start this thing over with a clean slate and no ties to any previous movie. I dont give a damn about sitting through an origin on the big screen again because you can set up your potential future sequels with new stories villains and cast. I think it is necessary to launch a new Superman francise to just start from scratch like it should have been done. SR should just be considered the conclusion to the old Donner francise.

Everything should be reinvented. It is worth the wait IMO to give a 70 year old character who is still very popular the proper respect he deserves in a transition to the 21st century. And if that means Krypton origin for Supes and a new origin for an updated Lex Luther then so be it.

Well, I refuse to consider Superman Returns the conclusion to the old Reeve series. I mean, if they can try again with the loose sequel thing, I'm all f or it; but if not then so be it. I'm just tired of people scapegoating STM because of Returns.

[nintendo nerd]

I didn't need hindsight to tell me SR was doomed as soon as I heard about the connection to the Donner films and the kid storyline...

http://thesportboys.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/crystal-ball.jpg

[Nightwing1983]

And there you have why the Trek movie worked. However, I don't see that working for a follow up (not a sequel) to any of the previous Superman movies.

Superman requires a clean break from Donner and from Singer. The film makers need to go back to basics with Superman (just like Byrne and Wolfman did with MOS). A fresh take on Krypton based on current science fiction sensibilities (the origin by Siegel and Shuster was considered that in it's day), a return to the finalized costume that has been the iconic vision of the character for over 40 years, and a Clark who is a crusading reporter.

While your title says this, what your post states is the opposite. Trek didn't really cut ties while Superman needs to.

1) I think it needs to cut ties with Superman Returns. I say if it can retain its ties with the earlier films, then great.

2) You are aware that a "back to basics" approach is the opposite of cutting ties with the past.

3) Why does everything have to be defined by a director's last name? I've never once said to someone, "hey! I'm gonna go watch Donner."

[Timstuff]

The older films are old and outdated. I don't see why a new Superman movie should be held back by 30 year old pre-crisis movie that most of today's audience is too young to even remember.

[DA Dent]

I'm pro sequel. I am so, because I'm not down with seeing an origin. I'm not down for seeing a 2 hour superman movie, where the first hour is used to rehash a background story (that's all it is) that I already know. It's just a waste of my time, and forces me to wait 2 years minimum on top of the time it would take to barf out an origin, for the story to move beyond the 'introductory' phase.

I want a sequel, to SR. It doesn't have to be a direct continutation (like that between Star Trek II and Star Trek III), but rather more like a Star Trek VI (as SR kind of counts as a Star Trek IV and V: the sub par transitional movies). A sequel that plunks the audience into the familiar atmosphere, without having to redefine everything AGAIN, and delivering a quality story.

I want a disconnected SR sequel, that acknowledges SR, but doesn't have to be a direct continuation of that narrative. (ie. things like Jason could be acknowledged, but not be part of the sequel narrative in any way shape or form... they merely have to mention the name once). It's so simple in my mind.

Simply put: make a sequel that acknowledges that SR happened, but that is completely original, and disconnected from the SR narrative.

But did you like Superman Returns or are you just being impatient?

[Octoberist]

The older films are old and outdated. I don't see why a new Superman movie should be held back by 30 year old pre-crisis movie that most of today's audience is too young to even remember.

Even though I don't want to continue down the Donner route, I just want to point out that they're still good movies. Classics, really. With the power of netflix, anyone can watch them, so I don't age has to do anything with it. (Yeah, they do look outdated if you compare to the comic book movies of today, however)

But there is not enough progression going on here with the Superman storyline. It's like it's stuck at gear one (pre-Crisis/Donner) and there's so much to Superman now to like.

[Timstuff]

...and there's probably a dozen other posters on this board who've had much better ideas than what was in SR. And oddly (sarcasm) I don't think anyone of us would have come up with the SR storyline for a Superman film.

We couldn't have come up with SR, because it's probably autobiographical. Jason represents Bryan Singer, an Superman and Lois Lane represent his mom and dad.

[BlackLantern]

We couldn't have come up with SR, because it's probably autobiographical. Jason represents Bryan Singer, an Superman and Lois Lane represent his mom and dad.

so where was the gay part?? as Singer is openly homosexual

[bunk]

What is this thread about again? Just for the record: it was really the only type of Trek movie they could make. There weren't really any others directions they could go. A 150 million dollar movie with characters nobody's heard of would have been foolish, and the TNG crew movies weren't profitable. It was either what they did, or nothing at all.

[Showtime]

Didn't you already open a Star Trek thread in the Superman Forums?

[Nightwing1983]

Didn't you already open a Star Trek thread in the Superman Forums?

This isn't a Star Trek thread. It just happens to mention Star Trek.

Also, what exactly are you referring to?

[Nightwing1983]

What is this thread about again? Just for the record: it was really the only type of Trek movie they could make. There weren't really any others directions they could go. A 150 million dollar movie with characters nobody's heard of would have been foolish, and the TNG crew movies weren't profitable. It was either what they did, or nothing at all.

Well, this is about how I believe Star Trek was successful because it DID embrace the past and there should be a reason to reboot rather than just, "the old stuff is old," in which case there's no reason to make a reboot and that they could have just used original characters, or done nothing at all.

Star Trek wasn't like that, and was an original story, yet one that benefits from the use of the classic characters.

A Superman reboot needs to be like that. I want to get away from Superman Returns even if it means getting away from the other films; but I think it'll be a hard sell if it's just an adaptation of Man of Steel.

A 150 million dollar movie with characters nobody's heard of would have been foolish,

Yes, because no movie has ever been a hit with characters nobody's heard of.

[bunk]

Yes, because no movie has ever been a hit with characters nobody's heard of.

If you think the Star Trek franchise was on an equal playing field prior to this summer, you're delusional.

[RachelDawes]

I'm pro sequel. I am so, because I'm not down with seeing an origin. I'm not down for seeing a 2 hour superman movie, where the first hour is used to rehash a background story (that's all it is) that I already know. It's just a waste of my time, and forces me to wait 2 years minimum on top of the time it would take to barf out an origin, for the story to move beyond the 'introductory' phase.

I want a sequel, to SR. It doesn't have to be a direct continutation (like that between Star Trek II and Star Trek III), but rather more like a Star Trek VI (as SR kind of counts as a Star Trek IV and V: the sub par transitional movies). A sequel that plunks the audience into the familiar atmosphere, without having to redefine everything AGAIN, and delivering a quality story.

I want a disconnected SR sequel, that acknowledges SR, but doesn't have to be a direct continuation of that narrative. (ie. things like Jason could be acknowledged, but not be part of the sequel narrative in any way shape or form... they merely have to mention the name once). It's so simple in my mind.

Simply put: make a sequel that acknowledges that SR happened, but that is completely original, and disconnected from the SR narrative.

I can sympathize with you not wanting to watch an origin you've seen and read about so many times, but it's going to be very difficult to make a sequel - even a loose one - to SR. How, for example, would someone mention Jason without showing him? Superman's son can't just disappear.

[Nightwing1983]

If you think the Star Trek franchise was on an equal playing field prior to this summer, you're delusional.

I honestly don't understand this post.

Are you saying that prior to the current film that it was not a huge draw? Obviously.

Or that the current film couldn't have done as much bank if it weren't for the characters' popularity? Probably not, but you never know.

I'm saying what made it work is that it respected the past even though it did reboot.

[Timstuff]

There's not really anything in SR that I would say is worth trying to fix all of its problems for. You've got Routh, but there wasn't really anything remarkable about him that I'd say makes him irreplaceable. He was a big guy with black hair who did a passable Chris Reeve impression, but that was about it.

Also, modern storytelling methods don't require them to spend 1 hour on the origin if it's a reboot. They can start us off with Superman and then tell the origin through flashbacks throughout the movie, which is not an uncommon storytelling technique these days anyway.

[Nightwing1983]

I can sympathize with you not wanting to watch an origin you've seen and read about so many times, but it's going to be very difficult to make a sequel - even a loose one - to SR. How, for example, would someone mention Jason without showing him? Superman's son can't just disappear.

That assumes that if they wait long enough, they can't just ignore Superman Returns the way Superman Returns ignored the hilarious Superman III and the brilliantly allegorical Superman IV.

But also, I think they went through the trouble of trying to imply that it's ambiguous whether or not Jason is his son, or at least, that was my interpretation when I first saw it. Could they just say it's Lois and Richard's? I mean, that doesn't solve every problem, but one could live with it.

[Nightwing1983]

Also, modern storytelling methods don't require them to spend 1 hour on the origin if it's a reboot. They can start us off with Superman and then tell the origin through flashbacks throughout the movie, which is not an uncommon storytelling technique these days anyway.

Yeah, you could absolutely start in the middle of the story. I just think that whatever they do, there needs to be a point, especially when they change stuff. Why is it better for Lex to be a billionaire? Why is it better for Ma and Pa Kent to be alive? Is it necessary to make those changes?

[Timstuff]

Superman can't be with Lois because he's Kryptonian. Jason is unhappy too, until he discovers that he is also Kryptonian. Try and figure that one out. ;)

[BlackLantern]

Superman can't be with Lois because he's Kryptonian. Jason is unhappy too, until he discovers that he is also Kryptonian. Try and figure that one out. ;)

Bryan Singer teaches us all:hehe:

[RachelDawes]

That assumes that if they wait long enough, they can't just ignore Superman Returns the way Superman Returns ignored the hilarious Superman III and the brilliantly allegorical Superman IV.

I've never seen S3 and S4, but I assume neither had plot points that absolutely needed to be carried over into SR, like a kid.

But also, I think they went through the trouble of trying to imply that it's ambiguous whether or not Jason is his son, or at least, that was my interpretation when I first saw it. Could they just say it's Lois and Richard's? I mean, that doesn't solve every problem, but one could live with it.

They would have to explain how Lois and Richard's kid was able to throw a piano.

[Showtime]

I think at this point, one of their only choices is to present a Superman Starts type storyline.

[dark_b]

i am desperate. give me a superman movie :)

[Wally West]

if SR budget is somewhere around 220-240 millions then wouldnt this mean that the budget for ST was 100 millions?

i mean WTF?
Superman Returns budget is listed on boxofficemojo.com as being $270 million. Star Trek' budget was $150 million.

[SuperDaniel]

We couldn't have come up with SR, because it's probably autobiographical. Jason represents Bryan Singer, an Superman and Lois Lane represent his mom and dad.
That's why it sucked.

[dark_b]

Superman Returns budget is listed on boxofficemojo.com as being $270 million. Star Trek' budget was $150 million.
mojo has it wrong since they are using the budgets from burton,....

star trek's budget was higher.

[Angeloz]

Superman Returns budget is listed on boxofficemojo.com as being $270 million. Star Trek' budget was $150 million.

mojo has it wrong since they are using the budgets from burton,....

star trek's budget was higher.

Yep. It's been debunked so many times.

Since Trek was mentioned all I want to say is I can't wait for this crappier version to die. Can't happen soon enough. I don't care about the money and never will.

Angeloz

[Angeloz]

You mean Superman didn't end up with Batman... ;) :p :D

Angeloz

[Mostpowerful]

To a point. I'd say "after-market" reaction holds more water for franchises today. Which is to refer to the anticipation level of the mainstream/geekdom, long after the movie's release hype has died down. Staying-value, I guess you would call it.

.

Well, SR had solid sales on dvd. I really think that people like you are just proyecting your dislike for this movie; you really don't know how the mainstream feel. I mean, did you ask every one who went to watch the film? :cwink:

Sure, I know lots of geeks didn't love the movie.. but the mainstream is another thing. SR got mostly good reviews, and some of them were even great. That means to me that people liked the movie but wanted more action in general, which could have been done in an action-packed sequel.

But this is WB we are talking about... I also think the legal battle has a lot to do with WB not making another S movie.



Superman Returns grossed $391 million world wide - Star Trek grossed $382 million world wide. The budget for Star Trek was 120 million dollars less than SR...it was indisputably a success. The film was extremely well recieved by critics as well as audiences. Soon the DVD will hit stores and the people who missed out in theaters will find out how good it was, which will raise anticipation for it's sequel even further. That franchise is in great shape. The Superman franchise (SR continuity at least) is not in very good shape right now to say the least...

SR also had very good reviews, and audiences? What do you mean by that? Did you ask every one who went to watch the movie? haha, more people went to see SR than ST.



more people want a star trek sequel then a superman sequel.
people smiled when they walked to the car and talked about what happened in the movie.i dont think this happened with SR. not saying that they were sad. but they were not jumping happy around because superman has a son.

and as you like to always mention the BO for SR for a lot of movies i remember very good that you also like to mention reviews.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/


BO matters. but the budget for star trek was huge. like with SR. and is it just me or was in ST more action on an epic scale. where in SR he lifted a rock :huh:

thank you.

You mean, more geeks want to see a ST sequel. I don't think we have enough evidence on how the mainstream really feel, at least not yet. And I smiled after watching SR. My sister did too. LOL

And SR was a character-driven film, still it made more at the BO than ST, which was all full on action. :cwink: Now imagine an action-packed sequel. I think it could have been great.



the sad thing is that Superman Returns feel so irrevlent. I don't dislike the movie but man, it just feels irrelevant to the masses, and Superman shouldn't be like that.

You mean to you.

[Showtime]

Superman Returns budget is listed on boxofficemojo.com as being $270 million. Star Trek' budget was $150 million.

Both just a tad off...

[AntMan]

You mean Superman didn't end up with Batman... ;) :p :D

Angeloz

I've heard he and Superman Proxy have had some romantic encounters....

[BlackLantern]

You mean Superman didn't end up with Batman... ;) :p :D

Angeloz

hahaha....for some reason, I think Bruce would be the chick in that relationship

[GreenKToo]

I know some here loved SR, but honestly, its prolly only about 50/50 with the GP.
It just didnt strike a chord with them, if it had of, we would be discussing a sequel to it by now because it WOULD have made more money.. and yes, they could have made a sequel by now before all this legal crap happened.

As for as SR's critical rating, I dont care if it would have gotten a 100% on RT, nothing speaks louder than a film's BO to the studio's. Yeah yeah, S.R. made more than B.B. you say. Well, the public and the fans for the most part loved B.B. and the interest was very much there for a TDK.

If SR had of made 250 dom, I dare say a sequel would have happened, but it didnt.

And as for Trek. well again I say I bet it gets a sequel before another Superman film is made.

[Mostpowerful]

I think my problem with Superman Returns was that it had great ideas but nothing was explored. NOr was it progressive in the right way: the kid for example.

I disagree. I think the opposite actually.

Elliot S! Maggin (a great Superman writer) also loved how SR progressed the character,


Q: Finally, what did you think of 2006's "Superman Returns"? Any thoughts on TV's "Smallville"?
A: I liked Superman Returns. They did two things really deftly: (1) they dealt effectively with Superman's absence the day the Trade Center fell, much better than we ever did justifying his apparent absence during World War II, and (2) the disposition of the relationship with Lois was, I thought, just perfect and appropriately bittersweet. I hope the movie continuity progresses from that point.

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/interviews/interviews-intro.php?topic=c-interview_maggin


IDEAS: Have you seen the new film? What did you think?
MAGGIN: I loved it! Isn't that appalling? There have been dozens of us writing this character over the past 70 years, and what the makers of this movie did was take the questions we've been asking and begin to answer them. I don't want to spoil it, but they resolved the Lois and Superman relationship much better than I would have ever had the chance to do. And I was glad to have Clark back to being bumbling, because that's the way I used to write him. The manners are the disguise, not the glasses or the clothes, and Brandon Routh did a great job with that.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/07/09/qa_with_elliot_s_maggin/


:word:

[VenomsMom]

I know some here loved SR, but honestly, its prolly only about 50/50 with the GP.
It just didnt strike a chord with them, if it had of, we would be discussing a sequel to it by now because it WOULD have made more money.. and yes, they could have made a sequel by now before all this legal crap happened.

As for as SR's critical rating, I dont care if it would have gotten a 100% on RT, nothing speaks louder than a film's BO to the studio's. Yeah yeah, S.R. made more than B.B. you say. Well, the public and the fans for the most part loved B.B. and the interest was very much there for a TDK.

If SR had of made 250 dom, I dare say a sequel would have happened, but it didnt.

And as for Trek. well again I say I bet it gets a sequel before another Superman film is made.
Spoken like someone who understands how this works and I agree. All this stuff about well recieved reviews and what we think the GA felt after seeing the movie is irrelevant. The studio heads have said they did not like the way the character was positioned and will go a different route. 3 years later and still talkin about what the next step will be. That alone should tell everyone of us something.

[DA Dent]

Any Superman movie would've made a huge box office based on the Superman name alone. “Batman and Robin” also made it huge at the box office.

[GreenKToo]

I like him and all but my opinion is all that matters to me.
Miracle monday is awesome.

[Showtime]

I know some here loved SR, but honestly, its prolly only about 50/50 with the GP.
It just didnt strike a chord with them, if it had of, we would be discussing a sequel to it by now because it WOULD have made more money.. and yes, they could have made a sequel by now before all this legal crap happened.

As for as SR's critical rating, I dont care if it would have gotten a 100% on RT, nothing speaks louder than a film's BO to the studio's. Yeah yeah, S.R. made more than B.B. you say. Well, the public and the fans for the most part loved B.B. and the interest was very much there for a TDK.

If SR had of made 250 dom, I dare say a sequel would have happened, but it didnt.

And as for Trek. well again I say I bet it gets a sequel before another Superman film is made.

It's all about the general public and the domestic box office take. WB projected 225-235 Million. At this point, who knows when we will see a new Superman film.

[Mostpowerful]

I know some here loved SR, but honestly, its prolly only about 50/50 with the GP.
It just didnt strike a chord with them, if it had of, we would be discussing a sequel to it by now because it WOULD have made more money.. and yes, they could have made a sequel by now before all this legal crap happened.

As for as SR's critical rating, I dont care if it would have gotten a 100% on RT, nothing speaks louder than a film's BO to the studio's. Yeah yeah, S.R. made more than B.B. you say. Well, the public and the fans for the most part loved B.B. and the interest was very much there for a TDK.

.

There was lots of interest in a sequel by many fans and people in general, BUT WB ruined all of that with the constant stalling. That's it.

Things would have been SO different IF the sequel had come out this year as initially planned.

All you see now is pure revisionist history at its best.

[GreenKToo]

There was lots of interest in a sequel by many fans and people in general, BUT WB ruined all of that with the constant stalling. That's it.

Things would have been SO different IF the sequel had come out this year as initially planned.

All you see now is pure revisionist history at its best.
I dont think W.B. ruined it, well to an extent they did, they and B.S.
Bryan for his story and lack of action, and WB for thinking it would be a hit and greenlighting it.
Whats done is done now tho. I'm pretty much resigned to to the fact that it will be YEARS before we see another Superman film. oh well.

[Timstuff]

Well, SR had solid sales on dvd.

Not really. 2 years after it released the Wal-Mart were I worked had a few hundred DVD copies of it, and they were only able to move roughly 1/3 of them. To this day, they STILL have at least 100 copies left from that first shipment that have not sold, even though they marked down to 5 dollars. I remember the electronics dept. manager was always complaining about how they always had trouble finding places to stash them, since they clog up a lot of shelf space and no-one buys them.

[Mostpowerful]

I dont think W.B. ruined it, well to an extent they did, they and B.S.
Bryan for his story and lack of action, and WB for thinking it would be a hit and greenlighting it.
Whats done is done now tho. I'm pretty much resigned to to the fact that it will be YEARS before we see another Superman film. oh well.

Superman Returns was a solid hit. It made nearly $400 mil ww and got good reviews. :huh:

They should have built on that. I mean, it's not like getting Superman movies off the ground is an easy thing for WB to do..


ugh, I'm out of here. Good luck, guys, hope you get the movie you want.. At least I got a great movie in SR. A movie I'll be able to watch over and over, and a part of the Donnerverse; best incarnation of this character ever, IMO. :word:

[GreenKToo]

If i'm not mistaken, B.B.'s DvD sales is what convinced W.B. to make a sequel. anybody?

[GreenKToo]

Superman Returns was a solid hit. It made nearly $400 mil ww and got good reviews. :huh:

They should have built on that. I mean, it's not like getting Superman movies off the ground is an easy thing for WB to do..

ugh, I'm out of here. Good luck, guys, hope you get the movie you want. At least I GOT great movie in SR.
BUT, it didnt have good WoM. Fans didnt care for it for the most part either. You cant build a franchise around that.
I understand. It seems there is not much reason to hang out here if a film isnt going to happen.

[FlawlessVictory]

If i'm not mistaken, B.B.'s DvD sales is what convinced W.B. to make a sequel. anybody?

Supposedly. Regardless, wasn't WB ready to move on a SR sequel but then Singer decided to do Valkyrie instead?

I swear all this Superman drama is ****ing absurd. Between the legal battles and WB's indecision on what to do next, this has become such a ****** time to be a fan of Superman. This is Superman for christ's sake! Not some second rate character. This is the biggest superhero of all time. It's absolutely baffling the character is in the hell that he is in now.

WB needs to get their act together with this character or perhaps WB losing him completely would be the best thing to happen to us fans.

[Showtime]

For the sequel to happen it would have had to go forward right away. It was all about timing.

[GreenKToo]

I hate to pour salt in the wound, but a hancock sequel is supposedly in the works, or talked about anyway.

[Showtime]

That won't happen.

[FlawlessVictory]

I've been watching S:TAS again lately. Now THAT'S the best incarnation ever of Superman! How can WB get it so right with the animated series and have such a brain fart for live action? :csad:

[KalMart]

I've been watching S:TAS again lately. Now THAT'S the best incarnation ever of Superman! How can WB get it so right with the animated series and have such a brain fart for live action? :csad:

Because cartoons are just cartoons...and the creative people they hired to head it just happened to be a great fit. SR had a lot going for it...the biggest budget to date, an all-time high in genre popularity, technological advancements in movie effects etc., and a director coming off a franchise that helped spearhead the recent boom in superhero movie popularity. It's just that....his idea for the movie itself.....

[dark_b]

That won't happen.i want prince bel air comedy combined with superman action.


not happening is not an option :cmad:

[AntMan]

Sucked. That's what you were going to say, right Kalmart?

[KalMart]

Sucked. That's what you were going to say, right Kalmart?

I wouldn't quite go that far...but I'd say it was misguided, and ultimately myopic. I think this same Bryan Singer, if he wanted to, could have made a new, contemporary take on Supes from the ground up without feeling the need to re-define the core of the character, and made a pretty good film out of it. But this was the kind of movie he wanted to do, and it just didn't take particularly well...especially when so many other hero movies are starting on new ground with a lot more energy. So hopefully, a new helmsman bring what should have been brought and start things off right....if it ever gets to that.

[Blackman]

If SR's only problem was the lack of a villain then I guess it wouldve/might have been alright to have a sequel
but the whole son of Superman thing did ruin the whole franchise potential of it for me and the Donnerverse is played out to me

[Crook]

Well, SR had solid sales on dvd. I really think that people like you are just proyecting your dislike for this movie; you really don't know how the mainstream feel. I mean, did you ask every one who went to watch the film? :cwink:
Do you need to ask every person in the world to get a general feel of anticipation for a sequel or franchise? Films that are loved are being talked about months and years after the movie's release. You don't need to hold polls and surveys to know the public reverence of films like TDK, POTC, ST, Hangover, etc etc. These are movies being brought up in random convos for whatever reason.

You are completely wrong about my feelings for SR. I came out of it thinking it was good, but not great. As time went on, I grew to be more disappointed because of the hugely missed opportunity in creating another culture splash for this character. What's worse is SR did nothing for the character in terms of the superhero hierarchy. Bats and Spidey are still the crowd favorites by such a wide margin.

The general public still views SR as somewhere in the neutral zone. They're not lambasting it, but they sure as hell aren't on the edge of their seats asking for more asap. They went to see it, and they moved on. No more, no less.

And SR was a character-driven film, still it made more at the BO than ST, which was all full on action. :cwink: Now imagine an action-packed sequel. I think it could have been great.
SR was going off the character name and interest in a possible reinvention ala BB.

ST was going off....a niche franchise that is considered the geekiest of the geek.

Supes (as a character) is still bottom-rung in audience's eyes. Star Trek is now considered cool and fun, and is no longer a turn-off. Is it that hard to see what each property did for their franchise?

Whose drop-offs were lower and which film got better critical/audience reviews? That says it all for a sequel's potential. If SR2 and ST2 were to come out tomorrow, I guarantee you no one in fandom would place much bets on Supes winning, judging on the overall reactions from the first films of their respective series.

[RachelDawes]

There was lots of interest in a sequel by many fans and people in general, BUT WB ruined all of that with the constant stalling. That's it.

Things would have been SO different IF the sequel had come out this year as initially planned.

All you see now is pure revisionist history at its best.

How do you know this?

Not really. 2 years after it released the Wal-Mart were I worked had a few hundred DVD copies of it, and they were only able to move roughly 1/3 of them. To this day, they STILL have at least 100 copies left from that first shipment that have not sold, even though they marked down to 5 dollars. I remember the electronics dept. manager was always complaining about how they always had trouble finding places to stash them, since they clog up a lot of shelf space and no-one buys them.

Ouch! :csad:

[The Guard]

I really wonder what's going on.

This is just the nature of big budget superhero adaptions.

Both Batman and Superman franchises, Spider-Man, Daredevil, X-Men, The Hulk movies, Iron Man, The Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, Watchmen, hell even CATWOMAN, they've all gone through development hell and struggled to get made, and took YEARS to get made. Even The Phantom took freaking forever way back when, and now it's taking forever yet again.

It isn't just Superman. Both DC and Marvel have projects that have languished for years. Wonder Woman, The Flash, Green Lantern, Plastic Man (The Wachowskis have toyed with this for a decade or more now), Thor, Captain America, Namor, etc, etc, etc. This just seems to be the nature of most iconic superhero films. It's the fringe stuff, like HELLBOY and BLADE and original stuff or superhero comedies that get made relatively quickly.

Singer himself acknowledged his familiarity with the comics was pretty cursory. So I kind of doubt the idea of Lex as a modern CEO was fully fleshed out between him Dougherty and Harris. The possibilities it could have presented were probably not given the time they needed to be expanded upon. Again Donner's film was a cornerstone to much of what we saw in LL in SR.

Singer may have a cursory knowledge, but I'd wager he probably knows about corporate Luthor. They went through a TON of important back issues at DC's insistence, and don't think they didn't have access to SUPERMAN LIVES, JJ Abrams Superman drafts, and a number of other "treasures". They knew about it. They just wanted a sequel to the Donnerverse.

[Nightwing1983]

I've never seen S3 and S4, but I assume neither had plot points that absolutely needed to be carried over into SR, like a kid.

Well, at the end of IV, he gives a speech that seems to imply that he's quitting, but that's just one interpretation. Really, they could have taken place, but some like to think--for whatever reason--that the encounter in Superman II is that which produced Jason, but it's not essential.

So you're right.

They would have to explain how Lois and Richard's kid was able to throw a piano.

Well, some have said that the ship... eh, I don't know.

On the other hand, I think that it could be potentially interesting if Jason was just a kid with super powers and Superman didn't make that speech because they thought he was his son, but because he sees himself as needing to protect this mutant child.

I'm just saying. It might be.

Yes, it could also be hell lame, I'm just pointing out that there could be some interest there.

I'm not saying they should do it.

[KalMart]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCp5s3zqB5k&feature=channel_page

[solidsnake86]

No new rumours I take it with talk turning back to SR. Its really funny how there's an influx of news and then it goes completely silent. Then again I think it has more to do with this court case, thats probably why they happen to be so tight lip'd

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Regarding the fact that there isn't going to be a sequel:

I'm just going to listen to Showtime and Jamie and believe that it is actually pretty much Singer's fault that a sequel isn't going to be made.

He didn't want to relinquish any control after his movie wasn't as big as a success as WB wanted it to be boxoffice and DVD wise so he left.

I think you should be angry at Singer MostPowerful because it sounds like if he had dropped the ego trip for a minute a sequel would have been made.

Ego's in Hollywood??? Who would have thunk it?

No matter whats the exact truth I always doubted that a sequel to SR was going to get made because the movie was met with a huge meh, one way or the other I think that a sequel would have always fell through.

It doesn't matter that Star Trek made less worldwide, it made more domestically (U.S/Canada), it got fantastic reviews (I know SR got good reviews too but they weren't as good as ST's) and most of all it had good legs and word of mouth. I think the next one is making atleast 300mil domestically and 200mil overseas.

[Nightwing1983]

It doesn't matter that Star Trek made less worldwide, it made more domestically (U.S/Canada), it got fantastic reviews (I know SR got good reviews too but they weren't as good as ST's) and most of all it had good legs and word of mouth. I think the next one is making atleast 300mil domestically and 200mil overseas.

Yup.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

No new rumours I take it with talk turning back to SR. Its really funny how there's an influx of news and then it goes completely silent. Then again I think it has more to do with this court case, thats probably why they happen to be so tight lip'dAgreed.

[KalMart]

Regarding the fact that there isn't going to be a sequel:

I'm just going to listen to Showtime and Jamie and believe that it is actually pretty much Singer's fault that a sequel isn't going to be made.

He didn't want to relinquish any control after his movie wasn't as big as a success as WB wanted it to be boxoffice and DVD wise and left so he left.

I think you should be angry at Singer MostPowerful because it sounds like if he had dropped the ego trip for a minute a sequel would have been made.

Ego's in Hollywood??? Who would have thunk it?

No matter whats the exact truth I always doubted that a sequel to SR was going to get made because the movie was met with a huge meh, one way or the other I think that a sequel would have always fell through.

It doesn't matter that Star Trek made less worldwide, it made more domestically (U.S/Canada), it got fantastic reviews (I know SR got good reviews too but they weren't as good as ST's) and most of all it had good legs and word of mouth. I think the next one is making atleast 300mil domestically and 200mil overseas.
Then again, Nolan has as much 'control' over his Batman movies as Singer had over his Superma movie....yet the former just keeps chugging along.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Then again, Nolan has as much 'control' over his Batman movies as Singer had over his Superma movie....yet the former just keeps chugging along.No matter what Nolan says I seriously doubt he wanted Katie Holmes in Batman Begins.

I just seriously doubt that he had as much control over Batman Begins as Singer had over Superman Returns when he had never directed a hit movie before.

[batman44]

No matter what Nolan says I seriously doubt he wanted Katie Holmes in Batman Begins.
I just seriously doubt that he had as much control over Batman Begins as Singer had over Superman Returns when he had never directed a hit movie before.

Lol.

[RachelDawes]

Well, some have said that the ship... eh, I don't know.

On the other hand, I think that it could be potentially interesting if Jason was just a kid with super powers and Superman didn't make that speech because they thought he was his son, but because he sees himself as needing to protect this mutant child.

I'm just saying. It might be.

Yes, it could also be hell lame, I'm just pointing out that there could be some interest there.

I'm not saying they should do it.

Too much of a coincidence for me that Lois should sleep with Superman and just happen to have a mutant child. Regardless, Jason would have to have a place in the sequel and I don't want to see him.

[RachelDawes]

No new rumours I take it with talk turning back to SR. Its really funny how there's an influx of news and then it goes completely silent.

That's how it's always been with Superman news, at least in my limited experience.

[Nightwing1983]

Too much of a coincidence for me that Lois should sleep with Superman and just happen to have a mutant child. Regardless, Jason would have to have a place in the sequel and I don't want to see him.

Well, sometimes great stories revolve around coincidences, but I agree with you. It's just a relic from when I thought following Returns would make me happy.

[B]

From what I've read from Robinov & Horn they had very little intention of doing a sequal once the figures started rolling in. Robinov is quoted as saying the film didn't quite work & Horn was quoted in saying it should have done $500m minimum..

Some people must have there "The film was great & everyone thought it was great" blinkers on, its a very rough calculation I know however a few months ago I was having a similar discussion on the Planet a few months ago about Superman Returns being split amongst the General Public & I brought this up:

It (Superman Returns) undoubtably split the overall GP, yes there are people that show the film was liked, but its a case of for every 3 people that liked the film.. there was 1 person that didn't, which isn't that good..in fact its exactly as I said..its very split..

Even though I think this site has a flawed overall marking system Rotton Tomatoes community (which I'll say is the GP) gives the film 73% out of 2676 reviews. Now, I'll again say that we'll say that the 1989 people that voted the film as 'fresh' loved it & the 707 people that voted 'rotten' didn't, either may or may not be true but just for arguments sake we'll say thats the way it goes. So taking this into consideration 707 rotten reviews almost goes into 1989 3 times (2.8'ish rounded up), which gives you an indication that for every 3 people that liked it, 1 didn't.. ie It gives a very strong arguement for it splitting the GP..

Batman Begins was the complete opposite, it recieved 95% based on 3748 reviews from the RT community (GP) 3756! fresh reviews, 172 rotton... using the same logic every 22 people that liked BB, 1 person hated it..

EDIT - This was in response to the sequal talk & SR recieving mainly good reviews talk further up the page ^^

[KalMart]

No matter what Nolan says I seriously doubt he wanted Katie Holmes in Batman Begins.
Gee...he got screwed there, huh?

I just seriously doubt that he had as much control over Batman Begins as Singer had over Superman Returns when he had never directed a hit movie before.

So do you attribute BB being a better movie....on a movie level...and translating into more public appeal...to WB's tighter stronghold? And SR's somber, less exciting experience to WB's relative generosity? I attribute it to the filmmakers themselves, and the stories they conceived and were given the opportunity to create.

And if it were just about gross numbers...as some have pointed out, SR grossed more WW than BB....the one with less studio control grossed more. So why would they want more control?

Take the whole studio control stuff out of it....you hire who you think is the right creative helmsman to steer the ship, both equally subject to the whims/interference/influence of the executive bigwigs, and hope for the best. One seemed to work out better than the other...so you give it the sequel, and the other one stops. Seemed to work out pretty well, as the former made gangbusters, and they didn't have to dump more money into the other, which generally isn't being missed by many.

There are also some who say that 'studio control' is what caused the Daredevil movie to turn out how it did.

[The Guard]

No matter what Nolan says I seriously doubt he wanted Katie Holmes in Batman Begins.

Then he may well be an outright liar, and not creative enough to come up with a good lie, which is probably worse. Because I believe he said, at one point, he and Goyer created the role for her specifically. That she was their inspiration in writing it, that she was their first choice, etc.

Nah.

Nolan found a "tremendous warmth and great emotional appeal" in Holmes, and also felt "she has a maturity beyond her years that comes across in the film and is essential to the idea that Rachel is something of a moral conscience for Bruce".

Maturity beyond her years. Riiight.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Then he may well be an outright liar, and not creative enough to come up with a good lie, which is probably worse. Because I believe he said, at one point, he and Goyer created the role for her specifically. That she was their inspiration in writing it, that she was their first choice, etc.

Nah.

Nolan found a "tremendous warmth and great emotional appeal" in Holmes, and also felt "she has a maturity beyond her years that comes across in the film and is essential to the idea that Rachel is something of a moral conscience for Bruce".

Maturity beyond her years. Riiight.Yep, he and Goyer were obviously spewing bulls**t.

[SuperDaniel]

It's funny how Mostpowerful still keep defending SR after all these years... SR will tahnkfully be forgotten.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I love the Superman boards for the people, not the news.

[SuperDaniel]

All i know is that the only reasonable way to go with next movie is to do a full origin with all the characters so WB better pay the Siegels for it. The first movie has to be an origin to estabilish the characters right for once. With modern cinematography and storytelling, it doesn't have to be a linear origin.

[KalMart]

It's funny how Mostpowerful still keep defending SR after all these years... SR will tahnkfully be forgotten.

Judging by what's happening....it already has been.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I still defend alot of flicks sometimes...some more than 3 years old. It's not funny, it's just something some people do.

Is it the smartest use of your time? Nope but you can't help yourself sometimes.

I know one thing SR has been forgotten by me and thats whats most important.

[KalMart]

I still think Singer is a good filmmaker. he had one major misstep.....that, bewilderingly, still grossed $400M, but it is what it is....or was. Going back to square one could, in hindsight, end up being the best thing that ever happened to the Superman movie franchise, and if this past experience finally forced that issue, then so be it.

[TheDarkKnight08]

Yep, he and Goyer were obviously spewing bulls**t.

Just replace Rosenberg and Goldstein with Nolan and Goyer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPcH368QLHI

I'll bet that's how she got the role.:hehe:

[M.O.Steel]

full origin is the way to go...i know people say crap like everyone knows the origin, but so does everyone the origins for spiderman and batman. you gotta make it fresh.

introduce the franchise. introduce the character.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

It grossed 391 million because it was the first Superman movie in 19 years...or atleast thats what I keep telling myself.

Hell Fantastic Four grossed 330mil so it's not an unprecidented number.

Perception is a big part of the moviemaking game:

Superman was expected to make more, for obvious reasons, and it didn't.

[KalMart]

It grossed 391 million because it was the first Superman movie in 19 years...or atleast thats what I keep telling myself.

Hell Fantastic Four grossed 330mil so it's not an unprecidented number.

Perception is a big part of the moviemaking game:

Superman was expected to make more, for obvious reasons, and it didn't.
I don't see the 19-yr gap as being a big factor, since it's not like people were waiting anxiously for another Superman movie in particular, like fanboys or what have you. The genre itself was hot, and you figure that such a familiar name with today's movie magic could at least deliver on the level of the better of the other superhero movies, if not big-time movies in general. Why NOT go see a Superman movie, right? Well....now we know why.

[storyteller]

Supermans issue was that they gave the movie a 250 million dollar budget. Such a high budget depended on one hell of a return that many films don't get. For its story they should never have green lighted that budget.

Next Superman has remained in development hell. In all the years they've had. They could have gotten a a working script and director. The fact that there is a flippen tv series going into its next season after 8 years is a sign at how the Wb has just been dropping the ball.

The Wb does not want to make Superhero movies. I find it quite odd that many movie companies can get scores of action movies out. That studios cant get trilogies out and are ramming up for 4th to 5th films. The Wb doesnt want to make superhero films.

[storyteller]

Supermans issue was that they gave the movie a 250 million dollar budget. Such a high budget depended on one hell of a return that many films don't get. For its story they should never have green lighted that budget.

Next Superman has remained in development hell. In all the years they've had. They could have gotten a a working script and director. The fact that there is a flippen tv series going into its next season after 8 years is a sign at how the Wb has just been dropping the ball.

The Wb does not want to make Superhero movies. I find it quite odd that many movie companies can get scores of action movies out. That studios cant get trilogies out and are ramming up for 4th to 5th films. The Wb doesnt want to make superhero films.

[KalMart]

Leave the origin/growing up for a second movie, if it gets that far. People need to reinvest in Superman being Superman....AS Superman. That's what needs an updated approach moreso than the origins. Leave more time and momentum for taking people on a wild ride. Introduce Superman/Kent off the bat right as he first arrives in Metropolis, almost as if we're introduced to him like the people of Metropolis are.....out of the blue comes something that changes what you thought you knew about what's possible. Then go from there with the gas pedal all the way down.

Then, once you've made the experience of being Superman cool again, you can take more dramatic license in the second movie to go deeper into his origins et al, paralleling it with the sequel's story (Godfather II? :O). Might as well take advantage of what movies can do...not just effects-wise, but narratively as well...and do something a bit different than the standard linear/chronological approach from the very beginning etc.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

EDIT: F**k double posts.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Although Jamie would disagree with me I think that every single movie costing 175mil is a bad idea. It's just plan bad for business.

D9 reportedly (I ofcourse don't know if it's true) cost 30mil to make and it looks fine, other movies have cost less than 175mil and they looked fine. It's not impossible for these movies to cost less than these new fangled massive budgets, hollywood just doesn't seem to want them too.

Oh well I guess it's their business and they know more than I do. Still even with the added revenu of DVD's, T.V rights and toys do they really make a ton on all of these outrageously budgeted films?

I don't know, maybe they do but it doesn't seem like it to me. Van Helsing made over 300mil worldwide and they still didn't make a sequel. Sounds like that 160 million dollar budget did hurt it.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Man do I hate that WB didn't go for a reboot in 2004/2005.

[Venom'sDad]

An origin story would do this franchise much good... I sincerely hope WB think will hard about the path they are willing to take with this franchise.

[Kal-El Fan]

I would say start it with Clark's trip around the world. Start with say, Africa, as in Birthright. That was one of the few good things about that story. I say, play it like Birthright, until he gets to Metropolis, and then combine MOS and TAS to make an exciting story, with Luthor as a "background" villain, with a more "physical" villain(s) (Metallo, Parasite, etc) to actually test Superman. We would learn about the characters and about Krypton, with most of the growing up in Smallville, and the more in-depth look at Krypton in the sequel, as KalMart suggested. Of course we'd throw in the "love triangle for two," and a bit of the romance, as Lois & Clark's relationship is important to the mythos.
I really like the Godfather II approach that people have mentioned. This could be tied into the story of the sequel and the villain(s) (i.e. Bizarro and Brainiac).

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Although I do want a non-Singer Superman movie sooner rather than later, sometimes I wish that a new Superman movie would come out in 2015. That wait would make a full reboot make more sense.

[KalMart]

I just feel that today, with how Superman has fallen out of favor compared to other characters, that if you want to get people back into him at that level...you risk too much by making viewers wait 10-20 minutes to see him being Superman....regardless how 'well' you do a new version of the origin etc. His origins are still familiar enough to not have to go through it right from the beginning....by starting the new 'era' of Superman movies with an exciting Superman sequence, you make a bold statement right off the bat that people are in for an exciting ride. Deliver on that level first, because that's what's missing the most...then once you've got them, I think you'll get more interest in the deeper stuff, than the more typical other way around. Just some options to chew on. :O

[Venom'sDad]

I don't think making anyone wait 10-20 minutes mean anything. If they come to see the film, they are not going to leave 20 minutes later because they don't see the man in blue.

People understand the concept of the story and the process/journey of the film playing out.

[Kal-El Fan]

I have no problem starting with an established Superman, but I do feel we need some mention/hint of the origin, just to show that this is a new continuity. We don't need to spend a lot of time on it. Just a flashback or two, or a conversation on the Kent farm, showing BOTH parents, just to help distance us from the previous films, that's all. I really agree with you on the whole Godfather, really establishing the origin/history in the second film. Especially if we have some kind of Kryptonian villain, or even the Colu Brainiac with his info on Krypton, and possibly Kandor in his posession. That is where the Krypton stuff should really come in.

[KalMart]

I don't think making anyone wait 10-20 minutes mean anything. If they come to see the film, they are not going to leave 20 minutes later because they don't see the man in blue.

People understand the concept of the story and the process/journey of the film playing out.

But stating out differently than the rest of the pack could add to the uniqueness of the overall approach. I think Superman, in particular, could benefit greatly from that...to more of a degree than a new look at the origin from the outset. Also, it'll allow the origin used later to be more than just an origin/intro. You can expand and weave it in more without having to get it over with quicker as you would putting it in the first act of a new restart. I just think people will find that part of Superman's past more interesting after you establish a more exciting present, allowing you to get more meat out of the intricacies of said past.

[GreenKToo]

I'd be open to either idea if they would JUST make one.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I don't think making anyone wait 10-20 minutes mean anything. If they come to see the film, they are not going to leave 20 minutes later because they don't see the man in blue.

People understand the concept of the story and the process/journey of the film playing out.Exactly.

I've only ever heard fanboys b**ch about orgin stories. If normal people like what they are seeing in a movie they aren't going to run out of the theater because the action doesn't start right away.

I didn't see them running from the Superman: The Movie, Batman 89 (not a full orgin story like the others but it was somewhat of an orgin story) Spider-Man or Iron Man. And need I point out all of the non-comicbooks that took 30 minutes to really get going?

Seriously, people on here can not want an orgin story and not like orgin stories but normal people don't give a s**t if they like the movie.

I just hate how some people are suddenly pretending that orgin stories don't make huge bank all the time.

The only reason I didn't bring up Batman Begins is because despite the fact that it did get a sequel it wasn't some big hit in theaters.

I'm a f**king zealot when it comes to this topic. I want a full orgin movie, anything less will lead to disappointment to me. I'm not saying the movie wouldn't be good or great but I'd still be disappointed.