Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion

[Showtime]

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..

The studio signed Singer to a pay or play deal in late October 2006 and announced it just before Halloween of 2006. At this point Superman Returns had almost completed its theatrical run and they had months and months to mull over the numbers. Since they signed Singer to this fairly iron clad deal at that point in its theatrical run suggest they were very serious about a sequel early on.

[KalMart]

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 seque,l it wasn't some big hit in theaters.
You say people won't mind sitting through it if they like it, which I agree with....but they also won't miss it not being there if they like what is. So it goes both ways.

But the reason I propose it IS for making a better movie, and one that's a little more unique....and at the same time, as an added bonus, getting more out of the origin than just having it be an origin/intro. Don't look at it as avoiding the origin, look at it more like getting more out of it...and ultimately...the movies themselves by using it a different way. I see it as possibly a more creative narrative approach overall...why not use that for Superman's advantage?

[KalMart]

The studio signed Singer to a pay or play deal in late October 2006 and announced it just before Halloween of 2006. At this point Superman Returns had almost completed its theatrical run and they had months and months to mull over the numbers. Since they signed Singer to this fairly iron clad deal at that point in its theatrical run suggest they were very serious about a sequel early on.
As an offshot.... say they later decided that they wanted to reboot completely...would that contract only apply to a direct sequel either way?

Perhaps more related...doesn't that kind of a deal also act as insurance for Singer that he'd get dibs on a sequel, and on the other end that Singer wouldn't be lured away from continuing like with, say, what happened with Fox/X3?

[M.O.Steel]

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.



i consider this part of the origin.

[Webhead2006]

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.
Hopefully so man, we need to clearly show the next film is different and not set in the same setting as the past films. Bring the characters to more modern takes and more modern elements, better comic elements included and all that. It does suck the whole court drama is just one giant factor in things and we dont know what is ultimately going to go down in the end with the courts.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Let me clear something up, I wasn't implying that the audience would miss it if the movie were good.

I didn't bring that up because I wasn't talking about that. I wanted to b**ch about fanboys attitudes about orgin stories. I was going to write that the opposite is true but I honestly didn't feel like it fit in my post.

[mego joe]

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

"My two Dads"- the story of Jason WHite

[KalMart]

i consider this part of the origin.

Or just a moderately different way of 'reintroducing', no? :O

[KalMart]

Let me clear something up, I wasn't implying that the audience would miss it if the movie were good.

I didn't bring that up because I wasn't talking about that. I wanted to b**ch about fanboys attitudes about orgin stories. I was going to write that the opposite is true but I honestly didn't feel like it fit in my post.

It's just a possible option...and honestly, I could see it raising its own difficulties. But it'd be cool to see a superhero movie taking that chance, especially one that's in such dire need of a new pick-me-up. A little 'out of the box' thinking, without having to change who/what Superman is, if you will. :O

[mego joe]

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.

SR did have a lot of great ideas, and you are right they were not explored. The kid would have been OK if Jason had been Richard's son and Superman had not left Lois cowardly. Giving Superman a dysfunctional family is a horrible idea. That's what killed it. In many other ways though it is just underwhelming- great ideas never explored or simply poorly executed. Perhaps the result of trying to include too much.

[mego joe]

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.

I think it would be interesting to do an established SUperman who doesn't know his own origins and part of the story is his discovery of who he is. We then learn along with him w/o having to do the linear storytelling but we get the benefit of the origin that defines it as a reboot.

[Webhead2006]

Hopefully things can come about for superman and the next time around it is a better film for all and it does the numbers wb expects.

[Webhead2006]

That could work out and i and i know others have said their is so many ways things could go in a reboot origin story to have action off the bat and still tell the nitty gritty of krypton/smallville life.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

It's just a possible option...and honestly, I could see it raising its own difficulties. But it'd be cool to see a superhero movie taking that chance, especially one that's in such dire need of a new pick-me-up. A little 'out of the box' thinking, without having to change who/what Superman is, if you will. :OI understand what you are saying.

I think it would be interesting to do an established SUperman who doesn't know his own origins and part of the story is his discovery of who he is. We then learn along with him w/o having to do the linear storytelling but we get the benefit of the origin that defines it as a reboot.I'm sure somebody has said it before in another way but for some reason this idea peaks my interest quite a bit right now...maybe it just hit me at the right time.

Let me think things over a bit...

[Webhead2006]

Yea it could work and it would be a great way to change things up, from the start just know he is alien, came to earth in a space ship. But doesnt know if his world/race still exists could be a interesting take.

[Crook]

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 know District gets brought up a lot now as a case for low-budgeted flicks, but even the director has admitted he had a lot of factors on his side that most Hollwood projects don't. That movie was shot almost entirely on a handycam, in a landfill, no-name actors, and with well-connected sfx experts. The budget was absolutely understandable considering these conditions.

It's practically impossible to work with that type of money for a modern blockbuster. This isn't even an issue of knowing how to budget, but mere logistics of filming costs. Shooting on-location in big cities is already a hefty amount. You factor in your stars, a worldwide marketing campaign, massive cgi post-processing....it's very easy for those dollar amounts to go up.

[mego joe]

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.

Wal-Mart and Target both sell SR for $5, still. Sometimes Target marks it down to $4.75. The $5 films are always older than SR, by nearly 10 years and w/o the broad appeal of the Superman character. For example- "Sense and Sensibillity" the Emma Thompson version. By comparison, "Ghost Rider" is a $13 film. What does that tell you?

[KalMart]

Wal-Mart and Target both sell SR for $5, still. Sometimes Target marks it down to $4.75. The $5 films are always older than SR, by nearly 10 years and w/o the broad appeal of the Superman character. For example- "Sense and Sensibillity" the Emma Thompson version. By comparison, "Ghost Rider" is a $13 film. What does that tell you?

It tells me you need to get NetFlix. :P

[Webhead2006]

So true their about how big budget films go. You pretty much need 100million dollars-240million dollars these days.

[Webhead2006]

As for low priced SR dvds i seen it all over the place at various dvd/electronics stores in my area usually around 5 dollars. And once i see it in one of those 1 claw machine things at a rest stop.

[KalMart]

I know District gets brought up a lot now as a case for low-budgeted flicks, but even the director has admitted he had a lot of factors on his side that most Hollwood projects don't. That movie was shot almost entirely on a handycam, in a landfill, no-name actors, and with well-connected sfx experts. The budget was absolutely understandable considering these conditions.

It's practically impossible to work with that type of money for a modern blockbuster. This isn't even an issue of knowing how to budget, but mere logistics of filming costs. Shooting on-location in big cities is already a hefty amount. You factor in your stars, a worldwide marketing campaign, massive cgi post-processing....it's very easy for those dollar amounts to go up.

Paying union rates, production design, etc...




....and planting corn. :O

[Crook]

Paying union rates, production design, etc...




....and planting corn. :O
At the time, it seemed like an amazing gesture in the loyalty and dedication from the production crew.



...in hindsight, it was a colossal waste of money that could have easily gone somewhere more efficient.

[mego joe]

Yea it could work and it would be a great way to change things up, from the start just know he is alien, came to earth in a space ship. But doesnt know if his world/race still exists could be a interesting take.

Not even alien, just differnt. In Byrne's MOS, the Kent's thought he was a Russian child that had been experimented on and sent into space.!!

In the original comics he didn't discover his origins until 1948! Superman # 53 I believe.

ANd I have mentioned this idea before...

[Webhead2006]

TRue there.

[Timstuff]

Really, it doesn't surprise me that people didn't want to watch SR over and over again on DVD, like with most big summer movies. It had very little action, is tediously long, has a depressing, foggy color pallet, and the story moves at a snail's pace and is depressing. Nothing that really screams "Man, remember how awesome [scene x], [x] and [x] were? Let's pop in the DVD and watch the movie!"

[KalMart]

At the time, it seemed like an amazing gesture in the loyalty and dedication from the production crew.



...in hindsight, it was a colossal waste of money that could have easily gone somewhere more efficient.

And this $200M+ budget is all with getting tax breaks shooting in Sydney.

[Webhead2006]

Well it would be nice to say he is alien with his ship and maybe some kryptonian writing on it and all that. Then maybe at the end of the film the fos is formed from something left over in his ship that his parents kept and then maybe at the very end of the film he learns that he is officially an alien, and his planets name/parents name-his kryptonian name.

[Webhead2006]

Did they even get any tax breaks?

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I know District gets brought up a lot now as a case for low-budgeted flicks, but even the director has admitted he had a lot of factors on his side that most Hollwood projects don't. That movie was shot almost entirely on a handycam, in a landfill, no-name actors, and with well-connected sfx experts. The budget was absolutely understandable considering these conditions.

It's practically impossible to work with that type of money for a modern blockbuster. This isn't even an issue of knowing how to budget, but mere logistics of filming costs. Shooting on-location in big cities is already a hefty amount. You factor in your stars, a worldwide marketing campaign, massive cgi post-processing....it's very easy for those dollar amounts to go up.I wasn't implying that the next Superman movie should only cost 30mil, as it was obvious that District 9 had things working for it that most movies don't, but I still think that it is dumb that the new running budgets for blockbusters is 175 to 250mil.

I understand what you are saying but I refuse to believe that it is impossible to make a blockbuster for 150mil in 2009. And yes I know it isn't easy to keep the budget down and yeah I know it's hard to make movies.

Stars don't even really matter as much as they use to, I wonder when Hollywood is going to figure that out? They are just wasting money right there with paying Z-grades A- grade prices.

I'm not lumping in the marketing with the cost of the film because those aren't exactly the same thing.

So let me just simply sum it up:

A special effects movie will always cost a s**tload for the reasons you say but (and I could be wrong, after all I don't work in the biz) I still don't think that it's impossible to make a special effects picture for under 175mil.

[Webhead2006]

I agree spidey with a 150-200million budget with the right budgeting on all factors it could all work out and triple its production costs in BO run.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

To add to that post:

I think that Warner Brothers is crazy if they spend another 200+mil on a reboot.

If they do they better never admit to it and just use the old 150mil line.

[Webhead2006]

I see that happening too, and since we know they want this one to be tightly controlled and all that they dont want someone to be all willy nelly with production budget.

[Crook]

A special effects movie will always cost a s**tload for the reasons you say but (and I could be wrong, after all I don't work in the biz) I still don't think that it's impossible to make a special effects picture for under 175mil.
It's most definitely do-able, but the question is whether such a constraint would affect the look/scale of the film. TF1 was around 150, but Bay had massive connections within ILM and the military to keep costs down. ST was 150, but also had plenty of green-screen and studio backlot shootings.

Anything that's shot real, and is massive in scale, will always take up the majority of that budget. Look at Nolan's Batman films. Nothing really extravagant, but shooting in places like Hong Kong and Chicago, in the busiest districts, don't come cheap. I don't presume someone of Nolan's indie sensibilities to ask for, or spend money in an unnecessary manner.

You are right with anything in the 200+ range, though. I'm looking at Pirates and Spidey.

Avatar I'll make an exception for since it's always expensive to fund next-gen technology.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

It's most definitely do-able, but the question is whether such a constraint would affect the look/scale of the film. TF1 was around 150, but Bay had massive connections within ILM and the military to keep costs down. ST was 150, but also had plenty of green-screen and studio backlot shootings.

Anything that's shot real, and is massive in scale, will always take up the majority of that budget. Look at Nolan's Batman films. Nothing really extravagant, but shooting in places like Hong Kong and Chicago, in the busiest districts, don't come cheap. I don't presume someone of Nolan's indie sensibilities to ask for, or spend money in an unnecessary manner.

You are right with anything in the 200+ range, though. I'm looking at Pirates and Spidey.

Avatar I'll make an exception for since it's always expensive to fund next-gen technology.Show and Jamie said that Trek really cost 210 to 220mil.

I think the problem is that things are more lax with the studios, they just throw money at every movie with even the slightest hint that it could do big money. And too much on location shooting, bad planing and useless use of expensive CGI.

[Venom'sDad]

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.

KalMart, I understand what you are saying and really we are thinking alike. I apologize for not explaining in full how I envision an Origin story. It's just this notion that a fan must see action in the first 10-20 minute is mute. I don't think you need to sacrifice story for action.

I too believe Superman should be already established with out the story being bogged down with useless necessities. Follow what I'm saying here. Do the Origin on Krypton and the end of their civilization, introduce future adversaries, the chaos of the end and the gift of a Savior sent to Earth. Krypton blows up, hint at the future adversaries existence/survival, baby crash lands on Earth, and Ma & Pa Kent finds the baby. The very next scene, he Superman in Metropolis. Dealing with the villain of the day.

Meanwhile, in spots, he is reflecting on life and lesson learn from Ma &Pa Kent and/or his childhood growing up different on this planet, and/or discovering who he is, all as it relates to the current situation of the moment. You follow what I'm saying here? Can you envision what I'm saying? This is what I mean by his Origin. It does not have to follow or playout in chronological order. We are on a journey, with the title character, of discovery as he confront the situation of what he must do, who he must become.

[KalMart]

Did they even get any tax breaks?

Maybe they got to write off the corn.

[Webhead2006]

That can all work well.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Maybe the got to write off the corn.:hehe:

[KalMart]

I dunno....I'd still want to hold off on more of the 'introspective' stuff and really set up more of the momentum and energy from the outset. Kind of a different perspective to start out with...almost as if we're taking him in as a this great mysterious being just like the rest of that fictional world is, with the difference being we the audience know that he and Clark Kent are the same person. And then later, we're 'let in' to where he comes from and what made him what he is.....rather than having the 'inside track', so to speak, from the outset. Introduce the phenomenon of the concept AS a phenomenon before we get in there and identify/relate to him, if that makes any sense.

Maybe a wacky idea....but even wait to 'reveal' that he and Clark Kent are the same person...even though we see Clark Kent the reporter along the way....and the first time we're actually shown that is when he's changing from Supes into Clark. But that would obviously go against the 'iconic' shirt rip (which I'd save for the last shot of the first film). Just some ideas to stir up the approach a bit.

[Venom'sDad]

Sounds like to me KalMart, we are saying the same thing. I think you may need to read what I'm saying and what you just said... we both envision the same path.

[Wally West]

Both just a tad off...

So I keep hearing...My bad. I thought boxofficemojo was a reliable site. Apparently not when it comes to budgets. I'm curious though, what were the actual budgets for SR and star trek?

[Webhead2006]

That would be an interesting way to go. Though i could say we start with his first day in metropolis and he was just hired at the planet, something crazy happens and he decides this is the best moment to become his new hero identity he came up with, and we get his first public save, is dubbed Superman..... Then like others have said through the course of the film we learn about his past on krypton, his smallville days, and why he decided to become public in his crime fighting.

[Webhead2006]

trek was likely around 200-220million my guess, as for SR that is a tricky one do u just factor from when singer started-end or do you count all the failed attempts from the 90s/early 00s.

[KalMart]

That would be an interesting way to go. Though i could say we start with his first day in metropolis and he was just hired at the planet, something crazy happens and he decides this is the best moment to become his new hero identity he came up with, and we get his first public save, is dubbed Superman..... Then like others have said through the course of the film we learn about his past on krypton, his smallville days, and why he decided to become public in his crime fighting.

I'd like Lois to be rushing to the scene of a near disaster that was averted by something that people just can't explain...she's there to get the scoop, but finds out there's already some tall guy in glasses that she's never seen before who says he's from the Daily Planet too...interviewing some cops and bystanders. She doesn't think much of him, but she's a bit put off by being beaten to the punch. He tries to introduce himself, but she cuts him off when she asks another question to the cop about just what got that speeding bus with bomb-rigged terrorists stuck up in the top floor of that abandoned building.

"Who knows...", says a cop. "People said some sort of hurricane or something just came in and....it's crazy, who knows?"

She then gets that guy back by stealing a cab from him...but when she arrives back at the Daily Planet...there's that friggin' guy again...already there in the office! WTF? It's then that he's introduced to her by Perry as Clark Kent, the newly-hired reporter.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^Thats sounds like a great introduction...I can easily picture it.

[Webhead2006]

That is a good intro for the two of them i would be down with that. So thinking guys, for first public save/rescue what should it be next time around?

[KalMart]

Sounds like to me KalMart, we are saying the same thing. I think you may need to read what I'm saying and what you just said... we both envision the same path.

Yeah, but my take is that we don't see Krypton/Jor-El in the first movie. we star the second movie kinda like STM with a council meeting in which Jor-El is trying to explain his findings on the planet's unsettling status, only to be met with skepticism, etc.

And I'm not looking to sacrifice story for action...in fact, I don't see anything being 'sacrificed'. Just rearranged for establishing a different take on the momentum of things and, in fact, eventually getting more out of something that would normally be shoe-horned into the first 10-20 minutes as introductory backstory.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

That is a good intro for the two of them i would be down with that. So thinking guys, for first public save/rescue what should it be next time around?It shouldn't be a plane because thats way overplayed...how about a Train?

And no that wouldn't be copying Spider-Man 2 and The Incredibles.

[KalMart]

That is a good intro for the two of them i would be down with that. So thinking guys, for first public save/rescue what should it be next time around?

Start the film off with an explosion on a high-rise rooftop blowing Lois off the roof and sending her hurtling towards the streets below. We're falling with her as debris is everywhere and the deafening sound of the speeding wind increases with her velocity, intertwined with her screaming. Then the huge chunks of debris seem to vaporize around her...hit by what looks like a thin beam of energy out of nowhere. Involuntarily she glances off to the side and sees....something...something strange. A blur of red and blue that seems to be speeding towards her....almost looks like a man or...then she screams again as it reaches her....


Then whoom!...cut to the Superman logo on black screen and a deep musical sting. No opening credits, just the logo. And then to the bustling streets of Metropolis on a sunny day..."Two Days Earlier"...and go from there as Lois bursts out of a taxi cab grasping her coat and notepad, and she runs towards the crowd of people surrounding the aforementioned near-disaster scene. We'll finish the rest of that opening roof-explosion scene when we get to that part and introduce...well....you know who....to the world.


Somethin' like that.

[Octoberist]

yeah, they have to reintroduce the characters without doing a whole recap.

Like what the slash film.com podcast stated, the fun thing about most comics is that you can read Superman #1000 and still jump right into it. (excluding cross overs, which is now the norm).

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^You have some great ideas Kal Mart.

[dark_b]

I'd like Lois to be rushing to the scene of a near disaster that was averted by something that people just can't explain...she's there to get the scoop, but finds out there's already some tall guy in glasses that she's never seen before who says he's from the Daily Planet too...interviewing some cops and bystanders. She doesn't think much of him, but she's a bit put off by being beaten to the punch. She gets him back by stealing a cab from him...but when she arrives back at the Daily Planet...there's that friggin' guy again...already there in the office! WTF? It's then that he's introduced to her by Perry as Clark Kent, the newly-hired reporter.
this is what i call ''thinking outside the box''

if there will be an origin it needs to look very different. i am not saying the planet should not blow up. but you need to give the origin a fresh twist. so that even the hardcore fans will not know what will happen.

[KalMart]

Actually, when Lois gets back to the DP, she goes straight to Perry's office, bursts in, and starts digging into him about some newbie being on her 'beat'...some "straight out of Sears & Roebuck, cookie-cutter grad-school warrior..." etc....then Perry shoots a revealing glance past her shoulder, and she turns to discover that she failed to notice that same guy (who she was just insulting, and who she stole the cab from) already sitting patiently behind her in the corner.

Perry: Lois....meet Clark Kent.

Clark (stands): Hi.

Lois (unimpressed): Lois Lane.

Clark: (pointing to his blazer) It's um...J. Crew, actually.

Lois nods dismissively.


etc, etc,

[Octoberist]

I like, Kalmart...I LIKE

[Octoberist]

I like it, Kalmart...I LIKE IT.

[KalMart]

In some ways similar to their introduction in STM, but put them a bit at odds from the outset, then quickly progress the plot of the film from there on...all within the first five-eight minutes or so.

[Gamma Goliath]

kalmart you're a genius dude!

[Webhead2006]

Some nice ideals guys. I agree no planes/jets this time around been played out in sm the movie/SR and lois and clark(space shuttle) so its a bit hard to think of a good first public save.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

All hail Kal Mart!

And I assure you that I'm not being facetious.

[Webhead2006]

what if it was a bullet train like thing like they got in japan and all that.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

what if it was a bullet train like thing like they got in japan and all that.hmmm...I like that idea.

[Webhead2006]

Ya i just trying to think of things we really havent see supes save in films already. But i can running a bit blank right now.

[dark_b]

plane or a helicopter rescuse scene is IMO perfect because it shows superman's main powers. strentgh and flying.
a train would be good but we wouldnt see superman in hes element. flying.

thats why the plane sequence would be perfection for the first scene with superman in an origin movie. but now it can not be done anymore. because it was done perfect in SR. you can not top this.

[KalMart]

Bullet-train would be good....because it's speeding along the ground, and you could emphasize Superman's high-speed flying better with more objects whizzing by....buildings, trees, through tunnels, elevated tracks (hopefully not too Spiderman II)...better physical dynamics than in the open sky, and a lot of large obstacles that he has to weave in and out of....using shots from inside the train car seeing Supes flying along outside the windows, etc.

But instead of stopping the whole train at once from either end...which would likely cause the multiple cars to fold up around eachother of tear off inpieces....he has to do it in sections, one car at a time....severing the links with heat vision, safely slowing that car down so as not to put too many g-forces on the occupants (thing's traveling at over 200+ mph, after all). Then he has to catch up to the rest of the cars that are speeding away, and so on over the course of miles....with each car and section of track presenting different obstacles....tunnels, raised tracks, nearby buildings, etc. But by the time he's ready for the last car....in this case the front car since he goes from the back forward...it's nearing the end station with a dead end. Not enough room left on the tracks to slow it down without it squashing upon impact. So in a split second, he zips over to the end of the track barely ahead of the oncoming last car....rips the track from the ground and the 'end pin', and lifts them up in the air so it's a ramp, which sends the car flying like a javelin hundreds of feet in the air.


Then he simply catches it and brings it floating back down to Earth. There's your rescue scene.


See...if they end up doing that, it's already friggin' spoiled for us. :oldrazz:

[Webhead2006]

now that is a good way to go about my bullet train idea.

[KalMart]

That way you do it in pieces over a longer stretch and compose a broader roller-coaster ride of a rescue...with some nice stops and starts along the way with his flying, and a lot of crazy maneuvering....even knocking down rows of huge trees or busting through a rocky hillside as he's chasing it down, just to get an angle on things. Throw in a few bends in the tracks that are supposed to be driven at lower speeds, so he's got to keep the whole thing from tipping over at 200mph, yadda-yadda....


Faster and more powerful than a speeding %$#@'in bullet-locomotive, yo?

[BenReilly]

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..

Robinov didn't make those comments until two years after SR was released.

This is what Robinov said back in August of 2006, after the figures started rolling in:

"'Superman Returns' will be profitable for us," says Warner Bros. production president Jeff Robinov. "We would have liked it to have made more money, but it reintroduced the character in a great way and was a good launching pad for the next picture. We believe in Bryan and the franchise. Clearly, this was the most emotional and realistic superhero movie ever made."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003019246

And then two months later, the studio locks Singer into a pay-or-play contract to make a sequel. Studio's don't pay directors millions of dollars for a film they have no intention of making.

[GreenKToo]

Singer was very detail oriented with SR. Just look at the interior of the yacht, the daily planet, and the farm. A whole field of corn was planted that was later substituted with CGI, or at least thats what I heard.
Add all that up and thats some bigtime $$$. And oh, dont forget the 10 mill dollar RTK scene that was left laying on the cutting room floor.

[Kal-El Fan]

Great ideas, KalMart. Anyone know how to pitch a spec script to WB? :oldrazz:

[BlackLantern]

Great ideas, KalMart. Anyone know how to pitch a spec script to WB? :oldrazz:

get an agent, pay the WGA (because they have to have their piece), spend a couple years staff writing for random shows and movies...and maybe WB might look at it

[GreenKToo]

Its hard to come up with something that hasnt already been done.......

How about Having Superman save a cities trapped people from a major hurricane.
He couldnt stop the hurricane of course, but he could perform all kinds of rescues.

Any gulf coast town:
Have the wind howling so loud you could barely hear, and rain is coming down in blinding sheets so you could barely see.

Buildings explode all around from the force of the wind.

Cars, trees, street signs, etc are blown here and there like toys.

Dozens and dozens of people, including children, that didnt or couldnt evacuate, are trapped in a civic center. All seems hopeless.

Then, out of the midst of the storm a figure appears. Its Superman. He brushes off flying debris that hits him like we would an annoying house fly.

He calmly begins to save the trapped people. He places several people at a time in a bus and flies it to a nearby military station thats safe from the worst winds.

All the major media are there and catch the scene. The eye of the storm passes over just as Superman finishes his last rescue. He then launches himself up and waves. The news cameras catch him leaving.
The speculation starts. Who is the hero of the storm?

[VenomsMom]

You guys are coming up with some exciting and fresh ideas. I am so glad many of you envision a reinvention of this classic character who still exists in the hearts of many fans young and old. People need to reconnect with Supes. I really like a lot of your approaches on how to do an origin. I certainly hope many of these similar ideas are being discussed amongst WB on how to handle this character. Get back to basics and core of his character and transition him into the 21st century.

[Venom'sDad]

I'd like Lois to be rushing to the scene of a near disaster that was averted by something that people just can't explain...she's there to get the scoop, but finds out there's already some tall guy in glasses that she's never seen before who says he's from the Daily Planet too...interviewing some cops and bystanders. She doesn't think much of him, but she's a bit put off by being beaten to the punch. He tries to introduce himself, but she cuts him off when she asks another question to the cop about just what got that speeding bus with bomb-rigged terrorists stuck up in the top floor of that abandoned building.

"Who knows...", says a cop. "People said some sort of hurricane or something just came in and....it's crazy, who knows?"

She then gets that guy back by stealing a cab from him...but when she arrives back at the Daily Planet...there's that friggin' guy again...already there in the office! WTF? It's then that he's introduced to her by Perry as Clark Kent, the newly-hired reporter.That is a great idea for their first introduction. I would love to see that.


Yeah, but my take is that we don't see Krypton/Jor-El in the first movie. we star the second movie kinda like STM I don't think that's a good idea. The film would be trampling over itself and may become confusing & complicated. It needs to keeps some natural flow or order of things. Besides, the reason for introducing Krypton/Jor-El in the beginning is to established the "gift" to humanity and set up future threats and/or villains for future films(sequels).

[Showtime]

As an offshot.... say they later decided that they wanted to reboot completely...would that contract only apply to a direct sequel either way?

If it only applied to a sequel, the pay or play deal, he would still get paid. He would get paid if a sequel is made with another director or a reboot was made.

Perhaps more related...doesn't that kind of a deal also act as insurance for Singer that he'd get dibs on a sequel, and on the other end that Singer wouldn't be lured away from continuing like with, say, what happened with Fox/X3?

No that would be a right to refusal deal.

Robinov didn't make those comments until two years after SR was released.

And then two months later, the studio locks Singer into a pay-or-play contract to make a sequel. Studio's don't pay directors millions of dollars for a film they have no intention of making.

Thanks. I was looking for that quote.

Anybody who thinks that they didn't want to make a sequel at that time are rewriting history. WB wanted a sequel and they wanted it fast tracked. Do they want a sequel now? Obviously not.

[dark_b]

i guess Singer didnt take WB seriously when they told him that they want the sequel now. he maybe thought that they would whait.

[afan]

Besides, the reason for introducing Krypton/Jor-El in the beginning is to established the "gift" to humanity and set up future threats and/or villains for future films (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=17353094#)(sequels).

I really have a distaste for the idea that Superman is Jor-el's gift to humanity and or the whole "destiny" of Superman. Joe-el's sole gift was the gift of life to his son.

"Humanity" should be portrayed as quite capable on it's own, it does not need a saviour. Superman is a valuable member of the Earth team to be sure, but he is not the only player on the field.

[Venom'sDad]

I really have a distaste for the idea that Superman is Jor-el's gift to humanity and or the whole "destiny" of Superman. Joe-el's sole gift was the gift of life to his son.

"Humanity" should be portrayed as quite capable on it's own, it does not need a saviour. Superman is a valuable member of the Earth team to be sure, but he is not the only player on the field.
Fair enough, neitherless, Superman is looked upon as a blessing, a gift to humanity. Out of all the places Jor-El could have sent him.

[matrix_ghost]

I wasn't implying that the next Superman movie should only cost 30mil, as it was obvious that District 9 had things working for it that most movies don't, but I still think that it is dumb that the new running budgets for blockbusters is 175 to 250mil.

I understand what you are saying but I refuse to believe that it is impossible to make a blockbuster for 150mil in 2009. And yes I know it isn't easy to keep the budget down and yeah I know it's hard to make movies.

Stars don't even really matter as much as they use to, I wonder when Hollywood is going to figure that out? They are just wasting money right there with paying Z-grades A- grade prices.

I'm not lumping in the marketing with the cost of the film because those aren't exactly the same thing.

So let me just simply sum it up:

A special effects movie will always cost a s**tload for the reasons you say but (and I could be wrong, after all I don't work in the biz) I still don't think that it's impossible to make a special effects picture for under 175mil.

1) First of all i agree wih when it comes to movie stars taking up alot of the budget. I think it was Favreau who , when making Iron Man , said that Iron Man was the 20 million star not the actor playim him. I think that applies for several of these franchise movies. Superman , Batman etc.
I think this is can be partially blamed on the studios as well. You get an actor pay him a million or two to star in a movie and for some reason the movie performs extremely well. Enter the hollywood agent demanding much more for the next sequel. It's not unheard of. Look at Tobey Maguire and Shia Leboeff . After Spidey 1 and TF 1 their agents demanded a massive salary increase of 20 million for the sequel. The studios of course denied that but renegotiated their deals so that the actors still got a substantial pay increase.

Although i do feel that actor play a (big) role in a movie's success , there are other factors as well. Why not simply work for a small salary (a couple of mil) and when the movie becomes a hit , you'll get your share of the gross. I think that's a scenario everyone is happy. Once the studio has recouped it's costs , everyone can have a percentage of the profits . It worked with guys like Spielberg , Lucas and Ford when they made Indiana Jones 4.

2) Your point about making a massive blockbuster for less then 175 million. Again you are right in saying that it is possible. However along with the reasons Crook has listed ( shooting stuff for real , shooting on real locations etc) one of the factors that also plays a big role in the budget increase is the fact that studios are trying to get a movie done in shorter timeframes.
I guess that's due to the fact that the actors are getting older.
However in order to get the VFX shots done in( a shorter) time , the studio has to pay million in over time. That certainly was the case with the POTC sequels .
I know , it's a pretty retarded idea to actually set a release date but meanwhile your behind with your post.prod work.
I guess that with franchises it's more to do with the fact that the actors are getting older . Making the movies faster means that the actors can play the roles for a longer period of time . But you need to seriously pay loads more to get everything done.
Heck i could see what everyone's is saying about Star Trek's budget actually being bigger then what is reported.

Movies like LOTR and the matrix movies have shown the the budgets can be lowered substantially and still be able to deliver high end VFX shots. But your talking about a longer period of time to develop everything.
Are studios and actors willing to wait for such a long period ?
Compare Minority Report and War Of The Worlds. Both movies directed by Spielberg , both movies star Tom Cruise. I'm sure he asked for his usual 20 million pay day on both flicks. In terms is VFX , Minority Report is bigger . Yet is costs less then War Of The Worlds. Aside from the fact that War Of The Worlds was shot on more real locations then Minority Report , SPielberg reallly took his time to make Minority Report .
War Of the Worlds was made in 9 months , from start to finish. Minority Report had a post. prod period of a whole year.

[solidsnake86]

That bullit train idea is great and since the plane and helicopter are taken its probably the best way to go. I really like the idea of manuevering around trees and stopping it in sections.

In terms of the origin, for me, I couldnt care less about starting on krypton but I think you have to start with lois and clarks first meeting and him starting at the daily planet to establish the characters and create that interesting dynamic that people like. At the heart of it is lois and clarks relationship, which as much as we all like action, I think people enjoy that aspect, seeing as how they created a whole show based on it.

Its good to see that most are agreeing on this.

[The Guard]

I don't care for Kal-Marts initial introduction of Clark Kent all that much, as I think it's a bit too "there", but I do like the idea of seeing Superman right off the bat, establishing him as a mythic, strange presence, and then going from there, with bits of the origin throughout the film. That's the approach I took, and think should be taken, naturally. :).

I will say...even those ideas have been done somewhere. I've seen that scenario time and time again. There's very little that hasn't been done that remains faithful to the Superman mythology. That's not a bad thing, and honoring some of those elements wouldn't be bad either. Frankly, SUPERMAN RETURNS had some fairly fresh ideas, and people disliked a number of them, so...it's about being faithful and not redundant, I think, more than just coming up with something "fresh".

If you like his ideas, you'd all probably like my SUPERMAN STARTS script. I wish it wasn't on my virus-ridden laptop with CAPTAIN AMERICA and THE SPECTRE.

(Tear).

I have GOT to stop coming here. Every time I do, I want to write a Superman script again, and I'm working on real projects now.

Someone write one for me so the pressure will be off.

[The Guard]

While I agree that SUPERMAN RETURNS was detailed, and Singer did go the extra mile...that film didn't cost so much because of corn and shooting on location. It cost so much because it was just MASSIVE in scale, and had a ridiculous amount of CGI and effects work in it.

[dark_b]

While I agree that SUPERMAN RETURNS was detailed, and Singer did go the extra mile...that film didn't cost so much because of corn and shooting on location. It cost so much because it was just MASSIVE in scale, and had a ridiculous amount of CGI and effects work in it.where was it massive in scale?

plane scene? ohh yes. one of the best action comicbook rescue scene of all time IMO.

but other stuff? i dont think so.

[Motown Marvel]

Someone write one for me so the pressure will be off.


SUPERMAN: VIRUS
by Motown Marvel

Brainiac came to earth and put a virus in Guard's computer. Superman didn't care and did nothing to stop it. Guard cried. Superman and Brainiac went off to windsor to get some poutine.

The End.

[BlackLantern]

do what TIH did...tell the origin in the opening credits...if you are over the age of 10 and you don't know that Superman comes from another planet, you shouldn't even be in the theater

-Have Superman as a presence in Metropolis, have him a foil a robbery or something right at the start...this is why I suggest using Metallo....Supes can stop a robbery by John Corben and his gang and the story can move forward

-Clark and Lois should just be working together at this point, no dating, no marriage...just co-workers

-Lex should be a background player and have LexCorp established as a legitimate company...make Lex the DC equivalent of a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs (in the public eye)

[Timstuff]

A modernization of THIS should be Superman's grand debut.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkElf1KtaBs

Seriously, a plane catch ain't got nothing on Superman vs. GIANT FRIGGIN' ROBOTS! Also, the robots could be the could be the creations of Dr. Emmit Vale, who afterwards gets hired by Lex Luthor to turn John Corbin into Metallo using the experimental "Metal 10" alloy (which in this movie would likely be Kryptonian in origin).

[BlackLantern]

what is with people and the Fleischer cartoons?? ugh...I like them, but let's not live in the past people

[Octoberist]

what is with people and the Fleischer cartoons?? ugh...I like them, but let's not live in the past people

They're good. Greatly animated but obviously, a product of its time (like the Japanese episode.).

The problem is that, what made them work is their simplicity, and it was okay for them because they were made back in the 40s. Superman has evolved a lot since then, and I'll be honest, I've watch the majority of the epsidoes, and I actually missed Lex Luthor.

[afan]

what is with people and the Fleischer cartoons?? ugh...I like them, but let's not live in the past people

Superman also catches a plane in a Fleischer cartoon........so every depiction of a plane rescue is living in the past?

Isn't Metallo akin to a mechanical monster?

[The Guard]

SUPERMAN: VIRUS
by Motown Marvel

Brainiac came to earth and put a virus in Guard's computer. Superman didn't care and did nothing to stop it. Guard cried. Superman and Brainiac went off to windsor to get some poutine.

The End.

Fantastic.

[The Guard]

The opening sequence is a trip through the Universe, there's a fairly sizeable spaceship crash, the plane/shuttle rescue was a huge sequence, New Krypton is pretty grand scale, there's some sizeable action on a boat, Superman lifted a continent at one point, and a yacht, multiple scenes on said yacht, The Daily Planet, etc. You had him flying, leaping around through cornfields, the Kent Farm was pretty big, tearing around through Metropolis firing things from his eyes, a decent number of explosions, a gunfight with a giant machine gun, etc. Decent runaway car sequence, scenes in The Fortress, which itself was huge. Flying through Metropolis with Lois, doing various fairly large scale things around the world. Superman lacked kinetic action in some sense, and much in the way of combat, but it wasn't lacking in scale or action in general.

And that's without his time on Krypton. If the Krypton scenes had made it into the movie, the scale would have been even BIGGER.

Put all that together, even without the Krypton stuff, and that's a pretty grand scale compared to, oh...almost anything.

SUPERMAN RETURNS was a huge film.

[Jochimus]

Superman also catches a plane in a Fleischer cartoon........so every depiction of a plane rescue is living in the past?

Isn't Metallo akin to a mechanical monster?

There were also Fleischer cartoons involving criminals flying around the city with advanced technology (a la Intergang), a giant gorilla run amok (a la Titano), and even an impostor Superman running around causing trouble (a la Bizarro and Henshaw). There are probably more instances than that.

S:TAS and "Smallville" notwithstanding, I've noticed there's been more than a few ideas that have been incorporated into the Post-COIE Superman mythology that people look at as new and revolutionary for the mythos, and in fact several of these had precedents during the Golden and Silver Age. Even the first Supergirl wasn't Superman's cousin, but rather an artificial being who ends up being sent to another dimension/reality/whatever by her creator...sound familiar?

[BlackLantern]

I could go for an Intergang plot....Lois and Clark tried that couple times and it had mixed results

[SuperDaniel]

Didn't seem that huge to me. Or fun. It seemed pretentious and boring.

[KalMart]

Anybody who thinks that they didn't want to make a sequel at that time are rewriting history. WB wanted a sequel and they wanted it fast tracked. Do they want a sequel now? Obviously not.

Things ultimately worked out for the better, wouldn't you say? We don't have to endure a continuation of Superman Returns, and hopefully, finally, the franchise will pull itself up by its bootstraps and restart like it should have a while ago. It'll take more time, but where's anyone going....the court case notwithstanding?

[SuperDaniel]

I think its a bad idea to start with Superman, costume and all, right of the bat but i wouldn't mind a pre-Superman Clark saving people in a War or something and being refered as an angel, red and blue blur hehehe Therefore, the action can still be escalated.

One of the problems with SR is that the best action sequence is the plane and the rest sucked.

[Showtime]

It remains to be seen if it worked out "better". Depends on what happens with Superman next.

[KalMart]

It remains to be seen if it worked out "better". Depends on what happens with Superman next.

How would continuing SR's storyline have been a positive, though? At the very least, you keep it to one generally forgettable showing, and finally moving on from the past.....instead of taking up even more valuable time and money spreading it out over two, possible three installments. Whatever reasons have virtually forced WB to reboot have got to be a positive for the franchise compared to what had resulted in SR, even if it means leaving it dormant for another 5-8 years or so. At the very least, they now have a concrete example of why they can't just depend on et familiarity of the brand and past merits, and why they need to step things up when/if they do get to another one.

[BlackLantern]

I think its a bad idea to start with Superman, costume and all, right of the bat but i wouldn't mind a pre-Superman Clark saving people in a War or something and being refered as an angel, red and blue blur hehehe Therefore, the action can still be escalated.

why?? and the taint of Smallville should not touch this new film

[Dark Knight]

Hopefully so man, we need to clearly show the next film is different and not set in the same setting as the past films. Bring the characters to more modern takes and more modern elements, better comic elements included and all that.



Exactly! That's why seeing villians we have never seen before onscreen in any live action Superman movie in the next Supes film is an absolute MUST!

Seeing LexCorp, Cat Grant, and Mercy would be good to see as well.

[KalMart]

How about no Lex Luthor in the next film?

[Octoberist]

I say put him in only because I WANT to see the modern day Lex in a friggin' movie. Not a con man, but a TYCOON.

He doesn't have to be the main villain; put him in there. I just want Lex to get his friggin' due.

[The Guard]

Didn't seem that huge to me.

I'd be interested in knowing what you consider huge, then.

[VenomsMom]

How about no Lex Luthor in the next film?
Blasphemy.......Lex should definitely have a presence in the next film.

[RachelDawes]

I'd like Lois to be rushing to the scene of a near disaster that was averted by something that people just can't explain...she's there to get the scoop, but finds out there's already some tall guy in glasses that she's never seen before who says he's from the Daily Planet too...interviewing some cops and bystanders. She doesn't think much of him, but she's a bit put off by being beaten to the punch. He tries to introduce himself, but she cuts him off when she asks another question to the cop about just what got that speeding bus with bomb-rigged terrorists stuck up in the top floor of that abandoned building.

"Who knows...", says a cop. "People said some sort of hurricane or something just came in and....it's crazy, who knows?"

She then gets that guy back by stealing a cab from him...but when she arrives back at the Daily Planet...there's that friggin' guy again...already there in the office! WTF? It's then that he's introduced to her by Perry as Clark Kent, the newly-hired reporter.

Bullet-train would be good....because it's speeding along the ground, and you could emphasize Superman's high-speed flying better with more objects whizzing by....buildings, trees, through tunnels, elevated tracks (hopefully not too Spiderman II)...better physical dynamics than in the open sky, and a lot of large obstacles that he has to weave in and out of....using shots from inside the train car seeing Supes flying along outside the windows, etc.

But instead of stopping the whole train at once from either end...which would likely cause the multiple cars to fold up around eachother of tear off inpieces....he has to do it in sections, one car at a time....severing the links with heat vision, safely slowing that car down so as not to put too many g-forces on the occupants (thing's traveling at over 200+ mph, after all). Then he has to catch up to the rest of the cars that are speeding away, and so on over the course of miles....with each car and section of track presenting different obstacles....tunnels, raised tracks, nearby buildings, etc. But by the time he's ready for the last car....in this case the front car since he goes from the back forward...it's nearing the end station with a dead end. Not enough room left on the tracks to slow it down without it squashing upon impact. So in a split second, he zips over to the end of the track barely ahead of the oncoming last car....rips the track from the ground and the 'end pin', and lifts them up in the air so it's a ramp, which sends the car flying like a javelin hundreds of feet in the air.


Then he simply catches it and brings it floating back down to Earth. There's your rescue scene.


See...if they end up doing that, it's already friggin' spoiled for us. :oldrazz:

I can see these in my mind's eye and I'm :applaud.

[Kal-El Fan]

I like starting with a pre-Superman Clark saving people for a couple of reasons. First off, as was shown in Birthright (again some of my only praise for that series), we see Clark learning things about being a "hero," about the true nature of people, and the world in general. He still has hope that we can build a better world, but he knows it's not perfect. This helps to convince the non-fans that he is not some naive boyscout who thinks everything is perfect.
Second, like in MOS, having Clark rescue people in plain clothes, and finally getting caught by Lois, etc helps lead him to create the Superman identity. This gives us a reason to create a suit that is not of Kryptonian origin, as many want (it can or cannot be made of Kryptonian fabric, etc...I don't think that matters.)
I like the MOS origin with Clark being the person, and Superman being the disguise. In the end, both Metropolis Clark and Superman are disguises, but I'd like to move away from the Superman/Kryptonian importance from the Donner film.

[RachelDawes]

How would continuing SR's storyline have been a positive, though? At the very least, you keep it to one generally forgettable showing, and finally moving on from the past.....instead of taking up even more valuable time and money spreading it out over two, possible three installments. Whatever reasons have virtually forced WB to reboot have got to be a positive for the franchise compared to what had resulted in SR, even if it means leaving it dormant for another 5-8 years or so. At the very least, they now have a concrete example of why they can't just depend on et familiarity of the brand and past merits, and why they need to step things up when/if they do get to another one.

If we don't get another Superman movie for another, say 20 years, than continuing SR's storyline would've been a better option rather than waiting decades for a reboot.

[FlawlessVictory]

If we don't get another Superman movie for another, say 20 years, than continuing SR's storyline would've been a better option rather than waiting decades for a reboot.

Disagree. I would rather have nothing than to continue anything from that movie.

[Fresh Prince]

Lex should be in the next movie but not a major villian as a minor villian.

[Showtime]

How would continuing SR's storyline have been a positive, though? At the very least, you keep it to one generally forgettable showing, and finally moving on from the past.....instead of taking up even more valuable time and money spreading it out over two, possible three installments. Whatever reasons have virtually forced WB to reboot have got to be a positive for the franchise compared to what had resulted in SR, even if it means leaving it dormant for another 5-8 years or so. At the very least, they now have a concrete example of why they can't just depend on et familiarity of the brand and past merits, and why they need to step things up when/if they do get to another one.

The storyline continuing and being positive or negative is a matter of opinion. Nobody knows what a possible sequel would have done. Those who hated SR will say it would have tanked, those who loved SR would tell you it would have been gangbusters at the box office. It is all futuristic speculation.

[Raiden]

Although I hate to see the origin story on the big screen again, I think they should adapt one of the Superman graphic novels for the new movie, like Whatever Happens to Man of Tomorrow?, or Superman: Birthright. One thing they should definitely do is to severe all ties with the Donner films; all the Superman movies (including Singer's) have relation with Donner's classic, and it's time for them to create a Superman movie that is new and different, like what Nolan did with Batman.

[Crook]

I'd be interested in knowing what you consider huge, then.
It's all about the tone. The things you mentioned sound relatively "big" on paper, but it's execution just did not translate that feeling.

Comparatively speaking, TDK was a much smaller-scale film than SR (on paper), yet undoubtedly felt much, much, bigger.

[dark_b]

It's all about the tone. The things you mentioned sound relatively "big" on paper, but it's execution just did not translate that feeling.

Comparatively speaking, TDK was a much smaller-scale film than SR (on paper), yet undoubtedly felt much, much, bigger.i agree.

the flying through space is basic stuff now . it is not complicated anymore to model planets and fly through them.

spaceship landing? it was a f..... reflection on the windows. you see martha in the house. and you only see the spaceship landing in the reflection.

[Venom'sDad]

Lex will always be in a Supes movie

[Dark Knight]

Lex should be in the next movie but not a major villian as a minor villian.




Or as a supporting background villian....he doesn't have to be the main baddie.

[bunk]

It's funny when you see the railroad model scene when Lex tests the crystal, and then you compare it to what actually ends up happening. It definitely does not live up to the foreshadowing.

[KalMart]

The storyline continuing and being positive or negative is a matter of opinion. Nobody knows what a possible sequel would have done. Those who hated SR will say it would have tanked, those who loved SR would tell you it would have been gangbusters at the box office. It is all futuristic speculation.

Obviously, but really, if you wanted to ideally make Superman movies from here on out....would you not want to be able to start from scratch, though? Look at it as if both approaches could be done as well as possible, which is what you hope for. Creatively speaking, I see a lot more benefits from not being bound to prior versions and continuities, and I think it's safe to say that audiences are at least just as receptive to restarting, as evidenced by other franchises that recently have.

[KalMart]

If we don't get another Superman movie for another, say 20 years, than continuing SR's storyline would've been a better option rather than waiting decades for a reboot.

I don't see it that way...although I can see how some Supes/comics fans etc. may. To me, it's not 'something is better than nothing', because there are a lot of other movies out there, and I don't think something's missing if there are no Superman movies in particular, or any other specifically. I'd rather there be none, than a handful of bad ones. If there are no more Superman movies in my lifetime, I'm okay with that because at least there are a few that were made that I liked like STM. But for those who feel the need for Superman movies, I could see the 'wait' hurting, but I could also see it being worth the price if it means that things will finally start over....given that it will be made well, of course. If it's not, then it won't make me feel that they should have continued from SR instead...I'd rather they just stop and put those resources towards something else that will be fresher and more contemporary.

[KalMart]

Blasphemy.......Lex should definitely have a presence in the next film.

I dunno....I'm pretty sick of him as far as movies go. I know that a lot of Supes fans take the stance 'it hasn't been done right', but I'd rather they put the time and effort for new things instead, or at least wait....like BB-TDK did bringing in the Joker later than right off the bat.

But then again, it may also depend whether or not you're going to tie Luthor in to Clark's origins/growing up. If they don't, then it'll be easier to bring him in later....like perhaps at the end of a first movie, leading into the next (if there will be one). But in general, I'd find it refreshing not having him for a while.

[Octoberist]

Luthor is so tied in to Superman's and Metropolis' backstory (since he's such a public figure as the Lexcorp CEO), that it's hard not to mention him unless he's in prison or whatever.

[AntMan]

If Warner Bros. wanted to continue the storyline put forth by Superman Returns they could have done so already. Whether I dislike the film or not, Superman Returns certainly made enough money to constitute a sequel. However, it seems as though Warner Bros. has decided to go in another direction. They obviously view the film as a disappointment, for what ever reason

[KalMart]

And for whatever reason....I'm glad they did, as I think there's a better inherent chance of creating better movies by starting over. Of course it could still be botched up, but so can anything. At least you can say that the decision was (hopefully) made for the right reasons in terms of what you wanted to achieve.

[Octoberist]

If they wanted a sequel, they missed the boat. At this point, it's obvious WB were not pleased with the film and it seems like Singer has moved on from the franchise.

If they did it now, THEN NOW there's baggage due to the behind the scenes stuff. I know that only film geeks will know about that, but still.

[KalMart]

Luthor is so tied in to Superman's and Metropolis' backstory (since he's such a public figure as the Lexcorp CEO), that it's hard not to mention him unless he's in prison or whatever.

It doesn't have to be written that way, though. I don't think changing that specific association is as vital...you could still introduce him later as a powerful scientist/entrepreneur whatever with Supes meeting him for the first time right there and then, and then perhaps reveal that he was somehow involved with the dangers that Supes has faced prior to getting to Lex. I'd really like to see then start with something new and different than Lex being the threat/bad guy....or even in the picture... from the start.

[AntMan]

And for whatever reason....I'm glad they did, as I think there's a better inherent chance of creating better movies by staring over. Of course it could still be botched up, but so can anything. At least you can say that the decision was (hopefully) made for the right reasons in terms of what you wanted to achieve.

I agree 100%.

[Blackman]

Luthor needs to be in a Superman film...he doesnt have to be the main badguy but as others have said he needs to at least be a presence

[bigbluefan]

Agree, Lex should still be there as a thorn in Superman's side but I'll scream if they don't bring in a cosmic supervillain in the next movie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Wally West]

If we don't get another Superman movie for another, say 20 years, than continuing SR's storyline would've been a better option rather than waiting decades for a reboot.

I have to say I agree with that. I'm in favor of a reboot, but if it actually came down to a choice between nothing for two decades and a sequel to SR. I'd take the sequel in a heartbeat.

[VenomsMom]

I dunno....I'm pretty sick of him as far as movies go. I know that a lot of Supes fans take the stance 'it hasn't been done right', but I'd rather they put the time and effort for new things instead, or at least wait....like BB-TDK did bringing in the Joker later than right off the bat.

But then again, it may also depend whether or not you're going to tie Luthor in to Clark's origins/growing up. If they don't, then it'll be easier to bring him in later....like perhaps at the end of a first movie, leading into the next (if there will be one). But in general, I'd find it refreshing not having him for a while.
We all have a reason to be sick of him by now since it was nothing new to the character from the ancient 70's films. They don't necessarily need to link him to Clarke's childhood. I think in a new francise he should be established as an essential part of Metropolis with a powerful influence in tha city. He doesnt have to be the major villain in the first movie but he should have a strong presence. Lex is suffering from the same problem Supes is the fact that they both need to be reinvented in a modern era. Lex needs that development shown and they should lay the foundation in the first movie.

[VenomsMom]

Agree, Lex should still be there as a thorn in Superman's side but I'll scream if they don't bring in a cosmic supervillain in the next movie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't think they should start off with a cosmic threat right away in a new movie. If you mean the likes of Brainiac or Darkseid that needs to be set up properly to be done justice.

[Octoberist]

I don't think they should start off with a cosmic threat right away in a new movie. If you mean the likes of Brainiac or Darkseid that needs to be set up properly to be done justice.

But I think many people have been waiting for a villain like Brainiac for years, and probably one of the reason some were turned off by Superman Returns.

It's time. If this is WB/Dc's last shot at Superman..ever, then put them in. There probably won't be a next time after this one unless the family is on the same page with DC/WB.

[AntMan]

I want to see a Superman film for my generation, as enjoyable as the first Donner film is, it's time for something new.

[KalMart]

I don't think they should start off with a cosmic threat right away in a new movie. If you mean the likes of Brainiac or Darkseid that needs to be set up properly to be done justice.

See, I'd rather hit audiences with that from the start....these new Supes movies need a big launch, so I'd rather go with that first, then maybe reveal that Luthor was involved, but not have to weave in his presence just yet. Hit with more impact from the start, then you can move into deeper areas with Luthor, etc.

[Wally West]

I don't think they should start off with a cosmic threat right away in a new movie. If you mean the likes of Brainiac or Darkseid that needs to be set up properly to be done justice.

They could use Brainiac in an origin film if they tied him to krypton's destruction. They could introduce him in the first act during the origin, the second act would focus on Clark meeting Lois, Lex and getting established in Metropolis while introducing the world to Superman, maybe a massive virus or EMP hits(Brainiac being behind it) resulting in blackouts and mechanical failures all over the world giving Superman a scenario to save multiple planes, helicopters and trains (that would certainly surpass him saving any one of the above) The 3rd act would focus on inevitable confrontation between the two. The aftermath of the confrontation and the destruction left in it's wake could be used by Luthor (who would already be a powerful and respected figure as the head of Lexcorp and a philanthropist-albeit with ultimately self serving goals) to gain political support by suggesting Superman's presence puts the Earth at risk of being a battle ground for intergalactic conflicts or something.

Then in the sequel Luthor could become president, and a mysterious benefactor could give him technology allowing the government to create Super villains like Metallo, Parasite, Volcana, Livewire ect who would try to bring Superman to justice. The battle would cause far more destruction and Superman would reluctantly decide to leave Earth on his own. At the end of the film Luthor's mysterious benefactor would be revealed as being an agent of Darkseid and the first waves of his invasion fleet would be shown approaching Earth.

The third film Superman would return and free the World from Darkseid and his armies.

I guess the point of all that was to argue they could get away with an intergalactic threat in the first film. Sorry I went overboard and came up with my own little fanboy dream trilogy on top of it.

[craigdbfan]

But I think many people have been waiting for a villain like Brainiac for years, and probably one of the reason some were turned off by Superman Returns.

It's time. If this is WB/Dc's last shot at Superman..ever, then put them in. There probably won't be a next time after this one unless the family is on the same page with DC/WB.

My thoughts exactly. Time to move on.

Sure I want Lex involved to some capacity but we need to see Superman's alien foes.

With todays level of special effects WB can definitely set up SM's more visually demanding villains.

While Superman Return wasn't a bad movie it certainly didn't move the character anywhere.

SM has a cache of villains that deserve to see the silver screen. Brainiac is definitely my villain of choice but wouldn't mind another villain that isn't Zod or Luthor.

[Blackman]

Am I the only one who thinks that Parasite cant hold his own Superman film?

[Octoberist]

Yeah, I feel like Parasite and even Metello can't hold the movie together unless there's another threat involved.

Even though I don't know the whole plot of Iron Man 2, a villain like Whiplash probably needs another villain like Justin Hammer to complete the circle.

[GreenKToo]

I'd go ballz to the wall with the reboot. Lex, Metallo, and Brainiac.

[The Guard]

How can some of you be sick of Luthor? What's next? Being sick of Superman?

If you want Luthor to be involved in the franchise, leaving him out of the first film seems silly.

I like the idea of Lex having a key role, but not neccessarily being the main threat/villain, etc. At least in the first film, and perhaps even the second.

And let's not get ahead of ourselves. Luthor doesn't need to be "reinvented". He needs to be done justice for once.

[Octoberist]

Lex, Metallo and Brainiac? that's too much for even me.

I would say maybe Brainiac and Lex. the problem would be the movie after that: you can you follow up Brainiac with? Darkseid? But shouldn't they save him for the third movie then?

[craigdbfan]

How can some of you be sick of Luthor? What's next? Being sick of Superman?

If you want Luthor to be involved in the franchise, leaving him out of the first film seems silly.

I like the idea of Lex having a key role, but not neccessarily being the main threat/villain, etc. At least in the first film, and perhaps even the second.

And let's not get ahead of ourselves. Luthor doesn't need to be "reinvented". He needs to be done justice for once.

No one has even written the words "tired" and "Luthor" in the same post.

I think folks don't want to see Luthor as the lead villain. He should be involved to some capacity as I and others mentioned.

Also using the business tycoon version of Luthor wouldn't be "reinventing" but adapting a more modern version of Luthor which has been present in the comics for a while now.

[Octoberist]

My personal problem is that when Lex is the main threat in the movies (Superman 1, Superman Returns),he's not entirely interesting. nor does he share enough screen time with Superman, making his character arc disconnected with the rest of the movie(s).

Of course, I just dislike the con man Lex, so I'm open for the Lexcorp Lex anyday.
But for sure, I love his character. I'm just sad that he hasn't gotten the right portrayal yet.

[GreenKToo]

Lex, Metallo and Brainiac? that's too much for even me.

I would say maybe Brainiac and Lex. the problem would be the movie after that: you can you follow up Brainiac with? Darkseid? But shouldn't they save him for the third movie then?
It would depend on how its done.

If its an established Superman film with no origin, then i'd open it with superman in the middle of a fight with metallo. After 10 mins or so of fighting, Superman defeats him. Lex would be watching from Lex-corp and is enraged. Afterall, metallo was his answer to Superman.
Brainiac arrives later, makes contact with lex and.......you get the idea.

If its an origin, then Have superman make his first appearence in metropolis doing some huge rescue with lots of media attention, etc etc.

Lex is angered because the spotlight is taken off of him and placed on Superman instead. Lex gets to work on a plan to get rid of Supes.
First its intergang. That fails. Next Metallo, again it fails but he does give superman a pretty good fight.
Then, as luck would have it, Brainiac arrives. He makes contact with Lex and a partnership is formed.......

[The Guard]

It's all about the tone. The things you mentioned sound relatively "big" on paper, but it's execution just did not translate that feeling.

I have no idea what would translate that feeling if you don't grasp the scale outright. These are massive events, and many of them felt massive.

The execution is a completely separate element. It's a valid point to make. But many of the larger scale elements WERE executed well. And a big scale is a big scale.

Comparatively speaking, TDK was a much smaller-scale film than SR (on paper), yet undoubtedly felt much, much, bigger.

Can't agree with that. TDK felt more immediate in its dangers, and that's due mostly to there being more people in smaller environments. But a city being afraid of a serial killer and a bunch of people standing around on a boat waiting for what ended up nothing to happen was tense, but hardly larger in scale than a city undergoing a sizeable Earthquake that rocked buildings, a series of underground explosions that threatened the city's (nuclear) power facility, and a continent growing in the middle of the ocean that was going to flood what, like 60 percent of the Earth until it's lifted from the ocean and thrown into space.

A flipping semi truck on a relatively empty road is cool, but it simply doesn't compare in scale to a man picking up a plummeting space shuttle and plane, and catching one of them in an crowded baseball stadium.

Granted, a hospital blew up, and that was pretty big, but there was no one in it.

There's definitely more in the way of combat in THE DARK KNIGHT, but that's not so much a "scale" issue so much as its the difference between the two characters.

Batman fought people one and one, and Superman put out entire house fires with one burst of superbreath, waded through a giant machine gun's ammunition, etc.

The people of the city was sort of at stake in THE DARK KNIGHT. It's pretty clear that the events in SUPERMAN RETURNS actually did physically affect the city and its people, and that they were going to be global if not stopped.

the flying through space is basic stuff now . it is not complicated anymore to model planets and fly through them.

Basic, perhaps, in terms of effects, but it's still still huge in scale.

spaceship landing? it was a f..... reflection on the windows. you see martha in the house. and you only see the spaceship landing in the reflection.

It was still a big event. There was, when Martha Kent got there, across her very large farm, a very large spaceship in flames. Whereas Batman managed to dent up a van and a garbage truck.

I'm not knocking THE DARK KNIGHT. A lot of the stuff in it was executed well, but it's nowhere near as "big" as the events in SUPERMAN RETURNS. And I'm not saying that the events were executed as largely or as perfectly as they possibly could have been, but they were large events.

[Octoberist]

If your first idea, Metallo would be the 'cold opener' villain. like in a Bond movie before the credits or perhaps, the Scarecrow's cameo in Dark Knight?

[GreenKToo]

Exactly. He would be the Metallo that we know, but he would only be there for like 10 mins or so at the most.
It could be shown that he is carted off to some maximum security ''whatever'' so as to leave it open for his possible return.( you don't wanna anger the fanboys after all :) )

[craigdbfan]

I like GreenKToo setup.

That'd be a good way to start off a new SM movie.

[GreenKToo]

Really though, I don't care which they do. I just want another film and I fear we're not gonna get one. Not anytime soon anyway.

[KalMart]

SR tried to depict city-wide destruction and calamity, and the world coming to an end. But in TDK, it definitely felt more like it really was coming to an end. It is about how you deliver and compose your presentation. That's the craft of the storyteller and the filmmaker, and their ability to involve us in what we're watching. In SR, it seemed that there was more emphasis in our involvement with stuff such as the eavesdropping, the moping, the heartache, etc.....and we were basically just left watching the few 'action' sequences. Whereas in something like TDK, or classics like Raiders/Star Wars etc....we're more involved and engrossed in the experience, and not just because of personal taste....it's because the films actually do that for us, whereas others don't. Again, the difference of just watching it happen, like in SR...and experiencing it, like in TDK....even if the former involves an entire island and an airplane/shuttle, and the former merely a truck and a motorcycle.

[GreenKToo]

I've yet to see a scene in a CB film that can top the plane/shuttle scene. That's just me tho.
A couple more scenes that were that intense in SR, and we might be talking sequel now instead of what coulda, shoulda, woulda.

EDIT: The earthquake in metropolis scene lacked the intensity that was needed. a few broken windows, a sign or two falling, and a fire in the sewer was basically it. Add to that two or three highrise buildings collapseing and you up the anti.

[KalMart]

I've yet to see a scene in a CB film that can top the plane/shuttle scene. That's just me tho.
A couple more scenes that were that intense in SR, and we might be talking sequel now instead of what coulda, shoulda, woulda.

I thought that scene was rather bland when all was said and done. It had good elements, but someone with more flare for action sequences could have done much more with it in terms of pacing and dynamics...especially the end.

The flying/fighter jets scene in Iron man had a lot more punch than the plane saving scene in SR. Better flying helped, as well. :O

[rocco2216]

Lex, Metallo and Brainiac? that's too much for even me.

I would say maybe Brainiac and Lex. the problem would be the movie after that: you can you follow up Brainiac with? Darkseid? But shouldn't they save him for the third movie then?


There's Doomsday and Mongul :up:

[SuperDaniel]

LOL. Geoff Johns is writing SHAZAM. Now we're going to have a Captain Marvel movie that is better than SR and the Superman movies....LOL How fair is that?

[SuperDaniel]

SR was anything but fun. How can you watch action sequences in Transformers and say that SR was huge is beyond me...

SR had boring and pretentious action sequences. The only action sequence that was fun and worth of Superman was the plane sequence and that's it. THE REST WAS JUST MEH, poorly executed, planned and all. To me it felt like an intimate movie with no fun at all. I didn't feel like i was watching a blockbuster.The sets were nice and detailed but who pays atention to that if the story sucks or isn't compeling?

How much did they spend in that boat action sequence? And it was stupid as hell. I wasn't in the edge of my seats at all. It was just badly filme. Even the way Superman grabbed the boat made no sense.

[Fresh Prince]

My personal problem is that when Lex is the main threat in the movies (Superman 1, Superman Returns),he's not entirely interesting. nor does he share enough screen time with Superman, making his character arc disconnected with the rest of the movie(s).

Of course, I just dislike the con man Lex, so I'm open for the Lexcorp Lex anyday.
But for sure, I love his character. I'm just sad that he hasn't gotten the right portrayal yet.

Everyone hates conman Lex. I wanna see mad scientists Lex on screen.

[Fresh Prince]

Micheal Bay be good for action in Superman. And before people get on me, Bay can do the action only not anything esle.

[SuperDaniel]

Superman needs someone who can handle both. Someone like Peter Jackson, Spielberg, Ron Howard, Robert Zemeckys, etc.

[VenomsMom]

It would depend on how its done.

If its an established Superman film with no origin, then i'd open it with superman in the middle of a fight with metallo. After 10 mins or so of fighting, Superman defeats him. Lex would be watching from Lex-corp and is enraged. Afterall, metallo was his answer to Superman.
Brainiac arrives later, makes contact with lex and.......you get the idea.

If its an origin, then Have superman make his first appearence in metropolis doing some huge rescue with lots of media attention, etc etc.

Lex is angered because the spotlight is taken off of him and placed on Superman instead. Lex gets to work on a plan to get rid of Supes.
First its intergang. That fails. Next Metallo, again it fails but he does give superman a pretty good fight.
Then, as luck would have it, Brainiac arrives. He makes contact with Lex and a partnership is formed.......
That's just poor use of Metallo. If he easily gets disposed of in the first 10 minutes he could not have been much of a threat to begin with. And it even establishes Lex as being an utter failure right off the bat if he is behind it. Surely they can make better use of him than simply show and tell.

[VenomsMom]

My personal problem is that when Lex is the main threat in the movies (Superman 1, Superman Returns),he's not entirely interesting. nor does he share enough screen time with Superman, making his character arc disconnected with the rest of the movie(s).

Of course, I just dislike the con man Lex, so I'm open for the Lexcorp Lex anyday.
But for sure, I love his character. I'm just sad that he hasn't gotten the right portrayal yet.
I dont think one person on these boards are trying to make him out to be the main villain again. Once again I think he needs to have his presence felt in Metropolis by being established. He should be involved in some fashion.

[VenomsMom]

LOL. Geoff Johns is writing SHAZAM. Now we're going to have a Captain Marvel movie that is better than SR and the Superman movies....LOL How fair is that?
They had their chance with Supes........remember what happened?

[VenomsMom]

I've yet to see a scene in a CB film that can top the plane/shuttle scene. That's just me tho.
A couple more scenes that were that intense in SR, and we might be talking sequel now instead of what coulda, shoulda, woulda.

EDIT: The earthquake in metropolis scene lacked the intensity that was needed. a few broken windows, a sign or two falling, and a fire in the sewer was basically it. Add to that two or three highrise buildings collapseing and you up the anti.
The earthquake scene only served to remind me of 1978. There was nothing new about it.

[LL2K2]

LOL. Geoff Johns is writing SHAZAM. Now we're going to have a Captain Marvel movie that is better than SR and the Superman movies....LOL How fair is that?

I don't suppose you have the script stashed in your DeLorean, do you? ;) They could write something really good or it could suck worse than Catwoman. Johns is a great writer with a terrific SV episode under his belt and one of my fave Supes series (Last Son, yeah, I said it). But let's wait and see.

[RachelDawes]

I don't see it that way...although I can see how some Supes/comics fans etc. may. To me, it's not 'something is better than nothing', because there are a lot of other movies out there, and I don't think something's missing if there are no Superman movies in particular, or any other specifically.

I would think something was missing. I want a Superman movie! :cmad: Superman is one of my favorite superheroes and while I've enjoyed the other CB movies I've seen the present superhero movie fad would feel a little empty without that guy. Why does the greatest superhero of them all have to be left out?

I'd rather there be none, than a handful of bad ones. If there are no more Superman movies in my lifetime, I'm okay with that because at least there are a few that were made that I liked like STM.

I can't say I was thrilled with SR, but a sequel could certainly improve on it. There's no reason SR2 has to be bad. Who knows, maybe the next director would find a creative use for Jason.

But for those who feel the need for Superman movies, I could see the 'wait' hurting, but I could also see it being worth the price if it means that things will finally start over....given that it will be made well, of course. If it's not, then it won't make me feel that they should have continued from SR instead...I'd rather they just stop and put those resources towards something else that will be fresher and more contemporary.

Sequels wouldn't preclude starting over later. WB could go the Batman route and follow through with sequels to SR and still reboot the series a decade later.

Micheal Bay be good for action in Superman. And before people get on me, Bay can do the action only not anything esle.

I don't know, I heard the action scenes weren't great in TF2, as in the camera was too shaky and the robots couldn't be told apart. Besides, there's no way to bring Bay in for action alone unless he were to codirect with someone.

Superman needs someone who can handle both. Someone like Peter Jackson, Spielberg, Ron Howard, Robert Zemeckys, etc.

Exactly.

[mego joe]

Disagree. I would rather have nothing than to continue anything from that movie.

I agree you with you, man. No Superman film is preferable to a sequel to SR.

[mego joe]

SR was anything but fun. How can you watch action sequences in Transformers and say that SR was huge is beyond me...

SR had boring and pretentious action sequences. The only action sequence that was fun and worth of Superman was the plane sequence and that's it. THE REST WAS JUST MEH, poorly executed, planned and all. To me it felt like an intimate movie with no fun at all. I didn't feel like i was watching a blockbuster.The sets were nice and detailed but who pays atention to that if the story sucks or isn't compeling?

How much did they spend in that boat action sequence? And it was stupid as hell. I wasn't in the edge of my seats at all. It was just badly filme. Even the way Superman grabbed the boat made no sense.

Much of the action is SR seemed somewhat pointless to me b/c the film didn't really make me care. It just wasn't that engaging. THere were some nice looking shots, but it didn't produce any investment on my part. And I don't think the plane sequence is all that great either.

[El Payaso]

LOL. Geoff Johns is writing SHAZAM. Now we're going to have a Captain Marvel movie that is better than SR and the Superman movies....LOL How fair is that?

LOL. You haven't seen the Capt. Marvel movie since iot hasn't been made and yet you claim it is better than something else. LOL How fair/brilliant is that?

[KalMart]

I would think something was missing. I want a Superman movie! :cmad: Superman is one of my favorite superheroes and while I've enjoyed the other CB movies I've seen the present superhero movie fad would feel a little empty without that guy. Why does the greatest superhero of them all have to be left out?
The way it stands as far as movies go, he's not really the greatest. That's something that's earned each step of the way and SR didn't. It's not like in the 70's and 80's when he was the only superhero movie on the block. There's a lot more out there that if he sits it out, he generally won't be missed if he didn't make much of a splash when he actually did show up. So as far as that goes, he gets no extra consideration any farther than what he/the franchise does right there and then, just like anyone else...and the others will charge right along fine without him. So no, there won't be much if anything missing without him there....just like there really isn't right now, and there wasn't before SR.

I know some avid Superman fans are hurt by him not being THE special one that overrides all others, but in the grand scheme of things these days in movies, he's no more or less than any other superhero character who are just as eligible to take the 'lead' as long as they deliver. It's okay if there are two or more Iron Man movies, and no more Superman movies from here on out....in fact most folks are just fine with it as long as they enjoy Iron Man. Doesn't mean that Superman should be punished...just that he doesn't get any special second chances if he didn't earn it like others did, even though he's Superman.

I can't say I was thrilled with SR, but a sequel could certainly improve on it. There's no reason SR2 has to be bad. Who knows, maybe the next director would find a creative use for Jason.
But I 'd rather those resources and time be put towards either a better restarted version of Superman, or just something else entirely. Instead of trying to fix or salvage, better to build more positively from the ground up and not have to work around things like that. The prospect of the plot particulars that would have to be addressed if continuing from SR would be about as enticing as going to the dentist...or a tax audit.

Sequels wouldn't preclude starting over later. WB could go the Batman route and follow through with sequels to SR and still reboot the series a decade later.
Or take the Batman route and just start over now, like BB did, and they should have done in the first place in 2006. But I understand how you'd feel without a Superman movie and I would feel bad for Supes fans who'd feel 'left out of the dance'. But he did have his chance with SR, and other characters...and movie franchises...just whizzed by him. So you really can't blame people for not missing him.

[Timstuff]

I want to see a Superman film for my generation, as enjoyable as the first Donner film is, it's time for something new.

^ This.

It's time to let go of the idea that the Donner films are the be-all-end-all of Superman. They had their time, and now it's time for something new that connects with my generation on the same level as Spider-Man and The Dark Knight.

[Timstuff]

Superman also catches a plane in a Fleischer cartoon........so every depiction of a plane rescue is living in the past?

Isn't Metallo akin to a mechanical monster?

Part of what made the Fleischer cartoons cool was that they showed us things you couldn't see in live action, even by the time STM came out. I mean, could you imagine if they'd tried to re-create the Mechanical Monsters scene with 1979 technology? It would have looked like a joke. Now though, we've certainly got the technology at our finger tips to make Fleischer-style aciton scenes with live actors a reality. A modernized version of the Mechanical Monsters as the first act tent pole action scene could be amazing. It doesn't have to be shot-for-shot or even Sky Captain style, but seeing it paid tribute to with a great action scene where Superman beats up a bunch of 15 foot tall killer robots would be a kickass way to show off what Superman is all about, in terms of action at least.

[lespaul59]

^ This.

It's time to let go of the idea that the Donner films are the be-all-end-all of Superman. They had their time, and now it's time for something new that connects with my generation on the same level as Spider-Man and The Dark Knight.

I agree 100%. I like the first four SM mpvie and I don't think SR is all that bad with that being said I want something new like BB. And as far as not wanting to do an origin movie, I just don't see why people have such a problem with it. Sure we all know SM's origin but how many people that will come see the movie don't? Just look at SR, I think it could be kinda confusing for somebody who only knows who Superman is because of a drawing and not reading comic, watching the movies of even the cartoons. In SR you basicly see Krypton blow up, then you see an adult SM and somebody see any SM for the first time is like ok. Well then you find out that he's been on earth before and this is where an uneducated fan could become confused. I mean I would be like where was he leaving at the first of the movie, why did he leave earth in the first place and why did he even come to earth inthe first place. I think the best way to tell the origin is to do a simple version of SM's parents putting SM in the ship, Krypton blowing up, maybe some Clark and Lana growing up then SM leaving Smallville. Then explain more of the details through flash backs in the first and hopefully any other SM movie.

[Timstuff]

Lex should be in the next movie but not a major villian as a minor villian.

The next movie should be Superman vs. Metallo, with Metallo working for Lex.

[Timstuff]

Part of why SR was a failure as a relaunch of the franchise was because it expects you to have done your homework on Superman before seeing it. Ideally, a good Superman movie should be the perfect place to start for someone who knows nothing about the character. With SR though, unless you've seen the Donner films you'd be lost.

[dark_b]

Part of why SR was a failure as a relaunch of the franchise was because it expects you to have done your homework on Superman before seeing it. Ideally, a good Superman movie should be the perfect place to start for someone who knows nothing about the character. With SR though, unless you've seen the Donner films you'd be lost.i disagree. after 3 years i never on the internet ,on the street or from someone here read that someone was confused with the story. that he didnt know the beginning.
even people who dont like SR never said that their friends didnt know what was going on.


i think more people who watched harry potter (and not the first 4 movies) were more confused then people with superman.

sorry but just everyone knows superman origins.

[afan]

Part of what made the Fleischer cartoons cool was that they showed us things you couldn't see in live action, even by the time STM came out. I mean, could you imagine if they'd tried to re-create the Mechanical Monsters scene with 1979 technology? It would have looked like a joke. Now though, we've certainly got the technology at our finger tips to make Fleischer-style aciton scenes with live actors a reality. A modernized version of the Mechanical Monsters as the first act tent pole action scene could be amazing. It doesn't have to be shot-for-shot or even Sky Captain style, but seeing it paid tribute to with a great action scene where Superman beats up a bunch of 15 foot tall killer robots would be a kickass way to show off what Superman is all about, in terms of action at least.

I would absolutely love to see this.........however it would call for a 180 degree turn for DC heros on film as it would leave the "real" world concept behind; a course that I endorse 100%.

As long as you place Superman or any superhero in a "real" world they will be tediously relegated to catching planes and lifting heavy objects. You need to put them in a world where bank robbers may indeed utilize Mecahnical Monsters, where the fantastic is commonplace.

[GreenKToo]

Shazam huh. Sounds like WB may try for that to replace Superman.

[FlawlessVictory]

Shazam huh. Sounds like WB may try for that to replace Superman.

Can't say that thought didn't cross my mind. What I don't get is, supposedly as per IESB, a new Superman film is being fast tracked. Which would mean someone is at least working on a story. Why can't that be announced through the trades like the Shazam news was? So now we know exactly where Shazam stands. It's as if WB wants to make Superman fans suffer as much as possible. If you have writers working on it, just announce it! :cmad: Why does everything have to be so government top secret regarding this franchise.

The lack of WB even announcing any writers attached to Superman forces me to just believe nothing at all is going on with the project. And considering the legal problems WB faces with this character now, I doubt they would be willing to start up such an enormous franchise again when the future is cloudy. So yea, I can't help but think Shazam will be explored to see if he can be a viable, at least, temporary replacement for Superman short term. Meaning it's still possibly a long ways off before Supes hits the big screen again.

[Venom'sDad]

What many of you talking about with your ideas is not a reboot... those ideas are more like a continuation of the franchise. Starting with Superman from the beginning isn't any different than what we got with Superman Returns... minus Pa Kent.

A reboot has to include the Origin from Krypton. None of this TIH stuff. If they are going to re-start this franchise, they have to start from the beginning and do it right; otherwise, the franchise will suffer the same fate that it is suffering from today. Many of you appear to want to sacrifice the story for the action; whelther you know it or not.

The franchise already lacks depth and direction, and many of you seems to desire more of that just to see the MOS throw a punch. If done correctly, it will happen. There is no need to rush the action, over the story. A proper re-telling and setup is a must this time around.

[VenomsMom]

Shazam huh. Sounds like WB may try for that to replace Superman.
Shouldnt we be starting a Shazam forum now? :cwink:

[FlawlessVictory]

I'd like to reintroduce this article:

DC Comics storms the film world

'Flash,' 'Green Lantern' among adaptations in works

By Borys Kit
July 19, 2009, 08:30 PM ET

In the comics universe, where characters are endlessly reborn and reoutfitted, a motto from the 1980s -- "DC Comics is on the move" -- could just as well apply to the current, hyperactive state of the publisher as it relates to Hollywood.

A year after "The Dark Knight" became a worldwide phenomenon, there are more DC Comics adaptations in the works than at any other point since the company was acquired by Warner Bros. in 1969.

Among the projects on front burners:

-- "The Losers," an action-adventure drama starring Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Zoe Saldana and Chris Evans, begins principal photography this week in Puerto Rico.

-- "Jonah Hex," a supernatural Western starring Josh Brolin, Megan Fox and John Malkovich, recently wrapped production in Louisiana.

-- "The Green Lantern," Warners' next big superhero tentpole, is set to star Ryan Reynolds after a long search.

-- Fox has picked up the TV series "Human Target," starring Mark Valley, for the fall.

-- And, in a rare example of a film (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=327193#) project that has ventured off the Warners reservation, DC has set up "Red," a spy thriller to star Bruce Willis, at Summit.

"One of the things that has differentiated us for most of the last 20 years is the depth of our library and the depth of the creative material that we've put out and the opportunities that creates for other media," DC Comics president Paul Levitz said.

Still, when "Dark Knight" invaded theaters last summer, critics of DC and Warners complained there didn't appear to be a grand strategy in place to exploit DC properties.

In contrast, DC arch-rival Marvel moved quickly in the wake of its successful "Iron Man" to stake out a series of release dates for a slew of movies (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=327193#), branding them as part of one big Marvel universe leading to "The Avengers," which arrives in 2012.

But DC and Warners have taken a different approach, arguing that DC has a wider breadth of books than other comics companies. They insist their situation isn't comparable to Marvel, which already has licensed out to other studios a number of its biggest titles: Spider-Man is housed at Sony, and X-Men and Fantastic Four are at Fox.

With fewer marquee superheroes, Marvel works like an animation studio: It only develops select projects and makes most of what it develops, while DC is managing a much larger portfolio.

Still, in the wake of "Dark Knight," DC and Warners have made strategic moves in the superhero realm, including centralizing the way DC's titles and characters are developed. In the past, Warners optioned a property, paying DC a fee comparable to what a property could command on the open market. But while the projects ostensibly were being developed under one roof, many were spread out over a host of producers, each with different visions for how to approach each adaptation.

To bring competing approaches into sync, Levitz and DC's Los Angeles-based film exec Gregory Noveck have overseen a reorganization of the development slate. While Warners execs still drive the creative side, DC now has more input, making it an actual participant in the shaping of material.

"The creative process is by and large a true partnership," Noveck said. "They'll ask us a ton of questions, and we'll give a ton of answers. We will talk back and forth. We'll discuss writers and talent, but ultimately it's their decision."

This past fall, Warners quietly hired three of DC's biggest writers -- Geoff Johns, Grant Morrison and Marv Wolfman -- to act as consultants and writers for its superhero line of movies. The move involved taking back the reins on projects being handled by such producers as Charles Roven ("The Flash") and Akiva Goldsman ("Teen Titans").

Some agents and scribes grumbled about being forced to work with the consultants, never mind that Johns started his career as a assistant to "Superman" director Richard Donner or that Wolfman has worked in animation since the 1980s.

The moves have begun to pay off. Johns worked up a new treatment for a "Flash" script, being written by Dan Mazeau; Johns will act in a producer capacity on the project, which has not attached a director.

The projects Morrison and Wolfman are working on are in the early stages at Warners, whose execs declined to comment.

The process involves one writer taking point, though the trio do collaborate on projects, reading one another's materials while hashing out a story that will be at once accessible to nonfans yet still adhere to each character's long history. The writers also work in tandem with producers, writers and the Warners execs overseeing the projects, showing them treatments and providing notes on scripts.

Meanwhile, other superhero projects are moving forward at Warners.

The studio is taking pitches on sci-fi hero Adam Strange and the underwater-breathing hero "Aquaman," to be produced by Leonardo DiCaprio and his Appian Way shingle.

Also in the pipeline: "Bizarro Superman" being written by "Galaxy Quest" scribes David Howard and Robert Gordon; a sequel to "Constantine," with Goldsman and Erwin Stoff producing; two concurrent Green Arrow projects, an origin story and a prison-set one titled "Super Max"; and "Shazam," which was set up at New Line but has moved to Warners, with Pete Segal attached to direct.

Unsung in the lineup is Warners' line of straight-to-DVD animated movies released via Warner Premiere. "Green Lantern: First Flight," the latest entry, will premiere at this week's Comic-Con and has a July 28 street date.

These movies, produced on budgets in the $3.5 million range, apparently overperformed their targets. "First Flight" is the fifth straight-to-DVD title, with "Superman/Batman: Public Enemies" in production for a Sept. 29 release.

In the home entertainmentarena, DC has overshadowed Marvel, with 2007's "Superman-Doomsday" generating $9.4 million in revenue and last year's "Batman: Gotham Knight," taking advantage of the tidal wave of support for the Christopher Nolan movie (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=327193#), generating $8 million, according to tracking site The-Numbers.com. "Wonder Woman," released in March, already has chalked up $4.4 million. Marvel's top seller, "Ultimate Avengers 2," has pulled in $7.7 million.

Not that all the stars in the DC firmament are aligned yet.

Warners and DC still haven't figured out how to translate "Wonder Woman" to the big screen. In part, that failure reflects the difficulties DC has had turning out a popular Wonder Women comic. Morrison, during a recent Q&A with Clive Barker at Los Angeles' Meltdown Comics, admitted he didn't have a complete handle on the character when he was writing the comic "Final Crisis."

Also, ever since Bryan Singer's 2006's "Superman Returns," a new Superman has been in limbo.

"Our hope is to develop a Superman property and to try again," Warner Bros. Entertainment president Alan Horn said in April. "What hurt us is that the reviews and so on for the Superman movie did not get the kind of critical acclaim that Batman got, and we have other issues with Superman that concern us."

On the Batman front, a sequel to "Dark Knight" also is quite a way off. Nolan is open to doing a third installment, but his next movie is "Inception," an original script he penned and is shooting for Warners.

All that has put a damper on any movie about the Justice League, whose roster includes the above-mentioned heroes as well as myriad others including Aquaman and the Martian Manhunter. DC would like to present some of the main heroes in their own movies before they are brought together for one big outing, so "League" currently is inactive.

On top of that, there could be another change in how Warners approaches the DC characters, with studio chiefs debating whether to put the operation under one super-exec.

To bring the next generation of superheroes to the screen, DC and Warners might yet have to unleash their own super powers.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i7c23ccda60974aa212e4b64a53d2e876



As you can see, we had the Shazam news announced yesterday, that writers are indeed attached. So this article is definitely a solid indicator of what is going on at WB. And going by this article, it just does not sound good for Superman, as in a movie happening seems to be happening later than sooner. Plus, now factor in the legal issues that I'm sure WB would like to straighten out completely before moving forward, and Superman really looks like it's on the backburner. Not saying that WB is not listening to ideas but I don't see them acting on them that soon. Hopefully I'm wrong.

[Kal-El Fan]

If you want a reboot to contain the origin, but still have action right from the first scene, then just have a "wrap around" ending, like the Abrams script has. Start with Superman fighting the/a villain and have something come up that leads us back to the beginning (Krytpon, Smallville, etc) and then run the story linearly back to the final battle.
I think I'd prefer a non-liner origin, ala Batman Begins better though.

[Timstuff]

If they skip the Fortress of Solitude for the first movie, that would cut out like 15 minutes of the origin. I'd skip out on most of the Krypton stuff for the first movie, and have Clark learning out about it in the second film when he finds the FOS. I'm not advocating that they do it TIH-style-- I'm syaing start with Krypton exploding, the ship going to Earth, and then Ma and Pa Kent finding him. Then, forward to Clark's graduation at Metropolis University. Shortly after that, Clark's first appearance as Superman. Throughout the rest of the movie we could have flashbacks showing Clark's parents getting used to his powers, showing him the space ship, and eventually Clark shows his mother a sketch of the Superman suit asking if she can help him make it. It's possible they could have a wrap-around ending like the Abrams script too, as Kal-El Fan suggested.

[GreenKToo]

I'd like to reintroduce this article:



http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i7c23ccda60974aa212e4b64a53d2e876



As you can see, we had the Shazam news announced yesterday, that writers are indeed attached. So this article is definitely a solid indicator of what is going on at WB. And going by this article, it just does not sound good for Superman, as in a movie happening seems to be happening later than sooner. Plus, now factor in the legal issues that I'm sure WB would like to straighten out completely before moving forward, and Superman really looks like it's on the backburner. Not saying that WB is not listening to ideas but I don't see them acting on them that soon. Hopefully I'm wrong.
Maybe its just the fanboy in me but I think WB brings alot of the complaints on themselves. Really, how hard would it be for them to say that ''so and so'' is working on a script for Superman. Or, ''we plan to bring Superman back, but it might be 3 or 4 more years''.
The WB is not a very good studio as for as the fans go. At least marvel lets you know whats up.

[Showtime]

Obviously, but really, if you wanted to ideally make Superman movies from here on out....would you not want to be able to start from scratch, though? Look at it as if both approaches could be done as well as possible, which is what you hope for. Creatively speaking, I see a lot more benefits from not being bound to prior versions and continuities, and I think it's safe to say that audiences are at least just as receptive to restarting, as evidenced by other franchises that recently have.

If you were throwing out a hypothetical about a hypothetical movie then of course the answer would be yes. Problem is Superman carries a lot of baggage even without Superman Returns. WB/DC has the lawsuit to deal with as well and it is more of a reality then it ever was.

WB is looking at this from all angles and one of them is that the character might not be as relevant as it once was due to Spider Man and Batman on the big screen. Some, not all execs, are afraid that they could make another one and it makes around the same amount of money as Returns, ie Hulk Syndrome.

There is more to worry about for these guys. They don't have the mentality, "If we build it, they will come." That was the thought process the last time around and look how that turned out.

Not to mention the very real possibility of the changing of the guard in the next couple of years. These are just some of the worries this group has.

[FlawlessVictory]

Maybe its just the fanboy in me but I think WB brings alot of the complaints on themselves. Really, how hard would it be for them to say that ''so and so'' is working on a script for Superman. Or, ''we plan to bring Superman back, but it might be 3 or 4 more years''.
The WB is not a very good studio as for as the fans go. At least marvel lets you know whats up.

Yup, it's extremely frustrating with WB and their comic book properties. Even with Batman, it's the same thing. Is Nolan coming back? Will it be in 2 years, 3 years, more? And this is coming off one of the biggest movies of all time. It's insane. This studio just likes to see the fans suffer. :csad:

I'm not asking for a Superman movie right now, just news right now, that's all. Just be straight up with the fans. Is Superman projected for 1 to 2 years down the road, 5 to 6, or more? That's all I want to know. I guess they want to know exactly what they are doing before they make any kind of announcements. I guess all we can take for now is that the information from the HR article that states Superman is in limbo. That's the most solid "official" update we are unfortunately going to get.

[GreenKToo]

yeah well, I dont have my hopes up. If it happens, great tho.

[Timstuff]

i disagree. after 3 years i never on the internet ,on the street or from someone here read that someone was confused with the story. that he didnt know the beginning.
even people who dont like SR never said that their friends didnt know what was going on.


i think more people who watched harry potter (and not the first 4 movies) were more confused then people with superman.

sorry but just everyone knows superman origins.

Your examples for why "everyone knows Superman's origins" is purely anecdotal, and that doesn't fly. And even so, it's foolhardy to make a movie under the assumption that everyone knows who the character is. An 8 year old who's never read a Superman comic wouldn't know the origin, and also there's the possibility that someone might know the origin but hasn't seen it on film. My point in all this is that the ideal start of a Superman series should be the origin, because the first chapter needs to work as an entry point for the franchise. If Superman's movies don't need an origin, then you might as well skip over the origins for all superheroes and expect the audience to accept that all the superheroes are "just there."

[solidsnake86]

I agree flawless. If theres one thing you gotta hand to marvel its that they are up front about there properties. But you also have to realise that marvel has to since they are dependent solely on them whereas WB are not.

Are they working on superman? The fanboy in all of us wants them to be. You look at the hired writers of Johns, Wolfman and Morrison and you see that they've only announced John's projects so far leaving another 2 writers left that could be tackling superman.

Unfortunately, these rulings and frankly a lack of leaks also leads me to believe that nothing much is really going on. I mean, the IESB article says a film is being fast tracked and thats really all we know.

[Timstuff]

There is more to worry about for these guys. They don't have the mentality, "If we build it, they will come." That was the thought process the last time around and look how that turned out.

The problem was that BS made a movie that most did not feel like sitting through a second time. The movie clocks in at 154 minutes, which would have been fine had it not been so tediously paced. It had only one good action scene (the plane catch), which honestly felt like it should have been the first act action scene in a much better movie. The action never escalated from there, so the movie went out with a whimper instead of a bang. It was a dull, gray, and depressing movie that was 2.5 hours long. Just sitting through it once was an endurance test, so it's no surprise that the movie did not have any repeat customers.

Part of the problem is undoubtedly that Warner Bros. let Bryan Singer have total creative control on good faith alone. He actually talked Warner Bros. out of test screening the movie (link (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117946871.html?categoryid=13&cs=1)), and so Warner Bros. was pretty much going entirely on his judgment as to whether the movie was enjoyable. If it had been screened for test reactions, I'm 90% sure that most people would say "it was too long, needed more action scenes." I think Bryan Singer knew this, and rather than allow his "masterpiece" to be gutted and reworked, he said "Hey, I made friggin' X-MEN, and you're second guessing me? I know what I'm doing!"

Essentially, Bryan Singer sold his credibility as a director to make Superman Returns. The X-Men mvoies were good enough that he earned the right to make a movie without studio interference, but unfortunately he abused the power given to him, and now he's fallen out of favor with the studio. They needed a Superman fan to make a good movie that audiences would love, but instead they got a Superman: The Movie fanboy to make a movie for himself.

[FlawlessVictory]

I hate this idea that we have seen Superman's origin SO MANY times so they should not do it again. Really? Superman on film has done the origin ONCE! Over 30 years ago! And the idea of Donner's origin being done so perfectly doesn't cut it with me. A bunch of old white guys walking around on an ice planet with Jor-El saying "KrypTIN". No thanks, I think it can be done much better and be made more exciting. Just look at how it was done in S:TAS, a definite improvement over how it was done in the Donner movie.

[solidsnake86]

If you were throwing out a hypothetical about a hypothetical movie then of course the answer would be yes. Problem is Superman carries a lot of baggage even without Superman Returns. WB/DC has the lawsuit to deal with as well and it is more of a reality then it ever was.

WB is looking at this from all angles and one of them is that the character might not be as relevant as it once was due to Spider Man and Batman on the big screen. Some, not all execs, are afraid that they could make another one and it makes around the same amount of money as Returns, ie Hulk Syndrome.

There is more to worry about for these guys. They don't have the mentality, "If we build it, they will come." That was the thought process the last time around and look how that turned out.

Not to mention the very real possibility of the changing of the guard in the next couple of years. These are just some of the worries this group has.


Even if a new movie comes out, I honestly can't see it making more than SR and even if it does I don't think it will beat it by much. To make it a success for themselves they'd have to keep the budget down and hope it pulls in over 200 million which is not an easy task. They're really in a tight spot because if they screw up again its over, not to mention this court case is obviously a very big problem.

[Showtime]

The problem was that BS made a movie that most did not feel like sitting through a second time. The movie clocks in at 154 minutes, which would have been fine had it not been so tediously paced. It had only one good action scene (the plane catch), which honestly felt like it should have been the first act action scene in a much better movie. The action never escalated from there, so the movie went out with a whimper instead of a bang. It was a dull, gray, and depressing movie that was 2.5 hours long. Just sitting through it once was an endurance test, so it's no surprise that the movie did not have any repeat customers.

...and it still made 200 Million domestic and 391 World Wide. Some executives think this means if they make another one that is tighter and amp up the action, it will score big. Others think that the character doesn't have enough life left in him.

Part of the problem is undoubtedly that Warner Bros. let Bryan Singer have total creative control on good faith alone. He actually talked Warner Bros. out of test screening the movie (link (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117946871.html?categoryid=13&cs=1)), and so Warner Bros. was pretty much going entirely on his judgment as to whether the movie was enjoyable. If it had been screened for test reactions, I'm 90% sure that most people would say "it was too long, needed more action scenes." I think Bryan Singer knew this, and rather than allow his "masterpiece" to be gutted and reworked, he said "Hey, I made friggin' X-MEN, and you're second guessing me? I know what I'm doing!"

Warner Bros is at fault, Singer is at fault. They greenlit a story for a character they own the rights to, where their character didn't fight a supervillian and he had a kid. Singer pitched said story. This is part of the reason we're sitting here talking about this. There are more pieces to the pie.

Essentially, Bryan Singer sold his credibility as a director to make Superman Returns. The X-Men mvoies were good enough that he earned the right to make a movie without studio interference, but unfortunately he abused the power given to him, and now he's fallen out of favor with the studio. They needed a Superman fan to make a good movie that audiences would love, but instead they got a Superman: The Movie fanboy to make a movie for himself.

Which is why WB won't make the mistake again. They won't hire this big time director to come in and take the lead on another Superman movie. Another reason this is going to be a long journey.

[Timstuff]

Even if a new movie comes out, I honestly can't see it making more than SR and even if it does I don't think it will beat it by much. To make it a success for themselves they'd have to keep the budget down and hope it pulls in over 200 million which is not an easy task. They're really in a tight spot because if they screw up again its over, not to mention this court case is obviously a very big problem.

A decent director ought to be able to make a great Superman flick for 170 million. Bryan Singer had a much bigger budget than he needed, and spent a bunch on stupid stuff like Superman getting shot in the eye and the Return to Krypton scene which no-one even got to see. They need a director who actually has a grasp for how to use CGI effectively, and actually has ideas for action scenes other than catching planes and tossing planets.

[Venom'sDad]

I'm not asking for a Superman movie right now, just news right now, that's all. Just be straight up with the fans. Is Superman projected for 1 to 2 years down the road, 5 to 6, or more? That's all I want to know.

Flaw, if they were to announce the film is 5-6 years away from seeing production, all buzz & hype about Superman would disappear until we approach the date of production. They are not going to do that, nor are these sites that make money off drawing people to their sites for erroneous info on Superman. WB want to keep the buzz & publicity going for this franchise, all the while keeping & gaging public interest. They are not ready to risk money on investing into another film yet; but certainly wants to keep reminding us that Superman is there. That's all it is.

[FlawlessVictory]

^Fair point. Oh well, I'm definitely not expecting anything before 2013.

[BlackLantern]

and this is just being mean, but WB isn't obligated to tell you **** until they are good and ready

[FlawlessVictory]

^Never said they were obligated to but it's frustrating as hell. Especially when you compare the situation to Marvel. And yes, I realize it's a different animal. It would just be nice to know or get a better idea. Like I said, it's not just Superman, just look at Batman. We have no idea when the next one will come out and who will direct. And this is coming off one of the biggest movies of all time.

[KalMart]

If you were throwing out a hypothetical about a hypothetical movie then of course the answer would be yes. Problem is Superman carries a lot of baggage even without Superman Returns. WB/DC has the lawsuit to deal with as well and it is more of a reality then it ever was.

WB is looking at this from all angles and one of them is that the character might not be as relevant as it once was due to Spider Man and Batman on the big screen. Some, not all execs, are afraid that they could make another one and it makes around the same amount of money as Returns, ie Hulk Syndrome.

There is more to worry about for these guys. They don't have the mentality, "If we build it, they will come." That was the thought process the last time around and look how that turned out.
Yes, WB and Singer erroneously overestimated the inherent appeal of the brand name of Superman and his prior cinematic relevance. Almost as if they were playing with house money, when in reality, they had to earn it all over again.

Not to mention the very real possibility of the changing of the guard in the next couple of years. These are just some of the worries this group has.
At the same time, if something like Batman or Star Trek were going through similar internal trials and tribulations, but movies like BB/TDK or ST'09 came out, you get the feeling that the level of acceptance and reaction over those movies would've helped alleviate more of it. the point is that despite the internal drama that the Supes franchise had endured before and after, they still had the means and the resources to put out a more contemporary and exciting film, rather than a morose and inappropriately nostalgic one which ultimately made even its solid gross a dubious achievement. Singer proposed his approach, and WB took the bait.

That's why I base my hypothesis the way I do, and why I say that ultimately...IF things get going again, this ought to be a great and humbling lesson for them. Which is kinda' funny because they had another guy right down the hall doing it right with Batman....but again, maybe someone was convinced that for whatever reasons, Batman needed to be reinvented/updated, and Superman didn't.

Watch....come 2012, when all this course stuff etc blows over, we'll actually end up getting a sequel to Superman Returns. Why break the pattern, right? :O

[KalMart]

Even if a new movie comes out, I honestly can't see it making more than SR and even if it does I don't think it will beat it by much. To make it a success for themselves they'd have to keep the budget down and hope it pulls in over 200 million which is not an easy task. They're really in a tight spot because if they screw up again its over, not to mention this court case is obviously a very big problem.

It's a problem if the next movie is somehow tasked with 'making up' for SR, or salvaging the franchise....instead of just starting fresh and depending solely on itself from here on out. I doubt that the majority of moviegoers will care or even know about any past 'baggage' if they really enjoy what they see...especially if it's a brand new start. If it were an SR sequel...thne it might suffer from some guilt by association on both ends. WB probably needs to find a way of getting past SR...either by starting over and just looking onward and upward, or just stopping with Superman altogether which a lot of people wouldn't want.

[The Guard]

I get a little tired of people talking about not being "involved and engrossed" in this stuff. If you're not, I guess you're not, but then, if you're not onboard with Richard and Lois and Jason and rooting for them before Superman saves them, there probably aren't many action/rescue sequences that would wow you, methinks.

And action doesn't inherently have to be "Has everyone in the world on the edge of their seat". Personally, I like to sit back and enjoy action myself, not hop up and down on my chair. I spend my time appreciating the action beats, the effects and visuals, the tension, music, acting, meanings of things, etc.

And I'm sorry, Superdaniel, but: "Pretentious action scenes"?

What does that mean? Which ones were pretentious?

As a rule, I find that people generally get out of a film, especially an action film, what they invest of themselves into it. Some movies make it easier, and some make it harder, but regardless...this is a Superman film, people, and to talk about how the execution in the plane sequence, or the ship sequence, was somehow poor or lacking in any real sense? Can't see that. Bryan Singer may not have made the overall film you wanted, but he's certainly not as wildly inept as some of you make him out to be.

Anyway, in terms of scale, I'm not even discussing the execution of the events, though I think a lot of them/most were executed pretty well, at least compared to other comic book and action films.

Many of the events in the film were huge. I don't really see how you can logically argue that.

TRANSFORMERS and TF2 are considered average films, but the huge moments feel huge nontheless. Now, because action in TRANSFORMERS was huge, SUPERMAN RETURNS cannot also be huge?

I didn't say it was the biggest movie ever.

I just said it was huge.

What does that even mean?

Which action scenes were pretentious?

A decent director ought to be able to make a great Superman flick for 170 million.

That's somewhat debatable. I'd like to see it happen, but even after the Transformers films, I find it very, very unlikely. I suppose anything is possible.

[The Guard]

WB themselves probably doesn't know exactly. There may just not be anything real concrete going on with Batman or Superman right now. I figure that's the case because whenever anything IS going on, we either hear about it officially, or the rumor sites start popping.

[SuperDaniel]

I said pretentious because they spent a lot of money to do it, to amp it up, but the action sequence in itself was tedius as hell. It was obvious, at least to me, that Superman was going to save them so all i was thinking was "Can they get going with this already?" And then they showed Superman saving them in the most ridiculous way, with Brandon standing on the boat, looking up. LOL How stupid is that? Sorry but that didn't was a GOOD action sequence no matter what you say. They were huge action sequences. They just weren't FUN and EXCITING at all to me. That's what i meant by pretentious. BS tried hard to make them fun but he eventually failed.

Like i said, the only Superman worthy action sequence was the plane sequence and it was obvious that they couldn't **** that up too.


PS: I really doubt we're going to see a Superman movie until this court thing is settled and done.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Another reason this is going to be a long journey.

To which I'm frankly baffled by the lack of coverage of the Japanese Toyota Prius ads with Bomer as Supes - especially with the lawsuit(s) and current limbo/hibernation of the film franchise.

No, instead BS "news" (i.e. filler for slow days) gets passed in heavy rotation like Megan Fox's fake PSA for Jennifer's Body or Tarantino revealing his Top 20 films that have been made since 1992. Seriously, what the ****?

[The Guard]

Wait a tic...Matthew Bomer as Superman? Are these online?

[Showtime]

Yes.

Matthew Bomer Superman Commercials (http://thinkmcflythink.squarespace.com/movie-news/2009/8/13/superman-franchise-while-were-waiting.html)

[KalMart]

He's not inept when it comes to action/adventure, but he's certainly not up to the higher standards that others have set in terms of audience involvement. Also not helped by fewer/lesser sequences interspersed amongst slow, morose, domestic drama. Just being Superman doesn't elevate that. But it's tough for some Superman fans to separate defending their fandom from fairly assessing the movie for what it was...and wasn't.

[KalMart]

Wait a tic...Matthew Bomer as Superman? Are these online?

The Toyota Prius.


A truly Supermanly car if there ever was one. :oldrazz::woot:

[SuperDaniel]

My guess is that we're NOT going to see another Superman movie until this court thing is settled and done.

[Cosmic]

Re: If the secret to Star Trek's success was cutting ties with the past...

There was no "secret" to Trek's success. It was a solid, fast-paced, funny, sexy, big-budget action movie with good acting and special effects. Having the decades long-lasting brand name and huge fanbase also helped.

[FlawlessVictory]

^Yup, that's how I feel. Why would WB start work on something as massive as Superman when something that important and potentially game changing is hanging over their heads. And who knows how many years this will be dragged out in the courts. I understand IESB reported a movie was being fast tracked but that was before the latest court ruling.

[GreenKToo]

^Yup, that's how I feel. Why would WB start work on something as massive as Superman when something that important and potentially game changing is hanging over their heads. And who knows how many years this will be dragged out in the courts. I understand IESB reported a movie was being fast tracked but that was before the latest court ruling.
I sadly agree.

[KalMart]

Isn't there something in that case that says they have to go into production by 2011, or risk losing more or what have you.

[FlawlessVictory]

Isn't there something in that case that says they have to go into production by 2011, or risk losing more or what have you.

Which doesn't make sense to me. So the ruling was that WB lost some of the rights to Superman(including I think the ability to use the name Superman) but then the court turns around and says, ok, now go make a movie! LOL What if WB wants to make a movie where you know he gets to be called Superman or if they want the next movie to include the origin? How can they be told to do something when certain elements are compromised. All that stuff needs to be worked out and a deal be agreed upon by WB and the family before they can move forward and not be hampered in any manner. And that stuff, I imagine, will take time. As in years.

[FilmNerdJamie]

There was no "secret" to Trek's success. It was a solid, fast-paced, funny, sexy, big-budget action movie with good acting and special effects. Having the decades long-lasting brand name and huge fanbase also helped.

Before Abrams' reboot, Star Trek was about as dead as a franchise can get and a complete joke at that. It was a monster hit b/c of its marketing (starting with the trailer that premiered in front of Quantum of Solace). They also sold it as a straight-forward sci-fi action/adventure film to the masses instead of just slapping on a logo with a release date for a one-sheet and leaving it at that.

The glowing reviews and word-of-mouth made Trek have its amazing staying power this summer. But it was marketing that got asses in the seats for its near $80 million opening weekend.

Also the fan-base had absolutely nothing to do with its success. If they actually mattered, then Insurrection and Nemesis would have done $150-$200 million stateside and Enterprise would be one of the most-watched shows on television.

[KalMart]

Before Abrams' reboot, Star Trek was about as dead as a franchise can get and a complete joke at that. It was a monster hit b/c of its marketing (starting with the trailer that premiered in front of Quantum of Solace). They also sold it as a straight-forward sci-fi action/adventure film to the masses instead of just slapping on a logo with a release date for a one-sheet and leaving it at that.

The glowing reviews and word-of-mouth made Trek have its amazing staying power this summer. But it was marketing that got asses in the seats for its near $80 million opening weekend.

Good thing they actually had a product to work off of, no?

[FilmNerdJamie]

Good thing they actually had a product to work off of, no?

Warner Brothers pushed the Hell outta both Batman Begins and Superman Returns. They were confident in both, but merely went the foolish route of just slapping on a logo with a release date for their one-sheet. That had zero to do with product to work off of. No?

[KalMart]

Warner Brothers pushed the Hell outta both Batman Begins and Superman Returns. They were confident in both, but merely went the foolish route of just slapping on a logo with a release date for their one-sheet. That had zero to do with product to work off of. No?

You mean like trailers? Let's say WB actually wanted to push the 'action and adventure' in SR and go all-out, like you said. Where would they get that from? And say there was a bigger opening....because people were somehow fooled into thinking they were going to get some big-time 'action and adventure'....and what they saw instead was SR. What would that do for word-of-mouth, and sustaining good theater legs, etc?

If you're saying that SR's marketing approach basically amounted to a big 'S' logo...sure....but so did the movie, if even that. So I'd say the marketing was at least appropriate, and maybe even overstating the matter......no?

[FilmNerdJamie]

They already (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXK_UaQqnx0) did that. The third (and final) trailer was the one that pushed it more in the action area. And we saw that happened.

[Nightwing1983]

Warner Brothers pushed the Hell outta both Batman Begins and Superman Returns. They were confident in both, but merely went the foolish route of just slapping on a logo with a release date for their one-sheet. That had zero to do with product to work off of. No?

This is an interesting point, as one had a great story and the other had one that was poor, but could be seen as ambitious. It might have helped each movie to focus on the story in their advertising and if that's your point, I agree with you.

To that end... I'm glad they didn't with Superman Returns.

[KalMart]

They already (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXK_UaQqnx0) did that. The third (and final) trailer was the one that pushed it more in the action area. And we saw that happened.

The third SR trailer? Yeah....they used up all the 'action' that was in the movie. What was left for others trailers without making it the same as that one?

Plane...bullet-in-the-eye...

next trailer...plane, and bullet-in-the-eye

next trailer....pl....um...bullet-in-the-eye and then plane?

next trailer.......bullet-plane?

Now....if they wanted to target the soap opera crowd....NOOOOW we're talking!

[solidsnake86]

The court stuff is confusing, to say the least. Basically, WB payed DC 12.5 million for the rights in order to make the superman film (not sure how long its for but i remeber reading 20 years). Now this whole thing of production by 2011 is because the siegels can sue for damages if WB doesnt make another movie (I.e. the profits they arent getting because they arent making another one). From my understanding it seems like 2 separate issues, one being DC comics and the other being the film division. The article on think mcfly think was really good and laid out the basics of what you need to know.

[FilmNerdJamie]

http://i688.photobucket.com/albums/vv243/FilmNerdJamie/seinfield.gif

[KalMart]

http://i688.photobucket.com/albums/vv243/FilmNerdJamie/seinfield.gif

Surveillance camera footage from SR marketing dept. screening.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Surveillance camera footage from SR marketing dept. screening.

The smart person in this conversation (i.e. me) walking away actually. Happens to you all the time.

[KalMart]

The smart person in this conversation (i.e. me) walking away actually. Happens to you all the time.

Alrighty. Don't trip over your own ego (i.e. again) on the way out. It's got enough bruises as it is. :oldrazz: ;)


Seriously...with that movie that was SR, how much more of a difference do you really think the best marketing campaign ever would have made? And how would people not feel deceived...within the opening weekend...after seeing what they thought was going to be a wild ride? Think of how much more would have been spent on marketing for this movie. Were Speed Racer and Watchmen victims of their own marketing?

Remember the whole The Professional/The Specialist fiasco?

[FlawlessVictory]

I'm sorry but I really can't buy into this whole marketing is part of what doomed SR. Like Kalmart has pointed out, there really was nothing that exciting to market. Superman doesn't even physically fight anyone in the movie. And in the commercials and trailers I saw, I always saw the plane and bullet scenes("big"/"exciting" moments in the film) . What was left out that could have been marketed? More scenes of Lex staring at the crystals? :huh:

[FlawlessVictory]

^Ah, I see, kind of. LOL Yea, all this legal talk definitely leaves me scratching my head. :o

[KalMart]

I'm sorry but I really can't buy into this whole marketing is part of what doomed SR. Like Kalmart has pointed out, there really was nothing that exciting to market. Superman doesn't even physically fight anyone in the movie. And in the commercials and trailers I saw, I always saw the plane and bullet scenes("big"/"exciting" moments in the film) . What was left out that could have been marketed? More scenes of Lex staring at the crystals? :huh:

Well, to be fair, you can also look at it as the marketing department making 'their own film' or experience out of the whole thing. Cool flashy web-page banners that someone in their art/graphics department whipped up....theme posters....interactive online stuff, whatever (aside form all the product/toy/soda/etc tie-ins and store displays that the film actually DID have). Making this upcoming film seem like a life-changing experience without actually having to show much footage from the actual film. It's possible if someone really wanted to do (and pay for ) it. But a) that'd be even more money put into the marketing before the film has a chance to make any money itself, and b) how would the people who were attracted by that feel once they get to the theaters...and they see nothing even resembling it? Really, if someone were somehow able to market the film to you as a crazy, exciting experience like, say, POTC......how would you feel after seeing SR? Would you give them props for fooling you into buying a ticket....would you tell your friends to go see it, so you could pull the same practical joke on them?

[rocco2216]

I agree flawless. If theres one thing you gotta hand to marvel its that they are up front about there properties. But you also have to realise that marvel has to since they are dependent solely on them whereas WB are not.

Are they working on superman? The fanboy in all of us wants them to be. You look at the hired writers of Johns, Wolfman and Morrison and you see that they've only announced John's projects so far leaving another 2 writers left that could be tackling superman.

Unfortunately, these rulings and frankly a lack of leaks also leads me to believe that nothing much is really going on. I mean, the IESB article says a film is being fast tracked and thats really all we know.


And on July 25th, a few days before IESB's scoop, Variety said that a Superman reboot was in the works.

[KalMart]

The court stuff is confusing, to say the least. Basically, WB payed DC 12.5 million for the rights in order to make the superman film (not sure how long its for but i remeber reading 20 years). Now this whole thing of production by 2011 is because the siegels can sue for damages if WB doesnt make another movie (I.e. the profits they arent getting because they arent making another one). From my understanding it seems like 2 separate issues, one being DC comics and the other being the film division. The article on think mcfly think was really good and laid out the basics of what you need to know.

Great...so now WB is working for them. Can theaters sue WB for having one less superhero movie playing and, hence, making less on concessions?

[solidsnake86]

Don't you guys get tired of bashing SR, seriously get over it. Or go to the SR threads and argue with Mostpowerful.

[KalMart]

Don't you guys get tired of bashing SR, seriously get over it. Or go to the SR threads and argue with Mostpowerful.

No no, I'm not trying top bash it...and I certainly don't think it's as horrible as a lot of folks here make it out to be. Personally, I thought it was okay...maybe a C/C-. But at the same time, don't you get tired of some people alluding to it as some misunderstood gem that fell victim to things out of its own control?

[solidsnake86]

I don't think they can sue for that much money to be honest unless they use the dark knight as an example but I doubt that will work. Either way it seems like it might end up being that superman is owned 50% by two sides and the only way to make money off of him is to come together. For WB it sucks because they didnt have to worry about sharing profits. For the Siegels its good because now they have leverage to get there cut.

Now for those of you who think they're gonna make there own comics, your really out of your mind along with the thoughts that marvel is going to buy a half-@#&ed character or any other companys for that matter. They're going to settle at some point, the question is when and at what cost.

[Timstuff]

Really, if someone were somehow able to market the film to you as a crazy, exciting experience like, say, POTC......how would you feel after seeing SR? Would you give them props for fooling you into buying a ticket....would you tell your friends to go see it, so you could pull the same practical joke on them?

That's already pretty much what happened. When Warner Bros. noticed the big post-release dropoffs, they brought in Joel Silver's company to try and salvage it through a new marketing campaign. They showed a bunch of fast-cut footage from the plane catch and eye shot with rock music in the back ground to try and make it look like an action movie. It was a smart business move, but it wasn't enough to save SR, and it wasn't entirely honest. Maybe Warner Bros. should have mandated Singer to make an exciting movie, rather than tricking people into watching a boring movie by showing them exciting commercials.

[solidsnake86]

Who are these people you speak of exactly, I can probably name 1 and she hasnt even posted in this topic. In fact, people like myself, who liked the film have moved on and discuss topics without saying that its this hidden gem and I'll tell you why, we got over it since a sequel isnt coming out anytime soon.

[KalMart]

I don't think they can sue for that much money to be honest unless they use the dark knight as an example but I doubt that will work. Either way it seems like it might end up being that superman is owned 50% by two sides and the only way to make money off of him is to come together. For WB it sucks because they didnt have to worry about sharing profits. For the Siegels its good because now they have leverage to get there cut.
Well, if you were in a 50/50...or even a 70/20 ownership of a money-making product...wouldn't it be nice if your partner were also actually putting up some of the investment required for the process of making said money? If they want a share of the rewards, let's see them take some of the risks, as well, no?

Now for those of you who think they're gonna make there own comics, your really out of your mind along with the thoughts that marvel is going to buy a half-@#&ed character or any other companys for that matter. They're going to settle at some point, the question is when and at what cost.

That's why it looks like a war of attrition. The Seigel's aren't going to be able to do anything with it...especially after legal fees. The only entities I see that would have the means to do anything with it like WB are Disney and Marvel.....and why would they want it? The S&S parties can even gain full rights to it...but then they'd have to sell it back to WB if they want it to make any money. They could jack up their asking price, and WB could refuse and just get by with their other characters from there on. And then the S&S's can put stuff on ebay, I guess. :O

[Cosmic]

Before Abrams' reboot, Star Trek was about as dead as a franchise can get and a complete joke at that. It was a monster hit b/c of its marketing (starting with the trailer that premiered in front of Quantum of Solace). They also sold it as a straight-forward sci-fi action/adventure film to the masses instead of just slapping on a logo with a release date for a one-sheet and leaving it at that.

The glowing reviews and word-of-mouth made Trek have its amazing staying power this summer. But it was marketing that got asses in the seats for its near $80 million opening weekend.

Also the fan-base had absolutely nothing to do with its success. If they actually mattered, then Insurrection and Nemesis would have done $150-$200 million stateside and Enterprise would be one of the most-watched shows on television.

What has this to do with the statement I was referring to? Insurrection was boring and completely forgettable. Nemesis was a disaster. Star Trek wasn't a hit because of "cutting ties to the past." It was a hit because it delivered what people have been wanting to see in a big-budget action movie.

[FilmNerdJamie]

What has this to do with the statement I was referring to? Insurrection was boring and completely forgettable. Nemesis was a disaster. Star Trek wasn't a hit because of "cutting ties to the past." It was a hit because it delivered what people have been wanting to see in a big-budget action movie.

There was no "secret" to Trek's success. It was a solid, fast-paced, funny, sexy, big-budget action movie with good acting and special effects. Having the decades long-lasting brand name and huge fanbase also helped.

It didn't help at all.

[solidsnake86]

Was star trek really this mega hit that everyones making it out to be. Its budget was probably more then SR and frankly its done less world wide so far. Being a hit is in the eyes of the beholder.

[KalMart]

Who are these people you speak of exactly, I can probably name 1 and she hasnt even posted in this topic.
Depends...whe are you claiming to be 'bashing' the movie?

In fact, people like myself, who liked the film have moved on and discuss topics without saying that its this hidden gem and I'll tell you why, we got over it since a sequel isnt coming out anytime soon.

Well, a lot of these discussions were going on way before there was any official word of no sequel, and they'll always come up no matter what state...or non-state....things are in. I see nothing more wrong or right with choosing to discuss them at any given time...or choosing not to. No one's saying that anyone is right or wrong for liking or disliking a movie...at least no-one that I'm conversing with. If someone else chooses to take it that way....well....that's their own cross to bear.

[FlawlessVictory]

I don't think they can sue for that much money to be honest unless they use the dark knight as an example but I doubt that will work. Either way it seems like it might end up being that superman is owned 50% by two sides and the only way to make money off of him is to come together. For WB it sucks because they didnt have to worry about sharing profits. For the Siegels its good because now they have leverage to get there cut.

Now for those of you who think they're gonna make there own comics, your really out of your mind along with the thoughts that marvel is going to buy a half-@#&ed character or any other companys for that matter. They're going to settle at some point, the question is when and at what cost.

I agree. They will settle. It's in each parties best interest to do so. The only question is how long will it take to settle.

[solidsnake86]

The only one who wins is there lawyer Marc Toberoff for finding one hell of a client.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Was star trek really this mega hit that everyones making it out to be. Its budget was probably more then SR and frankly its done less world wide so far. Being a hit is in the eyes of the beholder.

True.

But the general public ate it up and are hungry for more ASAP. Plus getting to $200 million is not a cake walk. Let alone hitting past $250 (i.e. currently at $256). The Trek sequel is one of those films that could have a $100+ million opening weekend based on the insane popularity of the first one.

It's the film I'd honestly stay the Hell away from if I were an opposing studio.

[KalMart]

I credit Abrams.

And the marketing.


In that order. :oldrazz:

[Cosmic]

Ok, I disagree. Insurrection, Nemesis, and Enterprise simply didn't have the appeal that Star Trek had. They didn't provide what mass audiences wanted. That's why they weren't successful.

[solidsnake86]

True.

But the general public ate it up and are hungry for more ASAP. Plus getting to $200 million is not a cake walk. Let alone hitting past $250 (i.e. currently at $256). The Trek sequel is one of those films that could have a $100+ million opening weekend based on the insane popularity of the first one.

It's the film I'd honestly stay the Hell away from if I were an opposing studio.

I agree with that, I think the sequel is where your gonna see what the word of mouth on the first film has done. Its just funny when SR was made to be this utter failure when it really came in at the worst place possible being mediocre. At least if it failed miserably they know they could completely change the direction.

I still think that any reboot superman film that comes out is going to face an uphill battle 1. Because of SR and 2. Because of the blind nostalgia people will have for STM and Chris Reeve and the comparisons that will come from it.

[GreenKToo]

Abrams is a freakin' genius at marketing.
He could prolly get folks to watch a film of monkies throwing poop.

[FilmNerdJamie]

I credit Abrams.

And the marketing.

It was Kurtzman and Orci's story. By his own admission, Abrams was talked into directing it by them when he was originally just going to produce it. I'd credit them too.

[KalMart]

Abrams is a freakin' genius at marketing.
He could prolly get folks to watch a film of monkies throwing poop.
So maybe WB should have gone with his Superman idea from way back when.

[KalMart]

It was Kurtzman and Orci's story. By his own admission, Abrams was talked into directing it by them when he was originally just going to produce it. I'd credit them too.
Definitely. How's that 'leaving' going, Jer? :oldrazz::woot:


They wrote Transformers too, right?

[FilmNerdJamie]

Definitely. How's that 'leaving' going, Jer? :woot::oldrazz:

I left the "conversation" about Superman Returns' marketing because I gave examples of them marketing the film with action (as you asked). But you opted to ignore it to instead just crap on the film. You can like or dislike said film as much as you so desire. But it was clear that was all it was about. Grow a brain. Too late, I see.

This on the other hand is about Star Trek.

They wrote Transformers too, right?

Both of them in fact. Granted, I don't see that a good thing in any way, shape or form.

[The Guard]

I've got it!

SUPER TREK!