Does it HAVE to be a trilogy? Can it go beyond three films?

[Skrilla31]

I feel like these days, most studios only ever prepare for "trilogies" when it comes to major franchises. I mean sure there have been a few exceptions but for the most part as of late, there seems to a blueprint put in place for three films and that's it. From there it's usually over and out... or it's onto the reboot/re-imagining.

Assuming Man Of Steel is a massive hit, can't there a be a plan that extends beyond that? Why must it be limited to just three? Don't you feel there are at least more than three Superman stories that can make it to the big screen and further add to the legend? In this modern age of big budgets and big paydays, can a studio hold on to a director/cast for that long anymore? Barring Harry Potter? I'd love to see Cavil sign on for 4 or 5 films.

Can it be done?

[BH/HHH]

I'd love it but it won't happen tbh right now I'd just love it if we got a trilogy.

[Llama_Shepherd]

If they're planning for a tight, cohesive trilogy that can touch upon most of the important aspects of Superman, similar to what we've got for Batman, I'd rather that, than making up movies on the fly.

[Abudefduf]

Yes, because the word "trilogy" sounds so f***ing awesome.

The Dark Knight Trilogy... the Lord of the Rings Trilogy... the Star Wars Trilogy... See my point?

"Series" or "Duology" are just not as cool.

[Doc Ock]

I definitely want a trilogy, I think all superhero films nowadays deserve a trilogy(even the bad ones, yes I think even the likes of Ghost Rider deserves one more Nic Cage film then reboot it and make a new cast and crew). Seeing how there is just going to always be a reboot later on it seems. Then a new take can be taken on the character in a later trilogy. One example is Spider-Man I loved the fact we got a trilogy or Raimi films, I hope The Amazing Spider-Man is a trilogy to.

But I don't think it has to be a trilogy, I think it needs to be AT LEAST a trilogy but im cool with it going beyond three films.

[Superman Prime]

We can have four parts and call it the "Man of Steel Quadrilogy".

"Tetralogy" also means a four-part series, but that makes me want to play Tetris.

[charl_huntress]

I think trilogies are the norm because it has the established beginning, middle and end. Most people are geared for that. Plus, I think it is hard to hold onto one actor for more than 3 movies. Just think of the physical conditioning Cavill would have to say in for years to play Superman.

[Superman Prime]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

I think trilogies are the norm because it has the established beginning, middle and end. Most people are geared for that. Plus, I think it is hard to hold onto one actor for more than 3 movies. Just think of the physical conditioning Cavill would have to say in for years to play Superman.

TDK trilogy took about seven years, Raimi Spider-Man six. Yeah, if there were four Superman movies with Cavill, he'd have to stay in form for the good part of a decade. That's not to say he couldn't do it.

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by Superman Prime

TDK trilogy took about seven years, Raimi Spider-Man six. Yeah, if there were four Superman movies with Cavill, he'd have to stay in form for the good part of a decade. That's not to say he couldn't do it.

Agreed, but all the other actors you mentioned had the benefits of suits with MASKS....

Superman DOES not have that.

[Coca Cola Duracell Franklin.]

I'd be up for watching as many Superman movies as they will make. I think they could potentially make a bunch of films, but I'm suer Zack Snyder and Henry Cavill are too into their own creativity to be making Superman movies forever.

[Gabe99]

Originally Posted by Skrilla31

I feel like these days, most studios only ever prepare for "trilogies" when it comes to major franchises. I mean sure there have been a few exceptions but for the most part as of late, there seems to a blueprint put in place for three films and that's it. From there it's usually over and out... or it's onto the reboot/re-imagining.

Assuming Man Of Steel is a massive hit, can't there a be a plan that extends beyond that? Why must it be limited to just three? Don't you feel there are at least more than three Superman stories that can make it to the big screen and further add to the legend? In this modern age of big budgets and big paydays, can a studio hold on to a director/cast for that long anymore? Barring Harry Potter? I'd love to see Cavil sign on for 4 or 5 films.

Can it be done?

Maybe studios finally get it. The Avengers/Marvel universe seems to be working. Harry Potter, James Bond & Godzilla prove that you don't need a trilogy. Disney is going to try it with Star Wars. I hope MOS is a hit. I'd love to see Superman movies every year.

[DrCosmic]

Trilogies work, unless you have a beloved book series. Even the MCU is a set of trilogies.

Superman, like Batman will gain a great deal of notoriety and success as a trilogy. If someone else wants to follow that with another trilogy, or lead that into a DCMovieU with JLA or World's Finest or Trinity or whatever, good for them.

[Jim-El]

It is all about the writing and screenplay. It has to be Nolanesque. Chris Reeve could have been even greater if not for the terrible writing in the Lester II and III films.

[titansupes]

I want a trilogy as good as The Dark Knight Trilogy out of this. Touching on all the big points of his career, even if 'only' thematically. Do something big and bold with it. Beginning, middle, end. NOT perpetually maintaining a status quo. Just give me that... THEN you can do your big "Everything goes forever" shared universe thing, WB.

Also, were this to go beyond a trilogy... The word would be SAGA. The Man of Steel Saga. The Saga of Superman? Something like that.

[dru-zod2501]

I think a 3 picture deal is a reasonable amount to expect from a given team of actors, directors, crew, etc. working on a film series. History has told us many times that trying to push past the 3rd film is tricky under the best circumstances. But as we see these kinds of movies looking beyond just the title character to attempt universe-building, I think it would be wise to adopt an approach similar to Star Wars, build the movie series in trilogies and build them like LEGOs. That allows for building of a coherent story and allows for changes in tone, direction, cast, etc. in between

[GOD]

If MoS is successful enough, they should go the Bond route, once Cavill and Adams are too old, just replace them for other actors without having to reboot the series.

This way we would have a new Superman movie every 3 years or so, with new stories to enjoy, and maybe in 20 or 30 years they could reboot the series for new generations of fans like Casino Royale did for Bond.

I think the trilogy thing that Nolan did with Batman was a gigantic failure based on his even bigger ego (no hater here, I mostly like him, but his movies are getting too flawed storywise as of lately). The next Batman movie should just kind of ignore TDKR and show a new story in a similar realistic universe that is shared with MoS's and other DC characters.

I hope Superman does NOT retire or die in the third movie or something like that. Batman's retirement in TDKR's was just ridiculous (like most of the movie, sorry nolanites) and M.Millar's idea of Superman dying at the end of a trilogy in a few thousand/million years with the sun exploding is lame at best, since Superman could always fly to other solar systems with the rest of the surviving humans because I guess that humanity would have plenty of spaceships by then, human kind would have learnt by themselves to travel to other galaxies after so much time or Superman would help them with kryptonian technology or the Green Lantern Corps would evacuate all humans from the planet. My point is that Millar's idea just makes no sense at all, like Nolan's ending for Batman didn't make sense either (and I could write a book about that X-D), so I hope these possible series are not ruined for some ridiculous artistic interest that makes no sense.

[Mace Dolex]

I'd like to go beyond 3 films too, maybe have two trilogies of Superman greatness, with 6 films they can go to infinite story possiblities.

I like the "Duology" name too, why does it have to be 3 movies, why not have a big sprawling epic over every other 2 films.

Originally Posted by Abudefduf

Yes, because the word "trilogy" sounds so f***ing awesome.

The Dark Knight Trilogy... the Lord of the Rings Trilogy... the Star Wars Trilogy... See my point?

And I'll just add to that list the Porky's and Smokey & The Bandit trilogies too.

[NewYorkSpider]

Assuming a Justice League movie is happening, I think they go about this as a trilogy. Keeping an actor in the same role for multiple movies gets expensive for studios.

[Hypestyle]

go for four.

[Mysteryman]

Sure as long as the quality of MOS continues through the flms to follow, it can go on for awhile.
Give the people what they want, and they will continue to come back for more .

[ThePhantasm]

Its tough to convince an actor to stay on for that many movies. 3 Supes movies and 3 Justice League movies would be more than enough.

[Jochimus]

I would like to see at least three movies , though I still think they should prioritize in each case and concentrate primarily on the movie right in front of them before worrying too much about one down the road.