Sequels A Change Is Coming

[VenomsMom]

Having kids is great.
Don't have any myself.
And I Love the family dynamic in some superheros like fantastic4(the book) and The Incredibles, First Family(from Astro City book) and Captain Marvel books.
I guess the argument is us Fan Boys are still waiting for an Ultimate Superman movie a la Batman Begins, Spiderman that take almost 90% of it's fundamental direction from the books. One only has to look at the Spidey3 trailer to know that indeed Raimi read 'Saga of the Alien costume' and 'Spiderman vs. venom' from late 80's early 90's.
A kick ass Superman movie with drama, intrigue and action and villains on par with last nights sneak preview (spidey3)fight between Harry and Peter is what we want sans a Superson.
Chris Nolan could probably (if he wanted to) pull off a kick @$$ Batman sequel with Robin but he says he won't and most fans are fine with that because it's really Batman we want to see. Same with Superman (worse actually) because Super Jason has never appeared in Supermans history before. He goes into the bargain bin for pointless 'made up' characters along with Nuclear Man. An unnecessarily puzzling element that redirects superman further from his core essence. He doesn't need a son yet.
If Singer refuses to look in the books (where the character was born), how can we trust him to interpret how Superman would act as a father?

Best post of this thread.

 

[dpm07]

Well, a comic selling well doesn't make it the best material for a movie. In fact the whole story of Superman's death was not very good but no one wanted to miss such an historical fact.

Btw, Superman died in SR.

Actually, the Death of Superman has sold very well with regards to the graphic novel. I'm confident that Bruce Timm will deliver a fine Superman adaptation in ways that others cannot.

Singer gave the people "Singerman" and "Superson". Bruce Timm will give us a Superman story we can be proud of in the Death of Superman with the animated release in September.

You are correct. Superman died in SR, but came back to life at the end. Also, Mr. Mxyk is Mr. Mxyzptlk.

 

[VenomsMom]

If he dies, its only right that is at the hands of Doomsday.

 

[VenomsMom]

NO! I don't know who this perp is and it ain't funny or cool.

Perp......I am not amused by this remark sir.

 

[WormyT]

Did Superman really die at the end of SR? I thought he was just in a deep coma or something.
Vague-mania.
?????

 

[VenomsMom]

According to these guys he did because he flatlined....but I just thought the machines were screwed up or something.

 

[Rated-X]

Thats a good idea, he could alter this whole reality Singer has bestowed upon us. Mxy should take us to the real Metropolis in the sequel, the one where Lex owns Lexcorp.

What do you mean take us to a real Metropolis? Dude, what movie are you watching?

 

[I_Hate_U_All]

Did Superman really die at the end of SR? I thought he was just in a deep coma or something.
Vague-mania.
?????

I guess he had another green crystal handy like in superman IV? Though you're right, being dead would kind of stop a person from leaving a hospital.

 

[redcaped]

A real Superman would do exactly the same this one does in Returns, he didn't just visit but lived among us. I agree that someday his dual identity must cease. As a fan I had two endings, one is him and Jason revealed to the world, the other have Earth visited by others like him..."Day of the Supermen" and I like the sound of this one. Is a similar feeling from Ice Age 2 (last of the kind) but surprisingly enough for him he wasn't. This of course if Supergirl won't be in the saga.

 

[Cosmic]

In the stories I grew up with, Superman already "lived among us," as mild-mannered reporter, Clark Kent. If anything, the character in SR is the one who's "just visiting," as we see in the final scene with Lois and Jason, where he simply flies off without saying when he'll be back, or when he's going to start paying up on child support, or anything, except for that he'll "be around."

 

[mego joe]

Yeah, because everyone I know who's had a child has just been so torn down by it all. No love, pride or joy in child-rearing. Nope.

This film series is not about Superman becoming a parent showing what a great father is, it's about sUperman NOT being a parent to his child for the first 4 years of his son's life and it's about how much pain he's going to cause his son when Jason finds out who his father really is and that it's not Richard. THat is what this movie series is about. That is what the circumstances are setting up. There is no way to suddenly reconcile Superman to being a full time responisble parent and Jason not having any baggage b/c of the circumstance.

I have 2 kids. That is why I am so offended by the notion of SUperman being unable to fulfill his moral and ethical responsibiltiy of being a full time father and raising his son. If Singer wanted to explore Superman as a father he would have had Lois and SUperman get married and have a kid so that SUperman could revel in joy and happiness, express his pride in his son to his son, share the responsiblities of child-rearing with Lois. THat is how to expore SUperman as a father. THat's far too normal too Singer. He doesn't identify with that. His film is about dysfunction. The dysfunction of a relationship in which SUperman can't be honest to Lois about leaving for 5 years, the dysfunction in Superman having a son that he cannot raise and be a full time father to. The dysfunction in still being an outsider and 'alien' even though your own son is walking around your own city and yet he doen't know you to even be your father.

Yes, SInger's ideas certainly sound like they are about the love, pride and joy of raising your children.

 

[mego joe]

Yeah, because everyone I know who's had a child has just been so torn down by it all. No love, pride or joy in child-rearing. Nope.

This film series is not about Superman becoming a parent showing what a great father is, it's about sUperman NOT being a parent to his child for the first 4 years of his son's life and it's about how much pain he's going to cause his son when Jason finds out who his father really is and that it's not Richard. THat is what this movie series is about. That is what the circumstances are setting up. There is no way to suddenly reconcile Superman to being a full time responisble parent and Jason not having any baggage b/c of the circumstance.

I have 2 kids. That is why I am so offended by the notion of SUperman being unable to fulfill his moral and ethical responsibiltiy of being a full time father and raising his son. If Singer wanted to explore Superman as a father he would have had Lois and SUperman get married and have a kid so that SUperman could revel in joy and happiness, express his pride in his son to his son, share the responsiblities of child-rearing with Lois. THat is how to expore SUperman as a father. THat's far too normal for Singer. He doesn't identify with that. His film is about dysfunction. The dysfunction of a relationship in which SUperman can't be honest to Lois about leaving for 5 years, the dysfunction in Superman having a son that he cannot raise and be a full time father to. The dysfunction in still being an outsider and 'alien' even though your own son is walking around your own city and yet he doen't know you to even be your father.

Yes, SInger's ideas certainly sound like they are about the love, pride and joy of raising your children.

 

[Venom'sDad]

Many speculate that Kevin Spacey will return to reprise his role as a more serious Lex Luthor. Others have speculated that villains such as Brainiac and Bizarro are possibly prime to make their big screen debut. Bizarro the more likely, because of Superman leaving precious DNA material(blood) on the Kryptonite Island(Bizarro World) cast in space. More hardcore fans want heavyweights like Doomsday or Darkseid, which more likely will never grace the silver screen. However, there is a recurring thought that little Jason White may house the spirit of Mr. Mxyzptlk, whom could pose a huge challenge to the MoS. Neither-the-less, Bryan Singer may deliver a Superman film, that many die-hard fans are demanding. We will be watching.

I saw this and was surprise no one mention this story about the Superman villains.

This film series is not about Superman becoming a parent showing what a great father is, it's about sUperman NOT being a parent to his child for the first 4 years of his son's life and it's about how much pain he's going to cause his son when Jason finds out who his father really is and that it's not Richard. THat is what this movie series is about. That is what the circumstances are setting up. There is no way to suddenly reconcile Superman to being a full time responisble parent and Jason not having any baggage b/c of the circumstance.

I have 2 kids. That is why I am so offended by the notion of SUperman being unable to fulfill his moral and ethical responsibiltiy of being a full time father and raising his son. If Singer wanted to explore Superman as a father he would have had Lois and SUperman get married and have a kid so that SUperman could revel in joy and happiness, express his pride in his son to his son, share the responsiblities of child-rearing with Lois. THat is how to expore SUperman as a father. THat's far too normal for Singer. He doesn't identify with that. His film is about dysfunction. The dysfunction of a relationship in which SUperman can't be honest to Lois about leaving for 5 years, the dysfunction in Superman having a son that he cannot raise and be a full time father to. The dysfunction in still being an outsider and 'alien' even though your own son is walking around your own city and yet he doen't know you to even be your father.

Yes, SInger's ideas certainly sound like they are about the love, pride and joy of raising your children.

I agree, but what I find fascinating, in this so-called continuity between Superman 1&2 and Superman Returns, is how does Lois remember that Superman is the father of the kid, when in Superman2, when Superman kissed Lois, she totally forgot everything... she had no recollection of even being involved with Superman.... and if she did, than she would know that Clark was Superman........... or is her memory selective. LOL!?

 

[mego joe]

I saw this and was surprise no one mention this story about the Superman villains.

This was discussed in a thread, but many people felt he was just kidding about Mxy being in the movie. I was so down on SR from what I heard before it came out The only reason I saw SR was that I hoped that Mxy would show up at the end as a hidden villain, much the same way Ducard turned out to be R'as al Guhl in Batman Begins. And Mxy would be the reason for the incredibly bad story.

I agree, but what I find fascinating, in this so-called continuity between Superman 1&2 and Superman Returns, is how does Lois remember that Superman is the father of the kid, when in Superman2, when Superman kissed Lois, she totally forgot everything... she had no recollection of even being involved with Superman.... and if she did, than she would know that Clark was Superman........... or is her memory selective. LOL!?

The answer is simple. In an interview somewhere SInger flat out stated he ignored that part of SII. Therefore it's a 'vague' continuity for SR and STM and SII. Singer's continuity is what's selective. Basically, you can watch SR independently, there's no true continuity between the films, despite the fact that it's the same theme music, Brando is Jor-El and Glenn Ford is Pa Kent and Luthor is still a real estate schemer.

 

[Spiderine]

Wow I have not seen those comments that were made, thats interesting news to me. There may be something to all this after all. Also you make a damn good point about Superman2.Sounds like a plot hole to me.Lois and Superman only made out once as far as we know and Supes made her forget all about it. Can anyone explain that? Did her memory come back to her? She shouldnt have a clue who the father is if she cant recall those events. Is there any evidence in the uncut version that contradicts this, if so please let me know.

 

[Spiderine]

This was discussed in a thread, but many people felt he was just kidding about Mxy being in the movie. I was so down on SR from what I heard before it came out The only reason I saw SR was that I hoped that Mxy would show up at the end as a hidden villain, much the same way Ducard turned out to be R'as al Guhl in Batman Begins. And Mxy would be the reason for the incredibly bad story.




The answer is simple. In an interview somewhere SInger flat out stated he ignored that part of SII. Therefore it's a 'vague' continuity for SR and STM and SII. Singer's continuity is what's selective. Basically, you can watch SR independently, there's no true continuity between the films, despite the fact that it's the same theme music, Brando is Jor-El and Glenn Ford is Pa Kent and Luthor is still a real estate schemer.

What? He ignored certain parts of Superman 2. So you are saying the dreaded kiss at the end never happened. Was that ever addressed?

 

[mego joe]

What? He ignored certain parts of Superman 2. So you are saying the dreaded kiss at the end never happened. Was that ever addressed?

What do you mean addressed? Like in the story somewhere? Or the prequel comics?

It was a quote by Singer where he said he ignored the 'kiss' and the whole 'Fortress of Solitude love scene.' That's the only way it was addressed to my knowledge, he just didn't include it as part of what he considered the backstory for SR.

It would have been nice to know exactly what did happen though.

 

[Spiderine]

What do you mean addressed? Like in the story somewhere? Or the prequel comics?

It was a quote by Singer where he said he ignored the 'kiss' and the whole 'Fortress of Solitude love scene.' That's the only way it was addressed to my knowledge, he just didn't include it as part of what he considered the backstory for SR.

It would have been nice to know exactly what did happen though.

Thats what I mean by addressed, I didnt remember Singer making those statements. The average movie goer who went to see this movie Superman Returns, are under the impression that its based off events from Superman 1 and 2. Those are the scenes people remember especially when you add his love child into the mix. And from what I remember his kiss erased her memory of knowing anything about that. So if he ignored that whole fortress scene when did they do it.

 

[mego joe]

Thats what I mean by addressed, I didnt remember Singer making those statements. The average movie goer who went to see this movie Superman Returns, are under the impression that its based off events from Superman 1 and 2. Those are the scenes people remember especially when you add his love child into the mix. And from what I remember his kiss erased her memory of knowing anything about that. So if he ignored that whole fortress scene when did they do it.

Only Singer knows for sure. I personally think that that would be integral to telling this story, but many poster on this board disagree. Many are fine with no specific context they just take it as "they were in a relationship, they had sex, he left" that's all they need to know.

I wanted more. I felt that it was poor storytelling to leave that out b/c the specific deatails would explain movtivations and reactions of Superman and Lois for the story.

WHat about you?

 

[Spiderine]

Only Singer knows for sure. I personally think that that would be integral to telling this story, but many poster on this board disagree. Many are fine with no specific context they just take it as "they were in a relationship, they had sex, he left" that's all they need to know.

I wanted more. I felt that it was poor storytelling to leave that out b/c the specific deatails would explain movtivations and reactions of Superman and Lois for the story.

WHat about you?

Absolutely.....I mean anytime you make an attempt to tell a story based on continuity of a previous film those aspects must be addresed. This love child is a very important part of the story. I loved the 2 Donner films and I remember these scenes and to erase those from part of the continuity when many are under the impression that this film was based on 5 years between Superman2 and Superman returns seems odd. And this kid is 5 years old. Sounds like a plot hole.

 

[redcaped]

After a trilogy is made what number as a limit will you choose to conclude Superman? I particularly want 6, as the coconuts. They would need to film in less time and have story related to characters.

 

[Rated-X]

What do you mean addressed? Like in the story somewhere? Or the prequel comics?

It was a quote by Singer where he said he ignored the 'kiss' and the whole 'Fortress of Solitude love scene.' That's the only way it was addressed to my knowledge, he just didn't include it as part of what he considered the backstory for SR.

It would have been nice to know exactly what did happen though.

So does that mean the second trip to the Fortress of Solitude didn't happen either with General Zod & Company?

And VD, I remember reading that link about Mr. Mxyzptlk, I just didn't know what to think about it at that time, but there maybe something to it now. I dunno. It's way to early to know and was a good write up and kinda make sense, by the thread starter. I still don't know how he will fit in with Lex, Brainiac, and Bizarro.

 

[GreenKToo]

Well wheather you think it was a bad story or not, (I thought it was an ok story) it still took in over 200 mill dom., something not many S.H. films can brag about. Hopefully Singer/W.B. will turn it waaay up for the sequel, if not, it will prolly do worse than S.R. The superman name sold S.R., it wont for the sequel.

 

[bgshw44]

there is no way Mr. Mxyzptlk is showing with the type of tone Singer is bringing. And i just dont see how he is done on the big screen.

 

[redcaped]

I would give mxy a positive attitude. He should be in a movie with Darkseid since they use dimensional gateways which attracts mxy. He's kind of a watcher, tests Superman, Darkseid turns Doomsday and kills Superman, then later revives him with magic. Bizarro should never be used, whether this being is less powerful or not, it would be a disappointing sad story.