Sequels Er......what sequels?

[Sub-Zero]

i think there could have been many other directors who could have done wonders with spider-man. i kinda wanted to see james cameron's take on the character. as long as the superman returns sequel doesn't have zod and the other k-villains i'll have faith in singer again.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

As sure as the sun rises, there will be an EVENTUAL sequal to Superman Returns. Just don't hold your breath... at least bring along an oxygen tank.

 

[D-Bone]

I agree; there may eventually be another Superman movie, just not any time soon. Right now, WB suits are in a huddle doing a major re-think.
I've read their original plans, before SR was released, to put out a sequel for Summer of 2009. Expect that now to be pushed even farther out, say 2010 or 2011.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Nah.....I think in '09 will be the sequel.

What's the point in pushing it further if it's a sequel.

 

[NHawk19]

Another poster on the hype found this article. Credit to you Pat but I dont want to hotlink to the "other" forum.

Thought it might be worth a read for those advocating a continuation of SR. It speaks to budget etc.

 

[elvislennon2005]

I would say that we will see a sequel in early 2008.

 

[Timstuff]

And what would you base that "prediction" on? Because right now it's looking REALLY bad, and right now SR probably won't make back it's budget domestically, or make a profit even when the international tallies come up.

 

[PSU442]

i think all the studios need to rethink their 'tentpole' approaches... too easy to get burned. With the way the box-office has been. studios are making less movies and putting that money into a way-to-expensive summer movie (Stealth.) I still expect a Superman Returns sequel.... WB still needs its franchises.... even though SR has floundered, POTC2's success still shows that audiences want sequels (as opposed to original ideas.)

If anything, i think this shows that WB should consider the Superman films as a Christmas release.... the original was. Harry Potter enjoys it. Narnia cleaned up. Just a thought....

 

[OzzMosiz]

If anything, i think this shows that WB should consider the Superman films as a Christmas release.... the original was. Harry Potter enjoys it. Narnia cleaned up. Just a thought....

Definitely a xmas release!!

 

[Mr. Walters]

IMO that means nothing. A sequel to Superman Returns wouldn't cost so much to make

Why do you say that?

 

[Darknightnomis]

Why do you say that?

Sequel usually cost less becasue many of the sets and costumes, etc are alreay made and the special eforts are already created.

the only reason a sequel will cost more if they didn't put much money in the first film and then it becomes a major blockbuster so they put more in the sequel .

An example of this is the orginal Starwars (which cost 10 mil) and then ESB (23 mil)

 

[Mr. Walters]

I see what you are saying.

But it seems to be the trend latley has been to do make the sequels "bigger and better". Personally, I don't think they could spend more money on a sequel. A $300 million budgest would be insane.

 

[Jochimus]

But it seems to be the trend latley has been to do make the sequels "bigger and better".

Not if the first one barely makes its money back. After Buttman & Rubbin', Crapwoman, and the present situation with Superman Returns, WB would be insurmountably stupid to continue wrapping their superhero franchises in excesses. That's not good business. There are ways of making a worthwhile sequel without spending a sh**load on production design and FX, and hopefully if Singer, Dougherty and Harris are as humbled by the lashing they've gotten from Captain Jack Sparrow as it sounds, they'll be the wiser for it if WB does give them another chance.

 

[Steelsheen]

Sequel usually cost less becasue many of the sets and costumes, etc are alreay made and the special eforts are already created.

i hope to dear God that they improve on the costume. i dont know if i can bear seeing Routh again in that joke of an attire.

 

[Timstuff]

Also, sets are always destroyed after a movie is finished to make room for the next production coming in.

 

[Jochimus]

Also, sets are always destroyed after a movie is finished to make room for the next production coming in.

No, not always. For a while after its release, Universal kept the sets for "Van Helsing" still standing in anticipation of a sequel. Heh.

 

[GL1]

It´s an Elseworld, trust me
Birthright was also written to be the "true" Superman origin, and all of a sudden, people in DC are saying that is not and they are going to write the "definetely" origin of the Man of Steel

They may retcon it to something else, but right now, it's not all that Elsy. Bottom line. Mythos change.

I´m not saying Superboy in the hero and costume kind of way, and it doesn´t matter if he only has one power....he has it, case close.
It´s like putting Captain America in a Spider-Man movie, for example....it would steal the spotlight of Spidey, because it would make people be divided for the character they love best or are more interested in.
The same goes for this case, the moment you have a kid with powers in a 1st movie, you are stealing the show from the main character.
And bare in mind that, this is the 1 st movie (that´s why i put it in bold).
I would be fine (in an Elseworld kind of deal), if they had the kid in the 3rd movie...never in the first one.

I don't think the kid is any way at all comparable to Captain America. The kid is, more or less useless, if not on a fluke, he is also sickly and easily scared. This is not somebody that's going to be competing with Superman for your attention, especially since the director decides how much screen time he has. No show has been stolen.

No..no...no....well, at least, i think not.
They bashed the Peters script and compared it to the Donner´s movie because it was totally against the Superman mythos, and before that, the all Peter/Cage/Burton approach, was just plain dumb.
Neither was a great start, and neither is Returns, because you making a continuation of a pre-crisis franchise, even if "vague story", which is the same as to say "i´m just a lazy SOB to start all over again".
Of course it´s "new" and fresh, it´s a sequel to an old, totally outdated, pre-crisis franchise....

Again, we can all have negative comments about the Donner films now, but they simply didn't exist pre-SR. If they did, people were to scared to say them.

As sure as the sun rises, there will be an EVENTUAL sequal to Superman Returns. Just don't hold your breath... at least bring along an oxygen tank.

I agree; there may eventually be another Superman movie, just not any time soon. Right now, WB suits are in a huddle doing a major re-think.
I've read their original plans, before SR was released, to put out a sequel for Summer of 2009. Expect that now to be pushed even farther out, say 2010 or 2011.

And what would you base that "prediction" on? Because right now it's looking REALLY bad, and right now SR probably won't make back it's budget domestically, or make a profit even when the international tallies come up.

Okay, homies, listen up, you're only gonna get education this good once. Superman Returns has already made all it's money back. Yup.

The posted budget is $260 Million. WB only confirms spending $250, but hey, lets stick with $260, for arguement's sake. $40 Million of that is budget for sequels. Yes, that's actors deals and resources, ALREADY dedicated to SR2 and 3 (And perhaps beyond). That brings us down to $220M that WB (the people who matter) are looking for from SR. Now, with the Australian tax cuts, WB will be getting back from Australia everything but $183M dollars. Yes. $40M in tax cuts. That's why people make movies in Australia so often.

How much has SR made so far? $187M. Yes, SR has ALREADY made all of it's money back, that's in 17 days, not even three weeks. Everything from this day forward, is profit. Keep in mind this doesn't take into account the toys and games and sudden rise in T-shirt sales. This says nothing of the DVD sales (good gosh). SR has already made a profit. WB has no reason not to make a sequel... besides, they've already spent $40 M on it...

So this silliness about WB being scared of a sequel, is just that. They'll probably fight harder for the early-Summer slot where they know they can clean up. They won't be cocky, like say, Star Wars would, because they know other notable franchises, like POTC, can be competition. But WB has no reason not to make a sequel to SR. In fact, they're probably celebrating right now, since they made back their budget today.

Those who care about the truth may want to check this link:
The Numbers on Sueprman Returns

The rest of you can continue to pretend that SR isn't making money, and isn't going to get a sequel...

 

[Stevens25]

I really liked Superman Returns. Although it's not tearing up the box office,I think a sequel would be a great idea. I agree with most people here in having Supes fight someone else with superpowers. We need to see an epic battle!

 

[WormyT]

A sequel at this point seems guaranteed. It's just that MANY trolls are taking advantage of the situation and making others skeptical.

MANY films have had small openings and went on to become #1 at box office!!!

Case in point- LOTR, Chronicles, etc.

It's just people can't wait anymore.

Box office is a marathon- not a sprint.

So people are Trolls if they dislike Superman Returns and express that opinion.
It's called having good taste in movies..

 

[Jochimus]

So people are Trolls if they dislike Superman Returns and express that opinion.
It's called having good taste in movies..

No, it's called having an opinion.

 

[Mr. Walters]

The anti-SR stuff in here is laregely without basis.

I think it's been established that SR can more than make it's money back, especially with the sickening amount of merchandizing they've been doing. It was definitely an expensive film, but that will hardly cut it's legs for a sequel.

So let's see. "Superman should've fought someone head to head."
Hmm... so action makes a movie good? Catwoman was great. Schindler's List sucked. Gotcha. Superman was just fine with the physical challenges he was given.

What else? "Singer doesn't know Superman's mythos."
Ah, so then Grant Morrison didn't know the Batman Mythos when he took an OUT OF CONTINUITY story Son of the Demon and made Batman's non existant son Ibn a half-grown sword swinging villain. Did he not know the mythos, or did he just add to them? Grant Morrison decided not to retread the same old Batman versus Bane for all the marbles big fight and did something a bit deeper. Singer did the same thing.

If Singer DID know the mythos he'd realize that everyone tired of the Clark-Lois-Superman triangle (that's why the comics changed it), and Lois and Clark married is boring (that's why DC makes her dissappear). Singer did the same thing any DC writer does... he shakes things up.

But wait. There's more. "The kid is a problem."
Genious. Wait for it...
OF COURSE the kid is a problem. The point of the movie is that Superman has PROBLEMS. He is a grown man and he has grown man problems when he acts like a little kid and shirks his responsibilities. It makes his personal life IMPOSSIBLE. His son calls another man daddy. His girl is HAPPILY with another man. That's not a problem to get rid of, that's where good character development comes from.

What other piddly complaints hear I? Oh... "People came out of the film saying bad things."
So, the three people you talked to, and Roger Ebert, didn't like it. So? If you noticed, it wasn't a slam bang action film, therefore, the people who enjoyed it would likely be thinking about the subtleties of the plot rather than shouting "Booyah!" Right? If it had been all about a big fight and cool moves, then I could see how a lack of shouting would be a problem, but you didn't hear a lot of people shouting hurrah at the end of Schindler's List. Superman Returns isn't really an action movie.

So not only are we imagining that Superman Returns was bad because it wasn't the action movie we somehow expected... it gets better.

"Singer had blind devotion to the Donner films."
I always laugh at this one. Anyone who was on a message board five years ago, while Superman Lives and those other aborted projects were being worked on know that every message board was glutted with praise for Donner's films. They were "Superman done right." As far as fandom was concerned. Singer fell right in line with that and WB could say they were following the fans on picking someone with such devotion to Donner films. Again, fans ASKED for the Donner films again, and we almost got them, except for Singer's ugly habit of not rehashing played out storylines.

Oh but it gets better:
"What the film really needed was Mercy Graves"
Who? Grace AND Mercy or just Mercy? So Singer should trade his blind devotion for the Donner films and replace it with blind devotion to STAS? Perfect.

There's more of course, but I think it's pretty clear that the standards being used to judge SR are biased, and therefore, useless for making any judgements. Let's watch the money roll in and see how high over $200M it rises.

As for sequel issues, I have to say that I am very glad for Jason's existance. It forces Superman to grow as a character. Superman can no longer be a naive wanderer. He has to step up and take charge. He has to be a man. DC Comics has been trying to do this for years, and haven't had too much success. Singer did this in a little over two hours. SR for teh win.

While some of what you said does hold merit, you are making way to many generalizations. Some pople wanted Mercy and to follow The Animated Series and others wanted him to follow the Donner movies, but you make it sound as if everyone who disliked the movie is contridicting themselves because they wanted Superman: The Movie and Superman: The Animated Series, and that's not always true. While some people wanted to see Mercy (me being one of them) I didn't cry that it wasn't a rehashing of an old Donner film.

Yes, the kid is a problem, but no the movie is not about Superman having problems. I didn't see this at all. I got more about the movie from what Singer said in interviews than I did from the actual movie. Singer may have wanted this to be about Superman's problems but it didn't come across on the screen, at least not to me. I think Superman should have regualr human problems, but after watching Singer portray him as a God for over two and a half hours I didn't see how human problems were relevant. Singer all but stripped him of his humanity.

I also agree, that story should take precendence over action in a movie, but Superman Returns also failed in this aspect. What story? You know, the other day someone asked me what the movie was about and I said I didn't know. I couldn't begin to tell them waht the hell Superman Returns was other than Superman flying around and saving the day. I wanted to come out of the theatre think about the subtleties of the plot, but there weren't any. Superman Returns did emphasize action over story in my opinion.

And yes, in a sequel Superman could grow as a character, but what growing did he do in the two hours (closer to three actually) that Singer had him?

And a lot more than three people have said bad things about the movie. I only know one person who liked it. One. Two if I count you.

I may have missed something though. Your rant makes me want to take a second and closer look at Superman Returns.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

There will be a sequel. Most of the budget of the film (excluding previous development costs) went to the material stuff like sets and FX. Sets can be re-used, and the FX may not have seemed groundbreaking to desensitized eyes, but there were a boatload of shots that were all synthetic (and more importantly, costly). Superman saving the world from natural disasters and plane crashes is likely more expensive to put onscreen than a couple of guys brawling around a city like in Spiderman 2 because of the design of entire large-scale sets and full CG sets as well. Personally, I thought it was money well spent as I loved the FX. On another note, filming in Australia gives them tax incentives that lessen the cost even more. WB can't give exact dollar amounts because they probably don't know given exchange rates for the US dollar, as well as the spreading of costs over sequels.
The next film won't have to have the Gertrude sets or the New Krypton sets, so there is money saved. It also won't have to deal with things like the ship crash and the location costs for that. Plus, costs for the Genesis camera were damn sure not going to be cheap as far as the R & D goes for their filming. The tapes were cheap, but the camera was probably insanely pricey. Films like SR are difficult to guage a budget on, which is why there has been a ton of numbers just thrown around. Case in point, though. There will be a sequel within the next three years. DVD sales will boost this film like they did for BB. The release of the 14 disc set will also help to entrench Superman throughout the holiday season this year. Even without DVD sales and merchandise tie-ins this coming fall/winter, they've already broken even in the total worldwide BO gross.

 

[CB Fan]

wats up everybody, I was watching the news yesterday and they said that the studio has confirmed that there probably wont be a sequel due to failed expectations in the gross.

 

[Jakomus]

wats up everybody, I was watching the news yesterday and they said that the studio has confirmed that there probably wont be a sequel due to failed expectations in the gross.

Is this true?

 

[DarKush]

SR will make its money back, if not domestically then from the worldwide take. However, I see it limping to the $200 million mark.

When Little Man and Dupree take out the Man of Steel, this is a sure sign that SR doesn't have a lot of staying power.

I liken the movie to The Phantom Menace. I sort of had the same dazed, unsatisfying feeling coming out of TPM too.

There were some good parts in SR. The FX were good, the cast was decent, though I didn't care for Kate Bosworth as Lois, and Spacey played Luthor way too flat. And Frank Langella was far too sedate.

However, it wasn't a movie that roused the emotions or made you feel good or believe that a man could fly. People can dump on the Donner films 'campiness' all they want, but those movies were larger than life. It's still a fun experience watching them.

When Christopher Reeve declared "I don't lie," or told Lois about the safety of flying, I believed him. Routh was just delivering lines. And why was Clark drinking a beer?

There weren't enough 'super' moments in the film to warrant going to watch it a second time.

All that being said, there will be a sequel. I don't mind Singer as a director again, but I really like the idea of Paul Dini as screenwriter. He gets Superman, Singer doesn't.

To me, Supes is not a god or a stalker or absentee parent. He is an alien, but at the same time the embodiment of humanity's highest ideals and aspirations. He should be revered and respected, not worshipped.