Sequels Er......what sequels?

[Cdawg751]

while I am looking forward to Spidey 3,it has shades of batman and robin,to many villians.

Okay...for 1 batman an robin had the one of the worst directors known to man. Second Spiderman has Sam f***ing Raimi! This guy is a genius! He's knows wut he's doing besides Joel Schummacher or wut ever his name was doing. All He did was smash all the bad guys that hadnt been in a Batman movie yet an slapped a tag on it.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

There is going to be a sequel, be sure of it.
Why?
It´s Superman, that´s why.

The first didn´t worked, the second might...its Superman...

 

[Cdawg751]

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.

Not True. All Those Movies Were Up Againist Harry Potter (Besides The Return Of The King Which Was Jus A Good Film Off The Back) They Had Small Openings Becuz My Man Harry Kicked There Ass. Superman Wasnt Rivaled With Any Body. Unles u dont count out the "Devil Weres Prada" or "Click"

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

Okay...for 1 batman an robin had the one of the worst directors known to man. Second Spiderman has Sam f***ing Raimi! This guy is a genius! He's knows wut he's doing besides Joel Schummacher or wut ever his name was doing. All He did was smash all the bad guys that hadnt been in a Batman movie yet an slapped a tag on it.

Neither is Joel Schumacher is the worst director known to man (not even close), nor is Sam Raimi a genius.
Joel Schumacher is a good director (Phone Booth, Time to Kill, The Client, Falling Down), just wrong for Batman; Raimi is a capable one, with much love for Spider-Man.

Bare in mind that Schumacher wanted to make Batman based on the tv show (wrong, stupid, but there is a reason why the movies went that way), and the Spider-Man, even if good adaptations, lack in the movie department, IMO.
Batman Begins and Hulk are way better movies than the Spider-Mans

 

[dpm07]

Exactly. WB Jus Brought Singer Along Cuz He Was A Visionary. But The Problem Was He Knew Little Of The Man Of Steel, Unlike Raimi Who Was Both A Visionary And A True Spidey Fan. GO SPIDERMAN! !

Totally!

That really sums things up my fellow Michigander from the big "D".

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I think this thread sumsup exactly what some people who post here do wrong.

You consider the comicbooks and holy literature, and the quality of any movie based on them depends entirely on their faithfulness to the source. Of course you think this, because that means you personally, knowing all about the comicbook, know exactly how to make the movie properly.

This is completely wrong, this is not the case at all.

 

[ReptileOrion]

Batman and Robin failed because it made a mockery of the characters NOT because it had multiple villians.

So true

 

[Eteric]

I believe that Returns will get a sequel. You have to look at the long term.

1. Superman Returns has legs. It isn't just going to dissapear in a week, even with Pirates around.

2. Merchandising. Though this isn't a big point of income, it's still income.

3. DVD is where most of the money will come from. It's getting to a point these days where they would be better off just going straight to DVD.

Combine all of that with foreign sales and you can bet there will be a sequel.

Most of the people I've talked to loved it. The ones that didn't seem to be the die-hard comic fans and the people who like action flicks.

But that's just on my side of Louisiana. So meh.

 

[CrypticOne]

Spiderman 3 will rock. People will get a solid story with great action and not see a hero just dealing with natural disasters, or the same villain again.

SR had a weak story, and should have had Superman taking on a villain in a physical confrontation. Furthermore, it should never have introduced Superman's son, and it should have had a director who came into the game with a stronger knowledge of Superman other than the Donner film, which was great for its time, but pretty dated now.

Spiderman 3 won't make those mistakes. The past two films have illustrated Raimi has a respect for the hero and the comics.

I agree. Too much talk, not that much action in SR, but that is expected from Singer.

I hope they make a sequel to SR though, I liked the movie. Maybe the filmakers think that they had to have Lex as the main baddie. I hope we get a better and stronger villain though.

 

[dpm07]

I agree. Too much talk, not that much action in SR, but that is expected from Singer.

I hope they make a sequel to SR though, I liked the movie. Maybe the filmakers think that they had to have Lex as the main baddie. I hope we get a better and stronger villain though.

One problem with the sequels is that now you have to include the kid in successive films. Also, while Luthor is important to Superman canon, Superman does have other rogues in his gallery.

However, that said, I think we'll get something along the lines of a repeat of a Superman II film with Kryptonians. Singer had great visuals in the film, but horrible storywriting from those quacks Harris and Daugherty, and he should have used the concept of the Return, but with a different story, or completely did a restart. At any rate, he should have had a villain Superman could have gone head to head with.

I've seen the film twice, and both times I watched the audience's reaction, and it was flat. People were leaving the theatre talking more about the Spiderman Teaser than they were the Superman film. Comments I did hear about SR were, "That kid was a waste", and "Why didn't he fight anyone?", as well as "That movie seemed too much like the original".

 

[Kevin Roegele]

There is going to be a sequel, be sure of it.
Why?
It´s Superman, that´s why.

The first didn´t worked, the second might...its Superman...

It doesn't matter if the film works or not, all that matters is how much cash in makes. Warner Bros won't be saying to each other, "Hey, atleast we know we can make a great film as a sequel."

 

[GL1]

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.

 

[Norm3]

I just saw it again today. I like this movie much more now. I was spending too much time comparing Reeve to Routh. This time I could relax & take it all in.

 

[ouiouigirl]

a sequel, if there is one will not cost them as much money...take Ghosbuster 2 for instance, the first one had a 25% budget just for marketing. the movie was so big and such a household name in the end that they barely had to spend anything on marketing for the second one, just the fact it was a sequel sold the movie.
the problem with a SR sequel will not be how much it will cost them but whether they (WB) are willing to make a change in writers. Too many folks are complaining about the plot holes, the poor character writing (lois was an outrage if you ask me) not to mention a son. A new writer's crew (they can keep singer) is what will sell the movie, especially if the writers are known superman (comic book) fans..not juveniles who just finished watching the Donner series.

 

[Jochimus]

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.

Well said.

I myself enjoyed the movie - in fact, I'm going to see it for the second time this weekend - it's just that for a sequel, anyway, I'd spice things up a bit.

I can't complain much about the (frankly) surprising level of merchandising the movie is getting - I already own the soundtrack and three of the action figures (Clark-To-Superman, Arctic Gear Lex and Space Suit Kal-El - whenever I buy these things, I tend to get the suits that actually APPEAR in the movie )

For my part, the desire to see another super-brawl comes largely from the fact that I've waited 20 years to see Superman tear up downtown Metropolis again on the big screen. Luthor IS a great villain, and I liked Spacey's darker turn with the character, but since he's the only regular Superman rogue to figure into every live-action show they've ever done (except maybe the George Reeves series), I'd like to see him put in the shadows a bit, more of a behind-the-scenes puppet master a la Darth Sidious than the immediate threat. And as I've said before, since half of Superman's rogues owe their existence to lab accidents and experiments and whatall, Luthor would be the PERFECT catalyst to see the likes of Metallo and Parasite enter the fray.

As far as the mythos, it doesn't take much really to be faithful to the legend of Superman: he's the sole survivor of the doomed planet Krypton. He has powers and abilities beyond those of mortal men. He was raised by the Kents on a farm in Smallville, KS and leads a double life as Clark Kent, reporter for the Daily Planet in the city of Metropolis, where he's got the hots for fellow reporter Lois Lane. And he saves innocent lives and battles evil while flying around in blue tights and a red cape with an across his chest. Even the Fleischer cartoons and the George Reeves series were able to do that.

I don't mind Jason so much, if they could at least try to keep the character worthwhile without overplaying their hand. As long as his 'talents' (which I'm guessing he has some inkling of, judging by what happened to Brutus) are spasmodic, the writers can at least assure his character of an interesting puberty without turning him into the Wesley Crusher of the Superman franchise.

As for the negativity...bah. Most every negative opinions I've seen for this movie - not all, but a pretty good deal of them, anyway - give me the distinct impression of a large gathering of morally-withered relatives practically screaming for their deathly-ill rich patriarch to kick over already so they can dance all the way to the banker's office. Your assessment of the anti-SR sentiment is dead-on in my book.

I can't diss Singer's devotion to STM and SII, either - they were by no means perfect, but they are a tricky act to follow (well, maybe not so much SII with its super-kissing and removable 'S'-wrap). I can't see any 'reboot' of the Superman film series doing much better than Donner's film, anyway.

And in regards to Mercy...I could take or leave her. She's cool, but not entirely necessary.

All I can really ask for in a possible SR sequel is that they just take what's established and keep it moving forward. They brought Superman back, now what?

 

[Eteric]

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.

Thank you!

 

[Metropolis_Man]

It's already too late, the damage is done. Warner Bros. isn't going to give him a second chance to waste their money. If this were the second in a string of movies, they'd give him another chance to get it right with the third. But when you get off to a start that's this rocky, it's game over.

And I'm sure you asked the people at WB and they told you that he definately won't be back. I'm not saying your statement is wrong, I just think you should wait before making some wild conclusion like that. Singer might not be back, but then again he might be. We won't actually know until we have official word from Warner Bros.

 

[Metropolis_Man]

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.

Well put. I couldn't have said it better myself. There were some obvious flaws in Returns, but I'm in agreement that for the majority of the movie, it was one of the best. I like that you mention it doesn't hurt to "shake" things up a bit and go in a different direction that we haven't seen yet. I didn't like the kid anlge and first but now I'm really enjoying where this could lead. Thanks for your post. It really sums up what a lot of people were trying to say but just couldn't say it right!

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

Well....let´s see here..and bare in mind that i haven´t seen the movie yet, but you are the one that look biased

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.

I give you that, i always put drama and characterization over action...and so did Ang Lee, and everyone hated Hulk for the lack of action...

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.

Son of the Demon is an Elseworld, so there isn´t much to discuss here...

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.

The problem with the kid, IMO, is that he is Superboy.
You are re-introducing Superman to the general public, he should be the focus of the all story, so, the moment you put in a kid with superpowers, you lose that spotlight.
It goes from being "Superman Returns", to Superman is the Father to Superboy

"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.

I can only talk in my behalf here, but i don´t recall anyone wanting to see a rehashing of a pre-crisis movie, and extremely outdated take on Superman, that doesn´t make much sense today

 

[dpm07]

Well....let´s see here..and bare in mind that i haven´t seen the movie yet, but you are the one that look biased


I give you that, i always put drama and characterization over action...and so did Ang Lee, and everyone hated Hulk for the lack of action...


Son of the Demon is an Elseworld, so there isn´t much to discuss here...


The problem with the kid, IMO, is that he is Superboy.
You are re-introducing Superman to the general public, he should be the focus of the all story, so, the moment you put in a kid with superpowers, you lose that spotlight.


I can only talk in my behalf here, but i don´t recall anyone wanting to see a rehashing of a pre-crisis movie, and extremely outdated take on Superman, that doesn´t make much sense today

I agree with you on all your points. Well stated. Especially the last one and the one on the kid.

 

[GL1]

Thank you Jochimus, Eteric and Metropolis Man... I didn't know my post was that good. Thank you.

I give you that, i always put drama and characterization over action...and so did Ang Lee, and everyone hated Hulk for the lack of action...

Bingo. Nail on the head. I loved the Hulk movie, cuz the psychology was so great in it. Most people went to Hulk movie to see the Hulk cartoon from the 90s in live action. If they read the comics they'd know multiple issues can go by without Hulk ever showing his face, only Bruce Banner. They'd know what the Hulk franchise is about. But they don't, they just want action and were dissappointed by Ang Lee using his brain on the movie.

Same with Superman, people just wanted the 90s cartoon on steroids. I did too at first, but then I saw the trailers... I noticed they were VERY light on action and VERY heavy on Jor-El's speeching and posturing. The Smallville Theme Song has more action than the Superman Returns trailer! I adjusted my expectations. I understand a lot of people who grew up just looking at the pictures in comics or watching the cartoons (like we all did as kids) aren't used to these characters as more than action peices, but I'm so glad that some directors are trying to make these guys more than just kid's stuff.

Son of the Demon is an Elseworld, so there isn´t much to discuss here...

Batman #657 says it's not. Mythos change. Otherwise, there'd never be much of a reason to read the stories.

The problem with the kid, IMO, is that he is Superboy.
You are re-introducing Superman to the general public, he should be the focus of the all story, so, the moment you put in a kid with superpowers, you lose that spotlight.
It goes from being "Superman Returns", to Superman is the Father to Superboy

No costume. One Power. The fact is that he's not Superboy. The fact is that he was NOT in the spotlight, nor was he the focus of the story. SR proved that the child is incapable of being Superboy, that he doesn't steal the spotlight and that Superman was still the focus of all the story. If you choose to believe that a sequel will somehow magically be forced to put the boy in costume, make him heroic and give all Superman's screen time to him, then I will be forced to allow you to have your illogical and disproven opinion.

I can only talk in my behalf here, but i don´t recall anyone wanting to see a rehashing of a pre-crisis movie, and extremely outdated take on Superman, that doesn´t make much sense today

No of course not. No one ever spoke about the Donner films with any negative terms. You, had you been paying attention, would have heard repeated comparisons of the Peters/Nic Cage Superman film to the Donner ones, with various reasons why the Donner films were better and truer to the source material. It didn't make much sense, a new and fresh story like SR would have, but fanboys didn't want that, they wanted the same old same old.

 

[Galactical]

Or hulk wasn't really that good a movie that used some confusing split screen effect and was paced poorly, and had the most bland sleepwalking performances in a superhero movie ever aside from nick and the guy playing ross, though I thought it was ok enough do better at the bO than it did. I can see why its overly serious tone would make people stay away. Comicbook movies about big green giant guys or men in colorful tights fighting bad guys aren't supposed to be kid's stuff, but they're not supposed to exclude them either. they should be fun for all, good light sci-fi entertainment at least, not shakespeare, but fun diversions from the real world.

Whether we like it or not, the next film if there is one will focus in some part on Superman's son, Superboy and him accepting or denying his true heritage. Overall, the revelation of superman having a son is supposedly THE BIG TWIST in Returns the writers wanted to save for everyone. that's why they lied when asked about the boy's true parentage in interviews. The focus in the end of superman, much like it will be in the sequel, was on the boy and Superman telling the boy what his father told him.

Assuming everyone wanted superman the film to clearly pattern itself after donner's movie and reuse old dialogue is wrong, I think. but anyway I doubt WB cared much for what fans wanted since a bunch of supey comic fans are not going to make or break anything they release. It's up to the public.

Personally, I just wanted a good fun superman movie I could cherish in my superman collection. I knew they were using some of the donner film's style like on smallville, but with the vague history thing and lois looking like a 12yrld, the new suit, I thought they were going somewhere a little fresher than what we got... a pretty hokey donner-re-mix, with superboy and stalker superman added on top. Parts were good but overall I didn't enjoy it. I hope if there's a sequel they choose a more X2-like approach but even better. These guys can do it.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

Bingo. Nail on the head. I loved the Hulk movie, cuz the psychology was so great in it. Most people went to Hulk movie to see the Hulk cartoon from the 90s in live action. If they read the comics they'd know multiple issues can go by without Hulk ever showing his face, only Bruce Banner. They'd know what the Hulk franchise is about. But they don't, they just want action and were dissappointed by Ang Lee using his brain on the movie.
Same with Superman, people just wanted the 90s cartoon on steroids. I did too at first, but then I saw the trailers... I noticed they were VERY light on action and VERY heavy on Jor-El's speeching and posturing. The Smallville Theme Song has more action than the Superman Returns trailer! I adjusted my expectations. I understand a lot of people who grew up just looking at the pictures in comics or watching the cartoons (like we all did as kids) aren't used to these characters as more than action peices, but I'm so glad that some directors are trying to make these guys more than just kid's stuff.

I can´t go against here on that, Hulk is, IMO, the best comic book movie so far, so...there.
The more i hear that SR doesn´t have that much action and focus heavily on the drama and characterization, the more hyped i am.
But i still don´t like Singer´s vision one bit....

Batman #657 says it's not. Mythos change. Otherwise, there'd never be much of a reason to read the stories.

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

No costume. One Power. The fact is that he's not Superboy. The fact is that he was NOT in the spotlight, nor was he the focus of the story. SR proved that the child is incapable of being Superboy, that he doesn't steal the spotlight and that Superman was still the focus of all the story. If you choose to believe that a sequel will somehow magically be forced to put the boy in costume, make him heroic and give all Superman's screen time to him, then I will be forced to allow you to have your illogical and disproven opinion.

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.

No of course not. No one ever spoke about the Donner films with any negative terms. You, had you been paying attention, would have heard repeated comparisons of the Peters/Nic Cage Superman film to the Donner ones, with various reasons why the Donner films were better and truer to the source material. It didn't make much sense, a new and fresh story like SR would have, but fanboys didn't want that, they wanted the same old same old.

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....

 

[Sub-Zero]

Superman Returns will easily have a sequal. Probably with a villian like Brainiac or Metallo attached. It's going to make 100mil before the weekend is out. I think X3 (which had the largest 3 day weekend openning and the largest EVER dropoff in sales--due in large part to how bad it was) scared people off from Superhero films this summer.

i don't know about that. i hated x3 as well but if you ask any non fanboy moviegoer that saw it they'll say they loved it and that it was a great film. people like crap. plain and simple. sr did bad because people kept bringing up the gay thing and it was really boring to most. i think that they should have went with my idea.(which is posted in the lexcorp thread), but that's just me. there might be a sequel. i want there to be a sequel, but if it doesn't make back the $200+ mil it cost to make i doubt they'll do it anytime soon.

 

[Cdawg751]

Neither is Joel Schumacher is the worst director known to man (not even close), nor is Sam Raimi a genius.
Joel Schumacher is a good director (Phone Booth, Time to Kill, The Client, Falling Down), just wrong for Batman; Raimi is a capable one, with much love for Spider-Man.

Bare in mind that Schumacher wanted to make Batman based on the tv show (wrong, stupid, but there is a reason why the movies went that way), and the Spider-Man, even if good adaptations, lack in the movie department, IMO.
Batman Begins and Hulk are way better movies than the Spider-Mans

Okay i over exaggerated a little Joel isnt the worst but Batman an Robin was pretty bad...But i do think Raimi is the best director for Spiderman. Batman Begins has a more in depth an Emotional Story than the Spiderman films. But the HULK? no way man nooooo way....