Sequels "Going Wrath Of Khan":The Official MOS Action Thread

[Katsuro]

jj abrams would NAIL a superman movie with a good script...

Just as long as the script isn't provided by him. Seriously, Krypton not exploding, wtf Abrams?

 

[bgshw44]

i loved the imagery, but it was definately too dark, the script needed a few more drafts and some more fun rosey elements. Not camp and lex playing w/ his train set, but a fun experience

 

[Excel]

more fun/less serious doe snot mean f4. a good tone for supes is spidey 1.

superman felt more like king kong then spiderman...and i think we know which one it should be. this film isnt a tragedy.

 

[Cats]

It'll be interesting to see Nolan's interpretation of Superman. Or Raimi.

 

[The Master]

Just as long as the script isn't provided by him. Seriously, Krypton not exploding, wtf Abrams?

And let's not forget Lex Luther being from krypton.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

Who said anything about dumbing it down? I just want don't want it to be so somber.

Whether people want to admit it or not, there are a lot of stories where the Superman universe is very somber. I like it when a director takes a more darker, realistic, and emotional approach when it comes to characters like Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man.

If a sequel has Darkseid, Metallo, or Brainiac it can't be lighthearted at all. It needs to be very dark, serious, and gritty to some extent.

 

[The Master]

It'll be interesting to see Nolan's interpretation of Superman. Or Raimi.

Nolan's interpretation would probably be similar to Donner's take on the original Superman movie, given his work on Batman Begins and The Prestige. Maybe not a dark tone, but definately serious. Then again, I've never seen any of Nolan's other films.

I wouldn't want to see Raimi's take. He should stick with the Spider-Man films.

 

[DorkyFresh]

i thought X2 was Singer's best movie, the perfect balance of action and drama...


...hopefully Singer pulls an X2 in terms of balancing the 2 aspects. i want him to take the kind of creativity that he gave Nightcrawler's intro scene and inject it into the sequel.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I wouldn't want to see Raimi's take. He should stick with the Spider-Man films.

But I'm sure HE would love to do a Superman film, with all the homages *coughripoffscough* he puts in his Spidey films. In the 4th one, Spidey will try to disarm the countries and fight Venom in the moon, so the damn goo goes back to space!

 

[Lighthouse]

But I'm sure HE would love to do a Superman film, with all the homages *coughripoffscough* he puts in his Spidey films. In the 4th one, Spidey will try to disarm the countries and fight Venom in the moon, so the damn goo goes back to space!

I've never understood this argument. How does Raimi so blatently rip off Superman?

 

[AgentPat]

LOL, did we watch the same film?

Geeze, I hope so. We'd look pretty silly arguing perceptions about two different films.

I saw a Superman Returns that was epic, elegant, emotional without being cloying, and with a real sense of wonder.

Well, it had a smattering of those qualities in a few places, but the only real memorable sequence in the entire film was the shuttle rescue.

Big deal.

What's the point of epic and elegant if you leave the theater not caring about the characters you just saw? It seemed as if I was expected to automatically relate to and connect with characters whose "history" was assumed based on a prior knowledge of the mythology, not to mention a working familiarity with the first two Reeve films. That just didn't fly with me, no pun intended.

Singer restarted a franchise, but he did so in the most laziest ways I can imagine. Instead of *introducing* the characters, he just assumed we'd care about them because we already knew them. Pfft. I didn't recognize that Lois Lane, and I'm still scratching my head over the actions of his Superman.

Regardless, I didn't leave the theater thinking, "Damn, that was a freakin' AWESOME movie!" I had no unabashedly giddy moments, and the only awe I did experience was through some of the FX. But if you sit there marveling at the effects, then it's just a tour-de-force for the FX team. Bottom line: the film just left me... cold.

Superman's costume is subdued because that's how it appears in the 40's cartoons, which is the look Singer was going for.

Peachy. And guess what? Superman didn't fly in the original comics either. Should Singer have copied that attribute (or lack thereof) too?

Kevin, the costume isn't *that* big of a deal to me, but by "subduing" the colors, Singer metaphorically dulled the character. It went hand in hand with the rest of the film, which I suppose is admirable from a direction POV because at least Singer was consistent.

Honestly, I have no clue what some critics found so superlative in SR. A lot of the acting was flat, the script had no wit, and with the exception of the aforementioned rescue sequence, there wasn't much action. All and all, it was a pretty boring film, which was further made borderline depressing by the under-use of color and daytime sequences.

It's supposded to be about Superman. Where was the Joie de Vivre?

This is the true joy of life.
The being used for a purpose
Recognized by yourself as a mighty one.
The being a force of nature
Instead of a feverish, selfish
Little clod of ailments and grievances
Complaining that the world will not
Devote itself to making you happy.
I am of the opinion that my life
Belongs to the whole community
And as long as I live,
It is my privilege to do for it
Whatever I can.
I want to be thoroughly
Used up when I die,
For the harder I work the more I live.
I rejoice in life for its own sake.
Life is no brief candle to me.
It is a sort of splendid torch
Which I've got hold of
For the moment
And I want to make it burn
As brightly as possible before
Handling it on to future generations

- George Bernard Shaw​

agentpat who would you like for the director?

we need spielberg and bay action if they want to make a better profit with the sequel.

Is there any genre Spielberg isn't good at directing? Spielberg knows how to pull at the heart strings *and* deliver rollercoaster-like adventure. Raiders of the Lost Ark, anybody? I think Michael Bay (with Bruckheimer producing) could do wonderful things with Superman too.

Meh. It's easy to Monday Morning Quarterback directors, but truth be told you'll never know who's best for the job till the person delivers a product. Donner was a TV director with a horror film under his belt. Who'da thunk? Byran Singer successfully brought X-Men to the screen and did a fantastic job. Who'da thunk he'd Marvelize Superman too?

I dunno. I guess I've just been spoiled by event films that are exhilarating from start to finish as well as having characters I could laugh and cry with thoughout the movie. There were a few chuckles in SR, nothing to cry over, absolutely ZERO romance - comedic or otherwise - between Lois and Superman (which is ironic considering Singer's "chick flick" comments), and all of maybe two and a half scenes that were truly "wow" worthy. Other than that, it was a disappointing film for me. Routh didn't do anything for me either, though I admit I didn't expect he would.

Oh well. Anyhoo... I'm done with Singer's continuity going forward. Unless he or Warners does a serious dust and clean (more fun, less depressing), I'll just wait to see any sequel(s) till they hit cable.

 

[Lighthouse]

Geeze, I hope so. We'd look pretty silly arguing perceptions about two different films.

Well, it had a smattering of those qualities in a few places, but the only real memorable sequence in the entire film was the shuttle rescue.

Big deal.

What's the point of epic and elegant if you leave the theater not caring about the characters you just saw? It seemed as if I was expected to automatically relate to and connect with characters whose "history" was assumed based on a prior knowledge of the mythology, not to mention a working familiarity with the first two Reeve films. That just didn't fly with me, no pun intended.

Singer restarted a franchise, but he did so in the most laziest ways I can imagine. Instead of *introducing* the characters, he just assumed we'd care about them because we already knew them. Pfft. I didn't recognize that Lois Lane, and I'm still scratching my head over the actions of his Superman.

Regardless, I didn't leave the theater thinking, "Damn, that was a freakin' AWESOME movie!" I had no unabashedly giddy moments, and the only awe I did experience was through some of the FX. But if you sit there marveling at the effects, then it's just a tour-de-force for the FX team. Bottom line: the film just left me... cold.

Peachy. And guess what? Superman didn't fly in the original comics either. Should Singer have copied that attribute (or lack thereof) too?

Kevin, the costume isn't *that* big of a deal to me, but by "subduing" the colors, Singer metaphorically dulled the character. It went hand in hand with the rest of the film, which I suppose is admirable from a direction POV because at least Singer was consistent.

Honestly, I have no clue what some critics found so superlative in SR. A lot of the acting was flat, the script had no wit, and with the exception of the aforementioned rescue sequence, there wasn't much action. All and all, it was a pretty boring film, which was further made borderline depressing by the under-use of color and daytime sequences.

It's supposded to be about Superman. Where was the Joie de Vivre?

This is the true joy of life.
The being used for a purpose
Recognized by yourself as a mighty one.
The being a force of nature
Instead of a feverish, selfish
Little clod of ailments and grievances
Complaining that the world will not
Devote itself to making you happy.
I am of the opinion that my life
Belongs to the whole community
And as long as I live,
It is my privilege to do for it
Whatever I can.
I want to be thoroughly
Used up when I die,
For the harder I work the more I live.
I rejoice in life for its own sake.
Life is no brief candle to me.
It is a sort of splendid torch
Which I've got hold of
For the moment
And I want to make it burn
As brightly as possible before
Handling it on to future generations

- George Bernard Shaw​

Is there any genre Spielberg isn't good at directing? Spielberg knows how to pull at the heart strings *and* deliver rollercoaster-like adventure. Raiders of the Lost Ark, anybody? I think Michael Bay (with Bruckheimer producing) could do wonderful things with Superman too.

Meh. It's easy to Monday Morning Quarterback directors, but truth be told you'll never know who's best for the job till the person delivers a product. Donner was a TV director with a horror film under his belt. Who'da thunk? Byran Singer successfully brought X-Men to the screen and did a fantastic job. Who'da thunk he'd Marvelize Superman too?

I dunno. I guess I've just been spoiled by event films that are exhilarating from start to finish as well as having characters I could laugh and cry with thoughout the movie. There were a few chuckles in SR, nothing to cry over, absolutely ZERO romance - comedic or otherwise - between Lois and Superman (which is ironic considering Singer's "chick flick" comments), and all of maybe two and a half scenes that were truly "wow" worthy. Other than that, it was a disappointing film for me. Routh didn't do anything for me either, though I admit I didn't expect he would.

Oh well. Anyhoo... I'm done with Singer's continuity going forward. Unless he or Warners does a serious dust and clean (more fun, less depressing), I'll just wait to see any sequel(s) till they hit cable.

Damnit why can't I write like this? Agree 100% Pat(well except for Michael Bay).

All in all, I think SR isn't a bad movie by any means. I think the cinematography, production design, and VFX are outstanding. I have no doubt that Singer loves the character, and I think he "gets" what the character is about(I'm one of the few who thinks he doesn't really have to base everything from the comics). Singer is also really good at some iconic shots. The scene of him hovering over Earth, and descending into the Fortress are truely breathtaking. The script, the editing and some of the actors I was extremely disappointed with. The thing that upsets me isn't really SR itself, but its the same problem Mark Millar has with the movie. Its a huge missed opportunity. And it saddens me that I will probably have to wait another 20 to 30 years to see a new Superman franchise, which also has no guarantee of being great.

 

[Showtime]

Indeed! The perfect director for Superman.

Not!

Singer's a good director, but I have no interest in seeing any more Superman films made by him, especially ones that portray a beyotchy Lois Lane, a glum and downtrodden Superman complete with SuperSpawn, color-muted costumes, gloomy, dystopian art deco, and an overall somber world populated with joyless people. You just can't unring that bell. He's committed to continuing what he started, unfortunately.

Personally I like Metropolis presented as an art deco marvel and the citizens painted in subdued tones. Superman stands out much more in this enviorment as a beacon of hope.

Correct me if I am wrong but but that show that is on once a week about Clark Kent features a pretty "beyotchy" Lois.

 

[Lighthouse]

Personally I like Metropolis presented as an art deco marvel and the citizens painted in subdued tones. Superman stands out much more in this enviorment as a beacon of hope.

Correct me if I am wrong but but that show that is on once a week about Clark Kent features a pretty "beyotchy" Lois.

True, but this is Lois before she matures into the sophisticated reporter we all know and love. She is beyotchy, but you can tell she has a big soft spot for Clark. Bosworth's Lois couldn't give two youknowwhats about Clark. "Relationship?" Geez, thats really cold.

EDIT: This reminds me about another small gripe I had about SR. In a movie thats supposed to be all about fathers and sons, Jonathan Kent is not mentioned once.

 

[O'Haire]

The Sequel will probably start out light and fun. But once the villain comes into the picture it will darken up then lighten up if Supes defeats him.

 

[dude stannis]

^haha. singer in general doe snot make light movies....and i do not mean script. the look of all of his movies is very dark, gothic, and overcast.

Have you actually seen any other Bryan Singer movies?

 

[Batman1939]

What we need is more action!

 

[Matt]

"Fun" is fine, as long as it's not a bunch of ****** scriptwriters having "fun" destroying the name of Superman.

A bunch of screenwriters making Superman overly dramatic/tragic can do the same ammount of damage if not more.

 

[November Rain]

keep the serious tone...

 

[Matt]

Geeze, I hope so. We'd look pretty silly arguing perceptions about two different films.

Well, it had a smattering of those qualities in a few places, but the only real memorable sequence in the entire film was the shuttle rescue.

Big deal.

What's the point of epic and elegant if you leave the theater not caring about the characters you just saw? It seemed as if I was expected to automatically relate to and connect with characters whose "history" was assumed based on a prior knowledge of the mythology, not to mention a working familiarity with the first two Reeve films. That just didn't fly with me, no pun intended.

Singer restarted a franchise, but he did so in the most laziest ways I can imagine. Instead of *introducing* the characters, he just assumed we'd care about them because we already knew them. Pfft. I didn't recognize that Lois Lane, and I'm still scratching my head over the actions of his Superman.

Regardless, I didn't leave the theater thinking, "Damn, that was a freakin' AWESOME movie!" I had no unabashedly giddy moments, and the only awe I did experience was through some of the FX. But if you sit there marveling at the effects, then it's just a tour-de-force for the FX team. Bottom line: the film just left me... cold.

Peachy. And guess what? Superman didn't fly in the original comics either. Should Singer have copied that attribute (or lack thereof) too?

Kevin, the costume isn't *that* big of a deal to me, but by "subduing" the colors, Singer metaphorically dulled the character. It went hand in hand with the rest of the film, which I suppose is admirable from a direction POV because at least Singer was consistent.

Honestly, I have no clue what some critics found so superlative in SR. A lot of the acting was flat, the script had no wit, and with the exception of the aforementioned rescue sequence, there wasn't much action. All and all, it was a pretty boring film, which was further made borderline depressing by the under-use of color and daytime sequences.

It's supposded to be about Superman. Where was the Joie de Vivre?

This is the true joy of life.
The being used for a purpose
Recognized by yourself as a mighty one.
The being a force of nature
Instead of a feverish, selfish
Little clod of ailments and grievances
Complaining that the world will not
Devote itself to making you happy.
I am of the opinion that my life
Belongs to the whole community
And as long as I live,
It is my privilege to do for it
Whatever I can.
I want to be thoroughly
Used up when I die,
For the harder I work the more I live.
I rejoice in life for its own sake.
Life is no brief candle to me.
It is a sort of splendid torch
Which I've got hold of
For the moment
And I want to make it burn
As brightly as possible before
Handling it on to future generations

- George Bernard Shaw​

Is there any genre Spielberg isn't good at directing? Spielberg knows how to pull at the heart strings *and* deliver rollercoaster-like adventure. Raiders of the Lost Ark, anybody? I think Michael Bay (with Bruckheimer producing) could do wonderful things with Superman too.

Meh. It's easy to Monday Morning Quarterback directors, but truth be told you'll never know who's best for the job till the person delivers a product. Donner was a TV director with a horror film under his belt. Who'da thunk? Byran Singer successfully brought X-Men to the screen and did a fantastic job. Who'da thunk he'd Marvelize Superman too?

I dunno. I guess I've just been spoiled by event films that are exhilarating from start to finish as well as having characters I could laugh and cry with thoughout the movie. There were a few chuckles in SR, nothing to cry over, absolutely ZERO romance - comedic or otherwise - between Lois and Superman (which is ironic considering Singer's "chick flick" comments), and all of maybe two and a half scenes that were truly "wow" worthy. Other than that, it was a disappointing film for me. Routh didn't do anything for me either, though I admit I didn't expect he would.

Oh well. Anyhoo... I'm done with Singer's continuity going forward. Unless he or Warners does a serious dust and clean (more fun, less depressing), I'll just wait to see any sequel(s) till they hit cable.

I never thought I'd say it but....I agree with Pat Well said!

 

[FlawlessVictory]

i loved the imagery, but it was definately too dark, the script needed a few more drafts and some more fun rosey elements. Not camp and lex playing w/ his train set, but a fun experience

more fun/less serious doe snot mean f4. a good tone for supes is spidey 1.

superman felt more like king kong then spiderman...and i think we know which one it should be. this film isnt a tragedy.

Totally agreed.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

True, but this is Lois before she matures into the sophisticated reporter we all know and love. She is beyotchy, but you can tell she has a big soft spot for Clark. Bosworth's Lois couldn't give two youknowwhats about Clark. "Relationship?" Geez, thats really cold.

Lois Lane's characterization really bothered me in this movie. She was a total beyotch to Clark(slamming the stapler down when she gave it back to him, the relationship comment, the comment "This is Clark, well he's Clark" when introducing him to Richard etc.). How can Superman/Clark possibly like this woman after the way she treats Clark? At least in the Donner movies she tried helping Clark by giving him advice but there is nothing too redeeming about Lois towards Clark in SR.

Also, she seems so whiney in the movie, like when she drops her purse or when she's complaining to Perry about not doing the story she wants to do(flailing her arms in the process). And I love how she lies to Richard by telling him she never loved Superman. So, I guess she slept with Superman but didn't love him. I also love how she leaves her cell phone in the car when investigating the blackout and then brings Jason in the yacht with her!!

 

[ultimatefan]

To be honest, I didn´t feel like the movie was overly serious, there were plenty of light and humorous moments, of course the Superman/Lois thing was more dramatic, but it´s the conflict, a movie needs a character conflict, the third act was more serious, but it´s supposed to be. I didn´t feel it was that much darker or more solemn than the Spider-Man movies, for instance. I totally don´t get this "depressed Superman" thing, the guy has a few sad scenes in the movie, that already makes him mopey? I can actually barely count how many times you see Clark or Superman smiling in the movie...

 

[Matt]

To be honest, I didn´t feel like the movie was overly serious, there were plenty of light and humorous moments, of course the Superman/Lois thing was more dramatic, but it´s the conflict, a movie needs a character conflict, the third act was more serious, but it´s supposed to be. I didn´t feel it was that much darker or more solemn than the Spider-Man movies, for instance.

Really? I think the only light hearted aspects were Kitty to an extent and the kid running around with a garbage can on his head. I can't think of many other light aspects.

 

[ultimatefan]

Really? I think the only light hearted aspects were Kitty to an extent and the kid running around with a garbage can on his head. I can't think of many other light aspects.

What are you talking about? there were a bunch of light moments, Clark has a lot of them, Clark with Jimmy, Clark with Lois and Richard, the moment when Superman rescues the plane and the crowd cheers is clearly upbeat. The ending is a bit bittersweet but optimistic too.