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

[Ultimate_Superman]

Absolutely. Another thing that should ahve remained in the movie and that could have taken like only a few seconds of film.

I think it would have been great to have kept that in the movie because on one hand it makes you feel bad for Superman because you see that Lex is the reason why he lost everything. I mean he returned to Krypton with such high hopes of seeing his family (see shooting script and Novel) only to see nothing but the bones of some and the destruction of Krypton (see Script and Novel). I mean this was a great sub plot that should have stayed because it in turns just shows you how smart and evil Lex really is. Which is why if you watch the movie you do see him some what talking about when he was beating up Superman when he says " You took away five years of my life I was just returning the favor." This is why I say super villain aside Superman Returns was a great well written movie it was just edit poorly. Because everything you read in the shooting script is in the movie but just on the cutting floor.

 

[Showtime]

As most of you know, my biggest problem is with the editing, and I have told anybody that would list to read the script. I really wanted them to keep Lex being responsible for Superman's journey to Krypton in the movie, but now that I think about it, Lex made up the whole thing but Superman actually ended up finding Krypton. I thought that was kind of strange.

 

[X-Maniac]

As most of you know, my biggest problem is with the editing, and I have told anybody that would list to read the script. I really wanted them to keep Lex being responsible for Superman's journey to Krypton in the movie, but now that I think about it, Lex made up the whole thing but Superman actually ended up finding Krypton. I thought that was kind of strange.

You're right. If Lex made it up - and then large chunks of the planet WERE still there, it would be a plothole. If it really was still there, why was it a fact known only to Lex and the astronomer who found it?The press would feature this story. In fact, a newspaper headline somewhere in a cut scene on the DVD shows such a headline.

All this doesn't make sense.

 

[Ultimate_Superman]

As most of you know, my biggest problem is with the editing, and I have told anybody that would list to read the script. I really wanted them to keep Lex being responsible for Superman's journey to Krypton in the movie, but now that I think about it, Lex made up the whole thing but Superman actually ended up finding Krypton. I thought that was kind of strange.

Not really he always knew where it was but never had any reason to go back there since it was pretty much gone. When he did finally go back he saw what he thought was Krypton but only turned out to be a small part of Krypton. Which is also why I say the scene where Superman is flying towards New Krypton is also important in a matter of speaking. Because if you remember the teaser trailer you see Superman in his ship flying through that same part of Krypton only to see death and this time you see him flying through that same part on New Krypton only to see life and what could have been. Which is why I think Singer shot those two parts to look the same. As I said before the movie was well written and IMO could have been the best Superman movie ever had they edit it right.

 

[Ultimate_Superman]

You're right. If Lex made it up - and then large chunks of the planet WERE still there, it would be a plothole. If it really was still there, why was it a fact known only to Lex and the astronomer who found it?The press would feature this story. In fact, a newspaper headline somewhere in a cut scene on the DVD shows such a headline.

All this doesn't make sense.

Yes it does if you read the script Lex goes on to explain that most newspapers and the media is so worried about getting the scoop that they don't bother to check their source. Which is true pretty much.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

You all know I liked Superman Returns, but I see the problems there.

That being said, if it were me. Superman would have told three people he was leaving and three people only in my version.

1) Lois
2) President
3) Ma Kent

It would have been just as powerful if Lois knew why Superman left but she still moved on with a kid and a fiance.

I think that it would've been MORE powerful if Lois knew why he left and still moved on with a kid and a fiance.

Absolutely. Another thing that should ahve remained in the movie and that could have taken like only a few seconds of film.

Agree with all of you on all points.

The only thing is if Superman did tell Lois he was leaving, and then she still moved on without him, it would have possibly made Lois very unsympathetic.

But yeah, i still agree it would have been a better storyline.

 

[El Payaso]

The only thing is if Superman did tell Lois he was leaving, and then she still moved on without him, it would have possibly made Lois very unsympathetic.

I see your point.

I have two angles on this.

About the plot:

I think it could be very understandable for her to move on as soon as possible. To try and avoid the pain coming from that separation. And of course, she would still be thinking Superman should have stayed with her. It doesn't require an unsympathetic woman to feel like that.



Now about Lois:

For me, Lois has always been a woman that enjoys being "in love" when actually she's merely stunned by Superman's powers, suit and muscles.

She claims to be in love with the man but truth is the man works with her and she's unable to see him. She's merely a power-hungry shallow girl that dreams with big things to possess for her own pleasure. Pulitzer Prize, fame and Superman.

I can accept that in her character and accept Superman is in love with her in spite of her shallowness (which adds to Superman a human angle, he loves his girl in spite of her imperfections).

My point is that she has been like that since forever.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I see your point.

I have two angles on this.

About the plot:

I think it could be very understandable for her to move on as soon as possible. To try and avoid the pain coming from that separation. And of course, she would still be thinking Superman should have stayed with her. It doesn't require an unsympathetic woman to feel like that.

I think it would come accross as understandable if, when Superman told her he was leaving, he said there is a chance he may not return for a long time or at all (which i think there were echoes of in SR, Superman possibly not returning i mean).

Now about Lois:

For me, Lois has always been a woman that enjoys being "in love" when actually she's merely stunned by Superman's powers, suit and muscles.

She claims to be in love with the man but truth is the man works with her and she's unable to see him. She's merely a power-hungry shallow girl that dreams with big things to possess for her own pleasure. Pulitzer Prize, fame and Superman.

I can accept that in her character and accept Superman is in love with her in spite of her shallowness (which adds to Superman a human angle, he loves his girl in spite of her imperfections).

My point is that she has been like that since forever.

This is very true El Payaso, but in SR, i dont feel she was entirely portrayed in this way, so changes would have had to be made to her character IMO.

 

[El Payaso]

I think it would come accross as understandable if, when Superman told her he was leaving, he said there is a chance he may not return for a long time or at all (which i think there were echoes of in SR, Superman possibly not returning i mean).

Yes. Of course.

Lois feels threatened by him. Naturally there's a lot of her ego involved and all. She understyand that Superman has a duty with his own blood but she feels she's losing too much by letting him go.

Finally, as a way to balance and justify her loss, she blames him. He could have stayed next to her, but he didn't.

This is very true El Payaso, but in SR, i dont feel she was entirely portrayed in this way, so changes would have had to be made to her character IMO.

SR was the first time (along with Superman II, but only after she knows Superman is Clark) when I saw Lois truly in love with Superman. But at the same time she's more despiteful to Clark than ever.

 

[dark_b]

ehh the way she was to clark..............was really bad. but i guess from the disguse standpoint it was perfect.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Yes. Of course.

Lois feels threatened by him. Naturally there's a lot of her ego involved and all. She understyand that Superman has a duty with his own blood but she feels she's losing too much by letting him go.

Finally, as a way to balance and justify her loss, she blames him. He could have stayed next to her, but he didn't.

True, and its quite possible she is envious of the fact that he has to perform his duties, but still it would make her look cold-hearted if she moved on anyway, unless of course Superman told her he may not return, which was a strong possibility even in SR IMO.

SR was the first time (along with Superman II, but only after she knows Superman is Clark) when I saw Lois truly in love with Superman. But at the same time she's more despiteful to Clark than ever.

All of this is true, i'll agree she has always come accross as a somewhat stubborn and shallow woman, but in SR, i truly think she was in love with him, which still doesnt excuse her treatment of Clark.

ehh the way she was to clark..............was really bad. but i guess from the disguse standpoint it was perfect.

It was clever from a disguise point of view because if you notice, Lois very rarely looks Clark in the face in SR, and whenever she does, its never for more than a few seconds.

It did make Lois to seem a bit of a ***** though.

 

[Retroman]

Daily Planet will be same if the sequel so they've already saved money on that.

From Hollywood Lot Magazine:

Inside the Daily Planet - Superman Returns Set Design

By: Joe Tracy, Publisher of Hollywood Lot Magazine

One of the most used set designs in Superman Returns was the Daily Planet building where Superman is a clumsy reporter keeping an eye on Lois Lane. The building was created by production designer Guy Hendrix Dyas who wanted the building to be classic Art Deco, but with modern upgrades, particularly to the interior. It’s something director Bryan Singer had a deep appreciation for when he saw the designs.

“I think Guy did a brilliant job in blending the Deco feeling of the exterior façade and the interior lobby with the latest in plasma televisions and flat screen computer monitors in the bullpen,” comments Singer. “Here again, the old and the new combined to become timeless.”

But the building didn’t just sprout up overnight in Australia, where the movie was filmed. The design phase alone for The Daily Planet building took six months. It then took another four months to build and another month to properly light it, using approximately 3,000 lights. And to appease the director, the building was created with great detail.

“Bryan likes sets to have layers upon layers of detail so with the Daily Planet I was able to let my imagination run wild,” says Dyas. “Early in pre-production we did some research and visited the original Daily News building in New York which was designed in 1929 by Raymond Hood. That marvelous period of American Art Deco architecture was hugely influential on my designs, especially for the interior of the editorial office of the Daily Planet newspaper. And even though we wanted the film to be contemporary in style, I was inspired by the 1930s mode of geometric designs, glass and bold colors.”

While many of the sets for Superman Returns were constructed within stage buildings, The Daily Planet set was way too big. To solve the problem, the set was built between two soundstages at Fox’s Australia studios.

“Believe it or not, building it outside worked really well,” says Dyas. “The weather was fantastic and we were able to fill the nearby roads with yellow cabs, busses, and other street traffic. We also transformed an adjacent area into a mini Central Park and added a subway station. It was definitely one of our most challenging sets to build.”

For the interior newsroom, Dyas was going for a look that was realistic and not contrived. He wanted it to be fun to look at, but very realistic for a newspaper setting.

So what happened to the entire Daily Planet set when filming concluded? It was carefully taken apart and stored, awaiting confirmation of the next movie when the set will be taken out and reconstructed. After all, the Daily Planet offices will never rest as long as Superman is needed. Besides, Superman sells newspapers.

Source:http://www.hollywoodlot.com/superman-returns/set-design-feature.html

 

[dark_b]

''But the building didn’t just sprout up overnight in Australia, where the movie was filmed. The design phase alone for The Daily Planet building took six months. It then took another four months to build and another month to properly light it, using approximately 3,000 lights. And to appease the director, the building was created with great detail''

sounds like it cost tons of money ot make this. detaisl? f... the details. i never saw the details. this is money thrown away.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

''But the building didn’t just sprout up overnight in Australia, where the movie was filmed. The design phase alone for The Daily Planet building took six months. It then took another four months to build and another month to properly light it, using approximately 3,000 lights. And to appease the director, the building was created with great detail''

sounds like it cost tons of money ot make this. detaisl? f... the details. i never saw the details. this is money thrown away.

It's not about whether you see the details or not. It's about the mood you convey. Did it feel like a real newspaper department? What's the point of having so many extras if you aren't going to talk to them? To make the scene feel real.

We've all seen bad sci-fi movies or shows were it looks like a soundstage or rushed.

 

[Sidepocket]

Lost on the filmmakers apparently was the fact that Bruce Wayne spent half the story/movie apparently hating his parents legacy and then ruining it in the public eye, and then BAM, when the manor comes down on top of him, he's suddenly all weepy and repentant about it for some reason, even though what's happening is not remotely his fault, and even though he has previously shown no desire to give a damn about his parents legacy,

First off, I hate Superman Returns. I mainly hate it because it had so many good things going for it, but screwed it up beyond salvageable. I could go in detail, but I will spare people that for now.

However, I would like to quickly contest the misguided view you just posted above. Maybe, maybe you saw a different cut of Batman Begins than I did.

But I did not.

He did not said in the movie "I have failed my parents." Maybe you have hearing problems? No, this is an exact quote of what he said.

Bruce: What have I done Alfred? Everything that my family...that my father built...

Alfred: The Wayne Legacy, is more than bricks and mortars sir!

Bruce: I wanted to save Gotham...I failed.

Big difference than what you stated.

Bruce would love to forget his parents. However, I think everybody always has conflicted love with there parents. Not only would he like to forget the past because it hurts him too much, but he saw his parents that while noble were foolish because they never took action. They built the city and improved it structurally, but he never thought they actually helped the people.

However things change with what Ras tells him. That they originally tried to ruin the city economically to have the city destroy it self. The only people who ever stood up to him were his parents. They gave everything about them self to make sure Gotham did not economically collapse to prevent it's future doom and when they gave the last thing they could give...there lives...it shocked Gotham back into apathy. As Bruce said, people need dramatic examples to make people do this.

Bruce however was selfish at the time. Like Alfred said, Bruce was making this personal fight. A fight for revenge on his inner demons. To be a true hero, he has to be selfless or he is just another vigilante.

When Ras came in that night, Bruce's whole plans seemed to have been for nothing. Ras out trumped him all along, checkmated him. Ras is better and more powerful, they make great pains in the movie to show that Bruce was always nothing compared to Ras.

Ras also warned Bruce about compassion. If Bruce had made sure everyone in the LoS did not make it out alive, all these people now would not be dead and ruined. But no, due to Bruce's "flaw" Gotham was now going to suffer under the fear gas. This was Bruce's perception in the Batcave.

He was mad about failing his parents because they stood for Gotham, which is what he was truly mad at.

He wanted to save Gotham and at that moment he failed.

Besides, who said he was going to give up? He was just depressed. Hell, many people when bad things happen to them want to kill them selfs. Most people do not go through it, because there depressions leaves. Often by talking to someone who can lift your spirits even though you think it is the end of the world with no hope in sight. Insert Alfred.

That is what I love about how Ras goes down. Ra's biggest flaw is that he cannot understand the good in people. He has no concept of hope. That is why I love that Ras is not beaten by Batman directly, but from a lowly "rent a cop". t:

 

[Angeloz]

First off, I hate Superman Returns. I mainly hate it because it had so many good things going for it, but screwed it up beyond salvageable. I could go in detail, but I will spare people that for now.

However, I would like to quickly contest the misguided view you just posted above. Maybe, maybe you saw a different cut of Batman Begins than I did.

But I did not.

He did not said in the movie "I have failed my parents." Maybe you have hearing problems? No, this is an exact quote of what he said.

Bruce: What have I done Alfred? Everything that my family...that my father built...

Alfred: The Wayne Legacy, is more than bricks and mortars sir!

Bruce: I wanted to save Gotham...I failed.

Big difference than what you stated.

Bruce would love to forget his parents. However, I think everybody always has conflicted love with there parents. Not only would he like to forget the past because it hurts him too much, but he saw his parents that while noble were foolish because they never took action. They built the city and improved it structurally, but he never thought they actually helped the people.

However things change with what Ras tells him. That they originally tried to ruin the city economically to have the city destroy it self. The only people who ever stood up to him were his parents. They gave everything about them self to make sure Gotham did not economically collapse to prevent it's future doom and when they gave the last thing they could give...there lives...it shocked Gotham back into apathy. As Bruce said, people need dramatic examples to make people do this.

Bruce however was selfish at the time. Like Alfred said, Bruce was making this personal fight. A fight for revenge on his inner demons. To be a true hero, he has to be selfless or he is just another vigilante.

When Ras came in that night, Bruce's whole plans seemed to have been for nothing. Ras out trumped him all along, checkmated him. Ras is better and more powerful, they make great pains in the movie to show that Bruce was always nothing compared to Ras.

Ras also warned Bruce about compassion. If Bruce had made sure everyone in the LoS did not make it out alive, all these people now would not be dead and ruined. But no, due to Bruce's "flaw" Gotham was now going to suffer under the fear gas. This was Bruce's perception in the Batcave.

He was mad about failing his parents because they stood for Gotham, which is what he was truly mad at.

He wanted to save Gotham and at that moment he failed.

Besides, who said he was going to give up? He was just depressed. Hell, many people when bad things happen to them want to kill them selfs. Most people do not go through it, because there depressions leaves. Often by talking to someone who can lift your spirits even though you think it is the end of the world with no hope in sight. Insert Alfred.

That is what I love about how Ras goes down. Ra's biggest flaw is that he cannot understand the good in people. He has no concept of hope. That is why I love that Ras is not beaten by Batman directly, but from a lowly "rent a cop". t:

Interesting thoughts. I like them. Although I disagree with you about "Superman Returns" and I'm not so sure about Bruce's parents. But we don't know them very much. Plus I thought they were supposed to be killed because they were doing something for Gotham (although I haven't seen the film too recently so could remember it wrong). Also if his father was a practising Doctor then he could of helped many people depending on which type of doctor (eg. emergency or operating a Free Clinic). But as I said it's kind of sketchy on that type of information (or I don't remember it). It's not certain how much Bruce knows about that either (probably more than us because he has Alfred to tell him).

Angeloz

 

[Timstuff]

I still don't understand how a smaller budget with the same director is supposed to make the movie better. SR cost 250 million and it was dull as the dishwasher. If SR2 costs $150 million and is still helmed by Singer, it will probably be even worse.

 

[Pickle-El]

I still don't understand how a smaller budget with the same director is supposed to make the movie better.

Use your imagination.

 

[boog_spin]

i think batman begins has quite a bit of problems...the batmobile jumps from building top to building top? batman drives the batmobile over police cars..crushing them...and not one is seriously hurt? he causes possibly millions of dollars of damage to public property and nobody cares?

remember when he is actually doing this..its for selfish reasons..hes saving rachel....he basically doesnt give a damn about anybody is his way....if this was the end of the movie where he was trying to save the whole freaking city then i could see people overlooking this...

for me, BB was a good movie...i just don't get all the love and "best comic book movie of all time" stuff....

but then again..this is IMO.

thanks

 

[C. Lee]

I still don't understand how a smaller budget with the same director is supposed to make the movie better. SR cost 250 million and it was dull as the dishwasher. If SR2 costs $150 million and is still helmed by Singer, it will probably be even worse.

A smaller budget requires a director to concieve a movie from a whole different perspective than if it has a humongous budget. You have to be more careful with your FX, tighten up the writing, put what you film on the screen (not leave whole sections sitting in vault unaired)......

 

[boog_spin]

A smaller budget requires a director to concieve a movie from a whole different perspective than if it has a humongous budget. You have to be more careful with your FX, tighten up the writing, put what you film on the screen (not leave whole sections sitting in vault unaired)......

yeh...makes you focus a little more...i'm guessing a lot less likely to leave a $10 million dollar scene in the vault.....

 

[Angeloz]

A smaller budget requires a director to concieve a movie from a whole different perspective than if it has a humongous budget. You have to be more careful with your FX, tighten up the writing, put what you film on the screen (not leave whole sections sitting in vault unaired)......

You forgot to add some humans have the ability to learn. Which includes the ability to try to improve themselves or what they want to achieve. Like "Wrath of Khan" was better than the "Motionless Picture". On a lesser budget too. Hmmm he mentioned that film...

Angeloz

 

[Nightwing1977]

Like "Wrath of Khan" was better than the "Motionless Picture". On a lesser budget too. Hmmm he mentioned that film...

Angeloz

Singer is a Trekkie. He tend to mention Star Trek sometime.

 

[Sidepocket]

i think batman begins has quite a bit of problems...the batmobile jumps from building top to building top? batman drives the batmobile over police cars..crushing them...and not one is seriously hurt? he causes possibly millions of dollars of damage to public property and nobody cares?

remember when he is actually doing this..its for selfish reasons..hes saving rachel....he basically doesnt give a damn about anybody is his way....if this was the end of the movie where he was trying to save the whole freaking city then i could see people overlooking this...

for me, BB was a good movie...i just don't get all the love and "best comic book movie of all time" stuff....

but then again..this is IMO.

thanks

That was the whole point up until the whole Ra's return.

Oh and with the bold, welcome to Newark, NJ...Gotham's real world equivalent.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

The last time Singer went "all Wrath of Khan," he gave the world X2: X-Men United.

WB is definitely going to have more of a say in The Man of Steel than they did with Returns...and that's a good thing imo.

In the case of both of his X-Men films, Singer had to cut corners left and right (especially with the first one!) As great as I think he is, he does require...some restraint at time. He's going to be forced to work around the reduced budget this time out.

Of course by "reduced budget," I'm referring to the $170-180 million WB is going to fork over to produce the sequel. So it's not like we're talking a shoe-string budget and what not.