Superman Returns How Do You Feel About Singer NOW Thread

[The Guard]

I don't think it's going to be six years. A long time, but not quite that long. And as far as length goes, about 2 hours and 20 minutes, I'm guessing.

 

[DIRECTOR]

as long as it's enough to rehash the relationships, navigate through the flashbacks, and have a good story for the Villian as well, than i'm set. I will be happy if the film was 3 hours, but looking at Singer's past history, the movie will not go over 2 and a half hours

 

[Dangerman]

I feel Singer's heart is in the right place but his casting is a bit off. The story I really can't talk to much about because really no one knows what the script looks like so I won't judge that yet. Though I don't get the fact that Superman and Clark both leave for six years. I think it would work better if Clark was still working at the planet just not wearing the outfit anymore.

 

[DIRECTOR]

I feel Singer's heart is in the right place but his casting is a bit off. The story I really can't talk to much about because really no one knows what the script looks like so I won't judge that yet. Though I don't get the fact that Superman and Clark both leave for six years. I think it would work better if Clark was still working at the planet just not wearing the outfit anymore.

if that is the case, than people will compare that to Spiderman 2's plot

 

[Dangerman]

if that is the case, than people will compare that to Spiderman 2's plot

I know but thats the only way it could really work. I mean Clark showing back up the same time Superman does. People would see to much into that.

 

[green]

I feel Singer's heart is in the right place but his casting is a bit off. The story I really can't talk to much about because really no one knows what the script looks like so I won't judge that yet. Though I don't get the fact that Superman and Clark both leave for six years. I think it would work better if Clark was still working at the planet just not wearing the outfit anymore.

Clarks gotta be gone too. Can you really see horrible things happening in Metropolis and Clark/Superman doing nothing about it? That would be hard to believe, although if he didnt have his powers it would eat him alive to have to see these things occurring.

 

[Dangerman]

Clarks gotta be gone too. Can you really see horrible things happening in Metropolis and Clark/Superman doing nothing about it? That would be hard to believe, although if he didnt have his powers it would eat him alive to have to see these things occurring.

But it would also be to hard to believe that Superman and Clark are not one in the same since the both show back p around the same time.

 

[green]

But it would also be to hard to believe that Superman and Clark are not one in the same since the both show back p around the same time.

Yeah, I know.....without knowing the reason why he leaves, its all just pure speculation at this point. Hopefully the writers have come up with a damb good explanation for all this madness!!!!!!

 

[DIRECTOR]

well.........

with the SupermanHomepage mp3 audio, what do you think of Singer now, going in the right direction?

 

[Pickle-El]

The same way we did before the mp3 surfaced.

I'm sure you feel the same way as well.

 

[M.O.Steel]

Clarks gotta be gone too. Can you really see horrible things happening in Metropolis and Clark/Superman doing nothing about it? That would be hard to believe, although if he didnt have his powers it would eat him alive to have to see these things occurring.

Well according to the interview, they are both gone and doign a little soul-searching. Which makes you wonder the explanation for CK's disappearance.

 

[DIRECTOR]

i know right? How would they explain that? It's not like Clark took a 5 year vacation

I hope Singer can pull of that angle. I don't like the mention from Singer about Clark being the character of the dorky, like in the older films. Singer should go with the Clark from the TAS

 

[The Sage]

i know right? How would they explain that? It's not like Clark took a 5 year vacation

I hope Singer can pull of that angle. I don't like the mention from Singer about Clark being the character of the dorky, like in the older films. Singer should go with the Clark from the TAS

He should go with the Clark from the comics, who's a bit bumbling and mild-mannered. Wait a minute...

 

[DIRECTOR]

was Christopher Reeves acted mildmannered? How did he act inthe film? How do u describe it?

 

[C. Lee]

i know right? How would they explain that? It's not like Clark took a 5 year vacation

He's a reporter....he could say he was on a great undercover assignment.

There are several people that I used to work with, they left our company to go work at another...or so they say....I haven't heard from then since....could they be on another planet?

People move to different cities and countries to start a new life all the time....there doesn't have to be an elaborate explanation....they just do it.

 

[The Sage]

was Christopher Reeves acted mildmannered? How did he act inthe film? How do u describe it?

Who the heck is Christopher Reeves?

Now Christopher Reeve, I know him.

Reeve acted more bumbling than mild-mannered.

 

[DIRECTOR]

Who the heck is Christopher Reeves?

Now Christopher Reeve, I know him.

Reeve acted more bumbling than mild-mannered.

how would anybody describe the term "mild-mannered"? Is it like how Clark pretend to know nothing, the he is mild, and kinda dull and not interesting so he won't get noticed? Or something? I still hate the idea that Clark can't be himself in the daily planet, he should act while he is Superman, more heroic to stand as an example.

 

[The Sage]

how would anybody describe the term "mild-mannered"? Is it like how Clark pretend to know nothing, the he is mild, and kinda dull and not interesting so he won't get noticed? Or something?

You got it.

I still hate the idea that Clark can't be himself in the daily planet, he should act while he is Superman, more heroic to stand as an example.

He's not acting when he's Superman however. He is heroic, that's not an act.

 

[darkzombiemutt]

He's not acting when he's Superman however. He is heroic, that's not an act.

This is what makes Superman really special. Clark is that heroic, it isnt an act. He is confident, strong and selfless. But he can only be his true self as Superman. If Daily Planet Clark was his true self, why would he be wearing a disguise? The purpose of the glasses and the toned down personality is to hide what he really is. An alien from the planet krypton. If he could be himself, he'd tell all his coworkers he was an alien, with al kinds of powers given to him by earths yellow sun......wait, Superman does that, so how can Superman not be his true self? I don't understand how people can fail to realize this.

 

[buggs0268]

Aren't both the Clark Personae and the Superman personae not the real Clark. They are both acts, although with Superman it is is much less so. That was what I liked about REeve's performance. There were three people. When he as Clark, he was bumbling. When he was Superman, he acted the part of a hero, although he did show the characters humanity. But when he finally screwed up and Lois knew who he was, he wasn't either character. He was just himself. That is who the real person is. The other two are just acts, but the Superman personae less so than Clark.

 

[BlackPanther78]

I trust Singer for right now as in I have no reason as of yet. But my initial feelings on this is that it will be underwhelming. I feel that he should have started with his own movie also. As far as the casting goes: Kevin Spacey (Yeah!), Kate Bosworth (O.K.), Brandon Routh (doubtful). My main worry goes to them camping Lex up. I like the character's interpetations on Smallville and wished that they would use Lex and Clark from the show and hire a new Lois. I always thought Edward Norton would make a good Lex especially if you use the template from the Smallville show. I've seen Mr. Routh on some soap operas...(my fiancee watches soap operas) and all I can say that is he needs plenty of help in that department. Hopefully he got it. Also I've never been a fan of the BUMBLING IDIOT Clark. Of course it's an act but there is no reason to be a complete tool.

 

[Matt]

I'm not entirely sure it's not an origin. I actually think Singer is doing a "pleasing everybody" film. Superman is out for 6 years and it could happen that Clark is also out for those 6 years thus when he returns he'd have to re-establish his relationship with all the characters and that could be seen like a semi-origin. But at the same time it's in a world where Superman already existed and that could make it as a kind of semi-sequel.

agh, so weird...just over complicates things. Raimi succeeded because he made a Spider-man movie...he changed certain things to fit better on film and make more sense (organics, green goblin costume, etc)...and he didn't listen to all the fanboy *****ing, he didn't try to please anyone...and we got a great movie. Singer should just make a movie and not worry about pleasing anyone.

 

[Zo Knows]

agh, so weird...just over complicates things. Raimi succeeded because he made a Spider-man movie...he changed certain things to fit better on film and make more sense (organics, green goblin costume, etc)...and he didn't listen to all the fanboy *****ing, he didn't try to please anyone...and we got a great movie. Singer should just make a movie and not worry about pleasing anyone.

LOL, oh Matt. "Raimi didn't listen to the fanboy *****ing, he didn't try to please anyone". That sounds EXACTLY like what Singer is doing. Not listening to people ***** about Routh (a la wimpy, scrawny Tobey), ***** about the "vague history", ***** about using the Donner characterization, ***** about not doing an origin, ***** ***** *****. The fact of the matter is that in ANY movie you need to establish relationships at the beginning so the changes they go through are more meaningful...So yeah, I'd hazard to guess that's what Singer will do. Also, he's said a few times that the story of Superman's return (from where, we don't know, though we'll ***** about it!) is one he's wanted to tell for a while now. Sounds to me that he's doing the movie he wants with the people he wants the way he wants.

And here's a snippet just for you concerning why "vague history" = success, discussed on a point-by-point basis.

Source material. Using the Donner movies, probably the widest known version of Superman in the world by general audiences (yes, this is fact), as inspiration for a story which he expressly did not want to make an origin? That works. Look, I am also in the camp that would have liked to have seen a clean restart. Bryan Singer is not. And, for general audiences, Christopher Reeve's Superman and his characterization is a lot more digestable as the definitive Superman story than what we've seen in post-Crisis. Not to say a post-Crisis movie can't work in theory, just that it can't work without re-telling the origin and re-establishing all the motivations and relationships between characters. And Singer did not want to do that...And really, as a film-maker first and fan second, can you blame him? An origin steals loads of time from the main plot in order to establish motivations, which is a lot trickier with a character like Superman, as opposed to Spider-Man or Batman who are defined by one specific moment (and look how long it still took to get to web-slinging in Spidey 1). Superman needs more explanation of his backstory, and explanation means exposition, and exposition means less time to tell your real story (in Metropolis), and less time on the real story either equals the feeling of a "split movie" (like the Donner film) or a shallow film which disregards the weaving of subplots or lacks in characterization for everyone but the one or two leads (like Daredevil and Spider-Man 1). So, as a compromise, Singer has an established Superman, and is using his return to explore his motivations while fully integrating that exposition into the plot (his reasons for leaving and returning). You just can't do that as well with origin. I think it's a great idea, personally. Don't know why some don't. Maybe it's because of the perception of this movie as a sequel? We'll get to that.

Story. This is a big one, and, similar to the source material connections above, we'll examine it on its own merits. Because, honestly, whether there is no connection to Donner, an implied connection to Donner, or an overt connection to Donner, it will not matter to audiences so long as they can understand this movie in its own context (a self-contained storyline) and the set-up is adequately explained. Then, if the story can take the viewer on a hell of a ride, from beginning to end, it will succeed. So basically, will this story of Superman's return be a good one? After all, I maintain that a good story which lives up to audience expectations is the only thing you need to sell tickets (we'll discuss audience expectations/perceptions next). Great performances get people to come back that second time, but if Spider-Man showed us anything, you can get by with stilted dialogue and some uninspired performances if you tell a compelling story. And I trust the storytelling skills of Dougherty, Harris, and Singer. In fact, I don't think anyone's disputed that. We know very little specifics about the plot at this point, but there are some good very compelling reasons why one can say this story will be succeed, beyond just that the writers are good. To discuss this, we now look at...

Audience perceptions. So, if written by good writers, will the story of Superman's return to an inhospitable world be one which grabs the interest of the mass audience? To answer that question, one need only look at the state of the world today. Do we need a Superman? **** yeah, we do. And if we can't get one in real life, we'll take one in the movies. Do we wish we could give a face to our enemy, a concrete identity, like say, Lex Luthor? I wish to God we could do that instead of chasing underground terrorist cells all over the globe. And do we, the people of the real world, need a new, inexperienced Superman coming in green to clean things up? **** no. Do we need an all-powerful, do-gooding demi-god with the motivation AND skill to clean up the world? Yes we do. And it seems obvious, so will the masses in the world of Singer's Superman. So the return of Superman, the return to this ideal of truth and justice on the largest scale, the return of the one true superhero amongst the angst and darkness which has simultaneously flooded our lives AND our movie screens...Is just appropriate. I truly believe this is an idea the public will embrace wholeheartedly, after some initial skepticism concerning the fact that this is not an origin movie. Which brings us to...

Audience expectations. The stickiest of the sticky situations with this movie. Here's where we discuss the sequel status. I won't sit here and say with any certainty that it will be a direct sequel or it won't, because I don't know, and neither do you. But I will say this: no matter the sequel status, it will not matter. As long as, as I said, this story is self-contained (much as Spidey 2's story was self-contained, beside the subplot with Harry) and the general audience can understand all events, there's no reason for them not to enjoy it. Here's why: If it IS a sequel, and the movie starts, and the movie can inform the audience of the set-up, then your STORY problems are solved (we'll get to other expectations of the audience later). Simple as that. Honestly, even if, by some WILD circumstance, this movie involved General Zod...All you have to do is include some kind of flashback (or Alex Ross drawings or whatever) showing that Zod is a deposed general of Krypton which Superman was able to defeat by draining his powers. There. Now the audience is in the know. You don't have to recap the entirety of the first two movies for people to enjoy or understand, much as you don't need to do so with Spider-Man 1 to enjoy Spidey 2. "Given Spider-powers by a genetically-altered spider, Peter becomes Spider-Man to atone for the murder of his Uncle Ben, which he blames on himself. Meanwhile, he develops an unrequited love for MJ Watson, but his best friend Harry's father, the super-villain Green Goblin, finds out his identity and tries to kill MJ. Even after the GG is accidentally killed, Peter decides he can no longer be with MJ for fear of something similar happening again." There, ater three sentences, you can now enjoy Spider-Man 2. It really is that simple. Singer will not expect the audience to come in knowing exactly what's going on (that's bad storytelling AND bad business). No one is going to have an anuerysm (sp?) because there is five minutes of important set-up at the beginning of the movie (cough cough original Star Wars cough). And I guarantee you the ties between SM1&2 are a lot tighter than Returns' will be to SMI&II. Again, it's just bad business. May there be ties? Yeah, maybe. But just give the audience the pertinent information clearly and concisely, and they're ready to enjoy your story.

"BUT!" you exclaim. "Shut up", I say. "No, seriously...But won't the audience be turned off that the film-makers just ASSUME them to know Superman's origin already? They'll be pissed off!" Well, even knowing we'll see origin flashbacks (which we now know is true w/ the 15-yr-old Clark casting), I will still say you're right, to some extent. But here is where I insert my own BUT. (Listen up, WB marketing department) There is a simple solution. In your trailers and other assorted promo materials, you include some variation of this (with my comments in parentheses): "Rocketed from the doomed planet Krypton (okay, now everybody and his/her grandma already knows you're talking about Superman), a young baby was found and raised by caring and loving humans. When he was grown, disguised as mild-mannered Clark Kent, he fought a never-ending battle against the forces of evil (coupled with imagery evocative of the Reeve movies, if not exact footage from them, everyone is now clued in to the basic premise). He became the world's greatest hero...Until his most bitter enemy drove him away (insert shot of devious-looking Kevin Spacey with distinctive bald head...Now everyone goes: "Oh, Lex Luthor! Oh, Oscar-winning actor!"). And the world fell to darkness. (insert dramatic pause) But he has returned." There you go. Even if it is a direct sequel, just don't say it. Again, things really are that simple. Just let everyone know what kind of story to expect. Couple that with some bad-ass-looking imagery and maybe one iconic shot of Superman, and you can recap as much backstory as you want before the film begins, the audience will arrive in droves, and they will be expecting it.

So we know the movie will do well at the box office, and all that was without even making blind assumptions about what we'll actually see in the movie AND without discussing how Singer can do no wrong. That's all just based on facts we've been given and marketing knowledge.

This is just a snippet of a long piece I wrote which also covers critics' reactions, action sequences, FX, and characterization.

Hope it's been enlightening.

 

[DIRECTOR]

ok, i guess this thread is a perfect bump. Especially after the short insider videos he is gonna provide for us. And now, we can get the chance to see what he is like on set

Part 1:

Small

Medium

High

 

[triplet]

I think what is most interesting about that video blog is the few frames you get of the suit renderings.....

I love the volumnious cape!