Sequels Legendary Pictures & Thomas Tull Think Superman Sequel

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^ I'm going to stop arguing this point with you because I don't see your point. I hated the movie. I hate ultra realism in fantasy films. I hate Bryan Singer as an action director. I hate WB for letting him do a soggy remake of what I frankly found to be a silly, ultra dated film. We aren't going to agree. I felt no sense of danger in SR and it wasn't the least bit compelling to me.

 

[AragornKing1]

You can't order a long post. I'll make it short and sweet. In Singer's Superman world I can't see it because that bland as hell movie was grounded far too much in reality. I never saw a hint that there was any other superpowered being besides Superman and the movie, like I said before, doesn't give off a very fantastical vibe. Not a deep or long explaination but it's my explaination.

Um, that's because Superman was the only superpowered being in the movie, so of course it didn't feel as fantastical as it should have. This doesn't mean that another superpowered being or two can't be in the sequel. Don't be so close minded like some people on here. Every superhero has supervillains that are more fantastical than others. Each one is different and unique. That's the excitement of having a new villain in each movie. Take Spider-Man for example, we had the Green Goblin and Doc Ock, who were down to earth villains to a certain extent, but then we got Sandman and Venom, two villains that were a lot more fantastical and out there. And yet, Spider-Man 3 made tons of money. You see, in a superhero movie, there are no, and shouldn't be, any limits to the choices of the supervillains just because the villain in the first one isn't an out there/very fantastical villain.

 

[stargazer]

Superman's world ofcourse, Singer's Superman world, I don't see it. Let me think for a moment...

Okay, I see it now. It's going to be an extremely realistic fantastical villain! *Excitement* Because realism is all the rage!

But it can be fantastical and kinda realistic at the same time. It all depends on how the villain is written, the casting of the actor playing the part, his motivations against Superman, and how he is characterized. He has to have good enough reasons to want to hurt Superman, otherwise it comes off as cheesy, like Nuclear Man. That's why Zod worked so well, he had real reasons, according to him, to hate Jor-El and his descendants (Kal-El............and Jason..).

 

[afan]

I can easily see it, really. I mean, Lex created a freakin crystal island out of a small crystal...that's pretty fantastical to me. Superman himself is pretty fantastical. I just don't get what you say. I think the sense of realism in SR is a plus, because it will make a supervillain even more compelling, and not just a cartoony one, like in some Marvel movies..

SR was a very intimate film, it's soap opera focus on the relationship of Richard and Lois, Lois and Superman; Richard and Jason.........yada yada.....etc, etc. make the sci-fi elements of the film a poor dramatic cousin.

Exhibit #1 for this is the decision to discard the entire voyage to Krypton on the cutting room floor.

It is this woefull emphasis that makes the creation of a balls to the walls sci-fi super-powered villian, and any ensuing FX laden battles, seem incongruent with the tone set by SR.

 

[stargazer]

^ I'm going to stop arguing this point with you because I don't see your point. I hated the movie. I hate ultra realism in fantasy films. I hate Bryan Singer as an action director. I hate WB for letting him do a soggy remake of what I frankly found to be a silly, ultra dated film. We aren't going to agree. I felt no since of danger in SR and it wasn't the least bit compelling to me.

OK, but if you hate the movie sooo much, why are you here? Don't you feel like you are wasting your time and energy to even bother to come to this forum? I mean, I HATE Transformers, but I never go to that forum, at all. I rather focus on the things I like. Just saying..

And I thought we were having a good discussion, no?

 

[Super Kal]

because she likes Superman... that's why she's here... and that's why I'm here.

you don't HAVE to be a Singer Superman fan to post here. you want that kind of crap, go to BT.net

 

[GL's Light]

Sequels can make pretty big shifts in tone and the audience will accept it as long as its a shift that's compelling and entertaining. Pretty much everybody wants a super-powered sci-fi villain and some big action scenes in the sequel, so the audience would not only be receptive to that shift but downright enthusiastic about it.

 

[BMM]

because he likes Superman... that's why he's here... and that's why I'm here.

you don't HAVE to be a Singer Superman fan to post here. you want that kind of crap, go to BT.net

She. She likes Superman.

 

[Super Kal]

my bad

 

[stargazer]

because he likes Superman... that's why he's here... and that's why I'm here.

Sure, and you can do that, of course, but there are other subforums here in the Superman forums where you can talk Superman and not have to deal with 'us' SR likers/lovers. Just saying.. I mean, Superman is all over the Media, there are so many other things to discuss about him, like the comics, the other movies, cartoons, Smallville, etc..

 

[FlawlessVictory]

The first film introduced a measure of sci-fi Kryptonian elements. The most logical way to go with the sequel is to expand on that and to have Brainiac as a villain. Perhaps New Krypton continues to develop and evolve as it drifts through space, and either Brainiac is drawn to it or actually develops on New Krypton as the result of AI embedded within Kryptonian crystals there.

Then when you've had a progression towards a greater level of sci-fi, and you've had a sci-fi villain in Brainiac, you could continue that sci-fi progression and move on to Darkseid in the third film.

I bet what Singer comes up with will be no where near as good as this. Brainiac does seem the logical way to go but then why were Singer and his original writers proposing Darskeid? I just can't help but think Singer is lost when it comes to this world.

 

[afan]

Sequels can make pretty big shifts in tone and the audience will accept it as long as its a shift that's compelling and entertaining. Pretty much everybody wants a super-powered sci-fi villain and some big action scenes in the sequel, so the audience would not only be receptive to that shift but downright enthusiastic about it.

Continuing adventures can make a shift in tone, but sequels must follow thru on the themes of the preceding films.
The whole morass created by SR involving Superman's domestic dilemnas must be dealt with, it's a very restrictive corner for effortlessly progessing to a sci-fi fantastic theme.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Sure, and you can do that, of course, but there are other subforums here in the Superman forums where you can talk Superman and not have to deal with 'us' SR likers/lovers. Just saying.. I mean, Superman is all over the Media, there are so many other things to discuss about him, like the comics, the other movies, cartoons, Smallville, etc..

But we want to discuss why we disliked SR and the effect it has on the franchise, negatively for us, and why we are not excited for MOS. Is there a rule that says we can't do this? Is this part of the forum titled "For fans of SR and those eagerly anticipating MOS only".

 

[stargazer]

Sequels can make pretty big shifts in tone and the audience will accept it as long as its a shift that's compelling and entertaining. Pretty much everybody wants a super-powered sci-fi villain and some big action scenes in the sequel, so the audience would not only be receptive to that shift but downright enthusiastic about it.

Exactly, like STM transitioned to Superman 2. I mean, what's so complicated about it. Most general audiences already know that Superman fought Zod, who was a supervillain, they know it Has to happen, that Superman Has to face more powerful foes. I think that's what they are waiting to see.

 

[AragornKing1]

Has this been posted?



Aintitcool.com

Notice how he says, "Expect supervillains actually worthy of Superman's power in the sequel." He said supervillains as in more than one. Hmmmm...

 

[Super Kal]

Sure, and you can do that, of course, but there are other subforums here in the Superman forums where you can talk Superman and not have to deal with 'us' SR likers/lovers. Just saying.. I mean, Superman is all over the Media, there are so many other things to discuss about him, like the comics, the other movies, cartoons, Smallville, etc..

we don't HAVE to go anywhere... as long as we don't flame and blatantly insult each other, we have every right to be here just as much as you do, regardless of how we feel about the movie.

 

[GL's Light]

Continuing adventures can make a shift in tone, but sequels must follow thru on the themes of the preceding films.
The whole morass created by SR involving Superman's domestic dilemnas must be dealt with, it's a very restrictive corner for effortlessly progessing to a sci-fi fantastic theme.

They can follow through on those themes and shift the tone to be progressively more sci-fi, although what to do about Jason and Richard White will be tricky regardless of the level of realism.

 

[solidsnake86]

Are some of you serious when you say you can't see a super villain in the sequel because the first movie didnt allow it, or the world created was too realistic. Thank God you guys aren't in charge of things. When things are grounded in reality it doesn't mean they can't be fantastical at the same time. Spider-man was grounded in reality and he had super villains.

 

[stargazer]

But we want to discuss why we disliked SR and the effect it has on the franchise, negatively for us, and why we are not excited for MOS. Is there a rule that says we can't do this? Is this part of the forum titled "For fans of SR and those eagerly anticipating MOS only".

Of course you can do it if you so wish, my point was that we were having this discussion about superpowered villains in SR's world, but she (I see spidey) seemed too closed-minded about it, and stopped discussing about it because she 'hates' everything about this franchise. You know what I'm saying? If you can't carry any discussion with people who think differently than you, what's the fun to even bother? There should be some middle ground, no?

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

because she likes Superman... that's why she's here... and that's why I'm here.

you don't HAVE to be a Singer Superman fan to post here. you want that kind of crap, go to BT.net

She.

You hit the nail on the head, thats exactly why I'm here. If a sequel is greenlit I probably won't be posting here as much, but right now I want to see if a sequel will be made. I want to see if I should give up on the Superman movie-verse. Because I will, if a Singer directed sequel is made. I want to see if I'll ever see a fun but serious when it needs to be Superman movie come out, a movie that will take full advantage of the current technogies and have Superman finally have a great looking battle in the Metropolisis sky, a movie with the updated LexCorp non-jokey badass Luthor, a spunky but non annoying Lois Lane, a movie that leaves you feeling wowed and uplifted when you walk out of the theater.

And I like the people on here.

 

[BMM]

Are some of you serious when you say you can't see a super villain in the sequel because the first movie didnt allow it, or the world created was too realistic. Thank God you guys aren't in charge of things. When things are grounded in reality it doesn't mean they can't be fantastical at the same time. Spider-man was grounded in reality and he had super villains.

I agree. I don't buy the realism argument. It sounds like a leftover marketing campaign by 20th Century Fox from 8 years ago. There was nothing realistic about an alien flying around the globe and outer space. Did the movie take it self seriously? Yes (probably too much). Was it realistic? No.

 

[stargazer]

Are some of you serious when you say you can't see a super villain in the sequel because the first movie didnt allow it, or the world created was too realistic. Thank God you guys aren't in charge of things. When things are grounded in reality it doesn't mean they can't be fantastical at the same time. Spider-man was grounded in reality and he had super villains.

Yes. Like they say, you can't please everybody all the time.

 

[nintendo nerd]

Ding, ding, ding! Thats why I disliked the movie so much. I can't imagine a really superpowered villain in Singer's Superman world. I just can't.

But its a world, were an alien from another planet flies and has incredible strenght, everything's possible. Although, I think Brainiac or Eradicator could fit better in a Singer sequel.

 

[stargazer]

I agree. I don't buy the realism argument. It sounds like a leftover marketing capaign by 20th Century Fox from 8 years ago. There was nothing realistic about an alien flying around the globe and outerspace. Did the movie take it self seriously? Yes (probably too much) Was it realistic? No.

Exactly!

Though, I like the serious tone in SR, I think it will be more compelling when Superman finally has to duke it out with a superbaddie in order to defend the world, at least to me. I will be rooting for him so bad, since I care very deeply for him and others in SR.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Of course you can do it if you so wish, my point was that we were having this discussion about superpowered villains in SR's world, but she (I see spidey) seemed too closed-minded about it, and stopped discussing about it because she 'hates' everything about this franchise. You know what I'm saying? If you can't carry any discussion with people who think differently than you, what's the fun to even bother? There should be some middle ground, no?

You know what?




















You are right. I shouldn't have cut off the converstation like that. I'm a an intelligent lady and I should be able to argue my point.