Sequels Legendary Pictures & Thomas Tull Think Superman Sequel

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm glad I wasn't here during that arguement.

 

[The Guard]

Bryan Singer left to make SUPERMAN RETURNS for two reasons.

1. He LOVES Superman movies.
2. WB paid him a ****ton to do so.

How do you define "grounded in reality"?

The events of the film being grounded in reality. Adhering to realistic laws, etc. Which SUPERMAN RETURNS clearly did not. It was utter fantasy, and yes, it took place in the real world, but so do most Superman comics.

Yes, budget cuts are also made. I've no idea exactly what was 'cut' from X3 and what didn't make it for other reasons (creative etc). But we're not talking about X3, we're talking about things like an $11m theme-related sequence on the Krypton sequence being cut. If Singer really didn't want any 'sci-fi' he should have spent that $11m on something else.

I don't think he cut it because he didn't wany sci-fi. My theory is that he cut it because, let's face it, Brandon Routh is not that great an actor, would have had to have carried the movie for about 20 minutes by himself, and these were some of the first few scenes filmed.

I'd say fiscal management and wise use of the budget are very much the same thing. He was asking for more money yet was cutting things he'd spent the previous money on. That doesn't sound very wise.

They're not the same thing here. I won't argue that it was stupid to cut such a huge sequence. But these things didn't occur at the same time. Singer asking for money long before he cuts the scene has nothing to do with how responsible he's being with WB's money during the course of the film. He cut the sequence long after the film was completed.

Simple. Singer's up for directing the sequel. A sequel with a lower budget...so the budgetary concerns are part of that debate.

I meant, what did the budget have to do with why SR didn't excite people as much as we thought it would have? Apologies, I should have been clearer.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

One things forsure, something went wrong, I've never seen a major studio lower a budget to a sequel of a huge hit. That is, if a sequel is made.

 

[The Guard]

Yeah, something went wrong...people didn't go to see Superman in drove-like droves.

 

[Ita-KalEl]

It is. Why?

Because the first Hulk wasn't a disappointment because it was a bad movie (it wasn't amazing, but not terrible), but simply because the character "Hulk" can't do more. Hulk isn't Spiderman, Batman or Superman.
This movie is lucky if it will do $130m in the US.

 

[mego joe]

There's a lot of tension on this boards right now.

Isn't there always?

 

[wellsy]

I don't think he cut it because he didn't wany sci-fi. My theory is that he cut it because, let's face it, Brandon Routh is not that great an actor, would have had to have carried the movie for about 20 minutes by himself, and these were some of the first few scenes filmed.



They're not the same thing here. I won't argue that it was stupid to cut such a huge sequence. But these things didn't occur at the same time. Singer asking for money long before he cuts the scene has nothing to do with how responsible he's being with WB's money during the course of the film. He cut the sequence long after the film was completed.

I was under the impression that WB told Singer to cut the movie from being almost 3 hours to be shorter (I think the runtime was what, ~150 minutes?). Anyways, the RtK scene was cut and Singer essentially had to make changes that he'd never anticipated.

Also, if I recall correctly, Singer originally wanted Zod to come back as a villain, but would only do so if Jude Law took the part (which he didn't), and then he got to work on the story that became SR.

So, if we keep that in mind, I think Singer intends to go for action this time, and will probably use Brainiac as the main villain since he would be able to accept other options (unlike Zod).

And just thinking about that, I really find the possibility of the sequel a bit exciting. Singer knows he needs action, and I think he wants to do action.

Well, lights, camera, ACTION!

 

[X Knight]

soooo......if Jude Law had accepted the role of Zod, then we might have gotten a very different Superman movie than SR?????

Curse Jude Law.......IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!!!!

btw.....why Jude Law for Zod???? he seems a bit young for that part......unless they were going for a Zod who was closer in age to Supes.....

 

[stargazer]

I don't think he cut it because he didn't wany sci-fi. My theory is that he cut it because, let's face it, Brandon Routh is not that great an actor, would have had to have carried the movie for about 20 minutes by himself, and these were some of the first few scenes filmed.
.

I strongly disagree with your theory, Guard. If Singer cut that scene it wasn't because of Brandon, IMO. Brandon did a very good job as Superman/Clark, and most people agree with me, critics and people in general. Every person I talk to about SR agree that Brandon was a great Superman. He was easily the best part of the film and an inspired choice for the role. And to some people, myself included, he was as good if not better than Reeve. Singer found the right guy.

Brandon =

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I strongly disagree with your theory, Guard. If Singer cut that scene it wasn't because of Brandon, IMO. Brandon did a very good job as Superman/Clark, and most people agree with me, critics and people in general. Every person I talk to about SR agree that Brandon was a great Superman. He was easily the best part of the film and an inspired choice for the role. And to some people, myself included, he was as good if not better than Reeve. Singer found the right guy.

Brandon =

These are always my favorites, "every person I talk to agrees..." There is the scientific evidence we have been looking for. How can anyone not see that Brandon was a great Superman based on everyone Mostpowerful has spoken to.

 

[VenomsMom]

soooo......if Jude Law had accepted the role of Zod, then we might have gotten a very different Superman movie than SR?????

Curse Jude Law.......IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!!!!

btw.....why Jude Law for Zod???? he seems a bit young for that part......unless they were going for a Zod who was closer in age to Supes.....

Was Singer really that fascinated with Jude Law that he would sacrifice the character altogether and rewrite the story because of one man's refusal to play a part? How integral was Zod to this story just to drop the role like that instead of finding the next best choice. If there was truth to this. Including Zod could have made this movie vastly different than what we got.

 

[VenomsMom]

These are always my favorites, "every person I talk to agrees..." There is the scientific evidence we have been looking for. How can anyone not see that Brandon was a great Superman based on everyone Mostpowerful has spoken to.

Yes.....I love that too. Every man woman and child I talked to loved SR.

 

[Obi Wan Kenobi]

Amazing that so many people are still debating whether or not this movie will go forward. OFCOURSE its going forward. You don't walk away from a movie that makes 200 million domestically. WB needs to tweak the marketing, the story line & up the action.

 

[GreenKToo]

I suspect we'll see similar marketing with the S.R. sequel like we're now seeing with T.D.K., (at least I hope so anyway.)
They'd be crazy not to use the villain in their marketing. If its Brainiac, put his triangle symbol on EVERYTHING.

 

[Matt]

I suspect we'll see similar marketing with the S.R. sequel like we're now seeing with T.D.K., (at least I hope so anyway.)
They'd be crazy not to use the villain in their marketing. If its Brainiac, put his triangle symbol on EVERYTHING.

Meh, I'm not sure how effective that would be though. No one outside of the fandom knows anything about Brainiac. Joker on the other hand, is a pop culture icon, so people recognize it.

 

[Matt]

Amazing that so many people are still debating whether or not this movie will go forward. OFCOURSE its going forward. You don't walk away from a movie that makes 200 million domestically. WB needs to tweak the marketing, the story line & up the action.

You do if the movie was a semi-bomb as SR was. Look at Waterworld, it was meant to be a franchise, its box office performance is actually very similiar to SR's (making a profit through WW release, but not domestically). Look what happened. The studio dropped it.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

You do if the movie was a semi-bomb as SR was. Look at Waterworld, it was meant to be a franchise, its box office performance is actually very similiar to SR's (making a profit through WW release, but not domestically). Look what happened. The studio dropped it.

The problem here is that WB signed Singer to do a sequel in October of 2006, months after WB can gauge SR's performance. Why sign him months after its release in theaters, and after they can evaluate its performance if he wasn't going to come back, especially with the deal they gave him? Makes no sense. I could understand if they signed him the same month of the movie's release, and then they realized they may have made a mistake after seeing how it performed and not meeting expectations. But the timing of when they signed him for a sequel, points to me unfortunately, that they intend on him directing another Superman film.

 

[GL's Light]

I don't think Waterworld was supposed to be a franchise. I believe it was designed as a standalone. And Waterworld grossed $ 88 million domestic and $264 million worldwide. Even taking inflation into account, it grossed a lot less than SR (at least domestically - worldwide it would adjust to quite close to SR's worldwide gross).

SR certainly came in below WB's hopes and expectations, and it hasn't been clear sailing to a sequel, and WB could still pull the plug on the sequel, but they, along with Legendary, are obviously still actively looking at a sequel as an option.

 

[X-Maniac]

Bryan Singer left to make SUPERMAN RETURNS for two reasons.

1. He LOVES Superman movies.
2. WB paid him a ****ton to do so.

Yes; and also because he obviously hadn't come to an agreement with Fox over the terms for the next X-movie.

The events of the film being grounded in reality. Adhering to realistic laws, etc. Which SUPERMAN RETURNS clearly did not. It was utter fantasy, and yes, it took place in the real world, but so do most Superman comics.

Yes, it is fantasy. But it was not out-and-out sci-fi fantasy. Superman faced the struggles of fitting in to the world, losing Lois, discovering fatherhood; he didn't face the struggles of an intergalactic being like Brainiac, Darkseid or Doomsday.

That being said, I see no real reason that they couldn't introduce supervillains in the next movie. It's not my main concern - the direction in which to take Richard and Jason is more worrying to me.

Showtime says two pitches of Harris/Dougherty's were rejected, both including supervillains, on the basis they were too fantastical. Either that wasn't the real reason and WB wanted to get rid of the writers, or WB somehow believes SR was so 'non-sci-fi' that it would now be hard to introduce strong sci-fi elements.

I don't think he cut it because he didn't wany sci-fi. My theory is that he cut it because, let's face it, Brandon Routh is not that great an actor, would have had to have carried the movie for about 20 minutes by himself, and these were some of the first few scenes filmed.

Maybe, but I don't see that much acting needed in travelling in a spaceship and staring out of the window at the smashed ruins of the planet. Singer said the sequence didn't fit with the rest of the movie (I believe he's mistaken, but nonetheless that's what he said) - i think he wanted to focus more on human drama and also to focus on the villain's characterisation and motivations, which were the focus of the start of both his X-Men movies. I think he believed a dark opening sequence showing the villain was a formula that worked, as it did with Magneto in the prison camp in X1 and Stryker-controlled Nightcrawler attacking the president in X2. The difference is that both those intro pieces were establishing themes; the scene with Luthor might tell us where he got his money but it establishes no theme at all.

They're not the same thing here. I won't argue that it was stupid to cut such a huge sequence. But these things didn't occur at the same time. Singer asking for money long before he cuts the scene has nothing to do with how responsible he's being with WB's money during the course of the film. He cut the sequence long after the film was completed.

Yes, it's true he cut it later. But isn't the purpose of scripting and storyboarding and all the other pre-production to establish what's needed, what will work, what things will cost, how long a movie is likely to be? He must have known this movie was overlong, he must have known about the costs. I think he was far too close to this dream project and couldn't 'self-edit' enough. It needed a tighter control.

I'd feel the same if the scenes of Phoenix destroying SF were filmed and finished and then cut, as would most of the X3 boards. At least it never got beyond storyboards. Much though I'd like to have her run amok in SF, at least we can't say the footage is lurking in a vault somewhere, as far as we know!

I meant, what did the budget have to do with why SR didn't excite people as much as we thought it would have? Apologies, I should have been clearer.

Right, well the use of the budget clearly didn't make an 'exciting' film. If, rather than childhood flashbacks with land purchased and fields of corn grown only to be replaced with CGI, we'd had an action sequence (tidal wave rescue, supervillain, whatever), then the film might have seemed exciting. Or at least trailers could show a bit of the action to make it seem more exciting.

 

[nintendo nerd]

You do if the movie was a semi-bomb as SR was. Look at Waterworld, it was meant to be a franchise, its box office performance is actually very similiar to SR's (making a profit through WW release, but not domestically). Look what happened. The studio dropped it.

Waterworld made way less than SR at the BO. And they cost almost the same to make.

 

[nintendo nerd]

Meh, I'm not sure how effective that would be though. No one outside of the fandom knows anything about Brainiac. Joker on the other hand, is a pop culture icon, so people recognize it.

Same can be said with any other Superman villian. Thay are not as popular as Batman's or Spider - man's ( except for Lex Luthor ).

 

[solidsnake86]

Personally X3 was more of the same stuff, when you break it down into lamens terms the first movie was a guy who wanted to turn humans into mutants, the second was trying to kill mutants/than humans, and the third was turning mutants to humans. For me X3 failed to give something completely different, like another villain, people complain about luthor but magneto ended being the villain in all three movies. As for superman I've never seen so many people concerned with how much money WB possibly made from it, most of you should be working for them with all this box office talk. A lot of you are using a double standard when it comes to SR and other superhero movies, but do you really know how much it costed to make, because I have seen different numbers, and than everyone pulls this 100 million dollar marketing number for a grand total of 300 million. The two pitches were probably rejected because the WB didn't want them as writers anymore and Darkseid should have no place in Superman because he is a villain that is for the DC universe. I'm interested to see what the Hulk does but I hardly doubt that it willl be a smash hit considering a previous one came 5 years ago, even batman begins had seven years in between B&R. Even if the movie manages to be good I don't think it will make as much as is hoped for.

 

[stargazer]

These are always my favorites, "every person I talk to agrees..." There is the scientific evidence we have been looking for. How can anyone not see that Brandon was a great Superman based on everyone Mostpowerful has spoken to.

Haha, yeah, isn't it hilarious? ... And of course it can't be proofed.

But if you want cientific evidence, I can give it to you, there is plenty, though.

 

[bunk]

The events of the film being grounded in reality. Adhering to realistic laws, etc. Which SUPERMAN RETURNS clearly did not. It was utter fantasy, and yes, it took place in the real world, but so do most Superman comics.

Well that definition pretty much precludes any other superhero movie... which is a little absolute for me. I prefer to look at these things in degrees I guess.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Well that definition pretty much precludes any other superhero movie... which is a little a little absolute for me. I prefer to look at these things in degrees I guess.

Exactly. Batman Begins and Superman Returns could take place in the same universe, imo.

Building an island, i believe there's a country in the Middle East doing just that. It's no more unbelieveable than a water-whatever-ray by a secret organization around for over 500 years.