Sequels Legendary Pictures & Thomas Tull Think Superman Sequel

[GL's Light]

Building an island, i believe there's a country in the Middle East doing just that.

Yes, but they're not building it almost instantly using nothing but crystals, now are they?

The level of realism in superhero movies should be seen in degrees rather than absolutes, but those who describe either Batman Begins or Superman Returns as "ultra-realistic" are missing the mark in my opinion. On the scale of realism I'd say Superman Returns falls about halfway between Batman Begins and Spider-Man - and a sequel to SR could be nudged along to where it's closer to Spider-Man.

 

[stargazer]

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.

Agreed.

 

[GL's Light]

If it's the case that Warners is paying attention to the box office of The Incredible Hulk, I wonder what conclusions they'll draw if it succeeds or fails. If it's a success will it make them more likely to go with a reboot - perhaps with a new cast and/or director - with the next Superman film? Or are they simply watching to see whether the box office can increase for another release after an initial film that divided fans and performed below expectations commercially?

While I'll certainly root for Singer to correct SR's flaws and hit a home run if he gets to make a sequel, I think waiting a couple more years (plenty of other DC properties to utilize in the meantime) and starting from scratch would be the safer option from a commercial point of view.

If Warners could drag Robert Zemeckis away from his current mo-cap fixation and get him to make a more action-packed Superman film set in a more fantastical universe - one where White Martians might invade at any minute and where mad scientists build giant robots - and they released it in, say, 2012 or 2013, that would likely be a big success in my opinion.

 

[turtlefocker]

While I'll certainly root for Singer to correct SR's flaws and hit a home run if he gets to make a sequel, I think waiting a couple more years (plenty of other DC properties to utilize in the meantime) and starting from scratch would be the safer option from a commercial point of view.

I completely agree, I'd be interested in an SR sequel but I don't think it's as likely as SR enthusiasts seem to think...

If Warners could drag Robert Zemeckis away from his current mo-cap fixation and get him to make a more action-packed Superman film set in a more fantastical universe - one where White Martians might invade at any minute and where mad scientists build giant robots - and they released it in, say, 2012 or 2013, that would likely be a big success in my opinion.

it'd be cool if it took place in the 40's and was done in a similar style to the [SIZE=-1]Fleischer cartoons (in live action).

It would break the current superhero template that all hero films have, and would distance it from Superman Returns and the Donner films because it would clearly be a different universe.

Also their would be no need for an origin story, it could just open with the classic: "[/SIZE]Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, this amazing stranger from the planet Krypton, The Man of Steel: Superman! Empowered with X-ray vision, possessing remarkable physical strength, Superman fights a never-ending battle for truth and justice, disguised as a mild-mannered newspaper reporter, Clark Kent."

[SIZE=-1]
The universe also promises lots of action:

[/SIZE]

Spoiler

[SIZE=-1]

Come to think of it, if they decide not to make a sequel to SR, this would be the next best option in my opinion.
[/SIZE]

 

[Ita-KalEl]

The Incredible Hulk can't be a success, simply because by now there isn't any chance for it to do more than the first movie at the box office.

Hulk had a marketing campaign comparable to spider-man in 2003, now we are in 2008, the sh movies are a successful but saturated genre and today we can finally recognise the "triple-A" franchises like Spiderman, the X-Men, Superman and Batman, and the "not really great" sh franchises (FF, Ghost Rider, Elektra, DareDevil, Blade).
I'm sorry, but Hulk is part of the second category.
Even if the movie is good, it will not do more than $135m in the US, even because at box office, "The incredible Hulk" 's opening week-end is going to be far worse than "Hulk".

I wonder who is interested in reboot if it can't improve the box office of a movie considered a flop.

Nevertheless the situation of the MOS is totally different. SR did $391m ww. A result comparable to X2. The problem was the budget and the fact that wasn't considered "too profitable". Despite it now we are sure that the producers (Legendary Pictures) want to do another one, and they want to do a sequel not a reboot. So we can say that, maybe, SR wasn't the most profitable movie in the world, but was profitable enough for the producers (expecially thanks to the merchandise).

 

[X-Maniac]

Personally X3 was more of the same stuff, when you break it down into laymens 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.

Well, the three X-movies were supposed to be a trilogy representing long story arcs for the characters. Magneto was freed from jail in X2 and seen flying off in a helicopter from the dam at the end, so we needed to know what happened to him in X3. But any future X-movie could indeed move on and feature new villains. I guess X3 could have forgotten Magneto and moved on but I don't think the fans would like someone being just forgotten, and McKellen did bring a strong presence to the 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.

Discussion of the financial aspects is part of the debate over a sequel. SR did not make back its budget from domestic takings (studios do not count international box office in profit because of foreign distribution costs - in fact Golden Compass's studio New Line sold off all the foreign rights altogether). And SR was expected by WB to bring in $500million. So, it's viewed as an underperformance. And how do you make a successful sequel to something that underperformed? Won't people be wary about it if they didn't bother going the first time round?

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.

Budget has been confirmed as either $204m or perhaps $209million. Forget marketing, that is another budget altogether. We're talking production costs.

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.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Hulk.

And why not Darkseid? Superman is also in the DC universe - I don't get your point.

 

[GL's Light]

Discussion of the financial aspects is part of the debate over a sequel. SR did not make back its budget from domestic takings (studios do not count international box office in profit because of foreign distribution costs - in fact Golden Compass's studio New Line sold off all the foreign rights altogether). And SR was expected by WB to bring in $500million. So, it's viewed as an underperformance. And how do you make a successful sequel to something that underperformed? Won't people be wary about it if they didn't bother going the first time round?

Studios do count foreign box office - very much so. In fact foreign box office has been growing more and more important as foreign markets have developed. A lot of blockbuster films now make 60-70% of their worldwide take from overseas. Those hundreds of millions of dollars are extremely important to the bottom line, especially with the exponential growth in production and marketing costs over the last 20 years. Superhero films tend to make more money in the domestic market, but a healthy foreign box office is still important.

There are distribution costs in both the domestic and foreign markets, but the major studios have their own international distribution arms - just as they do domestically. Warner Bros certainly does. On some projects studios will split the territorial rights to reduce risk, and independent productions and mini-majors (like New Line) will often sell off the foreign rights altogether.

Domestic box office, however, is still very important because the studio typically gets a bigger cut of it than with foreign box office and because it's domestic box office that gets most of the media attention. Superman Returns did indeed underperform, and Warners obviously hasn't been leaping forward with great confidence to make a sequel. But the fact that SR made it to $200 million domestic - a threshold only a handful of superhero films have reached - is likely what's keeping the option of a sequel alive. Still, a sequel would obviously be a risky step.

 

[Nightwing1977]

IMO if The Incredible Hulk reboot is success then a Superman reboot is guaranteed.

Sorry, but it's not a guaranteed a Superman reboot will happend. More & more news are implying they're going to do a sequel & give it a 2nd chance.

And I doubt The Incredible Hulk will be that successful. He just isn't that popular with general audiences as some think. He is popular, but more with fans where Batman, Superman, & Spider-Man are more popular with both. Not to mention the lack of publicity. Seriously, 2 months to go & barely anyone hear about it. By the time it close to opening in theater, it will be too late to help. Not to mention TLH could be worse than the original. Or it could be better, but not enough. Even if TLH is successful, a Superman reboot will not happend & WB has seem to imply that.

Also a costume adjustment is definitely needed because those short are completely fruity

You think wearing granny panties or huge tightie whitie isn't fruity? Yeah, ok.

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

Heh! buggs once said when the costume pic was out, he claim he show it to almost everyone on the street near where he live & he said that they though it suck.

 

[Matt]

Heh! buggs once said when the costume pic was out, he claim he show it to almost everyone on the street near where he live & he said that they though it suck.

It really depends who you talk to. You talk to a SR fan and they will say they went to a sold out showing during its 6th week in theaters and the movie recieved a standing ovation.

You talk to a SR detractor and they will say how people were sleeping and left 15 minutes into the movie.

The truth, like all things is somewhere in the middle. I find the most common reaction is, that no one gave a damn. The public for the most part was for whatever reason (be it bad word of mouth from opening weekend, the release of Pirates, people being bored with the character, or it being a "winter movie") was apathetic to SR. They just didn't care, and the box office seems to reflect that.

 

[Lighthouse]

It really depends who you talk to. You talk to a SR fan and they will say they went to a sold out showing during its 6th week in theaters and the movie recieved a standing ovation.

You talk to a SR detractor and they will say how people were sleeping and left 15 minutes into the movie.

The truth, like all things is somewhere in the middle. I find the most common reaction is, that no one gave a damn. The public for the most part was for whatever reason (be it bad word of mouth from opening weekend, the release of Pirates, people being bored with the character, or it being a "winter movie") was apathetic to SR. They just didn't care, and the box office seems to reflect that.

What really gets me is that Bryan Singer doesn't seem to get that he screwed up in some parts. He blames it on crap like setting up the characters, and bad marketing. Really? So should i always expect Bryan Singer's first franchise movies to suck because he needs to "establish the characters"?

 

[The Guard]

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.

Singer himself has said that no one told him to cut the scenes. I wouldn't be surprised if WB asked him to, but since he's said he didn't get an ultimatum, the blame rests with him.

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.

Nope. Early rumor that sprung from news (AICN) that "Superman Returns" would feature an old villain and some serious super-action. People assumed it would be Zod, but it wasn't. Just like Law has been rumored for damn near EVERY comic book movie since 2000 (Almost always AICN's doing). . They sketched out the entire story for SUPERMAN RETURNS on a single flight, then pitched it to WB.

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.

Rose colored glasses when it comes to his acting. He's got the look, the sound and the presence, but a long way to go as an actor. Brandon Routh needs to work on his emoting. I'm not saying he didn't make a good Superman, and he had some nice moments, but I'm guessing 20 minutes of "non emoting" during a fairly subtle sequence anyway could have become a drag to open the movie.

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

That isn't why he left, though. Had he stayed on X3, the timing would have been similar. He left because he absolutely loves Superman and they paid him a TON to make it. And he's made no secret of that.

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.

Where is it written that he has to face an intergalactic being for it to be pure sci-fi? Or that his struggles to fit in (because he's an alien with the powers of a demigod, seems sci-fi to me) make it less sci-fi? It's a flying alien man with his alien crystal technology turning into an alien continent...

It's fantasy/sci-fi adventure.

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'm guessing it's more down to budget and their general approach to the character and the story.

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.

There is if you don't want to look boring as hell for 20 minutes.

I'm not going to argue why Singer cut the $11 million sequence. I don't know and I don't really care. I wish it hadn't been cut.

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.

That depends on what you think "exciting" is. That plane rescue sequence was among the most exciting pieces of cinema I've ever seen. The Metropolis rescue sequences were very exciting, as was the bank robbery. And Luthor and his thugs VS Superman was a very exciting, emotional sequence. I really could care less about corn. Best laid plans and so forth.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Rose colored glasses when it comes to his acting. He's got the look, the sound and the presence, but a long way to go as an actor. Brandon Routh needs to work on his emoting. I'm not saying he didn't make a good Superman, and he had some nice moments, but I'm guessing 20 minutes of "non emoting" during a fairly subtle sequence anyway could have become a drag to open the movie.

There is if you don't want to look boring as hell for 20 minutes.

I'm not going to argue why Singer cut the $11 million sequence. I don't know and I don't really care. I wish it hadn't been cut.

Maybe I'm missing something here but....20 minutes? for the Return To Krypton sequence? I thought Singer himself said (in an interview) that it was more like 5 minutes in lenght?

 

[Matt]

Maybe I'm missing something here but....20 minutes? for the Return To Krypton sequence? I thought Singer himself said (in an interview) that it was more like 5 minutes in lenght?

Does it matter though? I mean, hasn't it been confirmed that RTK cost about 8-12 million to make? Why even shoot it? Aren't directors in theory supposed to cut non-essentials (or at least try to) prior to filming? It definitely doesn't seem like you should put together entire elaborate 12 million dollar effect sequences prior to editting. It seems like a stupid thing to have even shot. Between this and his over-spending on Valkyrie, it seems to me Singer is proving that he can't handle a budget worth crap.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Does it matter though? I mean, hasn't it been confirmed that RTK cost about 8-12 million to make? Why even shoot it? Aren't directors in theory supposed to cut non-essentials (or at least try to) prior to filming? It definitely doesn't seem like you should put together entire elaborate 12 million dollar effect sequences prior to editting. It seems like a stupid thing to have even shot. Between this and his over-spending on Valkyrie, it seems to me Singer is proving that he can't handle a budget worth crap.

He certainly seems to have issues controlling his budgets. He didn't have any problems going over budget with Fox, though, as far as I can remember....Too much creative freedom nowadays, perhaps? Anyways, if the sequel happens, they have to use the RTK sequence, it was expensive, it's just sitting there somewhere, and it's supposed to be amazing. I really wish he would have left it in the movie, or at least put it on the DVD.

 

[GL's Light]

Easy enough to work the Krypton sequence into a sequel - especially if the villain is Brainiac. They could do something along the lines of inserting some new shots to show Brainiac's AI reactivating whilst Supes is exploring the shattered remains of Krypton.

 

[Matt]

By the time the sequel comes along, the CGI will likely be obsolete and it will be cheaper to scrap it and film again then it would be to update the old CGI.

 

[Showtime]

This is Deja Vu all over again.

 

[stargazer]

It really depends who you talk to. You talk to a SR fan and they will say they went to a sold out showing during its 6th week in theaters and the movie recieved a standing ovation.

You talk to a SR detractor and they will say how people were sleeping and left 15 minutes into the movie.

The truth, like all things is somewhere in the middle. I find the most common reaction is, that no one gave a damn. The public for the most part was for whatever reason (be it bad word of mouth from opening weekend, the release of Pirates, people being bored with the character, or it being a "winter movie") was apathetic to SR. They just didn't care, and the box office seems to reflect that.

Oh, but they Did care.....or how come the film grossed nearly 400 mil. worldwide, had good reviews (70-80% at rottentomatoes, and a B rating at Yahoo, for instance), sold very well on dvd, and had great rentals (about 60 mil. the first few weeks or so) ?? Even here at the hype, most people liked the film, there is a link somewhere. All of these things didn't happen by magic, Matt. The mainstream and critics liked the film, they just weren't that crazy about it. It's a very solid start for the franchise.

Rose colored glasses when it comes to his acting. He's got the look, the sound and the presence, but a long way to go as an actor. Brandon Routh needs to work on his emoting. I'm not saying he didn't make a good Superman, and he had some nice moments, but I'm guessing 20 minutes of "non emoting" during a fairly subtle sequence anyway could have become a drag to open the movie.

Let's agree to disagree, Guard. To me and many, Routh did a fine job acting wise, he was even great in some parts, IMO. The only part where he was mediocre in my view was in his scene with Ma Kent. Yes, he has the look, voice, and the presence, and technically he is not a 'great' actor yet, but I saw lots of potential in him. To me he does know how to emote emotion quite well, and he is great at using his body language to express emotions, but he is very subtle and his acting is understated, perfect for film. He really surprised me in the role. Him and Spacey were my favorite part of the film, and the score. Maybe it is you who can't see that subtlety in his acting, I did see it and loved it. My favorite parts of him in the film is when he isn't even talking. He was able to communicate so much with just his eyes and facial expressions (something I can't see in Welling, for instance, who has the same look all the time and seems uncomfortable in front of the camara, IMO). I'm very interested in seeing him grow into a even better actor, I think he has "it." Time will tell. To each his own. And stop the condescending, please, I do know what I'm talking about. I happen to have an actor in my family who taught me a lot about acting and film.

 

[solidsnake86]

My point with Darkseid is that he's not a specific villain to superman which many people here seem to think, and I personally believe he is not a good choice as a villain because he's just not that interesting. Now before everyone goes crazy when I say interesting I mean in terms of relating him to superman. I really think he would be better suited as a JLA villain. No matter how they do his character in a superman movie people will be upset because I can just imagine if they take out the back story. Magneto was an interesting character, don't get me wrong, but it was three movies of the same thing. I really liked the first 2 but you can tell that the third one was bad. They basically took the elements of the first movie and reversed it. Than they added in some pointless action to make people happy, but I'm still not seeing how the action was so great because I only remember 2 scenes of any importance which was jean greys house and the final battle. Back on topic though, putting darkseid in a superman movie would be like putting him in a wonder woman movie, basically he has no reason to be their. Hope that clears things up

 

[I Am The Knight]

Oh, but they Did care.....or how come the film grossed nearly 400 mil. worldwide, had good reviews (70-80% at rottentomatoes, and a B rating at Yahoo, for instance), sold very well on dvd, and had great rentals (about 60 mil. the first few weeks or so) ?? Even here at the hype, most people liked the film, there is a link somewhere. All of these things didn't happen by magic, Matt. The mainstream and critics liked the film, they just weren't that crazy about it. It's a very solid start for the franchise.

Yeah, Going by that logic, we could say that no one cared about Batman Begins, since it made pretty much the same at the BO as SR. Hell, going by that logic, you could say that no one cared about any film that didn't gross over 200 million. Wich is, like, 95% of movies being made today...

 

[mego joe]

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 mean rebooting?

 

[mego joe]

This is Deja Vu all over again.

I hear ya' Yogi! And from a Sox fan even!

 

[Matt]

Yeah, Going by that logic, we could say that no one cared about Batman Begins, since it made pretty much the same at the BO as SR. Hell, going by that logic, you could say that no one cared about any film that didn't gross over 200 million. Wich is, like, 95% of movies being made today...

You're comparing two movies with entirely different demographics. The fact is, Superman Returns was meant to have universal appeal. It was meant to be Warners' new flagship franchise. It was not. 200 million was not NEARLY good enough for that type of movie. Batman Begins on the other hand had a far more limited demographic as Nolan made it far more mature than past Bat-movies. Warners was aware of this (thus the much lower budget).

 

[Matt]

Oh, but they Did care.....or how come the film grossed nearly 400 mil. worldwide, had good reviews (70-80% at rottentomatoes, and a B rating at Yahoo, for instance), sold very well on dvd, and had great rentals (about 60 mil. the first few weeks or so) ?? Even here at the hype, most people liked the film, there is a link somewhere. All of these things didn't happen by magic, Matt. The mainstream and critics liked the film, they just weren't that crazy about it. It's a very solid start for the franchise.

You can believe that it was a solid start to a franchise all you want, and yet here we are, 2 years later, and the sequel has yet to even get a green light. Numbers don't lie and for THIS MOVIE (not Batman Begins, because I know SR apologists love to throw that out there), 200 million domestically and 400 million ww was a horrible reception.

 

[bunk]

You're comparing two movies with entirely different demographics. The fact is, Superman Returns was meant to have universal appeal. It was meant to be Warners' new flagship franchise. It was not. 200 million was not NEARLY good enough for that type of movie. Batman Begins on the other hand had a far more limited demographic as Nolan made it far more mature than past Bat-movies. Warners was aware of this (thus the much lower budget).

Neither movie was aimed at kids, the demographic was the same. Whether SR was supposed to have universal appeal or not is irrelevant at the end of the day since that's clearly not the movie they greenlit.