Superman Returns New Harris and Doughtery Interview: SR, Sequels, X-Men 3, Donner Cut, and more...

boywonder13

Sidekick
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,567
Reaction score
0
Points
31
http://www.comics2film.com/FanFrame.php?f_id=20113

exceprt:

Q: Is “Superman Returns” the unofficial "Superman III"?
MD: [sighs] Okay, um, it’s funny — I think Bryan and Dan and I need to sit down and discuss this answer before we talk to too many other reporters.
My personal belief — and I know Bryan has been quoted as saying differently — is that this is not “Superman III.” I don’t feel like it’s appropriate to discount “Superman III” and “IV,” because a lot of people put a lot of hard work into them, and even if you don’t like them or don’t think they’re up to a certain quality, they’re still “Superman” movies.

DH: It’s complicated. If this is a sequel to “I” and “II,” then everything in “I” and “II” happened. But if we’re picking and choosing what we want — which is what I think is what happened, using our memories of “Superman: The Movie” to build our back story — then I can guarantee that it’s not the specifics, but the broad strokes of those movies that are part of the “Superman” we’re making.

MD: The comparison I like to make is that they’re closer to James Bond films. We had a series that starred Sean Connery, and then the torch is passed to another actor, all the way up to Daniel Craig. But they don’t call a sequel “James Bond 19,” and they don’t necessarily refer to events that took place in the previous film. But you do have certain conventions and supporting characters that you’re expected to use well. There’s always the opening with the iris and the theme song.
So I think we’re kind of taking a different franchise in the same direction. We’re not going back to square one.
We’re not doing a remake. We push the story forward.

DH: Except we’re not working with a villain of the day, or a villain of the movie…. It’s a “Returns” story. What does that mean? We’re trying to have our cake and eat it too — we’re remembering things we loved about “Superman I” and “II,” and moving forward at the same time. And we’ve used a big plot device to let us do both.

MD: But I think I have to sit down with Bryan and discuss this with him, because he went to a comic-book convention and said, “Yeah, I guess you could think of this as ‘Superman III.’” I just slapped my head and said, “Oh! No! No!”
 
So F'ing confusing. They should have went with the re-boot.
 
Whack Arnolds said:
So F'ing confusing. They should have went with the re-boot.

Or maybe still do the return story but had the origin during the beginning in comic form or drawing like spider-man 2's credits. I do agree though, it can be confusing. I'm hoping they'll have a disclaimer stating "This isn't a re-boot or a direct sequel of the chris reeve's film but does put the superman: the movie and superman II in vague history."

Doubt that'll happen though.
 
I hate when Directors contradict or do things liek that. This type of thing would be called "pulling a (George) Lucas"!!!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,162
Messages
21,908,145
Members
45,703
Latest member
BMD
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"