Please, no "Superman Begins"

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^That was it.

 

[kalelkilla]

If the New Superman movie isn't coming out till 2012, then they really need to do the origin story again. They really need to "Batman Begins" this new movie. Show what Clark did from leaving Smallville to going to Metropolis, when Clark was in his early 20's...that hasn't been shown on screen before...that way the fanboys won't be too bored with rehashed material, and it gives a chance to "humanize" Superman, and ground what you can in reality...I think the most interesting parts of superhero movies are the origins...the rest is just formulaic...

 

[Double Down]

If the New Superman movie isn't coming out till 2012, then they really need to do the origin story again. They really need to "Batman Begins" this new movie. Show what Clark did from leaving Smallville to going to Metropolis, when Clark was in his early 20's...that hasn't been shown on screen before...that way the fanboys won't be too bored with rehashed material, and it gives a chance to "humanize" Superman, and ground what you can in reality...I think the most interesting parts of superhero movies are the origins...the rest is just formulaic...

So The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 2 were formulaic?

 

[kalelkilla]

So The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 2 were formulaic?

No I meant the rest of the origin movie is more formulaic...not that the sequels are...what makes Spidey 2 and TDK so great is the foundation that is set by the origin movie...what they royally messed up in Superman Returns is that it was such an ambiguous sequel, that most of the audience was really confused...(i.e. had no idea Superman and Lois ever had sex). And Singer, despite claiming to have Donner's film held in such high regard, forgot the fact that in Superman 2 Superman kisses Lois and she supposedly forgets everything. In an interview I read, Singer admits that he "just assumed that she remembered." I mean did he even watch the movie? So in that case Lois new the kid was Superman's the whole time? Or was it a big shocker for her when the kid tossed the piano?

 

[Double Down]

Singer pitched the movie as a "loose sequel" to Superman II and that was ultimately the mistake, because comic book fans (including me) are notoriously nitpicky.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

No I meant the rest of the origin movie is more formulaic...not that the sequels are...what makes Spidey 2 and TDK so great is the foundation that is set by the origin movie...what they royally messed up in Superman Returns is that it was such an ambiguous sequel, that most of the audience was really confused...(i.e. had no idea Superman and Lois ever had sex). And Singer, despite claiming to have Donner's film held in such high regard, forgot the fact that in Superman 2 Superman kisses Lois and she supposedly forgets everything. In an interview I read, Singer admits that he "just assumed that she remembered." I mean did he even watch the movie? So in that case Lois new the kid was Superman's the whole time? Or was it a big shocker for her when the kid tossed the piano?

If you actually read the reviews, Singer stated many times that 90% of Superman 2 didnt happen in his continuity. Infact Singer basically has said that the ONLY part of Superman 2 that applies to SR is Lex visiting the fortress.

He especially made it clear he didnt stick to the love scene in the fortress or mindwipe kiss.

 

[kalelkilla]

If you actually read the reviews, Singer stated many times that 90% of Superman 2 didnt happen in his continuity. Infact Singer basically has said that the ONLY part of Superman 2 that applies to SR is Lex visiting the fortress.

He especially made it clear he didnt stick to the love scene in the fortress or mindwipe kiss.

Which of course added to the confusion, and the lackluster response to the movie, and Singer ultimately dropped the ball...bigtime...you're making my point for me. How can you just say that 90% of Superman 2 didn't happen and not make a reboot, but a sorta-kinda sequel...just a mistake on his part and everyone that agreed with it.

 

[Eros]

Returns just failed to restablish superman to this generation, It didn't do what it was suppose to do. It was a good movie, but it was not a movie for this generation, it was a movie for singars generation, it was a farewell to chris reeves. It was a nice thing, but its' 2008, and the world still could careless about a superman movie.

 

[kalelkilla]

Returns just failed to restablish superman to this generation, It didn't do what it was suppose to do. It was a good movie, but it was not a movie for this generation, it was a movie for singars generation, it was a farewell to chris reeves. It was a nice thing, but its' 2008, and the world still could careless about a superman movie.

true that, although I think people really do desire a great Superman film. They were wanting one last time. The excitement for Returns was very palpable, which makes the whole "eh" reaction to the movie was all the more heartbreaking. GOD Singer really dropped the ball...it still makes me angry after so many years...

 

[Double Down]

true that, although I think people really do desire a great Superman film. They were wanting one last time. The excitement for Returns was very palpable, which makes the whole "eh" reaction to the movie was all the more heartbreaking. GOD Singer really dropped the ball...it still makes me angry after so many years...

It's only been two years, dude.

 

[Captain Planet!]

I think you get to understand and fell for the characters more when you have an origin. Everyone has an origin, why should they skip Superman's? Because we've seen it before? Please. I know it's surprising, but not everyone in the world is a comic book nerd like we are.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I can definitely see valid points for both sides of the argument... but I just don't know about doing an origin movie. Like, so many people talk about how we're still waiting for an epic Superman movie for our times, that truly operates on a grand scale with Superman really going all out with his powers against one of his major-league enemies. "Superman Returns" struck out, it's up to the next film to raise the bar - possibly make or break. And then you want the next film to be another tried-and-true superhero origin film?

The likes of "Batman Begins"/"The Dark Knight", "X-Men"/"X2", "Spider-Man"/"Spider-Man 2" and yes, even "Superman"/"Superman 2" show us that with an origin film, a lot goes into character introduction and setting the stage, and often it's not until the sequel that the filmmakers can really go all out.

So when you say the next film should be a reboot, should you say that - in this "make or break" situation - with the next Superman film in, say, 2012, they should provide us with yet another teasing prelude for the balls-to-the-wall epic Superman film we all REALLY want....putting THAT back to, what, 2015/2016?

 

[Crook]

You're under the assumption that the film would have to follow the typical origin formula, and NOT have action until well into the second half of the story. Doesn't have to work out that way.

 

[Keyser Soze]

You're under the assumption that the film would have to follow the typical origin formula, and NOT have action until well into the second half of the story. Doesn't have to work out that way.

I think the best way to go about it would be to do something which appeals to both sides. I've suggested this before, but start your story with a fully-established Superman, and put him in a story that has some significance to his past. A good example would be something like the recent "Brainiac" story from Action Comics. This lets you structure the film around flashbacks to Superman's origins - where the filmmakers can streamline/retcon accordingly - while at the same time immediately throwing the viewer into an all-out action epic. Hitting the ground running, rather than more stalling.

 

[kalelkilla]

I think the best way to go about it would be to do something which appeals to both sides. I've suggested this before, but start your story with a fully-established Superman, and put him in a story that has some significance to his past. A good example would be something like the recent "Brainiac" story from Action Comics. This lets you structure the film around flashbacks to Superman's origins - where the filmmakers can streamline/retcon accordingly - while at the same time immediately throwing the viewer into an all-out action epic. Hitting the ground running, rather than more stalling.

I agree with what you are saying, both the orginal BATMAN and TIH took this route and they both "worked" well...for Superman however I feel there is confusion with the Superman mythos/origin among the mass movie audience (and some comic fans), and Singer's film, although he attempted this approach, but, it did not crystallize or clear up any of this confusion...instead he made a kinda-sorta sequel to a movie made nearly 30 years ago...I really think they need to to START OVER...not everyone reads comics, not everyone watches Smallville... not everyone really knows what makes Superman do what he does...why did he become a reporter? Why he decided to move to Metropolis? Why does he love Lois? Why he decided to make Clark Kent the disguise, rather than wear a mask as Superman? Where did he get the costume from? What inspired him to be a hero? He could be, literally, anything he wanted to be...maybe he was tempted to be a football player and make millions in the NFL... These are the interesting questions that the audience wants to know...this is what worked so well for Batman Begins. Everyone knows that Bruce Wayne's parent's were killed and that he became Batman, but everything in between is the interesting part (i.e. the training with the league of shadows, the discovery of the batcave, the inspiration of the bat...)Everyone knows that Kal-El was sent from Krypton to Earth, was raised by the Kents and became Superman, but everything in between those points is the REAL interesting stuff...even more interesting than the origin of Superman perhaps, would be the origin of Lex Luthor...please, I know all these questions I am presenting are answered in a comic somewhere, as I am a big fan, I am just taking the perspective of the average movie goer... to "BATMAN BEGINS" Superman is EXACTLY what he needs...but we can keep Routh if they love him so much...

 

[mojo-x]

If you actually read the reviews, Singer stated many times that 90% of Superman 2 didnt happen in his continuity. Infact Singer basically has said that the ONLY part of Superman 2 that applies to SR is Lex visiting the fortress.

He especially made it clear he didnt stick to the love scene in the fortress or mindwipe kiss.

Singer did not make anything clear expect he’s a hack that happened to have some luck with comic book adaptations however SR showed that his luck finally ran out. While I like reading interview form other directors on there films, it should not be something you need to do to understand the film. To me that is just lazy film making. The fact that Singer said he was going to base his sequel off of the plot form Star Treks TWOK only goes to prove my point. Wasn’t there enough WOK in X2 already?

 

[Double Down]

Singer did not make anything clear expect he’s a hack that happened to have some luck with comic book adaptations however SR showed that his luck finally ran out. While I like reading interview form other directors on there films, it should not be something you need to do to understand the film. To me that is just lazy film making. The fact that Singer said he was going to base his sequel off of the plot form Star Treks TWOK only goes to prove my point. Wasn’t there enough WOK in X2 already?

Singer said it was a loose sequel. He underestimated how much people would inspect any differences with a fine-tooth comb.
He did not say he was going to base the sequel off of the plot of The Wrath of Khan. The ways in which the sequel would amp the action in the sequel (a la the Star Trek movies) did not mean he was going to actually use the plot of the Star Trek movie.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Singer did not make anything clear expect he’s a hack that happened to have some luck with comic book adaptations however SR showed that his luck finally ran out. While I like reading interview form other directors on there films, it should not be something you need to do to understand the film. To me that is just lazy film making. The fact that Singer said he was going to base his sequel off of the plot form Star Treks TWOK only goes to prove my point. Wasn’t there enough WOK in X2 already?

How do you figure? Do you know what a hack is?

And, you don't need to read any interviews to understand SR? Everything you need to know is in the synopsis of the film, unless you were an anal retentive fanboy who must unite all the movies into one big continuity.

Oh wait...

 

[dark_b]

You're under the assumption that the film would have to follow the typical origin formula, and NOT have action until well into the second half of the story. Doesn't have to work out that way.

i would like action at the beginning of the movie. and not at time 90

but it wont happen IMO.

 

[mojo-x]

Singer said it was a loose sequel. He underestimated how much people would inspect any differences with a fine-tooth comb.
He did not say he was going to base the sequel off of the plot of The Wrath of Khan. The ways in which the sequel would amp the action in the sequel (a la the Star Trek movies) did not mean he was going to actually use the plot of the Star Trek movie.

Singer never said he was going to use the same plot form STM for SR either, but he did mention that film a lot.

 

[BMM]

Singer did not make anything clear expect he’s a hack that happened to have some luck with comic book adaptations however SR showed that his luck finally ran out. While I like reading interview form other directors on there films, it should not be something you need to do to understand the film. To me that is just lazy film making. The fact that Singer said he was going to base his sequel off of the plot form Star Treks TWOK only goes to prove my point. Wasn’t there enough WOK in X2 already?

I think that's a fairly baseless statement. Anyone who is capable of building a successful superhero movie franchise from the ground up, and at a micro-managing studio like Fox no less, that proves to be both critically and financially successful among a notoriously fickle fanbase, does so by more than just happenstance.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Which of course added to the confusion, and the lackluster response to the movie, and Singer ultimately dropped the ball...bigtime...you're making my point for me. How can you just say that 90% of Superman 2 didn't happen and not make a reboot, but a sorta-kinda sequel...just a mistake on his part and everyone that agreed with it.

I didnt, Singer did, didnt say it didnt add to the confusion, but the answers were there if you wanted to find them.

Singer did not make anything clear expect he’s a hack that happened to have some luck with comic book adaptations however SR showed that his luck finally ran out. While I like reading interview form other directors on there films, it should not be something you need to do to understand the film. To me that is just lazy film making. The fact that Singer said he was going to base his sequel off of the plot form Star Treks TWOK only goes to prove my point. Wasn’t there enough WOK in X2 already?

You are joking arent you, look how many other director have produced crap for Fox because of pressure from the studio. Yet Singer got lucky making 2 EXCELLENT movies under difficult conditions? Dont be ridiculous.

Singer said it was a loose sequel. He underestimated how much people would inspect any differences with a fine-tooth comb.
He did not say he was going to base the sequel off of the plot of The Wrath of Khan. The ways in which the sequel would amp the action in the sequel (a la the Star Trek movies) did not mean he was going to actually use the plot of the Star Trek movie.

Exactly, it was OBVIOUS this is what he meant, not what Mojo-X was suggesting.

I think that's a fairly baseless statement. Anyone who is capable of building a successful superhero movie franchise from the ground up, and at a micro-managing studio like Fox no less, that proves to be both critically and financially successful among a notoriously fickle fanbase, does so by more than just happenstance.

Agreed, you dont make good movies under difficult conditions by luck, see how many ****e films Fox has released over the last 3 years as evidence of this. Not to mention The Usual Suspects.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I think the base has been moving more and more towards wanting an origin film. Of course, please don't make it too dark. WB shoots themself in the foot using that word in reference to the man in blue.

 

[Spider-Fan]

No I meant the rest of the origin movie is more formulaic...not that the sequels are...what makes Spidey 2 and TDK so great is the foundation that is set by the origin movie...what they royally messed up in Superman Returns is that it was such an ambiguous sequel, that most of the audience was really confused...(i.e. had no idea Superman and Lois ever had sex). And Singer, despite claiming to have Donner's film held in such high regard, forgot the fact that in Superman 2 Superman kisses Lois and she supposedly forgets everything. In an interview I read, Singer admits that he "just assumed that she remembered." I mean did he even watch the movie? So in that case Lois new the kid was Superman's the whole time? Or was it a big shocker for her when the kid tossed the piano?

Filmmakers follow the S:TM model for all origin movies anymore, and it is formulaic. It is almost like the origin is an inoconveniance anymore, until they get to the sequel and do what they REALLY wanted to do.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Singer did not make anything clear expect he’s a hack that happened to have some luck with comic book adaptations however SR showed that his luck finally ran out.

Hmmmm.......what does the "failure" of "Superman Returns" (I don't think it was a turkey like some do, I'd probably file it under the good-not-great category, but for the purposes of the argument we'll call it a failure) realistically suggest to you about Bryan Singer?

Do you really think it means that Singer is a hack who "happened to have good luck" through a career of consistently strong films, including the classic that is "The Usual Suspects", until "Superman Returns" showed his true colors? If so, you're letting your resentment cloud your rationality.

The more likely scenario is that "Superman Returns" was the low point in what has otherwise been a strong directing career. Even good directors put out work that's below their usual standard.