Sequels Received an email with a link to Superman Sequel news... Enjoy (link inside)

Based on observation a lone... Whatever polarized amount of SR fans exists, Routh did great with what was given. I don't even see that as a debate anymore. Just a fact.

He did fine with what he was given...

But most of what he was given doesn't need to be seen again...

The Singerverse Superman needs to go bye, bye and that means no more Brandon, too.
 
I agree Brandon was great. But you know the dangers of fact based opinion. ;)

By the way I love the Panned User gag. Although it's better not to analyse it because that could lead to the question - what type of pan? :wow: :oldrazz:

BTW - I realised it's a play with Banned. ;)

Angeloz


Ha ha, thanks. I figure I'm not the most popular guy in the world so like a lot of Sylvester Stallone movies I'm "Panned"

:p
 
You know I am!

Turn the page on the SIngerverse! Routh is not irreplaceable. Move on and reboot.

Keeping Routh is keeping the Singervese, it wasn't a 'lack of action' or 'super-fights' it was the TOTAL approach to and characterization of the character (s).

Bye, bye Routh, bye, bye Singer.

I would love a reboot only for the simple reason I believe it has been more than long enough to see a live action telling of the origin story displaying what happened with Jor-el more in depth on Krypton... The WHAT, WHEN, AND WHY story method so to speak. Also there are parts of his SV life that could be explored in a better or more interesting way than what we've seen thus far. It's a great way to really reintroduce the character and you can have Clark meet everyone for the first time as it SHOULD be. In SV tv series he knows everyone before he even goes to Metropolis. In SR, it is a return story so he already has history with them. It's great to see the initial meeting between characters. Also an oppurtunity to venture more away from the goofy Clark to a more modern Byrnes interpretation.

With ALL that said, I would still be happy to see an MOS story with Routh as the lead. A better paced, action oriented, and physical threat would be enough to bring the SR franchise back up imo.
 
You said it. Just like in real life, things have no "endings," they just flow forward somehow. There's no magical deus ex machina or beautiful speech that make everything going right at the last second. SR ala STM or SII would have Superman reversing time or deleting memories so Jason was never born or Lois won't be able to remember Superman left her without saying good-bye.

You were responding to someone else when you posted this, but I wanted to pick up on a few points.

It used to be the tradition in fantasy stories that there was a happy ending, or a neat ending, or even that things returned to the status quo - the way they were. I think the amnesia kiss and reversing time in the earlier Superman movies of the 70s/80s are part of that previous system in fantasy stories. In the classic movie version of Wizard of Oz, it's all a dream for Dorothy; and an entire season of Dallas was a dream too. Those sorts of plot devices wouldn't hold up today and I don't think anyone watching SR wanted anything like that to happen.

It's not the events at the end of the movie that are the problem (I'm not calling for amnesia kisses or time reversals); it's the events BEFORE the movie that are problematic. The relationship, the pregnancy, the leaving of Earth, the not saying goodbye.

I saw the SR hardback annual (children's book) in a second-hand store on Friday and the telling of the story in there made more sense. Superman had been convinced that there was still life on Krypton's remains, the dialogue and explanation were much clearer.


That is another quality I didn't mention. Conflicts are clear enough so they don't have to be spoonfeeding to us verbally. Sadly that happens too much nowadays. For me, movies that had everything to be great (as Batman begins for example) are toptally ruined by over-explainative repetitive dialogues.

Some clarity is needed; we cannot base stories on vague history. Otherwise it's like being dropped from a helicopter into an unknown landscape with no map, no idea of where we are and what direction we are going in.


What defined something else for me was the way Superman, while not lying directly, hides the truth about him and his actions all the time. And saying “Oh I went for a juice” when Lois asks Clark where was he while Superman rescued that kid. I understand Superman’s mission requires he to distort truth in order to protect his identioty and mission. But then don’t go all “I never lie.” I could, for example, be okay with the amnesia kiss if he offered to forget everything to Lois before doing it.

I've always thought that Superman doesn't lie. It's Clark who lies, and acts like a nerd, to protect Superman's identity. There is a great episode of the TV show Lois and Clark (it was on TV here just the other week) where a villain has apparent evidence that reveals Clark is Superman - and Clark thinks he will have to admit it to everyone, but Lois says that there is a 'greater truth at stake' and that the world needs a mythic hero. At the press conference, Clark decides NOT to tell the truth and covers it up with a story. Although Superman stands for protecting the truth (=honesty, goodness, belief, faith in something better) of the nation/world, he must hide his own truth in order to do that. It's important that he appear as more of a symbol (of hope/strength and doing the right thing, the good thing) than as a person with vulnerabilities that can be exploited. Notice the world is never shown questioning who he is and what he does in his daily life when he isn't flying around, they happily accept this symbol of goodness.

In a way it's like God, like religion, though Superman is NOT God. If people believe in God, they don't constantly question the truth and identity and physical reality of that God, they don't ask who he/she/it is. People have a need to believe in something greater than themselves. In today's crazy world, that might mean believing in aliens and spaceships or it might mean deifying things that are not deities (celebrities usually). Superman represents that 'something greater than ourselves', a source of inspiration, who stands for that 'greater truth.'
 
You know I am!

Turn the page on the SIngerverse! Routh is not irreplaceable. Move on and reboot.

Keeping Routh is keeping the Singervese, it wasn't a 'lack of action' or 'super-fights' it was the TOTAL approach to and characterization of the character (s).

Bye, bye Routh, bye, bye Singer.

I'm not going to any page on the SINGERVERSE! Woohoo! Who gives a flying crap anyway? Keep Brandon Routh. He's a true Superman along with Christopher Reeve.

You think you're serious, then you're hypocrite.

I like to add one more thing to say... GET RID OF SINGER. Then there'll be no flame war against him.
 
hey El Payaso great post. you made your argument without being condescending or rude. its nice to see that around here when so many others tend to go the other route.
 
hey El Payaso great post. you made your argument without being condescending or rude. its nice to see that around here when so many others tend to go the other route.

Why thanks man. :up:




And X-Maniac, you have some very good and interesting points. I'll try to reply soon but I might not be able to.
 
I'm not going to any page on the SINGERVERSE! Woohoo! Who gives a flying crap anyway? Keep Brandon Routh. He's a true Superman along with Christopher Reeve.

I would have to disagree. I don't think Singer's version of Superman was a 'true Superman,' so therefore Routh cannot be a 'true Superman.' I think Routh may have the potential, but I think the Superman film franchise is more important and bigger than one actor. I understand you like Routh in the role, but to me he is just a reminder of the misfire that SR was. If we're going to move forward with a reboot, you've got to recast Superman as well as everyone else.

You think you're serious, then you're hypocrite.

No, I KNOW I'm serious. How am I a hypocrite? I've NEVER had anything but criticism and disdain for Singer and his Superman film/ Universe.

I like to add one more thing to say... GET RID OF SINGER. Then there'll be no flame war against him.

And even better, he won't screw up another Superman film! :)
 
I would love a reboot only for the simple reason I believe it has been more than long enough to see a live action telling of the origin story displaying what happened with Jor-el more in depth on Krypton... The WHAT, WHEN, AND WHY story method so to speak. Also there are parts of his SV life that could be explored in a better or more interesting way than what we've seen thus far. It's a great way to really reintroduce the character and you can have Clark meet everyone for the first time as it SHOULD be. In SV tv series he knows everyone before he even goes to Metropolis. In SR, it is a return story so he already has history with them. It's great to see the initial meeting between characters. Also an oppurtunity to venture more away from the goofy Clark to a more modern Byrnes interpretation.

I like what you are saying here. I wouldn't be against a new origin story, but it may be possible to start it with him coming to Metropolis. I think a non-linear story might be the best approach.

Start with him arriving in Metropolis and as the story unfolds maybe he discovers his origins along with the audience at the same time and it unfolds throughout the story instead of telling a strictly linear tale ala S:TM.
With ALL that said, I would still be happy to see an MOS story with Routh as the lead. A better paced, action oriented, and physical threat would be enough to bring the SR franchise back up imo.

I really don't think that pace, action and physical threat are enough. I think we have to move on entirely from the storylines started in SR to really bring Superman back to greatness on the big screen.
 
At this point all I want is a good Superman movie, sequel or not.
 
At this point all I want is a good Superman movie, sequel or not.

Same here. I just hope either Singer or Routh or both return. If not, I can deal with it move on, unlike some who won't & will still continue to whine.
 
No, I KNOW I'm serious. How am I a hypocrite? I've NEVER had anything but criticism and disdain for Singer and his Superman film/ Universe.

Yeah, of course you know you're serious. Good for you. :whatever: You want someone to get rid of Brandon Routh as Superman.

There are almost many fans of Brandon Routh and would like to see him in the blue tight suit for the sequel again. I'm one of them.

Whatever.

EDIT: You know what? Why don't you call Warner Bros and make a request to get rid of Brandon Routh? GO AHEAD! ****IN' CALL WARNER BROS NOW. DO IT! I don't give a flying **** about this ****!
 
Yeah, of course you know you're serious. Good for you. :whatever: You want someone to get rid of Brandon Routh as Superman.

There are almost many fans of Brandon Routh and would like to see him in the blue tight suit for the sequel again. I'm one of them.

Whatever.

EDIT: You know what? Why don't you call Warner Bros and make a request to get rid of Brandon Routh? GO AHEAD! ****IN' CALL WARNER BROS NOW. DO IT! I don't give a flying **** about this ****!
You need to calm down man.
 
I'm not going to any page on the SINGERVERSE! Woohoo! Who gives a flying crap anyway? Keep Brandon Routh. He's a true Superman along with Christopher Reeve.

You think you're serious, then you're hypocrite.

I like to add one more thing to say... GET RID OF SINGER. Then there'll be no flame war against him.
Respect his opinion and I am sure he respects yours. It is really no big deal.
 
Yeah, of course you know you're serious. Good for you. :whatever: You want someone to get rid of Brandon Routh as Superman.

There are almost many fans of Brandon Routh and would like to see him in the blue tight suit for the sequel again. I'm one of them.

Whatever.

EDIT: You know what? Why don't you call Warner Bros and make a request to get rid of Brandon Routh? GO AHEAD! ****IN' CALL WARNER BROS NOW. DO IT! I don't give a flying **** about this ****!

Easy there, man. I don't agree with what some say, but I learn to calm down & respect their opinions despite not agreeing with it. I wish you learn from me to be cool & relax, ok?
 
Yeah, of course you know you're serious. Good for you. :whatever: You want someone to get rid of Brandon Routh as Superman.

There are almost many fans of Brandon Routh and would like to see him in the blue tight suit for the sequel again. I'm one of them.

Whatever.

EDIT: You know what? Why don't you call Warner Bros and make a request to get rid of Brandon Routh? GO AHEAD! ****IN' CALL WARNER BROS NOW. DO IT! I don't give a flying **** about this ****!


Umm... He said he likes Routh. He is just not sure how it would work if they did a reboot/or origin which would basically mean a new franchise. I think that's a logical view point. I mean there is potential that it could confuse audiences to have the same guy starring as Superman with a whole different history in another franchise. Regardless if I like SR or not, we must admit that there is an issue if fans are as split as they are. I think it could be saved in a sequel, but I also can see why some say a reboot would unite fans in the LONG run.
 
In all honesty, a Superman sequel doesn't interest me. Singer was the kryptonite of the new franchise; his attempt to revive the franchise ended up killing it. Rebooting and restarting sounds like a laborious, troubled process.

About the only thing that would work is finally making Smallville's Tom Welling into Superman (and therefore ending Smallville before it drags on too much) and doing a feature film springing from that.

Also, I must admit I was excited by the prospect of a Justice League movie, but not by the z-list actors. If that movie could show a League being formed, rather than pre-existing, it could really work. I want to see these heroes being brought together by some billionaire mastermind to fight some threat where a group of heroes would be needed. Simple.

Also, a Wonder Woman movie could work if it began as an ancient historical origin epic and then moved to the First World War (all in first movie) and then moved to modern day (second movie). You'd need a director used to large-scale epics.
 
In all honesty, a Superman sequel doesn't interest me. Singer was the kryptonite of the new franchise; his attempt to revive the franchise ended up killing it. Rebooting and restarting sounds like a laborious, troubled process.

About the only thing that would work is finally making Smallville's Tom Welling into Superman (and therefore ending Smallville before it drags on too much) and doing a feature film springing from that.

Also, I must admit I was excited by the prospect of a Justice League movie, but not by the z-list actors. If that movie could show a League being formed, rather than pre-existing, it could really work. I want to see these heroes being brought together by some billionaire mastermind to fight some threat where a group of heroes would be needed. Simple.

Also, a Wonder Woman movie could work if it began as an ancient historical origin epic and then moved to the First World War (all in first movie) and then moved to modern day (second movie). You'd need a director used to large-scale epics.


This explains everything. All your hate towards SR. You're a Smallville - Welling Fan. That's just pathetic and funny.:waa: :hehe:
 
This explains everything. All your hate towards SR. You're a Smallville - Welling Fan. That's just pathetic and funny.:waa: :hehe:

Smallville is good for what it is. It's on its seventh season, that says something about ratings and therefore popularity. Seven seasons is far from pathetic or funny. Now, an underperforming pretentious Superman movie from which the original writers 'left' and which has no news of a sequel - that sounds more like pathetic and funny. Cry me a river nintendo.
 
Umm... He said he likes Routh. He is just not sure how it would work if they did a reboot/or origin which would basically mean a new franchise. I think that's a logical view point. I mean there is potential that it could confuse audiences to have the same guy starring as Superman with a whole different history in another franchise. Regardless if I like SR or not, we must admit that there is an issue if fans are as split as they are. I think it could be saved in a sequel, but I also can see why some say a reboot would unite fans in the LONG run.

Is there a evidence that he likes Routh? I'm not even going to waste my time to use the search engine and look all of his post. No way.
 
Smallville is good for what it is. It's on its seventh season, that says something about ratings and therefore popularity. Seven seasons is far from pathetic or funny. Now, an underperforming pretentious Superman movie from which the original writers 'left' and which has no news of a sequel - that sounds more like pathetic and funny. Cry me a river nintendo.
No thats just pathetic.
 
Smallville is good for what it is. It's on its seventh season, that says something about ratings and therefore popularity. Seven seasons is far from pathetic or funny. Now, an underperforming pretentious Superman movie from which the original writers 'left' and which has no news of a sequel - that sounds more like pathetic and funny. Cry me a river nintendo.

Popularity doesn't equal good.
Backstreet boys were popular and that doesn't mean they were good. Vanilla Ice was popular and I think we all know we wasn't good.
I think the first 3 seasons of Smallville were good. But right now its a joke were every character has sex with every other character. Maybe they are saving a sex scene between Clark and Lex for the Season Finale. And its absurd that Welling is almost or already 30 years old and he is still playing young Clark Kent. And he is still in love with Lana and already knows Lois, and Jimmy Olsen is like 2 years younger than Clark. Absurd and stupid IMO.
 
Smallville is good for what it is. It's on its seventh season, that says something about ratings and therefore popularity. Seven seasons is far from pathetic or funny. Now, an underperforming pretentious Superman movie from which the original writers 'left' and which has no news of a sequel - that sounds more like pathetic and funny. Cry me a river nintendo.
SV is in its seventh season because Singer stopped the WB from pulling the plug on that show. Really SV was told season 5 would be their last season because of the movie. However Singer stepped in and said their is no reason for that because they are telling the story of how Clark becomes Superman; while he is telling a Superman story. That in turn really saved that show because in an interview even the producers of SV admits this which is why they say you see a sudden change and dip in quality of season five because they were entering that season in thoughts that it would be their last.
 
what are the chances of wb doing a prequel to SR, with flashbacks cut in and out of the story to Kryptons destruction, which leads to braniac for the film?
 
Popularity doesn't equal good.
Backstreet boys were popular and that doesn't mean they were good. Vanilla Ice was popular and I think we all know we wasn't good.
I think the first 3 seasons of Smallville were good. But right now its a joke were every character has sex with every other character. Maybe they are saving a sex scene between Clark and Lex for the Season Finale. And its absurd that Welling is almost or already 30 years old and he is still playing young Clark Kent. And he is still in love with Lana and already knows Lois, and Jimmy Olsen is like 2 years younger than Clark. Absurd and stupid IMO.


Vanilla Ice never had lasting success, he had one hit.

Smallville is fine for the light entertainment sci-fi genre, alongside Buffy, Charmed, Angel, etc etc. It fits well there and has lasted longer than many other shows.

Popular entertainment is part of culture. Otherwise, there'd be no such thing as the 'nintendo' after which you take your user name and we'd all be forced at gunpoint to listen to Beethoven and Tchaikovsky while the Beatles, Elvis, Springsteen, U2 and Madonna would never have existed.

Whatever you say, the fact remains that SR did not deliver. In so many ways. Some nice visuals do not compensate for the many things that were wrong. Apart from overspending, mis-spending and underperforming, the movie’s huge inherent weaknesses has led to the writers’ two pitches for sequels being rejected. So, even if taken as a reintroduction to the Super-verse, it didn’t work well if the ideas growing from it are being thrown out as unworkable in the world Singer created.

Singer tried, misjudged, and failed. I’ve no problems with his directing skills per se but am not a fan of his imposing his personal neuroses on every character. No doubt Valkyrie will show a persecuted outsider struggling to find his past as well. It might have worked with X-Men to a large extent, as they are persecuted outsiders. But not every character is like that. I've no problem with 'artiness' in movies, but they have to be true to their source and create accurate, empathetic characterisations.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"