Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion

[Nightwing1983]

I was asked to repost this thread here. It's sort-of a devil's advocate thing in an attempt to argue a pro-sequel argument.

If the formula to the success of 2009's Star Trek was the fact that it cut ties with the past, then why even make a Star Trek movie?

I mean, yeah yeah, things gotta evolve or die. But why couldn't it die? Why not just say, "oh well, it had a good run?"

Oh wait, maybe the name value added to the marque value. Why, though? Oh, because it was familiar to people.

And even if it had to have the Star Trek name, it didn't have to be Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. I mean, the second Star Trek: the Next Generation film, Star Trek: First Contact was a sizable hit and so why not just make another spin-off?

...

Maybe the problem wasn't that it was too stagnant. Maybe it was that there was no other way to go. Maybe it was time for a back-to-basics approach.

"Oh, but it established a new continuity." True... well, sort-of. It certainly did so, but they didn't just say, "those movies never happened," but much like with Crisis on Infinite Earths, it was still rooted in the timeline of the original, PLUS what else could they do? If they wanted Spock and Kirk, they had to go to the past, but if they did so, it would bind them with the events of the original series.

Okay, but why not get a new actor to play Old Spock? Why Leonard Nimoy? Oh, because he's an awesome actor and popular in fan groups.

But why so many homages? Well, everyone knows the "I'm a doctor, not a..." quip and because some fans like homages to more esoteric stuff like, "you are my superior officer, you are also my friend. I have been and always will be yours."

Gee. It's almost like this WAS my father's Star Trek and if there wasn't, there wouldn't be a point in making it.

 

[The Guard]

STAR TREK honored the past, and was almost constant fun. It's pretty much that simple.

 

[The Guard]

It's pretty obvious the creators of SUPERMAN RETURNS never wanted to use modern corporate Lex. It's not that they wouldn't have been able to...they just didn't want to.

 

[stargazer]

Star Trek success? Sure, to a point. Superman Returns still Outgrossed Star Trek worldwide..

Success is so relative.

 

[Nightwing1983]

Thanks, guys. I realize I did a lousy job of tying it in to Superman, so I'm glad you got what I was saying.

 

[Venom'sDad]

Hence... the movie failed.

 

[Crook]

Success is so relative.

To a point. I'd say "after-market" reaction holds more water for franchises today. Which is to refer to the anticipation level of the mainstream/geekdom, long after the movie's release hype has died down. Staying-value, I guess you would call it.

BB got it's sequel, and so will Star Trek, despite both getting less box office than SR. The more important issue, which is I think where the studios smartly gauge future projects, is the audience response. A sequel will always rest on the previous movie's success. Which is why TDK and X2 did huge compared to their predecessor. And as I'll predict, SM4 and Wolverine 2 will do worse because of the lukewarm response.

 

[Webhead2006]

I disagree. That could have been done in a sequel, easily.

Bryan Singer definitely planted some interesting seeds in SR for potentially great sequels, IMO.

Most may i ask what seeds you think he planted that would have gave some potential sequel stuff?

 

[Venom'sDad]

If he planted seeds, he would still be there cultivating the soil.

 

[Webhead2006]

personally i liked the new trek film alot, it honored the past, while giving things a new spin and it was a hit with the general audience.

 

[GreenKToo]

SR may have out grossed trek, but I doubt it made more. I also doubt there is near the division amongst ''its'' fans, but I could be wrong.
I betcha a sequel to Trek is made before another superman film is.

 

[Webhead2006]

Yea from what i seen online a good majority of trekies loved the film just as much as the average general viewer which is the group they were trying to get to more then the trekies.

 

[GreenKToo]

^ ha ha.
N.K. floating in space, with the three dead henchmen on board, would more than likely been the focus of the next film.

 

[GreenKToo]

If only we could have gotten that with the last superman film.

 

[M.O.Steel]

the crystal on NK, the kid being used as bait

 

[8wid]

How can Star Trek have cut its ties with the past when the entire film was a prequel? Abrams simply added richer special effects, a simplified story fit to carry the enormous amounts of action that was included. Many of the original elements were still there, but everything was not slow and boring any longer. Superman Returns could have done the same thing if it added some action and removed some absolutely pointless story elements , such as the kid. If that happened the reaction would have been the exact same.

 

[VenomsMom]

Most may i ask what seeds you think he planted that would have gave some potential sequel stuff?

Well.......Theres the Nk floating in space and Supes has a kid with powers and Lex is on a deserted island about to eat a dog. Sounds more like a bunch of weeds than planted seeds.

 

[Christmas]

It's pretty obvious the creators of SUPERMAN RETURNS never wanted to use modern corporate Lex. It's not that they wouldn't have been able to...they just didn't want to.

Singer himself acknowledged his familiarity with the comics was pretty cursory. So I kind of doubt the idea of Lex as a modern CEO was fully fleshed out between him Dougherty and Harris. The possibilities it could have presented were probably not given the time they needed to be expanded upon. Again Donner's film was a cornerstone to much of what we saw in LL in SR.

 

[Webhead2006]

hopefully the next folks wont make the same mistakes there just basing the film on one take of the character. And use all past incarnations best elements and as i said mix and match ideas/thoughts from all those different periods/incarnations and make a well rounded charactered rooted with more of the better known comic stuff.

 

[VenomsMom]

Alot of us have had similar ideas.

I would still have had Lex steal the crystals, but it would have been to create new tech, not to create a land mass. He would have studied the crystals and learned their secrets and sold all kinds of new inventions and cures for diseases to the highest bidders, and then in turn formed Lex-corp from the proceeds.

Lex also would have created metallo from some of the tech he created.

The people of Metropolis would have forgotten all about Superman and replaced him with Lex as their hero. Lex of course would have cared nothing for the little people.
That's when Superman would have returned. He would have found a world that had truly moved on without him.

BINGO. Could have been a better concept. Instead of this Lex languished in prison for five years. The world forgot about him as well.

 

[Christmas]

If only we can get GreenKToo into a time machine and send him back to July 04 to the writers' meetings.

 

[8wid]

NO DONNERVERSE!!! This is not the 1970s!

 

[Christmas]

Seriously GreenK, those few little paragraphs sound like they could have been so awesome.

 

[MadVillainy]

I agree about no Donnerverse...I dont see why ppl are so hung up on it.

I mean the Donnverse Superman reception reminds me of the pre BB Batman films receptions

1st film was good (Batman, Superman: The Movie)
2nd was good (BR, Superman II)
3rd was step in the wrong direction/bad
4th was horrible

I dont see why if the Batman series could move on why cant the Superman series. If the freaking Bond & Star Trek series which have had the same continuities for over 20 yrs move on, why couldnt Superman?

 

[Webhead2006]

i know blackman i hope this time around we can finally move past donner/singer's takes on the character, bring the character into more modern better liked elements, a new and different story/origin and all that.