Sequels The Official Kevin Spacey As Lex Luthor Thread

[dark_b]

Way I figure it...Singer probably thought by pigging backing off of Donner's material, that it would be a sure-fire success...rather than taking the less unsafe route of making something up himself.

Honestly...if he had used the comic source material ONLY...we would have had an incredible film....one that had...you know...something I like to call "action" instead of a Superman trying to get in touch with his femine-side.

Ok, that was harsh...but dang, I felt so let down...waiting all this time to see Superman back in action...and then just to see him lift stuff up a few times. tada. that's it.

singer is one of the biggest S:TM fans. he loves donner more the us here.
thats why he used it. not because he wanted success.

is it really so hard to belive that singer wanted to make a good superman first to himself then to others? is it really so hard to belive that singer wanted to make a good movie and that.......some fans just didnt like hes version?

why is it that if a fan doenst like th movie that then the director wanted to make a bad movie?

and can people please stop saying that if it would be more like the comics that then it would be a better movie. i am 100% sure that the reason why a lot of people like BB is because it is a good movie not because it uses a lot from hte comics.

it is obvious because geberal public doesnt know the comics so its obvious to me that the reason they liked the movie is because it is a well made movie.

i have a lot of problems with but i am starting to feel bad for singer.

and its WB's faut that the movie didnt have action. its their money. its their lost.

 

[Warhammer]

I actually like the fact that Luthor is in the sequel, but I only ask for one thing. Cut the camp. All of it. I do not want a Hackman-esque Luthor again. I want Luthor to be more of the corrupt business man (ala Superman: TAS). No more real estate schemes, no more stealing Kryptonite.

 

[wobbly]

Luthor....again?

For a character with over 7 decades of history they aint looking very far for his villains are they?....So, including the Reeve films, this is will be 6 Superman movies and Luthor will have been in all but one of them. Time to look elsewhere WB, it's not like you are lacking for choices and y'know, there are villains he can actually fight out there too.

I swear, if Luthor's plan is just another lame land grab that really would be a dealbreaker for me.

 

[dark_b]

interesting that when fans found about [BLACKOUT]scarecrow in[/BLACKOUT] TDK everyone was jumping because they were so happy

 

[Steelsheen]

interesting that when fans found about [BLACKOUT]scarecrow in[/BLACKOUT] TDK everyone was jumping because they were so happy

how many times have we seen him in Batman movies? he's hardly overused.

if Ledger's Joker will be no different from how Nicholson played him for sure you're gonna get complaints from everyone. but so far its proven that Ledger's version of the iconic villain will be different from what we already saw.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The thing is...what would be the point of keeping him alive. I mean what was the point to having Superman have a child? Will he become Superboy or something?

They can go anywere with him, the possibilities are only limited by the writers imagination.

I think that might have been the case, not just Singer but WB as well. Problem is that it didn't resonate with the general audience as much as they thought it would.

Yeah, i also think they thought that if they didnt acknowledge the Reeve/Donner movies, then there would be backlash.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I actually like the fact that Luthor is in the sequel, but I only ask for one thing. Cut the camp. All of it. I do not want a Hackman-esque Luthor again. I want Luthor to be more of the corrupt business man (ala Superman: TAS). No more real estate schemes, no more stealing Kryptonite.

Agreed, i want more of the vicious, sinister Luthor from the 3rd act of SR.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

But what's the point? How does he add to the story if he doesn't change and grow if he's just in the background as a kid like a piece of furniture?

Being a father to your son gives numerous story opportunities. I don't mean teaching him to drive a car, but the same way Smallville approaches the subject can be done on a smaller scale with Jason. There are no bad ideas, just bad execution.t: It's still a Superman movie so Jason will always be in the background no matter what. He can be a plot point, like Lex taking his revenge on Supes through him, but it will be Supes problem to solve.

 

[GhostPoet]

singer is one of the biggest S:TM fans. he loves donner more the us here.
thats why he used it. not because he wanted success.

is it really so hard to belive that singer wanted to make a good superman first to himself then to others? is it really so hard to belive that singer wanted to make a good movie and that.......some fans just didnt like hes version?

why is it that if a fan doenst like th movie that then the director wanted to make a bad movie?

and can people please stop saying that if it would be more like the comics that then it would be a better movie. i am 100% sure that the reason why a lot of people like BB is because it is a good movie not because it uses a lot from hte comics.

it is obvious because geberal public doesnt know the comics so its obvious to me that the reason they liked the movie is because it is a well made movie.

i have a lot of problems with but i am starting to feel bad for singer.

and its WB's faut that the movie didnt have action. its their money. its their lost.

Honestly, I would have been fine with the movie if it had superman in action more and just just floating around or flying around or just lifting things.
but the movie is just so dang slow and action-LESS than it's painfully boring.

 

[Qwerty©]

Honestly, I would have been fine with the movie if it had superman in action more and just just floating around or flying around or just lifting things.
but the movie is just so dang slow and action-LESS than it's painfully boring.

Plane Rescue
Bank Robbery Scene
Superman saving Metropolis
Superman lifting the boat out of the water
Superman lifting New Krypton into space

The movie wasn't actionless. Repetitive maybe, but it seems people on these boards don't think its an action scene unless he throws a punch, which is incorrect.

 

[terry78]

Plane Rescue
Bank Robbery Scene
Superman saving Metropolis
Superman lifting the boat out of the water
Superman lifting New Krypton into space

The movie wasn't actionless. Repetitive maybe, but it seems people on these boards don't think its an action scene unless he throws a punch, which is incorrect.

Well, we want our superheroes to fight vilains. Most movies have had this. Superman may be the end all be all, but he ain't above throwing down. If I wanted to see a movie about him fighting his own inner demons, I'd go watch the Cider House Rules.

 

[Qwerty©]

Well, we want our superheroes to fight vilains. Most movies have had this. Superman may be the end all be all, but he ain't above throwing down. If I wanted to see a movie about him fighting his own inner demons, I'd go watch the Cider House Rules.

I didn't say you can't have Superman fighting villains. I'm just stating that SR wasn't actionless, despite no punch being thrown.

 

[manofsteel4life]

Plane Rescue
Bank Robbery Scene
Superman saving Metropolis
Superman lifting the boat out of the water
Superman lifting New Krypton into space

The movie wasn't actionless. Repetitive maybe, but it seems people on these boards don't think its an action scene unless he throws a punch, which is incorrect.its amazing isnt it?

 

[turtlefocker]

Yea but, Plane Rescue was the only exciting action sequence the rest was just meh, like watching paint dry. The Dialog was neither memorable or original, there was no character development, and the overall feel of the film was slow and depressing. Spacey did good though, so its nice that hell be back. We need a new director.

 

[Eros]

Yea but, Plane Rescue was the only exciting action sequence the rest was just meh, like watching paint dry. The Dialog was neither memorable or original, there was no character development, and the overall feel of the film was slow and depressing. Spacey did good though, so its nice that hell be back. We need a new director.

did you actually see the movie, the entire movie was one big character development fest basically.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Yea but, Plane Rescue was the only exciting action sequence the rest was just meh, like watching paint dry. The Dialog was neither memorable or original, there was no character development, and the overall feel of the film was slow and depressing. Spacey did good though, so its nice that hell be back. We need a new director.

did you actually see the movie, the entire movie was one big character development fest basically.

Exactly, some people dont watch these movies properly at all, character development was the movies big function.

 

[Qwerty©]

I seriously think "no character development" is one of these stock insults against movies that people don't understand what they mean. Sort of like the phrase "not epic enough".

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I seriously think "no character development" is one of these stock insults against movies that people don't understand what they mean. Sort of like the phrase "not epic enough".

I know, how anyone can say SR had no character development is beyond me. Character development is probably the thing it had most of.

 

[manofsteel4life]

I know, how anyone can say SR had no character development is beyond me. Character development is probably the thing it had most of.

yea i know...and that's what most people complained about in SR....i think you needed it to refresh people's minds on each character

 

[Grinder]

The main characters went from nothing to nowhere:

Lois is a single mother with feelings for Superman - no change in the end
Lex is crazy and wants to rule the world and kill Superman - no change in the end
Clark feels lonely and wants Lois to love him - no change in the end

There's really nothing this movie displayed other than that Jason is some weirdo mutant with powers. The rest is repetitive crap that doesn't tell us anything new about the characters or changes them in a recognisably way. I agree that there are alot of subtle hints, but that's also the biggest problem of the story. Nothing is actually explained nor are the main plots of the movie resolved in a satisfying way like I (and I bet a lot of other people) would expect it from a plot dealing with adults and adult problems.
Why does Peter Parker in "Spidey 3" know that adults "talk about problems" but the 30+ year old Superman and Lois are beating around the bush like teenagers on Prom night?
We start with the characters the same way we end with them in SR. Sure there is a plot: Superman returns, is instantly accepted back by the world and finds out he has a son in the end, only to then fly off without even dealing with it. --> That's not even enough material to make a decent tv episode of Smallville!

Compare that to the tight plot of "Batman Begins" which is also an origin story! Nolan managed to introduce a boatload of characters and give Batman a real story and shows Bruce as a completely different person in the end. His relationship with Rachel also comes to a satisfying conclusion. The other characters (especially the criminals) also move on to a new parts of their lives resp. die off during the plot.

Explain to me how Singer developed any of his characters to the point they moved on to new goals in their lives!?

Enlighten me ... please!

 

[manofsteel4life]

The main characters went from nothing to nowhere:

Lois is a single mother with feelings for Superman - no change in the end
Lex is crazy and wants to rule the world and kill Superman - no change in the end
Clark feels lonely and wants Lois to love him - no change in the end

There's really nothing this movie displayed other than that Jason is some weirdo mutant with powers. The rest is repetitive crap that doesn't tell us anything new about the characters or changes them in a recognisably way. I agree that there are alot of subtle hints, but that's also the biggest problem of the story. Nothing is actually explained nor are the main plots of the movie resolved in a satisfying way like I (and I bet a lot of other people) would expect it from a plot dealing with adults and adult problems.
Why does Peter Parker in "Spidey 3" know that adults "talk about problems" but the 30+ year old Superman and Lois are beating around the bush like teenagers on Prom night?
We start with the characters the same way we end with them in SR. Sure there is a plot: Superman returns, is instantly accepted back by the world and finds out he has a son in the end, only to then fly of without even dealing with it. --> That's not even enough material to make a decent tv episode of Smallville!

Compare that to the tight plot of "Batman Begins" which is also an origin story! Nolan managed to introduce a boatload of characters and give Batman a real story and shows Bruce as a completely different person in the end. His relationship with Rachel also comes to a satisfying conclusion. The other characters (especially the criminals) also move on to a new parts of their lives resp. die off during the plot.

Explain to me how Singer developed any of his characters to the point they moved on to new goals in their lives!?

Enlighten me ... please!

but there are changes throughout the movie....when Supes came back....it was almost as if Lois was anyoyed at the fact everyone was making a big deal about Supes returning....they meet...what happens?....Lois shows she still has feelings him....after supes saves her richard and jason....he goes after lex....what happens? Lois tells Richard that they have to go back and get supes...she saves him from drowning....sorry to only mention supes and lois...but those were shining stars as to moving forward.....the rest...which i think was great...left a bit of mystery as to what's gonna happen with each character....and Supes came to Jason's room and talked to him...how is he not dealing with it?

 

[turtlefocker]

The prombelm was the film was unable to stand on its own.

 

[Grinder]

Character developement isn't the same as the plot of a movie. Of course do the characters interact with each other, it's just nothing of importance. Supes doesn't deal with the knowledge of his son, he just flies into his room and repeats the speech his father gave to him while Jason is asleep. (That speech also makes zero sense to everyone who doesn't know/remember/cares for the religious meaning of the Donner movies.)

Then, when he finally meets Lois after this shocking revelation, they both just stare at each other for a second and then go back to the "big elephant in the room we should just ignore" routine the whole movie is build up on and then he tells her "I'm always around!" and flies off. That's definitely NOT dealing with the impact of getting the news that you have a kid with your old girlfriend! One could argue that he more or less just leaves Lois with his son like "You're problem, deal with it!".
It's the subtleness Singer implemented in every scene that makes the whole story so irritating. You can think about most of the scenes and always come to different solutions depending on how you interpret them. We shouldn't have to ask ourselves what a significant scene, like the last one with Lois, actually means. Some here see it as the end of the Lois/Supes relationship while others see it as a sign for a new beginning of their love.

Those are key moments of this movie's plot and have to be explained till the end of it.
Otherwise it's just very irritating and results in the mixed word of mouth the movie is still suffering from.

That and some other things are the reason why we're still trying to make sense of the story and why even the biggest SR fans around here feel that Singer has some explaining to do in a sequel.

If you want good examples for character development watch "Spider-Man 2" or "Batman Begins" and then compare it to SR.
Peter and Bruce go from A to B and change their personalities in a significant way in the end.
If or how Clark changes depends on the individual interpretation of the viewer. For me, he didn't change one bit from the first time he appears. He's a lonely alien who wants some love. He's pretty much Hellboy in a Superman suit.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Oh please, Spiderman 2 is right. He continually learned things through the film and the movie moved based on his character.

Batman Begins pretended to be about depth with its "inside, I am more" and "why do we fall" crap. By the time he hit the airplane with Alfred, all the character development was done. After that, was all plot contrived Batman action to solve the villain problem and the crime.

Lois had all the character development in the movie. She went from hating Supes for just waltzing back in to remembering she loved him. Just because it was subtle doesn't mean it was any less meaningful. Superman went from feeling he was all alone to trying to put his life back together and repair his relationship with Lois. In the end, the relationship was repaired and his lonelines was gone. It's not deep, but it was there.

The difference in character development and plot is whether the character is true to the defined characteristics. If you can just substitue any character then it's just plot. If you don't believe Superman would leave then of course, you'd think it was all just plot development. The entire premise of the movie appears false to you and so does the development.

 

[manofsteel4life]

Character developement isn't the same as the plot of a movie. Of course do the characters interact with each other, it's just nothing of importance. Supes doesn't deal with the knowledge of his son, he just flies into his room and repeats the speech his father gave to him while Jason is asleep. (That speech also makes zero sense to everyone who doesn't know/remember/cares for the religious meaning of the Donner movies.)

Then, when he finally meets Lois after this shocking revelation, they both just stare at each other for a second and then go back to the "big elephant in the room we should just ignore" routine the whole movie is build up on and then he tells her "I'm always around!" and flies off. That's definitely NOT dealing with the impact of getting the news that you have a kid with your old girlfriend! One could argue that he more or less just leaves Lois with his son like "You're problem, deal with it!".
It's the subtleness Singer implemented in every scene that makes the whole story so irritating. You can think about most of the scenes and always come to different solutions depending on how you interpret them. We shouldn't have to ask ourselves what a significant scene, like the last one with Lois, actually means. Some here see it as the end of the Lois/Supes relationship while others see it as a sign for a new beginning of their love.

Those are key moments of this movie's plot and have to be explained till the end of it.
Otherwise it's just very irritating and results in the mixed word of mouth the movie is still suffering from.

That and some other things are the reason why we're still trying to make sense of the story and why even the biggest SR fans around here feel that Singer has some explaining to do in a sequel.

If you want good examples for character development watch "Spider-Man 2" or "Batman Begins" and then compare it to SR.
Peter and Bruce go from A to B and change their personalities in a significant way in the end.
If or how Clark changes depends on the individual interpretation of the viewer. For me, he didn't change one bit from the first time he appears. He's a lonely alien who wants some love. He's pretty much Hellboy in a Superman suit.

yea but you cant compare them to supes personality.....yea i agree they changed..but they changed from worse to better....spidey...was gonna give up saving lives...just because he felt he couldnt handle all the pressure of the public and losing MJ....batman was gonna take a life away out of revenge....now compare that to supes....when did once...despite being so called..."depressed"...did he even question himself on any of those issues that batman and spidey faced....he never did...each time he never stopped saving lives....which is what he was put on earth to do