Sequels The Official Mike Dougherty & Dan Harris Thread

[J.Howlett]

X,

All I will say is that the story is not finished. But, he does have piece of mind and a new outlook on his journey if you really look at it.

Is it a bit too nuanced for audiences today? Probably so. It's not like the situation with Peter and Mary Jane at the end of Spider-Man 2....but it shares some similarities to how Peter ended it with Mary Jane in the first Spider-Man film....

 

[Crook]

the reason that franchise did so well was because it was desperately needed at the time.

Well, that and the films were exactly what the people wanted and were looking for. I think it's a bit silly to pinpoint the source of Spider-Man's success as strictly coming out at the right time.

And with how audiences are today, they don't flock to original films. Case in point, The Fountain from last year.....Brilliant piece of work, nobody saw it.

But people do flock to films that provide entertainment. Original or not. If a film is original but doesn't necessarily appeal to the masses with it's content, then it's a given it won't exactly do huge numbers.

 

[J.Howlett]

X,

Well, it's subjective to ask if Superman Returns provided entertainment. I can't answer that.

All I can say it that it made 391 million dollars worldwide, on a budget that wasn't entirely Singer's making.

 

[Super Kal]

Well, that and the films were exactly what the people wanted and were looking for. I think it's a bit silly to pinpoint the source of Spider-Man's success as strictly coming out at the right time.

agreed.

 

[J.Howlett]

Just because Spider-Man made 403 million doesn't mean that it was what the people wanted.

May 2002, with a hero from NYC, after specific events....

...I'm just saying. Having that kind of character come out at the time played a factor, no matter how you spin that. Hell, Raimi pretty much acknowledged that at certain visual points in the film.

 

[Dark Knight]

That is what I heard the villian was as well previously. I told several posters on the board.

Sanchez at IESB said the samething.

Darkseid was who they wanted.

Show,

Do you think there is any chance Christopher McQuarrie will be brought onboard as the new writer or is it going be the rumoured Terance Malick or Steven Gaghan brought on as new director(s)

 

[Michael Corleone]

Sanchez at IESB said the samething.

Darkseid was who they wanted.

Show,

Do you think there is any chance Christopher McQuarrie will be brought onboard as the new writer or is it going be the rumoured Terance Malick or Steven Gaghan brought on as new director(s)

I certainly hope it's not Terance Malick.....we'll have a 1 hour steady cam shot with no dialog of the fortress of solitude while Superman looks introspective and distant. lol

 

[X-Maniac]

It only underperformed because of budget, which everyone needs to be blamed.

391 million worldwide is a nice chunk of change but again, I feel there are alot of factors with that number. A number of you will say it's the film itself and I'm not going to argue that because it's a dead end. But, I still think the character is ultimately the problem in this age.

Just a gut feeling I have about it....

It underperformed. Not really because of budget, that just made it worse. By current industry standards, its tiny profit of $121m means it's not classed as a blockbuster.

Its earnings should have been at least in the $600m range.

(And, yes, so should X3, but let's not go down that road on here).

 

[Goodgod]

Just because Spider-Man made 403 million doesn't mean that it was what the people wanted.

May 2002, with a hero from NYC, after specific events....

...I'm just saying. Having that kind of character come out at the time played a factor, no matter how you spin that. Hell, Raimi pretty much acknowledged that at certain visual points in the film.

Spiderman was fun movie. SR was not. And who wants to watch a bland blockbuster during the summer.
Can we imagine if Spidey had no supervillain to fight, and Mary Jane had a spider kid. And all we saw was spidey pick stuff up.
yeah it's certainly NOT what the people wanting.
Movies about superheros should stick to the source material and not be snorefests.
Raimi got spidey, Raimi put hte book on the screen. Singerman has little to no resemblance from teh books.

 

[X-Maniac]

Further note: So it's looking less likely we'll ever see that 'Return to Krypton' sequence now? Shouldn't there be a special edition of the movie with that on it? Warner owns that footage, not Singer.

 

[Michael Corleone]

I enjoyed Superman Returns. However, I think this is the first step at starting over. Don't quote me on that, but I feel like this is the start of a shake up. Situations like these rarely end with just one department being replaced.

 

[the a1ant]

Dougherty and Harris are out? Good. Now lets get rid of Singer. I love what they did with the X-Men, and they're very talented...but they just didn't do a good job with SR, imo, and should've been original instead of using the Donner-verse as prequels.

 

[Michael Corleone]

Further note: So it's looking less likely we'll ever see that 'Return to Krypton' sequence now? Shouldn't there be a special edition of the movie with that on it? Warner owns that footage, not Singer.

I'm sure we will see it on a dvd or whatever format down the road. That's really only a matter of time.

 

[Showtime]

Sanchez at IESB said the samething.

Darkseid was who they wanted.

Show,

Do you think there is any chance Christopher McQuarrie will be brought onboard as the new writer or is it going be the rumoured Terance Malick or Steven Gaghan brought on as new director(s)

Anything is possible, but I don't think there is a chance, no.

 

[Crook]

Just because Spider-Man made 403 million doesn't mean that it was what the people wanted.

Lol, what was the ounce of logic behind this gem? You don't make 400 million (do I even need to mention how HUGE that is?) without being immensely popular amongst the crowd. If the film was crap, it would have dropped significantly. Plain and simple.

May 2002, with a hero from NYC, after specific events....

...I'm just saying. Having that kind of character come out at the time played a factor, no matter how you spin that. Hell, Raimi pretty much acknowledged that at certain visual points in the film.

I'm not ignoring it played a factor. I made a point in mentioning that in my very first post. But I'm not about to say Spider-Man owes it's success to 9/11. That's just idiotic.

It was a combination of being a quality flick AND arriving at a time where people did need a hero to look up to. That's not to say that it would've done significantly worse had there been no tragedy so close to it's release date. I'd bet it would still have done big numbers for that year.

 

[El Payaso]

The problem with Superman Returns is that it was so tragic, Superman was presented as terribly alone and doomed to remain alone, he was shown making decisions that cost him his happiness and almost cost him his life.

He has a son - but he can't really be with him.

He loves Lois - but he can't really be with her

He had the guidance and wisdom of his father in the Fortress - but he can't do that any more, he has no sanctuary, the Fortress was violated by Lex.

He decides to leave earth to check out the remains of Krypton -- yet Lois somehow doesn't know the amazing news that Krypton's remains have been discovered. She also is carrying his child, yet neither she nor Richard White seem to figure that out. It would be pretty obvious to her and to Richard who's kid it was.

Then Superman comes back from the mission he had to go on... only to find that his love has moved on, his child has a new dad, and Lex is out of prison.

There is nothing uplifting in this story to give any warmth or happiness to the character, there is no 'will he, won't he' with Lois because her life is sorted out, he is once again terribly alone.

What you say is right, but at least what's in bold happened in Superman II. In that mvoie he was left all alone too, even more since not even Lois was sharing the grief of their impossible love.

This was not really a superhero movie, it didn't have the hero factor necessary to make it a good rousing movie that showed acceptance, happiness, solid moral values and a rousing ending.

With character as Hulk or Batman (B89 and BR) things like heroism being merely incidental and a sadness and tragedy that tinges the story. With X-Men it's not that different. And Spiderman has a lot of tragedy and impossible love attached to the story.

The difference is that Singer wasn't deceitful enough (ala Superman II finale) to "pretend" the tragedy was "just another day in a superhero's life" by drowning everything in an iconic pose and heroic march as if that could erase the fact that Superman was inevitably destined to remain alone

'I'll be around' isn't enough to end the movie on, not when Lex is still free, Lois is with Richard, his son is with another family, his Fortress has been raided and all the crystals linking him to his father and his origins have been stolen.

^ But the idea was that...

All those have to be explored in a sequel.

^Exactly.

But where is the hope for Superman, where is the chemistry with Lois that might mean he tells her everything, that might mean they are finally together? We can't have that, because good, upstanding Richard is there and she plainly deserves the stability of that relationship.

Back in 1980 we knew they can't be together in this continuity. With or without Richard. Superman in SR, nevertheless, tried to bring Lois back in spite of that because he is a man in love.

SR may have made a nice character drama, an interesting study of tragic love and loss, but it didn't feel right to put Superman into that setting. It was like a crazy 'what if' story. Including Richard and Jason was probably a mistake, and showing Superman abandoning Lois in that fashion was also a mistake.

It was a crazy 'what if Superman would actually exist' story. No easy-happy-endings and smiley last minute solutions (time-reversing, amnesia kisses - which were the only [deceitful] ways the Donner-Lester two first Superman movies could end in a non tragic way)

It's pretty obvious that a sequel based on SR is difficult because of having to include those elements and try to take them forward. No doubt Warner, Harris and Dougherty struggled to agree on a direction for the next movie that wasn't bogged down by these various plot points from the first movie.

That was the magic. It was extremely difficult. But not impossible.

 

[X-Maniac]

But, still, all that tragedy doesn't leave the viewer with much hope, with much empathy with the character. After all, if Superman can't really triumph over normal life, then what hope for the rest of us!? It's far too downbeat.

 

[El Payaso]

Lol, what was the ounce of logic behind this gem? You don't make 400 million (do I even need to mention how HUGE that is?) without being immensely popular amongst the crowd. If the film was crap, it would have dropped significantly. Plain and simple.

I don't know how this 'If it made money it's a good movie, if it didn't then it's not' aphorism can make its way through time. Really.

Good movies have had bad BO numbers, bad movies have had great BO numbers. Spiderman movies gave audiences what they wanted, in spite of many flaws, plotholes and cheese. Spiderman 3 was by far the worst of them and made the bigger numbers.

 

[El Payaso]

But, still, all that tragedy doesn't leave the viewer with much hope, with much empathy with the character. After all, if Superman can't really triumph over normal life, then what hope for the rest of us!? It's far too downbeat.

Nevertheless, X-Men, Spiderman, Hulk and Batman are quite popular. And they have more tragedy than happy days.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Exactely. They ****ed up Superman. THere was nothing heroic in the whole story of the movie. It wasnt about the greatest hero of all time. It was about the greatest loser.

By the end of the movie Superman didnt have lois, didnt have the kid, didnt arrest Luthor...LOL...its amazing...I cant believe people cant see past these things...

 

[Crook]

I don't know how this 'If it made money it's a good movie, if it didn't then it's not' aphorism can make its way through time. Really.

Good movies have had bad BO numbers, bad movies have had great BO numbers. Spiderman movies gave audiences what they wanted, in spite of many flaws, plotholes and cheese. Spiderman 3 was by far the worst of them and made the bigger numbers.

Good and bad is subjective amongst viewers anyway. I'm arguing the movie's popularity, which is different.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Nevertheless, X-Men, Spiderman, Hulk and Batman are quite popular. And they have more tragedy than happy days.

Lets take BAtman Begins as an example of what should`ve been done.

You have the tragedy in Bruce`s life. THe whole movie is about him overcoming this tragedy and in the end he is more Super and more heroic than Superman in his movie? WTF!!!?!!?!

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Exactely. They ****ed up Superman. THere was nothing heroic in the whole story of the movie. It wasnt about the greatest hero of all time. It was about the greatest loser.

By the end of the movie Superman didnt have lois, didnt have the kid, didnt arrest Luthor...LOL...its amazing...I cant believe people cant see past these things...

Yea, but Superman caught Lex's boot when he kicked him. That was exciting.

 

[Roland]

I ran across the following while time travelling:


April 11, 2024

Variety reports that Warner Bros. is planning its fifteenth reboot of the "Superman" franchise.

WB studios spokesman Jerry Thunderkunt reports that studio execs are greenlighting another reboot of the ancient and enervated superhero franchise. "We've learned from the last fourteen critically panned flops which failed to recoup their initial budget," said Thunderkunt. "Clearly, audiences did not respond to the characterization of Lois Lane as a ****ed-up Jezebel attempting to seduce a bisexual autistic Man of Steel."

According to Thunderkunt, the WB Studio's nearly $320 billion combined loss on the past fourteen "Superman" trainwrecks has done nothing but steel studio executives' resolve to "buckle down, lay off the coke for fifteen minutes, and attempt to wring another dime from a bloodless and lifeless franchise."

"Clearly, having Superman undergo sexual transgendered reversal at the hands of Brainiac, travel back in time, impregnate himself, and then give birth to his own son who was--in fact---himself, confused audiences and accounted for the Burbank WB studios being firebombed by Underoo-wearing fanboys."

The Superman reboot saga goes back to the first decade of the century when forgotten director Bryan "Coxsman" Singer produced "Superman Returns" on a budget of over $200 million. The massively budgeted movie featured miniature train sets being destroyed by a home crystal-growing set, a super-powered bastard child, a seventeen-year-old Lois Lane, and a Superman on loan from the "Man-Hole" corner bar in San Francisco's Castro district. Years after the debacle, Singer remarked, "I was attempting to pull the greatest subversive act in the history of cinema: to slip right under the noses of unsuspecting straight Americans a totally gay superhero with virtually no interesting qualities, conflicts, or action. In the end, I simply made an unwatchable movie that sucked almighty balls."

 

[DarkSuperman]

Mark Millar Eyes Superman!
Written by Robert Sanchez
Monday, 22 October 2007

One thing is for certain, every writer in Hollywood is going to go after the next incarnation of Superman.

Even though Variety and recently Greg Noveck claimed that WB is still moving forward with a Bryan Singer directed Superman with Brandon Routh still as the lead, I don’t believe it.

Comic Book writer Mark Millar (Wanted, Ultimate Avengers) has just posted an interesting tidbit on his forums:

It's 8.58am right now, my guys at CAA get into the office in about seven hours and my call will be waiting for them to talk about this. I want to revamp Superman like Hillary wants thin ankles. Revamping this franchise is what I as given fingers for and so, invited or not, I'm putting my plan together now. I've been asked to work on half a dozen screenplays lately, but this is the only one I have ever truly wanted.

As most here know, I have literally hundreds of pages of notes and sketches just waiting for this opportunity. This would be my dream gig and, as a fan, I know exactly what this project needs to work. This has to be Superman for the 21st Century, keeping everything we adore, but starting from scratch and making the kids love it as much as the 30-somethings. I would honestly write this thing for free.

Anyway, my treatment is being polished as we type. Wish me luck. I want to do that Superman movie we all want to see.

MM

I for one don’t think that WB is going to green light any Superman project until after the release of Justice League of America and after the pending lawsuit that studio faces due to the disputed rights to character with the Siegel family.

Thanks to the boys over at OWF for the heads up.

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3543&Itemid=99

Would be great if he was involved! He is a fantastic writer! Grant morrison should also be involved!