Sequels The Official Mike Dougherty & Dan Harris Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Exactely. They ****ed up Superman. THere was nothing heroic in the whole story of the movie.

The plane he saved, the whole sequence where he saved people around the world, the earthquake in Metropolis, Saving Lois, Richard and Jason from the yatch, lifting a giant rock to save the world.

It wasnt about the greatest hero of all time. It was about the greatest loser.

And as I was saying, you'd do great watching the movie before talking about it.

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...

How can you blame them if you could see past the heroic things Superman did? And the fact that by the end of Superman II, Superman didn't have Lois either and we were left understanding he wasn't going to be with her ever again unless he was planning to give up his super-powers, which he clearly was not going to do again.
 
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!!!?!!?!

He didn't save the whole world, merely his city. AND he didn't have the girl. WTF indeed.
 
He didn't save the whole world, merely his city. AND he didn't have the girl. WTF indeed.

Superman had to save the whole world because he got sloppy and left his fortress exposed. Where was the giant lock with his giant key?!? :cmad:
 
PLUS...I hate these people who say..OH SINGER WOULD`VE MADE A BETTER JOB IN THE SEQUEL...THat is all BS...

1- You dont know that
2- He should`ve done from the get go. If he made the greatest Superman story of all time, we would`ve have a sequel right now not a fanbase splitted in 2 and writers walking off and uncertain surrounding this project. He had 200million, complete creative control. It was his job to make Superman important for this generations. Movies are enteirtainment, first and foremost. Something people do to enjoy and forget their normal-day problems. THey go to a Superman movie to feel inspired. To feel like a kid again. As someone said, in showbuisiness you dont have 2 chances. You have to put it all in the first movie. He didnt. SR was the most pretencious piece of crap i`ve ever seen. It tried to be smart, to make changes to a beloved character by giving a son,to be new. It accomplished none of that. Some people are satisfied with this, then fine. I`m not. THe GA too. So, maybe now we have a chance to watch a Superman movie that we all would love!!! Instead of arguing about its problems every 2 seconds...
 
Superman had to save the whole world because he got sloppy and left his fortress exposed. Where was the giant lock with his giant key?!? :cmad:

Haha! I said something similar a long time ago. Where was the security? Polar bears...Kryptonian Robots...something! The FOS is like a giant shiny costco for supervillains, come and get it 2 for 1 special on Alien Secrets. :woot:
 
I really don't know how I feel about this move.

On one hand, I'm upset. I really wanted to see the MOS that Singer's team had crafted.

On the other hand, this move may give the opportunity for a more Superman-esque story with loads of kickassery.

One this is for certain: I want Singer and Routh to stay. I think that Singer CAN make a damn good Superman movie. I really do. All he needs is the right material to work with.

And Routh? I love Routh in the role. I don't want him to leave it (which is one of the reasons - among many - that I don't want the new film to be a restart).
 
The plane he saved, the whole sequence where he saved people around the world, the earthquake in Metropolis, Saving Lois, Richard and Jason from the yatch, lifting a giant rock to save the world.

How can you blame them if you could see past the heroic things Superman did? And the fact that by the end of Superman II, Superman didn't have Lois either and we were left understanding he wasn't going to be with her ever again unless he was planning to give up his super-powers, which he clearly was not going to do again.

I admit those scenes were amazing. But scenes in the movie doesnt change the fact that the THE WHOLE CONCEPT AND STORY WASNT UPLIFITING AT ALL.

Superman is about hope. It is a fun, bright character, who saves cats from trees. I got nothing of that in SR.
 
PLUS...I hate these people who say..OH SINGER WOULD`VE MADE A BETTER JOB IN THE SEQUEL...THat is all BS...

1- You dont know that
2- He should`ve done from the get go. If he made the greatest Superman story of all time, we would`ve have a sequel right now not a fanbase splitted in 2 and writers walking off and uncertain surrounding this project. He had 200million, complete creative control. It was his job to make Superman important for this generations. Movies are enteirtainment, first and foremost. Something people do to enjoy and forget their normal-day problems. THey go to a Superman movie to feel inspired. To feel like a kid again. As someone said, in showbuisiness you dont have 2 chances. You have to put it all in the first movie. He didnt. SR was the most pretencious piece of crap i`ve ever seen. It tried to be smart, to make changes to a beloved character by giving a son,to be new. It accomplished none of that. Some people are satisfied with this, then fine. I`m not. THe GA too. So, maybe now we have a chance to watch a Superman movie that we all would love!!! Instead of arguing about its problems every 2 seconds...

Don't worry, you're not alone. There are plenty of people who feel the same way and enough people to have alerted WB that things need to change. Otherwise we would have been full steam ahead on this sequel already.
 
I really don't know how I feel about this move.

On one hand, I'm upset. I really wanted to see the MOS that Singer's team had crafted.

On the other hand, this move may give the opportunity for a more Superman-esque story with loads of kickassery.

One this is for certain: I want Singer and Routh to stay. I think that Singer CAN make a damn good Superman movie. I really do. All he needs is the right material to work with.

And Routh? I love Routh in the role. I don't want him to leave it (which is one of the reasons - among many - that I don't want the new film to be a restart).

Singer doesnt have the eye to make an action oriented, bright and fun movies.

He is better doing short-character driven, with down feelings.

X-men was his thing. Superman isnt like that.

Robert Zemeckys, Peter Jackson, Spielberg,for example, are much better choices...

My love for Superman is bigger than the fact i l loved Brandon in the role.

I believe there are actors out there who could do a great job too.
 
It change the truth in the "THere was nothing heroic in the whole story of the movie" statement.

heroic in the story...i meant the story...rescue scenes count nothing if the whole movie is depressing...
 
Don't worry, you're not alone. There are plenty of people who feel the same way and enough people to have alerted WB that things need to change. Otherwise we would have been full steam ahead on this sequel already.

Yeah, the executives wanting bigger BO numbers has nothing to do. It was all for the sake and comfort of hardcore fans.

heroic in the story...i meant the story...rescue scenes count nothing if the whole movie is depressing...

Oh yes. The scenes are not part of the story. I keep forgetting...
 
a GREAT Superman movie can/should make the executives and us happy at the same time...
 
Yeah, the executives wanting bigger BO numbers has nothing to do. It was all for the sake and comfort of hardcore fans.

Not just bigger BO numbers. Explain BB. That movie didn't tear up the box office yet we are getting TDK.
 
Too many pickey a$$ fans who can swallow loads of Smallville on a weekly basis but complain about Red looking too Burgandy, and using Donner as a crutch.
:up::up:
nxpeue.gif


OH, and for ONCE I'd like to see a Jor-El that couldn't double as Santa Claus...Superman's father should look like he could be superman too, why is he always some old dude who looks nothing like Superman? That irritates me to no end.
3586m9z.gif
 
Obviously not.

I meant THat the character of Superman IS CAPABLE of producing a great moive, with a great and "faithfull to the comics" story, lots of action that would give the executives of WB a lot of money, would make me watch it at least 5 times in the theaters, own the DVD and everything related to it...
 
Yup, I'd like to think BB had a better approval rating among fans and the general audience as well, which didn't hurt its chances for a sequel.

I'd like to think I'm handsome and a under-appreciated genius.

El Payaso,



BB was ****ing good and SR wasnt. How about that?

As a rant it's not original nor have much argumentative value. Kudos for the swearword. :)
 
Dear God, it's me, Margaret.

Let Singer finish the story in MOS with Routh. Bring in new writers if you want but don't let Mark Millar get his hands on this franchise. He's a great guy and I love the Ultimates, but some of his ideas about Superman make me cringe.
 
well, i've always been a fair dude, Retro ;)
Hehehe...yeah.:yay:
I'm pretty sure that he didn't hand in a screenplay to the studio. Otherwise, you would have seen a screenplay review up on some website. They do have a treatment and were going to base the screenplay on that, though, and the treatment was handed in.
Just because it wasn't reviewed by a website doesn't mean they didn't have a screenplay done.:cwink: But you may be right though if what Steve Younis says is true.
Steve Younis is saying that Mike and Dan walked out on the projects by choice.
Did he say that?I find that very hard to believe.:o
ok i have a big problem. SR had no action and no supervillain. so insted of taking the next stepp and doing brainiac they wanted to have darkseid? so they wanted to go from lifting planes and yachts to a BIG darkside?

nope.....i am sorry mr. singer but i disagree with you.

losing brandon routh is like losing C.bale IMO(today)
:huh: :huh: You and many others here have been criticical of the lack of action in SR yet when they decide introduce a formidable villain from the comics that hasn't been done in any of films and could have gone toe-to-toe with Supes you complain?! I don't get it.

I always thought Darkseid was too much of a stretch for Singer and. co.Brainiac seemed to be more up their alley. I'm more pleasantly surprised than anything that they were planning on upping the anty that much.
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."
Lmao.:woot:
I really don't know how I feel about this move.

On one hand, I'm upset. I really wanted to see the MOS that Singer's team had crafted.

On the other hand, this move may give the opportunity for a more Superman-esque story with loads of kickassery.

One this is for certain: I want Singer and Routh to stay. I think that Singer CAN make a damn good Superman movie. I really do. All he needs is the right material to work with.

And Routh? I love Routh in the role. I don't want him to leave it (which is one of the reasons - among many - that I don't want the new film to be a restart).
Agreed. IMO they should keep Routh and Singer
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,277
Messages
22,078,840
Members
45,878
Latest member
Remembrance1988
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"