Sequels The Official Mike Dougherty & Dan Harris Thread

[buggs0268]

That all comes down to the same bottomline, so to speak, money. If the movie was a hit at the box office, then it was a hit at theaters thus leading to the studio and theaters making...MONEY.

OOps. I messed up on that previous post. The studios have to sell it to the theaters, who have to want to exhibit it in their theaters.

 

[Porygon]

OOps. I messed up on that previous post. The studios have to sell it to the theaters, who have to want to exhibit it in their theaters.

Are you saying that if a Superman sequel was made, theaters won't accept it because SR was a disappointment?

Because if so, thats ridiculous.

 

[buggs0268]

The studios have to sell the movie to the exhibitors, who then decide how many auditoriums they want to sell the space to the studios. So yes, the theater chains have to see potential money making for them or they can only let the studios show it in a minimum of studios. If a sumemr blockbuster does not make them the money they anticipated, they are less likely to book out a lot of auditoriums for the sequel.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Donner did that 30 years ago. And Siegel and Shuster tried too 78 years ago.

er, siegel and shuster were jewish, im pretty sure they werent consciously tossing in christ allegories in their stories. that whole thing came much much later in superman stories. it may have in fact started with donner, really. and didnt even get picked up in the comics till the 80's.

 

[Porygon]

The studios have to sell the movie to the exhibitors, who then decide how many auditoriums they want to sell the space to the studios. So yes, the theater chains have to see potential money making for them or they can only let the studios show it in a minimum of studios. If a sumemr blockbuster does not make them the money they anticipated, they are less likely to book out a lot of auditoriums for the sequel.

Yeah, I got it the first time you said it. But it's still a Superman movie. Regardless of how SR did, there is no way a Superman movie is going to have a limited release. The character is far too marketable to dwell on past failures.

I just don't see it.

 

[buggs0268]

er, siegel and shuster were jewish, im pretty sure they werent consciously tossing in christ allegories in their stories. that whole thing came much much later in superman stories. it may have in fact started with donner, really. and didnt even get picked up in the comics till the 80's.

They based Superman on the story of Moses.

 

[buggs0268]

Yeah, I got it the first time you said it. But it's still a Superman movie. Regardless of how SR did, there is no way a Superman movie is going to have a limited release. The character is far too marketable to dwell on past failures.

I just don't see it.

If they didn't see B.O. on the first, they much likely not see it on the second one. In most cases, a studio will just not make the film if they can't sell it.

 

[Porygon]

If they didn't see B.O. on the first, they much likely not see it on the second one. In most cases, a studio will just not make the film if they can't sell it.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying in the scenario that a sequel gets made, I don't see any decrease in theater showings that will matter. Whether the sequel is made or not is irrelevant as to why I think its a moot point.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Damn! I go away for a couple of days and a 30page long thread appears.

My Take.

This is interesting news but I don't think that it means Singer is leaving. I seriously doubt the writters just left to persue other projects though, I mean if you believe that you would actually have to believe that Katie Holmes left The Dark Knight...not bloody likely!

I for one won't be happy until I hear that Bryan Singer has left because lets face it, SR was Singer's movie the writters were just along for the ride.

I could be wrong but I believe that Singer will leave sometime soon and the project will be canned.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Very unrealistic.....especially since they are the ones that greenlit a Superman movie with no big time villians and a Superman film that lacked big time action......

Very unrealistic to expect big time numbers from SR, yes. Not very unrealistic to expect big time numbers from a Superman film done right that satisfies all parties.

I guess they bear no responsiblity huh? Come on...

Huh? Of course I think WB bears responsibility. I blame them as much as I blame Singer for greenlighting that snorefest.

 

[nintendo nerd]

Very unrealistic to expect big time numbers from SR, yes. Not very unrealistic to expect big time numbers from a Superman film done right that satisfies all parties.



Huh? Of course I think WB bears responsibility. I blame them as much as I blame Singer for greenlighting that snorefest.

IMO. A Superman movie with a good balance of action and a good story could make 250 - 300 million.

But I think no superhero will make spidey numbers.

 

[buggs0268]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying in the scenario that a sequel gets made, I don't see any decrease in theater showings that will matter. Whether the sequel is made or not is irrelevant as to why I think its a moot point.

Well those who have a greater understanding of the exhibition side will be glad to explain it to you. But the fact is, even though I can't name them offhand, there have been sequels that have been not put into production because of this.

 

[El Payaso]

Sounds like a good reason NOT to be doing it yet again!

Yes. As Superman being Clark, being in love with Lois and working for the Planet, even having super-powers; it has been done too many times.

 

[Porygon]

Well those who have a greater understanding of the exhibition side will be glad to explain it to you. But the fact is, even though I can't name them offhand, there have been sequels that have been not put into production because of this.

Maybe, but I don't see any theatre rejecting a Superman movie.

 

[buggs0268]

I want Singer to return but from the looks of this story, it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't. And if he doesn't, I pretty much won't even view the sequel, even with the perfect casting of Routh.

Lee's Hulk gets killed before we could really see what Lee can do with the character in follow ups. Fox got in it's own way with Singer on X3 and you see what we got. Spider-Man 3 is a prime cut example of studio interference in a director's vision of a character. The same will happen with Superman with Singer gone.

Say what you will but it won't be for the better, no matter how haters of Returns will spin it. The next film, under new direction and the watchful eye of WB, will be for crap. Bet on it.

You really seem to think that movie studios have money to burn to just throw millions at movies to let directors who made movies that fail at the BO see where they are going with the same director. Movie studiso are a business. If a movie fails to make back what it is expected to, like any other company out there, they fire the team that brought the failure and either kill the project or retool if they think there is money to be made with another approach based on taking care of all of the complaints the first one made.

 

[buggs0268]

He isn't crying at all. He's fed up with everyone hating on SR and being extremely vocal about it. I can't say that I'm disagreeing with him on the point, either.

Oh yes he is. Even those who like SR are distancing themselves from him. And the mods have told him to calm down as well. I think he needs serious help.

 

[buggs0268]

I think that is the next report you will hear.

I am pretty sure of this myself.

 

[buggs0268]

Which is a shame. Fox won't let him finish his X-Men trilogy. WB and "some" fans don't want him to finish what he had in mind on Superman. I mean, didn't WB learn it's lesson with Donner all those years ago?

You would think they would've...

But Donner's movie was up until Batman 89 the WB's most money making film of all time. And the WB wasn't calling the shots on that. The Salkinds were. This is a different scenario. In the early 70's, the Salkind's had the right to make Superman movies, and then offer it up first to the WB to distribute. If the WB passed, they could go to another company, but the WB had a minor role until Donner went to them for more money to finish 1, which at that point gave the WB a bit more control than before on STM. But both films were financed by private investments found by the Salkind's. It was the Salkind's who fired Donner, and not the WB. The WB could have fought to have Donner back, but the Salkind's were adamant, and the WB had to go along with it as they did not own the property for the sequel.

SR was a Warner Bros. controlled property and financed by the WB in concert with Legendary, but WB was calling the shots and Legendary was just an investment partner. They own SR.

 

[buggs0268]

Singer and his team deserve one more shot. The worldwide box office and DVD sales sort of dictate that they should get another shot....

No they don't deserve that. Again, you are acting as if studios have money to burn, and thy don't. SR did not do what it was intended to do. It was called by the WB a tenpole film. If failed to be that in every way, shape, and form, and the WB is smartly responding to this. They have seen the fan division. They know the baggage that Singer, his writers, cast, and story bring. They know a lot of people are not interested in a sequel. They had to throw 100 million in advertising just to get SR to 200 mill domestic. That is money on top of the production budget. SR failed in every way for them, and if they go with any sort of sequel to it, which I doubt they will, they will do it right per what the complaints are.

 

[buggs0268]

hunter,

You still had to reintroduce the guy to the world without actually redoing the origin. That was the dilemna from the get go because EVERYONE knows the origin. Nobody wants to see it again and yet you can't just go right into a Superman film with a new supervillian without some basis to get it started.

Every director was having that problem with their ideas. Singer was the only bright one in the bunch to say let's get back and fix what Donner was trying to do and then go forward after we finish this first film because no matter how you spin, the origin can't be done any better for this character in the way Donner did it. That 's why Singer didn't want to do the origin directly.

Every origin film for a comic character today pretty much follows the template that Donner set. And there's a pretty damn great reason for that...

Donner's stuff didn't need to be fixxed. That is why that film is universally loved all these years later. It was damn near perfect, and Singer took some things from it and just messed up the joint with his loner-detached-no one understands me on tick pony thing.

And if he did it so right and beautifully as you claim, then why is the fan base split? Obviously he did not do it right and perfect as you claim.

 

[buggs0268]

Excel has beat you to it, apparently, I think.

Excel hasn't written a script, and he is not represented by anyone. He is all talk. On something like this, they do not go with anyone that does not already have a proven track record for writing scripts for produced movies. If Excel says so otherwise, then he is jerking your chain. He has a history of doing this.

 

[buggs0268]

Last night I watched SR again, after 6 months. I tried to see the film without my love for it beat my way of thinking. I realized there were many flaws with it, flaws that didn't make it attractive to the audience, flaws that sometimes made it boring, flaws that sometimes made it look like it wasn't a Superman movie. This is all my opinion:

Good things about SR:

- William theme ( Fits Superman perfect )

- The plane rescue scene.

- The lift of New Krypton

- The speech of Superman to Jason at the end of the movie.

- Superman flying to receive the rays from the Sun.

Bad thing about SR:

- The movie most of the time feels depressing.

- The lack of lines for Superman ( Routh did a great job with his face expressions, but is not enough) He is not Batman. Superman talks a lot.

- After the plane rescue scene, theres like an hour that feels really boring.

- The scene where Superman gets shot in the eye, should've been spectacular, it's not. In fact it feel kind of forced.

- Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane doesn't work. She looks too young and I never felt I was looking at Lois Lane in her. Bad casting desicion by Singer. I don't know why Keri Russell didn't stay.

Too Many, many "homages" to STM. Which makes the movie feel dated and feel like you watched almost the same 30 years ago.

- The budget was way too big for the story. IMO you didn't need 200 million to make SR.


In conclusion:

SR is a good movie but it wasn't great as most of the people expected. STM was a great movie but there's great material on the comic books.
And Singer just ignored it. That wasn't a good decision.

What I don't like is that many people only blame Singer. What about WB ? They approved the project. They knew it was too similar to STM, they knew it lacked action, they knew Superman wouldn't talk much.

After this, I don't mind Harris and Doughery leaving, I think I wouldn't mind If Singer leaves too, either.

One thing I'm sure of, is that Routh was a great Superman. Watching him on SR, always brings a smile on my face. Whatever happens with this franchise, I hope Routh could play the man of steel again.

Glad you are finally seeing the light.

by the way, I never saw Underdog. I only said it's effects, which mimic those done in SR, were executed better, and with more realism in the shot. I also think the Posters were far better than anything SR had. So if your sig is addressed to me, I did not see the movie. And you don't have to like SR to be a Superman fan. In fact, many Superman fans hated SR. Even at the yearly Superman event in the real metropolis, there was a small SR presence, and many fans there expressed dislike to hate regarding the movie.

 

[Showtime]

I am pretty sure of this myself.

The writing is on the wall.

 

[nintendo nerd]

Glad you are finally seeing the light.

by the way, I never saw Underdog. I only said it's effects, which mimic those done in SR, were executed better, and with more realism in the shot. I also think the Posters were far better than anything SR had. So if your sig is addressed to me, I did not see the movie. And you don't have to like SR to be a Superman fan. In fact, many Superman fans hated SR. Even at the yearly Superman event in the real metropolis, there was a small SR presence, and many fans there expressed dislike to hate regarding the movie.

I still like SR, but not as much as I used to. WB gave a lot of power to Singer. SR doesn't look as one of the most expensive movies of all time, it just doesn't. And Singer should at least read some comic books to see there is more than STM. And many times feels boring and depressing. I feel bad for Routh he was a great Superman.

Thank for reminding me about my sig. I'm thinking about changing it. I thought you have watched Underdog.

 

[charl_huntress]

YESSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank the good Lord those fools are out of here!!!

Bring on the reboot!

p.s.

Buggs....what are the lovers' saying now????