Sequels The Official Mike Dougherty & Dan Harris Thread

[FlawlessVictory]

Compromising his character? I fail to see how Returns did that. Added a new layer, sure. But compromise, I don't really see it.

His character was compromised when he slept with Lois and didn't have the decency to 1. stick around to see if she would become pregnant or 2. say goodbye.

 

[Crook]

That's where most have begun to trip over themselves. No one is talking about a new film and most are already speaking about Man of Steel as a thing of the past. Calm down people, the writing squad has left, not the director or producer.

Please point to where I've been anything but calm. All my posts have only glanced on the possibility of a film without Singer and co. With all the hoopla over the year, and with this recent news, things are certainly looking that way.

But I never said it was for certain.

 

[J.Howlett]

Showtime,

Even still, as a character, the idea of Superman having a son shouldn't come as a complete surprise to fans of the character. You can't have film after film having Superman fighting some new arch villian without throwing something new to the fire that fundamentally adds something new for the Superman character to face...something that challenges him.

And for Singer, the best way to do that was add a child. Because of his powers and the fact that Superman's Rogue's Gallery is pretty horrible compared to his counterparts, him fighting a new arch villian isn't always the answer. It's part of the answer to making this character much more accessible than he is now....

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Showtime,

Even still, as a character, the idea of Superman having a son shouldn't come as a complete surprise to fans of the character. You can't have film after film having Superman fighting some new arch villian without throwing something new to the fire that fundamentally adds something new for the Superman character to face...something that challenges him.

And for Singer, the best way to do that was add a child. Because of his powers and the fact that Superman's Rogue's Gallery is pretty horrible compared to his counterparts, him fighting a new arch villian isn't always the answer. It's part of the answer to making this character much more accessible than he is now....

His rogues gallery can be as good as the writers and director want them to be. And the problem is we are not getting film after film of Superman fighting some new arch villain. We have five Superman movies, with real estate Lex appearing in four of them.

 

[J.Howlett]

Flawless,

And the idea that your home might not actually be destroyed isn't a strong enough reason for Superman to leave Lois? I mean, this guy yearns to belong and the idea that his home, a home he never knew, might not be destroyed isn't a valid reason for Superman to make the biggest misstep in his life?

I'm sorry but that's a compelling idea for a Superman story.

 

[A Dark Knight]

I agree with what treeringralph said, I would like to have seen what they were going to do with MOS, this could end all the MOS talk, who knows what is going to happen now.

 

[J.Howlett]

Flawless,

With a 20 year hiatus, you have to start with Lex because he's clearly the best villian for Superman and the most familiar.

Do you really think Singer would continue with Lex again in the sequels? He'd add a kink in the story but he wouldn't be the sole villian.

And by the way, Lex's plan started out as a dumb real estate plan in Superman Returns but turned rather quickly into a revenge plot once he found out that Superman returned. I thought the film was pretty clear on that aspect of it.

 

[Showtime]

Showtime,

Even still, as a character, the idea of Superman having a son shouldn't come as a complete surprise to fans of the character. You can't have film after film having Superman fighting some new arch villian without throwing something new to the fire that fundamentally adds something new for the Superman character to face...something that challenges him.

It's not that Superman had a son, it is the circumstances surrounding Superman having the son. That is what some fans are aggrevated with, it's not as simple as just saying, "Superman has a son, we don't like it because it deviates from mythos." That is way to cut and dry and you know that.

Superman can certainly face some "inner angst" without having a son, and there are many other ways to establish a really solid emotional story arc that challenges the Man of Steel. Lois finding out that Clark Kent is Superman is one. Superman could have returned to find Lex out of prison and running Lex Corp while aspiring for political office. Lex is looked upon as an upstanding citizen and Superman has to contend with it.

And for Singer, the best way to do that was add a child. Because of his powers and the fact that Superman's Rogue's Gallery is pretty horrible compared to his counterparts, him fighting a new arch villian isn't always the answer. It's part of the answer to making this character much more accessible than he is now....

The best way for Singer to do it was to add a child, not the best way to do it. That is two seperate things. Superman's rogues gallery is stacked with possibilities that have yet to be explored. That is just an excuse.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Flawless,

And the idea that your home might not actually be destroyed isn't a strong enough reason for Superman to leave Lois? I mean, this guy yearns to belong and the idea that his home, a home he never knew, might not be destroyed isn't a valid reason for Superman to make the biggest misstep in his life?

I'm sorry but that's a compelling idea for a Superman story.

I'm sorry but I have trouble with a Superman who has no problem having sex with Lois but has a problem saying goodbye to her. It's just inexcusable for me, but that could be just me.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

It's not that Superman had a son, it is the circumstances surrounding Superman having the son. That is what some fans are aggrevated with, it's not as simple as just saying, "Superman has a son, we don't like it because it deviates from mythos." That is way to cut and dry and you know that.

Superman can certainly face some "inner angst" without having a son, and there are many other ways to establish a really solid emotional story arc that challenges the Man of Steel. Lois finding out that Clark Kent is Superman is one. Superman could have returned to find Lex out of prison and running Lex Corp while aspiring for political office. Lex is looked upon as an upstanding citizen and Superman has to contend with it.



The best way for Singer to do it was to add a child, not the best way to do it. That is two seperate things. Superman's rogues gallery is stacked with possibilities that have yet to be explored. That is just an excuse.

Damn Showtime, I couldn't have said it better myself. My thoughts exactly. Especially the bold.

 

[J.Howlett]

Showtime,

Sure, we haven't seen his Rogue's Gallery in full force but are you really going to say that they're in league with what Batman and Spider-Man face?

Despite that, I agree, we need to see them but not for this first flick. Because of the hiatus, I think it was a right move to reintroduce Lex, because again, he's the most familiar and the most formiable to Superman.

I think we'll see these different type of villians in sequels. I know some are leary that we might not but with today's technology, Singer and WB would be stupid not to go for a super arch villian for Superman.

I don't think that should be questioned at all.

And the circumstances around the son, I will admit, could've been handled differently. But again, because of the familiarity with the characters of Lois and Superman across the board (whether it's Lois and Clark or Smallville or the previous films, or whatever), the specifics behind how the child came to be aren't really that important.

Who else was Superman going to have a child with, in his mythos?

 

[Dark Knight]

Drexx,

Fine. I'll agree to disagree because I think Superman Returns is pretty damn great film about character. But given my bias, I still think WB would be stupid as hell to reboot TOTALLY this early. It's just way, too damn soon to even be thinking on such lines.

Yes I agree.....doing a reboot would be utter stupidity and a waste.

By bringing in new writers and increasing the action and bringing in villains like Braniac, Metallo maybe even the Eradicator.....the SR sequel will be a vast improvement over SR.

 

[J.Howlett]

Flawless,

He explained IN THE FILM while he didn't say goodbye and it's as universal as anything we've all may have experienced when it comes to romance.

The pull to finding out where you come from versus looking into the eyes of your soulmate and telling her goodbye.

Not saying I wouldn't say goodbye but I can totally understand why he rushed off.

 

[dark_b]

Flawless,

He explained IN THE FILM while he didn't say goodbye and it's as universal as anything we've all may have experienced when it comes to romance.

The pull to finding out where you come from versus looking into the eyes of your soulmate and telling her goodbye.

Not saying I wouldn't say goodbye but I can totally understand why he rushed off.

i think it is a problem that superman did this. if a human would do it noone would have a problem. on the other hand some fans want a mroe human version like me. plus i also think that since superman was raised by humans he makes the same mistakes and not saying goodbye is a mistake that humans make.

 

[Showtime]

Showtime,

Sure, we haven't seen his Rogue's Gallery in full force but are you really going to say that they're in league with what Batman and Spider-Man face?

I never said they were the same as Batman and Spiderman, but they have yet to be explored on film at all. Darkseid? Bizzaro? Brainiac? Metallo? Those are just four off the top of my head.

Despite that, I agree, we need to see them but not for this first flick. Because of the hiatus, I think it was a right move to reintroduce Lex, because again, he's the most familiar and the most formiable to Superman.

I think we'll see these different type of villians in sequels. I know some are leary that we might not but with today's technology, Singer and WB would be stupid not to go for a super arch villian for Superman.

I don't think that should be questioned at all.

That is the problem though, the move to just use Lex is part of the reason why the movie didn't generate enough box office, so in hindsight, how can you agree with the move? You're agreeing with a move that seems to have cost the sequel? Now he most likely won't have the chance to give us a superpowered villian in the sequel.

And the circumstances around the son, I will admit, could've been handled differently. But again, because of the familiarity with the characters of Lois and Superman across the board (whether it's Lois and Clark or Smallville or the previous films, or whatever), the specifics behind how the child came to be aren't really that important.

Who else was Superman going to have a child with, in his mythos

It may not have been important to you, but you are not the general public, and also alot of the die hard fans disagreed with this approach. The problems with Jason White can't be ignored.

Why the heck does Superman have to have a child?

 

[buggs0268]

If Dougherty and Harris are out, then Singer is out. Harris started working on outlines of the script, Dougherty took over and continued the work. Bryan and Mike pitched the sequel, contrary to what was reported, WB didn't like what they had to do with it. Now WB is moving on. The sequel with Bryan at the helm is officially dead at this point, and the chance of a sequel seems dead to me as well.

Which is what Ihad been saying all a long. If the WB had liked their pitch, we would have heard about it by now. I think the only way we see this film is if it is a reboot. I know you guys call me an SR hater, but I was just trying to honestly say what was happening seeing what was going on and the movement with this film. And I wasn't seeing any. And the "If" comment by Horn, even though it seemed small to some of you guys, actually spoke volumes. That is the point I knew.

 

[Showtime]

Flawless,

He explained IN THE FILM while he didn't say goodbye and it's as universal as anything we've all may have experienced when it comes to romance.

The pull to finding out where you come from versus looking into the eyes of your soulmate and telling her goodbye.

Not saying I wouldn't say goodbye but I can totally understand why he rushed off.

That is another problem that some have with this movie though, Superman has a responsibility to the world, he abandoned the world and his one true love without telling anybody. I can see that side of it.

 

[buggs0268]

Wow, SR haters are sooo happy for this pathetic news, and officially for them, it is now dead.

I'm so sick of SR haters BULL****. You guys are pathetic.

Dude. Will you take a chill pill. No one here, not even me is doing the happy dance. I know you liked the movie and I didn't. But no one who didn't like the film is shoving down your face that the film isn't a go. Even though we didn't like it, we know you guys did, and a lot of us feel bad for you guys. I know you are upset, but chill.

 

[J.Howlett]

Showtime,

Why heck can't Superman have one? I mean, how long has the character been around and in love and in a relationship with Lois? You're telling me that the idea of a Super-son didn't cross anyone's mind, EVER?

And about Lex, I don't think using Lex cost the film or the sequel. I still maintain that it's the revelance of the character itself. But again, you have to take into account the long hiatus of the character on screen.

Put it this way, if Singer did a new version of the origin of Superman for today's audiences, who do you think should've been the first villian? Who do you think WB would've gone with regardless?

No matter how you look at it, when you say Superman, you pretty much automatically think Lex and Lois. And because of that hiatus, it made sense to bring back his arch nemesis for Superman's triumphant return to the silver screen. Sure, it's playing it safe but it's playing it smart too.

We've established that. Now, it's time to get down to business and I have full confidence that Singer will and wouldn've done so in the sequel. Again, he did the same with X2 after X-Men. You don't think he'd follow his own example?

 

[J.Howlett]

Flawless,

Sure, he left but it wasn't like it was for some lame reason. Of all the things that could pull him away in an instant, the idea of a living, breathing, no matter how small Krypton, would've been enough.

Besides, he was raised by humans, you know....

 

[Showtime]

Showtime,

Why heck can't Superman have one? I mean, how long has the character been around and in love and in a relationship with Lois? You're telling me that the idea of a Super-son didn't cross anyone's mind, EVER?

I am not saying he can't, if done right, I am asking you WHY he has too?

And about Lex, I don't think using Lex cost the film or the sequel. I still maintain that it's the revelance of the character itself. But again, you have to take into account the long hiatus of the character on screen.

Put it this way, if Singer did a new version of the origin of Superman for today's audiences, who do you think should've been the first villian? Who do you think WB would've gone with regardless?

No matter how you look at it, when you say Superman, you pretty much automatically think Lex and Lois. And because of that hiatus, it made sense to bring back his arch nemesis for Superman's triumphant return to the silver screen. Sure, it's playing it safe but it's playing it smart too.

I didn't say there couldn't be Lex, I am asking you why it had to be this Lex and why it couldn't be LEX AND A SUPERVILLIAN? A movie from 20 some odd years ago can have Lex, Zod, Non, and Ursa but Returns can't have more than Lex because it's a reintroduction? I just can't swallow that kryptonite coffee.

We've established that. Now, it's time to get down to business and I have full confidence that Singer will do so in the sequel. Again, he did the same with X2 after X-Men. You don't think he'd follow his own example?

He did X2 with his team...

 

[J.Howlett]

Showtime,

I think the reason why Singer didn't was because he was more interested in the story of Lois and Superman and the loneliness of the character than he was in Superman's next great physical challenge. There's more of Singer in his version of Superman than I think people really see. I'm sure you know Singer's background. It creeped into Superman Returns alot. It did the same with Singer's X-Men films.

If you look at all of Singer's film, he's just more interested in character than action. With X2, he just happen to strike a great balance.

Again, I say his sequel is and will do the same....

 

[Crook]

Showtime,

Why heck can't Superman have one? I mean, how long has the character been around and in love and in a relationship with Lois? You're telling me that the idea of a Super-son didn't cross anyone's mind, EVER?

You mean asides from the fact that it's unlikely for humans to procreate with anything inhuman?

But anyway, the kid is an addition that causes a pretty big change to the mythos. Therefore, the burden of explaining the "why" is on the party bringing forth that change. Asking "why not" is just a cop-out.

And about Lex, I don't think using Lex cost the film or the sequel. I still maintain that it's the revelance of the character itself. But again, you have to take into account the long hiatus of the character on screen.

Put it this way, if Singer did a new version of the origin of Superman for today's audiences, who do you think should've been the first villian? Who do you think WB would've gone with regardless?

I don't have a problem with Lex being the featured villain. HOWEVER, I do expect to see something in terms of eye-candy. Especially in this day and age.

 

[buggs0268]

It is highly unlikely that Singer will continue without Mike and Dan, unless they reached some kind of agreement that WB is bringing another writing team in to do the sequel and Bryan agreed to direct it. Highly unlikely.

I can see this as the reason that Singer gives to move on, even though I think that the WB has already told him he is not on the project. I can't see Singer being told what to make. And I can't see him not wanting to do a continuation of his story. Problem is, his story as he left it has too many problems that I don't think the WB wants to continue as too many people *****ed about the kid, leaving Lex on the island, etc. I honestly think we will be hearing of Singer's departure soon.

 

[Showtime]

Showtime,

I think the reason why Singer didn't was because he was more interested in the story of Lois and Superman and the loneliness of the character than he was in Superman's next great physical challenge.

If you look at all of Singer's film, he's more interested in character than action. With X2, he just did a great balance.

Again, I say his sequel is and will do the same....

That is fine, that is his take, and if you didn't know I liked Superman Returns. Problem is, now it's unlikely he will get to X2 a Superman Sequel and WB is going all Wrath of Kahn on him.