WB & DC Meet For A Summit

[hippie_hunter]

...By undoing everything that happened in the first movie.

Yeah...that's not middle ground

 

[Double Down]

JR being shot wasn't a dream i don't think. Bobby Ewing dying was the dream.

I'm not saying that manipulation isn't a good plot device. But to simply invalidate everything you just watched in a movie is lame. That's like saying Spiderman 3 never happened or everything after the initial symbiote take-over was a dream because fans hate it. Comic/tv writers have to come back after disappointing seasons or runs and make the previous run fit without simply acting like it didn't exist(even if they ignore some of the plot points)

Either have the stuff to kill the kid or reboot the dang franchise.

Heck, if you go by the Donner versions, most of Superman II and some of the first one never happened.

 

[mego joe]

JR being shot wasn't a dream i don't think. Bobby Ewing dying was the dream.

That's right, I had forgotten that, it was a long time ago, ha ha!!

I'm not saying that manipulation isn't a good plot device. But to simply invalidate everything you just watched in a movie is lame.

Well, my idea is that while it didn't 'really' happen, SUperman remembers it and all the emotions he went through were real. My idea for the sequel plays off all of his experiences and emotions as if they were real, even though he's the only one that remembers it. Then you push forward with that as the backdrop of the new story and Superman is thrust back into a life that he is actually living.

That's like saying Spiderman 3 never happened or everything after the initial symbiote take-over was a dream because fans hate it. Comic/tv writers have to come back after disappointing seasons or runs and make the previous run fit without simply acting like it didn't exist(even if they ignore some of the plot points)

My idea was not quite like that.

Either have the stuff to kill the kid or reboot the dang franchise.

For a good writer there's more room to work than simply these two options. But if left to only these two, it should be plainly obvious to WB that a reboot is the best way to go.

 

[mego joe]

Hey, I give you props for being one of the very few reboot supporters to say that there is a middle ground to be found.

Thanks. Even though I hated SR, I think there is a middle ground to be found, but IMO it does require rebooting the franchise organically in the story itself.

 

[mego joe]

But there was more to Sacrifice than just Maxwell Lord manipulating Superman. Having an entire movie pushed aside as if nothing happened is a horrible cop out.

That's not what I'm suggesting. In my sequel script Superman remembers it all and is affected by his experiences in the unreality of SR. And then the actual story of SR plays upon these experiences and develops the character further by pushing the notions of being the last Kryptonian, NOT being a father and some other stuff.

I think this scene from Family Guy perfectly describes it:

Brian: So, what you're saying is that what you experienced in the simulation didn't really happen, or even matter?

Stewie: Yes, that's correct.

Brian: So, it was sort of like a dream?

Stewie: No, it was a simulation.

Brian: Yes, but, theoretically, if someone watched the events of that simulation from start to finish, only to find out that none of it really happened, I mean… you don't think, that would, j-- be just like a giant middle finger to them?

Stewie: Well, hopefully, they would have enjoyed the ride.

Brian: I don't know, man. I think you'd piss a lot of people off that way.

(Brian leaves)

Stewie: Well, at least it didn't end like The Sopranos, where it just cut to black in mid-sen-- (the screen goes black like Stewie described)

Well, my idea is a lot more complex and interesting than simply waking up from a dream or simulation.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

But there was more to Sacrifice than just Maxwell Lord manipulating Superman. Having an entire movie pushed aside as if nothing happened is a horrible cop out.

I think this scene from Family Guy perfectly describes it:

Brian: So, what you're saying is that what you experienced in the simulation didn't really happen, or even matter?

Stewie: Yes, that's correct.

Brian: So, it was sort of like a dream?

Stewie: No, it was a simulation.

Brian: Yes, but, theoretically, if someone watched the events of that simulation from start to finish, only to find out that none of it really happened, I mean… you don't think, that would, j-- be just like a giant middle finger to them?

Stewie: Well, hopefully, they would have enjoyed the ride.

Brian: I don't know, man. I think you'd piss a lot of people off that way.

(Brian leaves)

Stewie: Well, at least it didn't end like The Sopranos, where it just cut to black in mid-sen-- (the screen goes black like Stewie described)

I was thinking of the same scene.lol. I almost posted a vid link.

JR being shot wasn't a dream i don't think. Bobby Ewing dying was the dream.
[/quote

That's right, I had forgotten that, it was a long time ago, ha ha!!



Well, my idea is that while it didn't 'really' happen, SUperman remembers it and all the emotions he went through were real. My idea for the sequel plays off all of his experiences and emotions as if they were real, even though he's the only one that remembers it. Then you push forward with that as the backdrop of the new story and Superman is thrust back into a life that he is actually living.



My idea was not quite like that.


For a good writer there's more room to work than simply these two options. But if left to only these two, it should be plainly obvious to WB that a reboot is the best way to go.

Yeah, Dallas was before my time. I just remember people being pissed about it years later. It was voted one of the worst moments in tv history.

Anyway, I'm all for writers coming up with a good idea. I just think that trying to have everything(requel with SR) is what got us in this situation in the first place. A firm decision needs to made now.

There's still an opportunity to possible salvage the franchise without rebooting and that means removing the kid possibly. I like the kid and hoped for the best but even in the best situation, it's a three movie story before it get tiring and a reboot happens. So that leaves the "kill" option if you want to turn the franchise into as many movies as possible(beyond 3) or reboot. Just my opinion.

 

[Double Down]

Yeah...that's not middle ground

Listen, I want a straight-on sequel as much as anyone. I have posted about it, I have written about it for a newspaper for which I work and I have put it on my blog. However, I realize that it may not happen. I have heard Jett talk about a hybrid. I am willing to listen to what that entails. For me, and I have stated this several times, Routh returning is the most important factor.
Conversely, most reboot supporters are dead set against anything that resembles a sequel. So for this guy to suggest that there is a sequel, but the events of the first film were something devised by a villain, is middle ground.
Personally, I don't like the idea. I want a sequel and I want the first movie to matter. Of course I do. But I like that he's putting things out there that aren't "a total reboot is the only way to go."
He has put some thought into it and he's throwing it out there. I gave him credit for that.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

That's not what I'm suggesting. In my sequel script Superman remembers it all and is affected by his experiences in the unreality of SR. And then the actual story of SR plays upon these experiences and develops the character further by pushing the notions of being the last Kryptonian, NOT being a father and some other stuff.



Well, my idea is a lot more complex and interesting than simply waking up from a dream or simulation.

Not being a mindreader means I can only understand what I think you are saying so I'll just believe you.

It's not a matter of invalidation of what you saw, but a matter of expectations. You have to have watched a movie where all signs are telling you this person's the killer then BAM! Someone else turns out to be the killer because of some clue that wasn't revealed in the episode. That's the risk you run trying to retroactively change the first movie in such a manner.

If Superman had had a headache throughout the movie or Lois spoke in a weird way, people would be ok with it because they could go back and watch the first movie and see that it was set-up to happen.

Like I said, I don't know what your script is or how it's executed, but that's very dangerous territory.

 

[mego joe]

Not being a mindreader means I can only understand what I think you are saying so I'll just believe you.

It's not a matter of invalidation of what you saw, but a matter of expectations. You have to have watched a movie where all signs are telling you this person's the killer then BAM! Someone else turns out to be the killer because of some clue that wasn't revealed in the episode. That's the risk you run trying to retroactively change the first movie in such a manner.

If Superman had had a headache throughout the movie or Lois spoke in a weird way, people would be ok with it because they could go back and watch the first movie and see that it was set-up to happen.

Like I said, I don't know what your script is or how it's executed, but that's very dangerous territory.

Well, it's the only explanation possible for SUperman acting so out of character...it was a non-reality in which he was being manipulated. It seems like a no-brainer, Superman isn't a deadbeat boyfriend or a coward. And he's certainly not so selfish that he would put his own feelings above that of Lois's.

I kept waiting for it to come out in SR before it ended.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Listen, I want a straight-on sequel as much as anyone. I have posted about it, I have written about it for a newspaper for which I work and I have put it on my blog. However, I realize that it may not happen. I have heard Jett talk about a hybrid. I am willing to listen to what that entails. For me, and I have stated this several times, Routh returning is the most important factor.
Conversely, most reboot supporters are dead set against anything that resembles a sequel. So for this guy to suggest that there is a sequel, but the events of the first film were something devised by a villain, is middle ground.
Personally, I don't like the idea. I want a sequel and I want the first movie to matter. Of course I do. But I like that he's putting things out there that aren't "a total reboot is the only way to go."
He has put some thought into it and he's throwing it out there. I gave him credit for that.

I've basically given up on getting a sequel, but I'm still intrigued as to what this "sevamp" (need a better word) is supposed to be even in theory.

It must be time-travel. Something not involving spinning the world backwards. Going back to the missing five-years to fix stop a villain or something.

 

[Double Down]

I've basically given up on getting a sequel, but I'm still intrigued as to what this "sevamp" (need a better word) is supposed to be even in theory.

It must be time-travel. Something not involving spinning the world backwards. Going back to the missing five-years to fix stop a villain or something.

By no means have I given up hope on a sequel.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Well, it's the only explanation possible for SUperman acting so out of character...it was a non-reality in which he was being manipulated. It seems like a no-brainer, Superman isn't a deadbeat boyfriend or a coward. And he's certainly not so selfish that he would put his own feelings above that of Lois's.

I kept waiting for it to come out in SR before it ended.

Dude, you could say the same thing about the Fantastic Four franchise,Spiderman 3, or X-3. I personally feel like all three missed the characters but I don't want a reboot of Spiderman 3. I just don't watch it. In fact, it only makes those movies even more lame it the best idea they could come up with is that oohh..."pay no attention to the man behind the mirror" idea. I'm not five years old. It won't give me back the two-half hours I spent watching Spidey 3. Just make Spidey 4 good and I won't care.

 

[Double Down]

Dude, you could say the same thing about the Fantastic Four franchise,Spiderman 3, or X-3. I personally feel like all three missed the characters but I don't want a reboot of Spiderman 3. I just don't watch it. In fact, it only makes those movies even more lame it the best idea they could come up with is that oohh..."pay no attention to the man behind the mirror" idea. I'm not five years old. It won't give me back the two-half hours I spent watching Spidey 3. Just make Spidey 4 good and I won't care.

Ah, but it's in watching the bad movies that we can truly appreciate the great ones.

 

[mego joe]

Dude, you could say the same thing about the Fantastic Four franchise,Spiderman 3, or X-3. I personally feel like all three missed the characters but I don't want a reboot of Spiderman 3. I just don't watch it. In fact, it only makes those movies even more lame it the best idea they could come up with is that oohh..."pay no attention to the man behind the mirror" idea. I'm not five years old. It won't give me back the two-half hours I spent watching Spidey 3. Just make Spidey 4 good and I won't care.

The difference is that there's nothing lingering from S-M 3 or FF or the X-Films that could hold back the potential of another film. SR is different in that Jason/Richard- that whole storyline is the major stumbling block to what would come next in a sequel- Superman: The Custody Battle is just no one's idea of a good Superman film. THat's a dead end, and a complete cop out to kill one or both of them. Focussing on Superman as a parent is also deadend storytelling. People aren't pumped up about "Leave it to Jason"- with Jason White as the Beaver.

YOu're right folks can't get back their time from watching films that they didn't like, but only SR in these examples requires the sequel to deal with the reason they didn't like the first one all over again.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

By no means have I given up hope on a sequel.

I have. I would love to wake-up one morning and see, "DC's GOING GREEN IN 2010 WITH GREEN LANTERN AND BRAINIAC IN MOS."

But right now it feels more like two different factions trying to have their opinion rule the day. The 2010 window is closing and Green Lantern's the only one racing towards it. Not that I won't have my butt in the seat for a great Hal Jordan movie, but I would love to see that Clark cameo and maybe a Hal cameo in MOS.

Win some, Lose some.

 

[mego joe]

Ah, but it's in watching the bad moves that we can truly appreciate the great ones.

I guess I can thank Singer for that then....

 

[Double Down]

But right now it feels more like two different factions trying to have their opinion rule the day.

That's why I appreciate reboot supporters who are willing to admit there can be a middle ground.

 

[Double Down]

I guess I can thank Singer for that then....

I can only assume you mean Marc Singer in Beastmaster 2: Through the Portal of Time and dude, I'm right there with you. It did not live up to the first one.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

The difference is that there's nothing lingering from S-M 3 or FF or the X-Films that could hold back the potential of another film. SR is different in that Jason/Richard- that whole storyline is the major stumbling block to what would come next in a sequel- Superman: The Custody Battle is just no one's idea of a good Superman film. THat's a dead end, and a complete cop out to kill one or both of them. Focussing on Superman as a parent is also deadend storytelling. People aren't pumped up about "Leave it to Jason"- with Jason White as the Beaver.

YOu're right folks can't get back their time from watching films that they didn't like, but only SR in these examples requires the sequel to deal with the reason they didn't like the first one all over again.

You honestly look at Mr.Fantastic and Invisible Woman as not sucking? That's half the freaking team.

They tried twice with Dr. Doom and both sucked. "Fool me once, shame on you...etc."

Each of the Spiderman movies has made less money domestically than the previous. If Spidey 3 is as bad as people on SHH say it is then what logic says you are going to suddenly increase profits?

The Hulk had no bad stigmas other than the horrible movie itself and yet they didn't pick-up where that one left off. It was in line with the comics and yet Marvel still rebooted.

 

[mego joe]

I can only assume you mean Marc Singer in Beastmaster 2: Through the Portal of Time and dude, I'm right there with you. It did not live up to the first one.

I think you know I meant Bryan Singer. Beastmaster! Wow, that takes me back a few years. Y'know he wasn't bad in "V" the NBC TV series.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Listen, I want a straight-on sequel as much as anyone. I have posted about it, I have written about it for a newspaper for which I work and I have put it on my blog. However, I realize that it may not happen. I have heard Jett talk about a hybrid. I am willing to listen to what that entails. For me, and I have stated this several times, Routh returning is the most important factor.

I think that this hybrid Jett is talking about is the best idea. I'm excited to hear more about what Jett and Steve are talking about in the upcoming days and see if it will actually please both sides.

Conversely, most reboot supporters are dead set against anything that resembles a sequel. So for this guy to suggest that there is a sequel, but the events of the first film were something devised by a villain, is middle ground.

Undoing so much of it though sounds nothing like middle ground.

I think middle ground is pretty much what Jett is saying, a hybrid. A sequel to Superman Returns, but a revamp at the same time. Bryan Singer still directing, but having a tight leash. Using less Donner tones and more comic book influences. Less drama, more action.

Personally, I don't like the idea. I want a sequel and I want the first movie to matter. Of course I do. But I like that he's putting things out there that aren't "a total reboot is the only way to go."
He has put some thought into it and he's throwing it out there. I gave him credit for that.

True.

 

[Double Down]

I think you know I meant Bryan Singer. Beastmaster! Wow, that takes me back a few years. Y'know he wasn't bad in "V" the NBC TV series.

Hey, Beastmaster was the bomb back in the day. Tanya Roberts. Those ferrets. A campier-than-camp Rip Torn as the bad guy. What's not to love?

 

[Double Down]

I think middle ground is pretty much what Jett is saying, a hybrid. A sequel to Superman Returns, but a revamp at the same time. Bryan Singer still directing, but having a tight leash. Using less Donner tones and more comic book influences. Less drama, more action.

Sign me up!

 

[mego joe]

You honestly look at Mr.Fantastic and Invisible Woman as not sucking? That's half the freaking team.

There was nothing holding them back from improving on it in a sequel. NOthing about them conceptually couldn't easily be executed better. There's no way to execute "Paternity Test for Superman" better. The whole concept is stillborn.

They tried twice with Dr. Doom and both sucked. "Fool me once, shame on you...etc."

Execution and concept are two different problems.

Each of the Spiderman movies has made less money domestically than the previous. If Spidey 3 is as bad as people on SHH say it is then what logic says you are going to suddenly increase profits?

Lower budget, storyline with a different approach and new villains.

The Hulk had no bad stigmas other than the horrible movie itself and yet they didn't pick-up where that one left off. It was in line with the comics and yet Marvel still rebooted.

THis is a case of The Hulk being so bad that it required a reboot. If you recall, my suggestions for a SR sequel are organically removing the aspects of the concept/story that are holding back sequel potential- Jason/ RIchard.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The Hulk had no bad stigmas other than the horrible movie itself and yet they didn't pick-up where that one left off. It was in line with the comics and yet Marvel still rebooted.

Actually Marvel intended to do a sequel. The original the Incredible Hulk script by Zak Penn was written as a sequel to Hulk. Leterrier was signed up to do a sequel to Hulk. It was basically a hybrid. A sequel but a revamp at the same time like what Jett is saying with the latest Man of Steel script.

Then came along Ed Norton who took upon screenwriting duties for the film as well and changed it from revamped sequel to vague reboot.