Superman Returns What Singer needs to do for the sequel to make it a sucess.

[The Incredible Hulk]

too late. and, unfortunately for those that do not like it, DC signed off on Singer's idea.

DC didnt "sign off" on squat. Nolan submitted his script to DC not Singer. WB signed off on Singer's idea for one movie. He's not signed on for a sequel at the moment...

 

[Milkman95]

I wouldn't mind Singer returning, he's a good filmmaker. Just don't let those hacks from Smallville near a feature film.

 

[SatEL]

Thanks for the compliment. But this isn't new; this was basically Dini's philosophy about the character, that in order to make it more interesting you really have to put some limits on how powerful Superman is.
It is just basic dramatic technique.
Have you ever seen that animated short from years ago, Bambi vs. Godzilla?

Bambi vs. Godzilla was a hilarious short because it was so spot on. It was about 10 seconds long which showed a cute, innocent little deer feeding on the grass. All of a sudden, a giant monster's foot, presumably Godzilla's crashes down and squishes the deer. The End.
If you have Superman be all powerful, it's just always Godzilla vs. Bambi, and who wants to sit and watch that? That's dull as dirt.

Oh, and this was essentially the problem for the original creators of Superman back in the 1930's. The comic strip was running in newspapers for a few years, but the guys were getting worried because they were running out of ideas. Why? Superman was all powerful, and there wasn't any conflict. So they invented Kryptonite.

To make the audience root for Superman, you need to show him get his face rubbed in the dirt. Sort of like the old Rocky movies.
Like the robbery scene in SR, where Superman is shot with the giant machine gun. To make it more interesting, have him show up in the nick of time, only to have the force of the bullets throw Superman back into a wall. And no bullet in the eye gimmick scene. What is he, God?

No he isnt god his superman for fu... sake do you believe this guy have bullets throw superman into a wall mate i am not sure what superman your familair with but the one i know bullets bounce of him and always have and thats the way it should stay. Superman isnt spiderman his costume doesnt rip he doesnt bleed if you guys dont like that go and watch spiderman 1 and 2 or wait for 3 either way stop chatting sh..

 

[Eros]

No he isnt god his superman for fu... sake do you believe this guy have bullets throw superman into a wall mate i am not sure what superman your familair with but the one i know bullets bounce of him and always have and thats the way it should stay. Superman isnt spiderman his costume doesnt rip he doesnt bleed if you guys dont like that go and watch spiderman 1 and 2 or wait for 3 either way stop chatting sh..

thats correct, superman does not bleed, bullets don't hurt him or effect him period. Im not sure what D-bone was talking about. whats the point of being invincible if stray bullets tip you over lol?

 

[covenant]

I agree. Unfortunately, we're probably stuck with Singer's lackluster and soulless "vision" of Superman unless a reboot occurs, and that's unlikely.

Singer's in way over his head, and provided a very poor film that did not resonate with the fans. He really has performed an immaculately atrocious act by introducing Jason into the franchise.

Nice blanket statement. there are plenty of people who really enjoyed the film. And there are people who did not.

How exactly is Singer in over his head?

 

[gimmen64]

Too many people want a STAS movie instead of a REAL Superman movie. I thought SR was good. Yeah there were some flaws but it better than any other ideas that were out there.

 

[LexCorp]

More Patrick Bateman

 

[dpm07]

Too many people want a STAS movie instead of a REAL Superman movie. I thought SR was good. Yeah there were some flaws but it better than any other ideas that were out there.

Not really. It's not fair for someone to say that there are not better ideas out there. There may easily be someone here who has ideas that are good enough that could make a great film but politics get in the way. I'm sure there are people here who have enough business acumen and understanding of writing in general as well as superheroes and Superman in particular who could provide a great presentation if given the chance.

That chance will not occur here on the boards, but rather in the boardroom. I'm confident that I could give a reboot trilogy that would put more butts in the seats than Singer could. Is it heresy to think that? Nope. I'm sure I'm not the only here that could do it. There's probably more than a few here who could if given an opportunity to get past the politic structure of WB.

It's not a good idea to sell the posters here on the boards short as to what they could do better or worse than Singer.

 

[gimmen64]

Not really. It's not fair for someone to say that there are not better ideas out there. There may easily be someone here who has ideas that are good enough that could make a great film but politics get in the way. I'm sure there are people here who have enough business acumen and understanding of writing in general as well as superheroes and Superman in particular who could provide a great presentation if given the chance.

That chance will not occur here on the boards, but rather in the boardroom. I'm confident that I could give a reboot trilogy that would put more butts in the seats than Singer could. Is it heresy to think that? Nope. I'm sure I'm not the only here that could do it. There's probably more than a few here who could if given an opportunity to get past the politic structure of WB.

It's not a good idea to sell the posters here on the boards short as to what they could do better or worse than Singer.

There are many posters that have great ideas for a Superman movie. The overall response was good to SR. Reviews and the general public liked the movie. It just seems that a small percentage of the public (the fans) didn't like it because changed Superman's mytho. Its just like Spider-Man having organic web shooters. Hopefully WB will take into consideration what fans and the general public want that's why we have these boards.

 

[dpm07]

There are many posters that have great ideas for a Superman movie. The overall response was good to SR. Reviews and the general public liked the movie. It just seems that a small percentage of the public (the fans) didn't like it because changed Superman's mytho. Its just like Spider-Man having organic web shooters. Hopefully WB will take into consideration what fans and the general public want that's why we have these boards.

The overall response to the film has not been very great. If it were, people would be flocking in droves to see the film, and not POTC 2. SR is a film that was facing stiff competition from DWP. Granted, it did better than that film, but it should never have been that close.

Singer is out of touch with the Superman audience as evidenced by the box office. Singer has proven that he doesn't understand Superman the way Raimi did Spiderman, or Jackson did LOTR. Singer understood only the Donner film, and that film while good for its time, is a part of the past. Let's move forward with a reboot. My guess is that the film would have performed much better. Singer provided a very lazy approach to action, and I am using that word kindly. Many people are bored with the film, and that's one reason that it's seeing diminishing returns at the pace it is receiving them.

One of two things is logical. Either POTC 2 is really great (which it is, IMO), or SR is very poor. The box office tells the tale of the tape, and SR is losing because it's just not appealing. It is a dull, lackluster, and soulless film that should never have come to fruition under Singer's direction.

 

[Darknightnomis]

3 words: ZOD FOR PRESIDENT!

That's gold, Baby!

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Well, DC had nothing to do with SR at all.

Batman Begins, though, DC had a hand in that. They were invited to meet with the producers, and writer and director.....and they basically opened the entire archives to they're disposal.

That's huge, I think.

 

[Thot]

Quit.

 

[Spare-Flair]

I think that Singer needs to admit he had too many preconcieved notions of Superman and added too much pop and baggage to suit his own style and needs rather than trusting decades of comics and material that drive the character. The best thing would be to use DC as consultants, getting writers and artists who work on Superman for a daily basis and have worked in comics for decades to DIRECT HIM.

Singer needs to accept he made some mistakes and admit he can change - otherwise he needs to relinquish the reins and allow better directors and writers to do the film.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I just think he needs to turn to the comics more. Do homework, talk to DC, read some graphic novels, consult with DC creators.

 

[YJ1]

What are you thoughts. I think he needs to do this

What Singer needs to do for the sequel to make it a success...

Move on to direct Aquaman and let Bret Ratner direct the next installment.

 

[The Kid]

As much as I loved the kid, he's got to go. Poof, gone, like on a sitcom.

 

[Superpowers]

Braniac

Braniac needs to evolve from New Krypton. I'd also like to see him come to Earth and take on human form for a part of the movie claiming to have information on Krypton. A battle between Superman and Braniac in SPACE.

 

[The Batman]

He should take something from every comic version.

Not just from pre crisis and the very overrated post crisis. There should be a middle ground. fans may not wanna see superman throw moons, but alot fans dont wanna see a clark kent that acts just like superman, a superman thats weak as hell, and basically turning clark into a peter parker wannabe.

 

[Hunter Rider]

He should take something from every comic version.

Not just from pre crisis and the very overrated post crisis. There should be a middle ground. fans may not wanna see superman throw moons, but alot fans dont wanna see a clark kent that acts just like superman, a superman thats weak as hell, and basically turning clark into a peter parker wannabe.

Your post illustrates why it is virtually impossible to find a balance

Anyway i haven't seen SR yet but the general consensus seems to be give Supes a physical threat in the form of a supervillain to pep thing sup a bit in the sequel

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Peter Parker wannabe?? What's that mean?

 

[Galactical]

Peter Parker wannabe?? What's that mean?

a reversal..Just that clark would be a lot like superman instead of bumbling around, similar to how peter's not really hiding under any fake persona and is himself until he puts the mask on to become spidey which gives him more freedom to be the charming friendly superhero.

Didn't batman have all these same post crisis/pre crisis/different versions from Adam west to burton to bruce timm too? how did that effect begins' reception by fans?

The idea of making superman seem to come from our collective consciousness was great! But unfortunately, and here's the downer, he came more from donner's collective conscious than anywhere else, although even that's not entirely true. He has a little fleischer to him and something else never really seen before I believe.

what I think may have been lacking a little was the smallville side to superman. We flashback to witness a happy kid learning he's a god in smallville. his mom assures him that he's still got her. we know all that. In the next movie maybe we can learn more about what he was taught by his earth father rather than Jor-el. i remember it was written somewhere that if superman had fallen into the hands of some bad guys, he'd become an evil guy. I think that comes from the animated show and I believed a part of donner's film too. Superman does all these good things because that's who he is and who he was raised to be. In returns it seems as if the only voice that compelled superman to do his service to humanity was jor-el's while his more human side that exploits the good in all of us, mostly his parents, became more and more lost. i'd be interested in more exploration of that human side of superman in relation to his son, heck, even his new family if richard dies, than the side that has to fight like jor el's little soldier. Maybe we will see how he father's his son similarly to how johnathan fathered him?

 

[Barry Allen]

The overall response to the film has not been very great. If it were, people would be flocking in droves to see the film, and not POTC 2.

Not necessarily true. From my understanding, from those who have seen it, there are far more those in favor of the movie than against. (rottentomotoes, metacritic, etc)

The truth is that not enough people are going to see it. That's probably because either: a) SR is perceived as being more of a drama than popcorn flick. The "typical" movie goer does NOT want a story, they want CGI thrown at them every 10 minutes and some dialogue reasonably explaining why the CGI is being thrown at them. b) People don't "get" Superman. Sadly to say, while Superman is probably the most important comic character of all time, he's not "cool". He's not dark and angsty. He doesn't have enough "attitude".

Singer is out of touch with the Superman audience as evidenced by the box office. Singer has proven that he doesn't understand Superman the way Raimi did Spiderman, or Jackson did LOTR. Singer understood only the Donner film, and that film while good for its time, is a part of the past. Let's move forward with a reboot. My guess is that the film would have performed much better. Singer provided a very lazy approach to action, and I am using that word kindly. Many people are bored with the film, and that's one reason that it's seeing diminishing returns at the pace it is receiving them.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but box office is not the "be all-end all" way to judge the quality of movies anymore. If that's the case, then "Titanic" should be the greatest movie of all time.

One of two things is logical. Either POTC 2 is really great (which it is, IMO), or SR is very poor. The box office tells the tale of the tape, and SR is losing because it's just not appealing. It is a dull, lackluster, and soulless film that should never have come to fruition under Singer's direction.

Again, the tastes of the "typical" movie-goer are not what they used to be. Take away the CGI and sword fighting from POTC2, and what do you have? Would everyone still enjoy it the same? I'm going to bet not. They paid to see swashbuckling and sea creatures.

Take away the CGI and flying from SR. Would everyone still enjoy it the same? I'd like to think so. They paid to see a story about a guy trying to find his place in the world.

I enjoyed POTC2 for what it was, a popcorn flick.

I enjoyed SR for what it was, an epic drama.

It all depends on what you want, and unfortunately, the masses have spoken.

 

[DA Harvey Dent]

Not saying in interviews that a superman movie is primarily a love story and that you want chicks to flock to it is a start.

 

["V"]

[/FONT]


Not necessarily true. From my understanding, from those who have seen it, there are far more those in favor of the movie than against. (rottentomotoes, metacritic, etc)

The truth is that not enough people are going to see it. That's probably because either: a) SR is perceived as being more of a drama than popcorn flick. The "typical" movie goer does NOT want a story, they want CGI thrown at them every 10 minutes and some dialogue reasonably explaining why the CGI is being thrown at them. b) People don't "get" Superman. Sadly to say, while Superman is probably the most important comic character of all time, he's not "cool". He's not dark and angsty. He doesn't have enough "attitude".

What story? I was promised a story where Superman would question if he was needed. Where the World was cold to him, did he really fit in? Should he have come back?

No, I got Luthor wanting land (AGAIN!) and Lois crying that Superman never said goodbye while the rest of the World gushed over him.