Superman Returns Will Superman Return again?

[CGHulk]

Drop Singer, and I won't be buying SR!

 

[buggs0268]

The actual Variety article is a lot more positive about the outlook for the sequel. It pretty much says while it wasn't the blockbuster they were hoping for, bailing out right now would be a waste of their investments and the film wasn't such a disappointment that a sequel is out of the question anyway.

I think it's funny that this guy at Chud thinks an action packed flick has to cost $200 million. The Star Wars prequels cost $115 million and Lucas was able to create entire worlds. Same goes for the Lord of the Rings' $94 million budgets (per film) or the Matrix sequels' $150 million budget. A lot can be done without the film costing an arm and a leg.



Why? There's only one superhero franchise that's hit the $300 million mark and that's the Spider-man franchise (which is just a freak of nature). Just because it's Superman doesn't mean that the film should be guaranteed to make Spider-man money. Batman is just as popular and "only" made $200 million. Should it not exist?

Star Wars cost so little as Lucas owns ILM. If Lucas didn't and had to bid effects houses for his films, they would have cost 200 mill or more. Lucas doesn't have to pay a lot of the overhead costs. Trust me, the guy charges way more for films that ILM works on that are studio films. Go look at the budget for Van Helsing. Look at the budget for Hulk.

 

[buggs0268]

True about the Star Wars films, but look at Lord of the Rings. Yes, there was a lot of greenscreen stuff, but even more location shooting. And the film still cost only $94 million. I think now that Singer and co. know how to achieve their visual effects shots (which will require less testing), the cost of the next film won't be so...inflated.

They also shot in New Zealand which kept cost down, and I believe they cost more than that. Also:

The New Zealand director accepted a Herculean task when he decided to transfer the three installments - "Fellowship," "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King" - to the screen as three separate motion pictures filmed simultaneously to minimize production costs. The overall budget for the trilogy is $300 million with another $100 million needed for advertising and marketing. ("Towers" and "King" will be released during the holiday seasons in 2002 and 2003, respectively.)
http://www.phillyburbs.com/rotk/fotr.shtml

Another site is reporting the final budget:

was given a $270 million budget. The cost ultimately climbed to $310 million. If the first movie had tanked, then New Line (which, like Time, is owned by AOL Time Warner) would have had two more bombs in the can, already ticking.
http://tolkien.cro.net/

So it was a lot more.

 

[phoenixstorm]

I hope there is a reimagining and we all forget this film ever happened.

1. Drop Singer fast. No. More. Singer. He seems better suited to ensembles anyway.

2. Drop Routh. He cannot act. He's bad. He has no charisma. He looks nothing like Superman should. He is superboy not Superman.

3. Drop Bosworthless. She's no Lois Lane. Her acting is flat. She has no chemistry with her co stars. She's pretty to look at and thats it. She brought nothing to the role. She acted as if she stepped out of her surfing movie.

4. Find an original story not a rehash of the original. This was truly a death blow.

5. use an antagonist worthy of superman. Batman had Rahs al Gul a worthy adversary. Superman had Lex Luthor played like a spazz. I didn't see brilliant evil genius. I saw a crackpot. Give Superman a worthy villian.

6. Drop spacey. I love him but he should not have imitated Gene Hackman and should have come up with the character on his own. He clearly didnt.

7. Drop the dead beat dad angle and get rid of the kid. Waste of space and time that was.

 

[Hiruu]

Star Wars cost so little as Lucas owns ILM. If Lucas didn't and had to bid effects houses for his films, they would have cost 200 mill or more. Lucas doesn't have to pay a lot of the overhead costs. Trust me, the guy charges way more for films that ILM works on that are studio films. Go look at the budget for Van Helsing. Look at the budget for Hulk.

I read the article, and the very fact that they are running this article speaks VOLUMES as to the dilemma that Time Warner must be facing. After 10 years of false starts and hundreds of millions spent, to JUST breakeven isn't very confidence inspiring, and we are talking about spending hundreds of millions of dollars...not the kind thing you want to take ANOTHER chance on.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117948368?categoryid=13&cs=1

 

[ultimatefan]

The actual article from Variety is much better rounded than this opinion piece. They make clear that the movie may not be such a blockbuster that a sequel is a no-brainer, but it´s far from being so unsuccessful that the idea should be put down for good. The article also makes clear that TW will count everything, and DVD sales will be an important measure, as they were for BB. It´s at least ironic to see Faraci talk about BB´s legs, he was one of the few critics who put the movie down. And no, they´re far from being "Christopher Reeve legs" (that joke was in terrible taste, BTW), they´re a little behind BB, right, but far from real WOM disasters like Hulk or Van Helsing.

 

[gothicFLAVOURS]

I hope not. Warner, don't spend money on this kind of crap

 

[buggs0268]

I read the article, and the very fact that they are running this article speaks VOLUMES as to the dilemma that Time Warner must be facing. After 10 years of false starts and hundreds of millions spent, to JUST breakeven isn't very confidence inspiring, and we are talking about spending hundreds of millions of dollars...not the kind thing you want to take ANOTHER chance on.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117948368?categoryid=13&cs=1

Yeah. I mean the thing wont even make 200 mill domestic. I mean even I, suit hater, thought I would not be even typing that.

 

[ThanosOfTitans]

I am pretty confident we will get a Sequel, but I don't want Singer back. I think he should just step aside and let someone else take a shot at the franchise. It's nothing personal against Singer, but that's just how disappointed I was with SR. And with all of this speculation insisting that he wants to bring Zod BACK....i really really really really don't want him back. I can't stress that enough. If he does come back....I pray that he gives us something fresh and original and unexpected (i think we can all pretty much agree that when we saw the kid...we already knew it would be Superman's).

In the sequel...

I would love for the kid to turn evil and richard die.

or

Richard turn evil and the kid die.

In the sequel..I want all obstacles out...so wecan focus on Clark Kent, Superman and the relationships between those characters....and of course some supervillain chaos and destruction!

 

[SpiderMarc]

Superman will return in '09 with Singer at the helm. We will get a Lex/Zod teamup (not a Zod fan) combined with Darksied or Metallo as the prominant baddie. Kal-El will have to deal with his aging son becoming "Super" and keeping it a secret (protecting him from Lex/Zod and the world). Kal-El will have to deal with Lois marrying Richard....This would be a rocking movie.

I can't wait. And no, I'm not employed by Singer.

 

[Lucidious]

I had problems with SR like a lot of people but I would be really disappointed if there isn't a sequel.

The thing about changing the director is that I fear an X3 type of thing where, while adequate a movie, there will be changes and inconsistencies with the series and story because of the change in directors and writers. We've seen that happen with the old Superman movies, the X-Men movies and others that change hands, like T3.

Then again, I find Singer frustrating. I don't have complete faith that the next movie will "kickass" just because he's laid the groundwork. I don't want to get a "ho-hum, Is that it?" feeling from the sequel and I am not yet convinced that he will do a great job with it.

This really is a different case for a franchise where a lot of things are at odds. I am not surprised that WB don't seem too sure as of yet. Ultimately, I personally do want Singer back because he raised issues and questions in Returns that do need to be explained/explored/answered. He assumed a lot of things in putting them in Returns but I would hate that if they were given to someone else who decided to dismiss them or not properly answer them. Or just want to get them out of the way to create a typical action-filled blockbuster.

I don't think Superman is too retro- that's part of his appeal. Of course he is a good guy but I don't mind if they give him more of an edge. He doesn't have to go all "dark Superman" but I don't think he can be the same "American Boy Scout" image as before. It all depends on what he confronts and how he is tested in the next one.

I agree that in terms of Jason, it can't be about Superman just making promises to his son and getting sentimental as he did in Returns, but seeing what it actually means for both Jason and Superman, which we didn't see.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Ofcourse Superman will return, it's just that he'll most likely return with another director and possibly Lois Lane. It takes a really dumb studio and director to botch what should have been an easy 250 million dollar grosser.

Even when I say it, I don't fully buy the POTC 2 killed Superman argument. I mean the advertisment was huge! I saw Superman Returns everywhere. The movie was easily more hyped than Pirates 2, easily.

I think that the early teaser add might have helped kill the movie. It was a boring add that promised a rehash of the first two movies. I mean come on it even used Marlon Brando's voice! Why go see a movie when you can see the same thing on DVD? The subsequent add's also had the same problem but their is no doubt that the first add set the tone.

 

[X Knight]

actually.......the first teaser made it sound like a Restart/Origin movie.......about why Jor-El sent his son to Earth ( to be our LIGHT and Guidance and Inspiration to achieve good ).......

ironically.......that whole theme was lost in the movie and never really explored......especially when Superman basically blew off his father's words.....and left the world for 5+ years......and making Supes an immoral, irresponsible dead-beat dad/stalker/voyeur kind of counteracted that whole Light and Inspiration message.

IMO.....if they had built a new Restart/Origin movie around that very theme ( Superman acting as an INSPIRATION and LIGHT ).......got a director and writers who are creative enough to make an origin fresh and different from what we've seen........that would have made a much more interesting ( and perhaps successful ) movie.....

I'm certainly NOT a creative writer or a director.....but the above was what I was trying to accomplish in my Origin Idea thread.....

I just think the Vague Sequel to a 20/30 year old franchise really hurt the movie........you'd be surprised at how many people are still confused as to how SR fits in with the previous movies......even Singer himself seems confused.

A complete restart.....with a new/fresh vision that still remained true to the character.......would have been the best way to go......

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

actually.......the first teaser made it sound like a Restart/Origin movie.......about why Jor-El sent his son to Earth ( to be our LIGHT and Guidance and Inspiration to achieve good ).......

ironically.......that whole theme was lost in the movie and never really explored......especially when Superman basically blew off his father's words.....and left the world for 5+ years......and making Supes an immoral, irresponsible dead-beat dad/stalker/voyeur kind of counteracted that whole Light and Inspiration message.

IMO.....if they had built a new Restart/Origin movie around that very theme ( Superman acting as an INSPIRATION and LIGHT ).......got a director and writers who are creative enough to make an origin fresh and different from what we've seen........that would have made a much more interesting ( and perhaps successful ) movie.....

I'm certainly NOT a creative writer or a director.....but the above was what I was trying to accomplish in my Origin Idea thread.....

I just think the Vague Sequel to a 20/30 year old franchise really hurt the movie........you'd be surprised at how many people are still confused as to how SR fits in with the previous movies......even Singer himself seems confused.

A complete restart.....with a new/fresh vision that still remained true to the character.......would have been the best way to go......

No it didn't.

 

[raybia]

oh god I couldn't take it. There's just so much stuff you could explore outside of Sky captain zod and hackman lex.

Right now...The most interesting aspect of the potential sequel to me is Jason. That's really it. I don't care about anyone else or whether superman gets with lois. They both are such fools. Jason's the real genius of the group and for the next one if singer's still onboard, I hope he shows us a story about growing up feeling that you're different from all your peers, feeling alienated, wanting to date the popular girl but being afraid she'd learn your secret so tragically continue alienating himself, though he might have a freind or two who discovers it accidentally... hmmm this might make a good show for tv. Don't anybody steal my idea now.

My fear is that superman won't raise his son, won't teach him how to fly and all that stuff. That's his responsibility and for them to say superfather might co-raise jason with Cyclops... well... I wouldn't like that too much. Because superman to me, would gladly be a father to his son no matter who lois' boyfriend is at the time. Oh I can't wait until Jason learns the truth. He'll be so excited.

At least Richard can teach Jason how to use his Heat vision.

 

[Lucidious]

I think that the early teaser add might have helped kill the movie. It was a boring add that promised a rehash of the first two movies. I mean come on it even used Marlon Brando's voice! Why go see a movie when you can see the same thing on DVD? The subsequent add's also had the same problem but their is no doubt that the first add set the tone.

I think the ads reflected what the movie was actually about. When the teaser came out it reminded us of the familiarity of the story. This was good in one way, but I think it also made audiences look for what would be new in this movie. What they sensed was more Lex and more Lois, with the same problems and issues as all those years ago.

I think if WB are wondering if people still want to see Superman then the answer is yes. It's not about people being sick of Superman- people know what Superman is about- it was the somber, low-key Superman Bryan Singer gave us. This was reflected in the ads, in that teaser- with Lois and Superman talking quietly and Lex yet again trying to beat Superman. It wasn't the marketing or Pirates 2. People sensed it about this movie, so, even if they like Superman, maybe it was harder to get too hyped over this movie.

If a sequel does actually become this huge, epic good vs. evil type battle, people will know this, the ads will reflect this, it will generate more buzz and hype because that is the actual content of the film. I don't think what people want from a Superman movie is too complicated.

 

[raybia]

I think the ads reflected what the movie was actually about. When the teaser came out it reminded us of the familiarity of the story. This was good in one way, but I think it also made audiences look for what would be new in this movie. What they sensed was more Lex and more Lois, with the same problems and issues as all those years ago.

I think if WB are wondering if people still want to see Superman then the answer is yes. It's not about people being sick of Superman- people know what Superman is about- it was the somber, low-key Superman Bryan Singer gave us. This was reflected in the ads, in that teaser- with Lois and Superman talking quietly and Lex yet again trying to beat Superman. It wasn't the marketing or Pirates 2. People sensed it about this movie, so, even if they like Superman, maybe it was harder to get too hyped over this movie.

If a sequel does actually become this huge, epic good vs. evil type battle, people will know this, the ads will reflect this, it will generate more buzz and hype because that is the actual content of the film. I don't think what people want from a Superman movie is too complicated.

Who wants to see a brooding Superman? If only I could be a WB exec. I would require all superhero movie scripts go to DC for a grade. Anything less than a 3.5 on a 4 point scale gets sent back for reworks.

 

[X Knight]

actually........i just wanted to clarify myself........

The first TEASER TRAILER ( the one shown with Harry Potter, etc. )......could've passed for an origin/restart......if I didn't know anything about what SR was going to be about.....I might have thought they were going to start over....

you had Jor-El's voice over ( "Even though you've been raised as a human....you are not one of them....")......you had young Clark crashing though the barn....discovering the spaceship......then later you had Supes meeting Lois on a rooftop....flying away......Supes rising towards the sun....Supes hovering above the world.......all the while you had Jor-el's speech continuing ("They are a great people Kal-El, they wish to be........")

So, if I was uninformed about the plot of SR.....after seeing that first TEASER...I might think that they were starting over....and that it would center around that theme......Supes being sent to act as our LIGHT and Inspiration.....

Now.....the first official Trailer....that was a different story.......that demonstrated that Superman was returning from somewhere.....Lois is a Mommy.....Lex is the villain......so no......the first Trailer did not feel like an origin movie......but the first TEASER did, imo of course......

 

[Raiden]

True, they did, but it still shouldn't cost an arm or a leg for effects shots even if you're outsourcing. I don't really think there's been a single film by ILM that has cost a ridiculous amount of money because of the effects shots.

And don't forget that Peter Jackson also used his own company to do the effects for King Kong, and that film cost a ridiculous $210 million to make as opposed to LOTR's $94 million each.

Just because Lucas and Jackson did it, doesn't mean SR's sequel can do likewise. Each studio has their own way of making movies and bringing the costs down. What's easy for Lucas and his ILM to cut cost might be impossible for WB. I for one don't believe that they can promise bigger action sequences in the sequel, yet deliver a budget that is significantly lower than SR.

 

[The Kid]

At least Richard can teach Jason how to use his Heat vision.

ok I admit I lolled.

 

[Raiden]

Who wants to see a brooding Superman? If only I could be a WB exec. I would require all superhero movie scripts go to DC for a grade. Anything less than a 3.5 on a 4 point scale gets sent back for reworks.

Didn't all the DC guys praised SR for being a superb movie? It'd probably pass their grade with flying colors.

That doesn't say anything about the quality of SR, however.

 

[raybia]

Didn't all the DC guys praised SR for being a superb movie? It'd probably pass their grade with flying colors.

That doesn't say anything about the quality of SR, however.

Maybe. What could they do at that point. They weren't consulted on the script. As Time/Warner employees they couldn't just come out prior to the released as say, "Ugh, this Superman Returns is horrible."

Nolan however submitted his final BB script to DC offices for an actual critique.

That should be a standard practice with DC based properties.

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

Just because Lucas and Jackson did it, doesn't mean SR's sequel can do likewise. Each studio has their own way of making movies and bringing the costs down. What's easy for Lucas and his ILM to cut cost might be impossible for WB. I for one don't believe that they can promise bigger action sequences in the sequel, yet deliver a budget that is significantly lower than SR.

And everyone likes to ignore The Matrix sequels that I brought up. Each costing $150 million. If they can have Neo flying around and have great action sequences for $150 million, then there's no doubt that they can do the same with Superman.

You don't need $200 million to make an action packed movie.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The fact of the matter is Warner Bro's would be fools to spend 200mil on the sequel. Now I have no doubt that the WB are fools, but are they that foolish? I think not!

Truth be told, I haven't seen the movie but the Spider-Man movies weren't action packed either and they had a love story and they did pretty damn great at the boxoffice. It's all about the tone and fun factor and how you spend the money. Now again I haven't seen SR yet but if X-Men and X2 are any indication Singer doesn't know how to handle big budget films. Hellboy and the first two Blade movies looked miles better than the X-films and they had lower to much lower budgets.

 

[Carp Man]

Sure we will see another Superman movie SOMETIME down the road. But this time the bank will not be broken. They will be very consertive, with fresh minds, and fresh ideas. No Donner clone 2nd time around. No Lex 2nd time around. No Singer 2nd time around, but with the WB not being the sharpest peanut in the turd, who knows. They may give Singer another shot. I wouldn't, but that is me.