Superman Returns Would You Prefer Confirmed Sequel OR Confirmed Restart

[Billy Batson]

The Hulk re-boot looks extremely poor IMO, i have read the script, and it takes so many departures from the comics its unbelievable.

Now that the film has been released, do you still feel that way?

 

[El Payaso]

Now that the film has been released, do you still feel that way?

I saw TIH and it's great fun but poor character development and choppy editing (not to mention a couple of shameful jokes). In any case Iron Man is a much better movie without losing substance. But take Downey Jr out of it and it's not close to be that good.

 

[Wushuboy]

You can say that about any big hit movie. Take the star out and I'm sure the movie wouldnt have been as good as it was. That's like me saying, take Christopher Reeve out of Superman and it's not close to being that good or take Hugh Jackman out of the Xmovies or Bale out of BB or Russell Crowe out of gladiator.... That's why they have casting directors to cast the right ppl to make the movie better and to have an actor who fits the role. If that was your way of knocking Iron man, it certainly was a lame one.

 

[superbaby]

wow, 50/50!!! superman fanbase split into half by the movie. that's really interesting.

 

[El Payaso]

You can say that about any big hit movie. Take the star out and I'm sure the movie wouldnt have been as good as it was. That's like me saying, take Christopher Reeve out of Superman and it's not close to being that good or take Hugh Jackman out of the Xmovies or Bale out of BB or Russell Crowe out of gladiator.... That's why they have casting directors to cast the right ppl to make the movie better and to have an actor who fits the role. If that was your way of knocking Iron man, it certainly was a lame one.

I have nothing but praise for Iron Man dude. I even went to the IM board to state how I prefer it to Batman Begins itself. That said I think if you replace Bale in Begins for another great actor I don't think it would lose as much as if you take Downey out of IM.

Now, I wouldn't mind to take Russel out of any of his movies and pout a better actor instead.

wow, 50/50!!! superman fanbase split into half by the movie. that's really interesting.

Even more interesting is that it has been this exact way at SHH for two years now.

 

[superbaby]

Even more interesting is that it has been this exact way at SHH for two years now.

what an achievement by singer.

 

[El Payaso]

what an achievement by singer.

Singer's achievements are purely cinematic. Fans are totally free of action.

 

[Wushuboy]

no. his cinematic "acheivement" is the catalyst for the ongoing "discussion." It does not free him from any responsibility for this divide amongst fans. That's like saying an journalist is free from responsibility for anything he writes or a musician from anything he plays. If it's well received they are given credit. If it's not they're not to blame? double standard indeed.

 

[El Payaso]

no. his cinematic "acheivement" is the catalyst for the ongoing "discussion." It does not free him from any responsibility for this divide amongst fans.

Exactly. It doesn't. Because he never had such responsibility to start with.

That's like saying an journalist is free from responsibility for anything he writes or a musician from anything he plays.

Wrong. I stated that Singer is responsible for what the movie is - the same you said about the jornalist for what he writes and the musician for what he plays - but the same as the journalist or the musician, Singer cannot be responsible for what people would say or think about his creation. Musician plays Beethoven, audience can applaud or think they prefer more more jazzy music. Journalist writes a great political article, readers are free to like it or to despise it because their political views differ. It's not on their hands what the reaction will be and thus they're not responsible.

If it's well received they are given credit. If it's not they're not to blame? double standard indeed.

Singer can be held resposibility for not following what WB wanted resulting in a poor BO. Nobody can predict what audiences reaction will be. But not for the fans division. Fans can have mixing reaction but the division, the angry wars between them is not on Singer’s hands. From all we know, fans could have the exact same opinion about the movie and still behave civil to each other.

That said, results were pretty decent at the BO and the reviews.

 

[stargazer]

Even more interesting is that it has been this exact way at SHH for two years now.

I don't think so. It may be that way here on the Superman boards, but go to other big sites and the vast majority wants a sequel to Returns, I mean, the polls show it. Heck, even here at SHH, going by the main page; the polls have consistently shown that the majority of people liked Returns enough to want to see a sequel. Just recently last year, when asked what people wanted to see first, a sequel or the JL movie, around the 75% prefered a sequel, and the voters were more than 70 people, more like on the thousands.

 

[Wushuboy]

Jesus I wonder why. Did you see what was planned for that horrendous JL movie? That's like choosing the lesser of two evils. Even I would have chosen a superman sequel over the JL movie. It wasn't a difficult choice.

 

[stargazer]

^^you act as if noone liked SR. In fact, most people did, and the reviews show it.

 

[Wushuboy]

You and your constant reliance on those reviews. I've said this to you before. When reviews help your arguement that SR was good you rely on them. When reviews say Iron Man was clearly the better movie by a huge margin, you dismiss them and go with your own opinion. Be consistent in your usage of reviews as a point in your stance.

And you put a crappier movie up against a superman sequel and what do you think would happen? That JL movie had bad buzz about it from the beginning from it's casting to it's story. The only good thing about it was that they would have had Weta doing the SFX.

 

[Wushuboy]

Exactly. It doesn't. Because he never had such responsibility to start with.

Wrong. I stated that Singer is responsible for what the movie is - the same you said about the jornalist for what he writes and the musician for what he plays - but the same as the journalist or the musician, Singer cannot be responsible for what people would say or think about his creation. Musician plays Beethoven, audience can applaud or think they prefer more more jazzy music. Journalist writes a great political article, readers are free to like it or to despise it because their political views differ. It's not on their hands what the reaction will be and thus they're not responsible.

Singer can be held resposibility for not following what WB wanted resulting in a poor BO. Nobody can predict what audiences reaction will be. But not for the fans division. Fans can have mixing reaction but the division, the angry wars between them is not on Singer’s hands. From all we know, fans could have the exact same opinion about the movie and still behave civil to each other.

That said, results were pretty decent at the BO and the reviews.

Wrong. This movie was not made for the sake of making it. It's not art for art's sake.It's not some indie movie. Clearly, this movie was made to illicit a response from the public. If it was some small arthouse movie, then sure, I can see how a director would not care what the response it. Even then that's just not even accurate. Directors go to screenings where they sit in to see what the audience reaction is. You don't think they have the slightest care? Gee I wonder why Bryan Singer himself was sitting in the viewing X2 that I attended, unaware he was in the theatre. Some directors sit in on their own movies in disguise just to see how the audience will react.. to hear what they have to say.

Sure the director or any creative figure or authority figure can be totally held responsible for what they convey to people and how what they say affects peoples' opinions. Singer's responsibility doesn't end after he finishes editing the movie. Maybe you're not an artistic person but most artists know that their work can and will illicit a response and so they are in a way responsible for what people think about their creation because they are the ones who conveyed that message.

A musician can play beethoven. He knows that the music he plays is geared to people who enjoy classical music. He can illicit applause if he plays well. If he plays poorly he'll get disappointing reviews and people will talk. I don't even konw why you brought the jazzy music point. That makes no sense at all. If I were into jazz why would I go to a classical concert? That's like a horror/gore fan going to a disney movie expecting guts and deaths.


A journalist who writes a political article generally writes it with respect to a certain stance. He has a specific audience he is writing for and he cares how his work will influence people. Most writers are looking to influence people with their words. To get them talking. Thus he is responsible.

There are ways the movie studios predict how audiences will react. Pre screenings for one. You do know movie studios hold these free screenings where they ask people to write on cards what they liked and what they didnt like. They take this small subset of the population and extrapolate how the general audience will like it. Countless movies have made changes to their movies right before they are released because the pre screening opinion was not well received. Endings have changes, editing changed, plot points changed.

Maybe you are confusing what my point is. I don't care that people may or may not be civil when debating. That's not Singer's responsibility. That is on the individual. But the debate itself.. the topic of discussion.. is for the most part Singer's responsibility as it is his work that brought it forth. It is the mixed reaction that has caused the fan division.

And one more thing, you just said Singer can be held responsible for the poor BO then you say it was pretty decent. Contradicting statements indeed.

 

[mojo-x]

I don't think so. It may be that way here on the Superman boards, but go to other big sites and the vast majority wants a sequel to Returns, I mean, the polls show it. Heck, even here at SHH, going by the main page; the polls have consistently shown that the majority of people liked Returns enough to want to see a sequel. Just recently last year, when asked what people wanted to see first, a sequel or the JL movie, around the 75% prefered a sequel, and the voters were more than 70 people, more like on the thousands.

What polls are you talking about? Even the ones I saw where there was a majority of people who wanted a sequel it was not what I consider a vast majority. Even if it’s by 10% that is still 40% of people who hated SR. To lose that many people for a movie that under performed in the 1st place is not a very good sign.

A musician can play beethoven. He knows that the music he plays is geared to people who enjoy classical music. He can illicit applause if he plays well. If he plays poorly he'll get disappointing reviews and people will talk. I don't even konw why you brought the jazzy music point. That makes no sense at all. If I were into jazz why would I go to a classical concert? That's like a horror/gore fan going to a disney movie expecting guts and deaths.

I am a fan of metal music, but that dose not mean I won’t listen to Johnny Cash because I am a music fan 1st. I am also a horror fan but that does not mean I can’t watch and appreciate a Disney film because I’m a movie fan 1st .If this is the kind of logic one most have to enjoy SR no wonder I hated it.

 

[Wushuboy]

I am a fan of metal music, but that dose not mean I won’t listen to Johnny Cash because I am a music fan 1st. I am also a horror fan but that does not mean I can’t watch and appreciate a Disney film because I’m a movie fan 1st .If this is the kind of logic one most have to enjoy SR no wonder I hated it.

That's true mojo however my point was that it's not that people cant appreciate different genres, it's that people dont expect something in one genre that is inherent in another. So if I go to a classical music concert I'm expecting great classical music. If the musician plays bad then of course he wont be applauded. If he plays well.. I applaud. But I dont judge his performance by whether or not I like jazz or not because it's entirely irrelevant to the style he is playing. Same thing with going to a jazz concert. I judge the jazz player based on the jazzy elements not by classical music criteria. In el payaso's example he said people can not applaud a musician playing beethoven based on whether they like jazz music or not. There's a difference. So in the end, if he plays bad and gets a bad reaction is he not responsible for playing poorly? And on the other hand if he plays well and gets rousing applause is he not responsible for that too? Some people may think he played well.. some may not and so they talk and disagree. Is he still not responsible since it is his performance that incites such discussion? To el payaso apparently he is not.

And sure you can appreciate a horror movie and a disney movie but you dont go into a horror movie to see disney story elements and vice versa. For example, I dont expect to see blood and guts and heads lopped off when I see a pixar movie and I dont judge a pixar by the same criteria I'd judge say a freddy krueger movie.

So I didnt like SR because it didnt meet my expectations of what a comic book movie should be. Instead I got a soap opera and a maury povich show with sparse action and less than exciting sequences.. barring the plane sequence.

 

[The son becomes]

Bring on a sequel to SR.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

You and your constant reliance on those reviews. I've said this to you before. When reviews help your arguement that SR was good you rely on them. When reviews say Iron Man was clearly the better movie by a huge margin, you dismiss them and go with your own opinion. Be consistent in your usage of reviews as a point in your stance.

And you put a crappier movie up against a superman sequel and what do you think would happen? That JL movie had bad buzz about it from the beginning from it's casting to it's story. The only good thing about it was that they would have had Weta doing the SFX.

I liked SR but I'll say it... IM was better

 

[Clark Kent]

I want a reboot. That's why I'm writing a reboot. But I want a reboot because I feel that that's what Superman Returns should have been all along; not continuing a franchise that basically ended nearly 30 years ago, but starting again and giving us a new, modern franchise. I know that there have been at least ten, if not more, screen versions of the origin of Superman. But I can only count three big screen versions; the first Max & Dave Fleischer cartoon from 1941 with Clayton 'Bud' Collyer as the voice of Superman (the origin was repeated in subsequent cartoons), the John (Kirk Alyn) Feggo Jr. serial from 1948, and the Christopher Reeve movie from 1978. 1978 was 30 years ago. We need a reboot.

 

[Spider-Fan]

A reboot in which Superman's origin is not explained, and he is just an established fact.

 

[Clark Kent]

A reboot in which Superman's origin is not explained, and he is just an established fact.

No, not IMO. That would be a story without a beginning. All stories have to have beginnings, IMO. If it's a story without a beginning, I'm not interested in it.

 

[Spider-Fan]

No, not IMO. That would be a story without a beginning. All stories have to have beginnings, IMO. If it's a story without a beginning, I'm not interested in it.

What would be different? The part where Kal-El is blasted to Earth from Krypton? The part where he is found by the Kents? The part where Jor-El fights with the Council?

Granted, when he gets to Metropolis it might start to be different, but overall, SAME MOVIE!!!

Just make the universe look different. TIH does a great job of not being an origin story, but establishing a new series. Granted, his origin is mentioned, but I am sure someone will mention the fact he is from another planet and you'll be happy.

 

[Clark Kent]

I am sure someone will mention the fact he is from another planet and you'll be happy.

No, I'd want a detailed exploration of the origin. Nothing else would satisfy me.

 

[Spider-Fan]

No, I'd want a detailed exploration of the origin. Nothing else would satisfy me.

Why? We have a whole movie dedicated to it. We know its origin. Why must we make a new origin movie every so many years when it is already done? I don't need a detailed (or really any) explanation. It's been done.

The only franchise reboot I'd do as an origin story is FF, and that is becasue they assassinated Dr. Doom's character.

 

[Clark Kent]

Why? We have a whole movie dedicated to it. We know its origin. Why must we make a new origin movie every so many years when it is already done?

Because it'd be a new version of the story. And because I believe that every story has to have a beginning, I also believe that every separate version has to have its own separate beginning. Otherwise, it'd just be a sequel, but a sequel has to fit within a pre-established timeline, IMO. And the only way to establish a new timeline, IMO, is to begin at the beginning.