All-Star The Man of Steel (Superman) movie thread

[kalorama]

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=77788

Friday afternoon at the Warner Bros. Pictures Presents panel at Comic-Con, Superman Returns director Bryan Singer announced that while he doesn't have a deal set yet with Warner Bros., he does intend to direct a sequel to Superman Returns, to hit theaters in 2009

As for the story, Singer said that while Superman Returns allowed him to introduce the cast, the sequel would allow him to, “Go Wrath of Khan on it."

Let the weeping and gnashing of teeth begin.

[CaptainAwesome]

I know we are not supposed to curse on CBR, but there is only one way to describe how I feel. FUCK YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So I guess you could say I'm moderately ammused by this information.

[Ontir]

:D YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAH!!!:D

I'M SO HAPPY I COULD ... :p

[Lord of Denial]

JOYGASM!:eek: :eek:

[Evan Waters]

He says there's no deal yet, so WB could back out, but here's hoping...

[drwho]

Hopefully they get someone new to write the scripts and the stories plot. I could go for it if it took place while the little brat was at summer camp so he wouldnt need to be in it. Just have Lois and Clark on a dangerous adventure.

[Legato]

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=77788



Let the weeping and gnashing of teeth begin.

Wonder what Singer means by "Going Wrath of Khan on it"? Does that mean that a character may die or something?

Well I for one cant wait to see what he does with the sequal. Maybe we could see a actual balance of action and drama in the movie instead of less action from the first movie.

[Shellhead]

Three years from now? They should call "Superman Returns Again."

[kalorama]

Wonder what Singer means by "Going Wrath of Khan on it"?

I took it to mean that having gotten the introductions out of the way he can move into a more action-oriented mode, pretty much what he did with X-Men and X2.

[Sam T.]

So we have to have another Superman movie???

[Tobias March]

I took it to mean that having gotten the introductions out of the way he can move into a more action-oriented mode, pretty much what he did with X-Men and X2.

Sounds like he's admitting that this film merely set up plot threads to be resolved later, as you said like with X-Men. But he delivered little resolution there (and anyway wasn't this supposed to cap Donner's Superman pictures?).

I would prefer a director with a little more visual flair, but I doubt they'll take a risk with the property. Imagine Arronofsky making Supes. Not in this life, but just imagine :D

[Legato]

Three years from now? They should call "Superman Returns Again."

If Zod somehow makes a return I would like the sequal to be "Zod's Revenge". The story angle Smallville has going with Zod's arrival would have been the perfect way to bring Zod back. Although instead of Lex I would have Zod be resurrected inside Superman's kid.

[drwho]

Have Luthor team up wth a female parasite and the have Doomsdays as one of Luthors labs freak experiments that he lets loose on superman. Or if not Doomsday I think Bizarro could work well too. Nice simple but potentially entertainning plot.

[Evan Waters]

So we have to have another Superman movie???

Well, nobody's going to force you to see it...

[Sam T.]

Well, nobody's going to force you to see it...


Yeah I won't see it! Hasn't the Superman thing been done to death!?!

[DonC]

I'm like most everyone else, I'd like to see more action in the sequel (and the kid disappearing like he never existed). Give me a supervillain that hasn't been done in a movie yet. Someone like Brainiac.

[kalorama]

I really think Brian is trying to confuse people because it isn't a blockbuster by saying yeah I made it like that on purpose. You would think you would do the action film first to find a fan base and then do the drama crap in a sequel. Face it Brian the movie you made was no blockbuster and your formula makes no sense.

Except that it's basically the same formula he used in X-Men, that Raimi used in Spider-Man, and Jackson used in LOTRs. And it made it alot of sense in every one of those cases.

[drwho]

Excpet that it's basically the same formula he used in X-Men, that Raimi used in Spider-Man, and Jackson Used in LOTRs. And it made it alot of sense in every one of those cases.


The only thing I can say when watching Spidey was I enjoyed the whole film while with this one I wanted to walk out towards the end.

[Sam T.]

The only thing I can say when watching Spidey was I enjoyed the whole film while with this one I wanted to walk out towards the end.


Glad I didn't go to see it!:D

[drwho]

I also tend to be very supportive with comic movies. All the X-Mens and Spideys I saw at least two times at the theatre. This movie in my opinion although it had good special effects I enjoyed watching the whole thing as much as the Fantstic Four which wasnt a whole lot. I'd rather sit on a computer discussing what I didnt like than suffer another 3 hours of that.:D

[Sam T.]

Seeing as how being a "blockbuster" is relative to the amount of money spent on the movie, there is a reason Superman Returns isnt a blockbuster. I'll admit that the price tag got way out of hand, but if you are trying to claim that SR is a bomb because it didnt make back 300 mil in its first few weeks that is just wrong.

And Sam T, why are you even posting on this thread if you havent seen this movie and have not intention of seeing a sequel?


Because I can!!

[Legato]

I just hope the sequal will be an improvement.

[Magneto_X]

Excellent news.

Bring on Brainiac! *crosses fingers*

I hope all the cast returns. Kate Bosworth rocked as Lois!

[J. Robb]

I'm definitely hoping for Brainiac. His name has become a commonly used word, and yet most people have no idea where it came from.

[EZMOHR]

I would like to see Brainiac as well. Or even Bizarro or Metallo. I would be cool with any of those.

[1WEBHEAD]

NO more Luthor!! I want someone to give Supes a run for his money like Darkside or Bizarro.

[Donald M.]

I thought Superman Returns was merely okay with some really bad bits, nothing to inspire me to excitement for a sequel. However, if Singer gives us Braniac as opposed to Lex Luthor's latest real estate scheme next time around, I'll give it a shot.

[Legato]

NO more Luthor!! I want someone to give Supes a run for his money like Darkside or Bizarro.


IMO Darkside should be used for a final installment of the franchise.

Brainiac is already used in Smallville so I dont think they would be so quick to use him yet.

Bizarro seems like a logical villain to use. Im just waiting until Doomsday makes an appearance.

[DDM]

Three years from now? They should call "Superman Returns Again."

Give how many missteps Singer made with Superman Returns, he really does not deserve to direct the sequel. I'm surprised the Warners have even green-lighted the sequel given the tepid box office to Superman Returns.

[regnak]

Give how many missteps Singer made with Superman Returns, he really does not deserve to direct the sequel. I'm surprised the Warners have even green-lighted the sequel given the tepid box office to Superman Returns.

Actually Singer himself said

he doesn't have a deal set yet with Warner Bros., (snipped from the middle of the very first post in the thread)

A story that was posted in one of the other threads said the WB required $200 million US box office for a sequel. It's currently at just under $171 million. Maybe he thinks it will eventually get to $200 million and is optimistic that he will get to do the sequel.

The thing is that if the reports of his $20 million dollar salary are correct then I would imagine some WB execs would want to cut the budget for SR2 with a cheaper director.

If the WB doesn't agree then it really doesn't matter what Singer says.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

You guys should keep in mind that Singer said the exact same things about X-Men 3 before jumping ship to do Superman Returns a few years ago. In other words, just because Singer says he's gonna do a movie, doesn't necessarily mean he's going to do it.

Despite this, I can absolutely guarantee we'll see another Superman film within three or four years. Warners Bros. isn't stupid. They know what a find Brandon Routh is. They'll want to squeeze as many sequels as they can outta this kid before he gets too old to fill the tights.

However, Warners also realises that Superman Returns under-performed. So, they are going to be some serious course corrections made to this franchise in order to make it more profitable. Clearly, the extremely reverential and long-winded "chick flick" take Singer was going for didn't click with a large percentage of the audience. The next film will be far more action oriented and have more fun with itself. Whether or not dumping Bryan Singer will be one of the changes made to the franchise, that'll be up to Warners. We probably won't know that until several months after the DVD sales start coming in...

[J. Robb]

Three years from now? They should call "Superman Returns Again."
Three years is the norm for sequels. The Star Wars movies were all three years apart. It's been three years since the last "Pirates" movie.

[DWEarhart]

NOW...we get some action. It was the same with X-Men. The first one was slow, but worth watching; the second one - far better. Haven't seen the third, and don't plant to any time soon. I'll wait until a friend rents it.

However, expect the budget to not even be half of what this first one was. I'm aiming low, but it's very, very possible.

[SnowTrooper]

In the next movie they should have Brainiac, if that movie dosent flop then they should try Bizzaro. If theres some strange chance they happen to make a fourth film, that should be Darkseid/Doomsday combo and have Superman die at the end. But its probably more likely that we'll get a Batman vs. Superman movie before a Superman 4.

[ragnarok_2012]

I'm like most everyone else, I'd like to see more action in the sequel (and the kid disappearing like he never existed). Give me a supervillain that hasn't been done in a movie yet. Someone like Brainiac.

What Don said.

I enjoyed Superman Returns, in spite of its flaws.

I want somebody new to the franchise. Brainiac would be the most straight forward, though Darkseid or Mxyzptlk would be fine.

I'm not interested in the return of Zod.

[Ontir]

I think Clark AND Jason would be of particular interest to Brainiac!!!

[ragnarok_2012]

I think Clark AND Jason would be of particular interest to Brainiac!!!

Brainiac can be introduced so easily.

Just show a flashback of Superman surveying what's left of Krypton. Show a mysterious vessel observing Superman from a great distance. Remember, this is a red sun. Superman has no special vision powers (his ship presumably doesn't notice this stealth vessel).

You see Superman's ship enter warp or engage some sort of FTL drive and the mystery vessel travelling at a slightly slower pace.

Fast forward, say, 3 and a half years (I presume the trip back took 2 1/2 years-add the extra year because the mystery ship is a little slower): the mystery ship arrives.....and it's Brainiac.

He wants Superman. He wants his technology. He wants Earth. And he wants Jason.

All for his collection.

[Mike Pothier]

This is good news for me, since I really like SR.

But I'll steal an idea from the SR thread.

Giant. Robot.

[Ontir]

Brainiac can be introduced so easily.

Just show a flashback of Superman surveying what's left of Krypton. Show a mysterious vessel observing Superman from a great distance. Remember, this is a red sun. Superman has no special vision powers (his ship presumably doesn't notice this stealth vessel).

You see Superman's ship enter warp or engage some sort of FTL drive and the mystery vessel travelling at a slightly slower pace.

Fast forward, say, 3 and a half years (I presume the trip back took 2 1/2 years-add the extra year because the mystery ship is a little slower): the mystery ship arrives.....and it's Brainiac.

He wants Superman. He wants his technology. He wants Earth. And he wants Jason.

All for his collection.

I really want Brainiac to be from Colu, and not Krypton. I also want the Bottle City of Kandor to be there, which is something I think Singer is building toward, given the direction "SR" took. What I was thinking, was that between the Fortress, the ship, and the creation of the continent, signals have been sent into space that have caught the attention of Brianiac, who collected Kandor as a sample of what he knew to be a doomed world, not because they hand't the technology to save themselves, but because they wouldn't use it, which makes these signals extremely odd, and irresistible.

Also, the reason it takes Brainiac longer, might be because he's following a signal from Earth, an doesn't know that Superman veered off, knowing of a wormhole which radically shortened the trip.

[Bobster777]

If I had to bet, I think we would probably be seeing Braniac. However, the movie I will be waiting for is when they make Darkseid the villain.

[Sean Whitmore]

On the one hand, Singer's "Khan" reference makes me excited. It suggests he hasn't deluded himself into thinking SR had all the action it should have.

On the other hand, like Bored, I remember him saying similar things about X3.


SEAN

[cactusmaac]

To be honest, I'd rather see a Supeman Begins movie with Tom Welling tearing it up against Darkseid or Doomsday in an action spectacular.

Do we really need to see Zod again?

[the film freak]

To be honest, I'd rather see a Supeman Begins movie with Tom Welling tearing it up against Darkseid or Doomsday in an action spectacular.

That might not be so unlikely. Considering the less then steller Superman Returns box office and how popular Smallville is Warner Bros might just try to continue those characters in the next Superman movie.

Do we really need to see Zod again?

I'm kind of leaning towards no. I like Zod but I rather see Brainiac or Metallo.

[Magneto_X]

If Zod somehow makes a return I would like the sequal to be "Zod's Revenge". The story angle Smallville has going with Zod's arrival would have been the perfect way to bring Zod back. Although instead of Lex I would have Zod be resurrected inside Superman's kid.

It would be easy to bring Zod back. Just retcon it into him surviving his fall down the chasm from Superman 2. And all this time he's been living down there until he climbs up and uses a device in the Fortress to get his power back.

[Magneto_X]

You guys should keep in mind that Singer said the exact same things about X-Men 3 before jumping ship to do Superman Returns a few years ago. In other words, just because Singer says he's gonna do a movie, doesn't necessarily mean he's going to do it.

Unless WB pulls a Rothman Singer won't be leaving any time soon.

[Sean Whitmore]

That might not be so unlikely. Considering the less then steller Superman Returns box office and how popular Smallville is Warner Bros might just try to continue those characters in the next Superman movie.


Not impossible, but highly unlikely. First, I think WB would want to keep a clear demarcation line between their franchises (Smallville and SR). Second, I'm sure they realize that the disappointing box office had little or nothing to do with Routh's look or performance. Third, they likely signed Routh to a multi-deal contract, so they're not gonna pay him and NOT put him in the movie (like Jack Nicholson).


SEAN

[Sean Whitmore]

It would be easy to bring Zod back. Just retcon it into him surviving his fall down the chasm from Superman 2. And all this time he's been living down there until he climbs up and uses a device in the Fortress to get his power back.


It would be easier than that.

Spoilers for Donner Cut of Superman II:
At the end of the movie, Zod and Co. are not dead, but back in the Phantom Zone. Likely with powers fully intact.


SEAN

[the film freak]

Not impossible, but highly unlikely. First, I think WB would want to keep a clear demarcation line between their franchises (Smallville and SR). Second, I'm sure they realize that the disappointing box office had little or nothing to do with Routh's look or performance. Third, they likely signed Routh to a multi-deal contract, so they're not gonna pay him and NOT put him in the movie (like Jack Nicholson).

I don't think it works that way. They paid Routh for one Superman movie. He's contracted for another one and if they make another one they pay him for that one. All the contract does is ensure he's avaliable for the next movie if they decide to make one.

[Magneto_X]

It would be easier than that.

Spoilers for Donner Cut of Superman II:
At the end of the movie, Zod and Co. are not dead, but back in the Phantom Zone. Likely with powers fully intact.


SEAN

Even better.

If they bring Ursa back I hope they use a good actress for her. Possibly Cary Anne Moss?

[Sean Whitmore]

If they bring Ursa back I hope they use a good actress for her. Possibly Cary Anne Moss?


Ooh. Great choice.

I'm still hoping for Jude Law as Zod, even if that rumor was false. :)


SEAN

[Magneto_X]

Ooh. Great choice.

I'm still hoping for Jude Law as Zod, even if that rumor was false. :)


SEAN

I'd prefer an actor with more menace and closer to Stamp's version. Like Gary Oldman.

[Sean Whitmore]

I'd prefer an actor with more menace and closer to Stamp's version. Like Gary Oldman.


Oldman would be another good choice, but I don't believe he'd be closer to Stamp than Law. Oldman is great with anger and sinister humor, but I think Law would be better at pulling off Zod's blank-faced superiority and utter indifference for everyone around him.


SEAN

[Smarty Jones]

"Oldman would be another good choice, but I don't believe he'd be closer to Stamp than Law. Oldman is great with anger and sinister humor, but I think Law would be better at pulling off Zod's blank-faced superiority and utter indifference for everyone around him."

Given that one of the criticisms of "Superman Returns" is that it's a sequel/regurgitation of a pair of 25-year-old movies that had no common casts, why go back down that road again?

It's not like Superman doesn't have other villains from which to choose. Brainiac, The Parasite, the cyborg Hank Henshaw, Metallo, Despero, Mongul, Darkseid ... hell, at this stage Mr. Mxyzptlk will be an improvement. Just not another regurgitation of the Christopher Reeve movies.

[Sean Whitmore]

Given that one of the criticisms of "Superman Returns" is that it's a sequel/regurgitation of a pair of 25-year-old movies that had no common casts, why go back down that road again?


I don't know that he will, and don't necessarily even want him to (I'm rooting for Brainiac, myself). But Singer loves Donner's work, so it IS as much a possibility as anything else.


SEAN

[Smarty Jones]

"I don't know that he will, and don't necessarily even want him to (I'm rooting for Brainiac, myself). But Singer loves Donner's work, so it IS as much a possibility as anything else."

Hopefully, all parties involved in "Superman Returns" will hear the criticisms fairly and decide to move forward in a new direction -- one that includes more action and avoiding all the trappings of trying to connect to a pair of 28- and 26-year old movies.

[Tobias March]

Terra-Man for the sequel! I want my techno cowboy :D

Perhaps the best franchise idea now would be to deliver the World's Finest movie.

Batman's sequel will concretise Nolan's vision of the character and Singer has hitched his movie to Donner's wagon - give Wolfgang Petersen the opportunity to deliver a dual franchise refresher. It could be interesting and give us something close to Miller's brusing fight scene from Dark Knight Returns 20 years ago on the big screen.

[Jared]

The bottom line is that the WB (and many fans) thought Singer was going to deliver DC's answer to "Spider-Man", when instead we got DC's "Hulk". Given that the movie's underperformance lies with the writing and direction, not the cast and not the marketing, I think it would be foolish to let Singer helm the sequel...unless the only alternative was Michael Bay or something.

[Captain Trips]

You have to wonder if some of these people like EZMOHR and Captain Awesome truly believe what they say. Citing natural disasters and gasoline prices are the reasons that "Superman Returns" is not doing well -- while dominant headlines, have no direct correlation with what people see at the movies -- just sounds like irrational excuses, if not patently ridiculous.

You're right, they are not even trying to debate our criticisms. Instead, they will deflect personally on the person or make some blanket statement that doesn't come close to answering the question. Some people even are ignoring the basic premises of the Superman mythos rather than admit to seeing a particular P.O.V.

Well, I have to admit that it is possible to see another point of view even if you don't agree with it. I am not hearing that here, though. I am getting the impression that if I didn't like the movie it's because I just didn't get it and it was too smart for me. In fact, I'm hearing that the faults lie with the people who don't like the film and not the film itself. And the people who aren't going to the theater to see it aren't doing so because of some external factor and not the quality of the film.

There is nothing in this film that is that thought provoking or revolutionary for this genre. The plot devices don't work, the supporting cast does nothing, and the whole thing ends being a one-trick pony. Add to the fact that so much was recycled from Superman 1 - Luthor's real estate scheme, the use of kryptonite, Superman and Lois having a romantic flight, the rehashing of dialogue - and there is little that is really fresh about this film. And tying it into 2 of 4 movies that are a quarter of a century old that had an entirely different cast. It's a mess.

If anything, I give Singer credit for pulling it together into a watchable film. But his ideas for the story were flawed from the start. He needs to take the next movie in a different direction, and he is obviously talented enough to do so. But I really think he missed the target on this one.

[Cayman]

Perhaps Singer will redeem himself with the sequel.

Cay

[drwho]

They need to make a movie where Superman goes to the Mid East and kicks arab terrorist religious zealot @$$. Bet alot of people would go to see that.

[Sean Whitmore]

They need to make a movie where Superman goes to the Mid East and kicks arab terrorist religious zealot @$$. Bet alot of people would go to see that.


Let's wait and see how Frank Miller's "Batman vs Terrorists" one-shot does first.


SEAN

[Shellhead]

Perhaps Singer will redeem himself with the sequel.

Cay

I think that it's unlikely that Singer will be directing the sequel. There are plenty of directors in Hollywood who understand how to do an action movie, and that's really what the public wanted from a Superman movie more than anything else. I believe that Superman Returns will be profitable, once all the global boxoffice money rolls in, but the Hollywood executives at Warner Brothers are undoubtably sick with envy over the amount of money that the Pirates sequel is making. There will be another Superman movie, but there will also probably be a different director. And no matter who directs it, there will be more action and less soap opera drama.

[Conn Seanery]

Okay, listen up:

If you're going to discuss Superman Returns, try to put your thoughts in the aptly titled Superman Returns (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=130519&highlight=Superman) thread.

If you're going to debate over the box office numbers for Superman Returns, try posting in the also aptly titled Superman Returns Box-Office (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=132200&highlight=Superman) thread.

If you're going to talk about Singer's plans to direct the Superman Returns sequel, feel free to remain right here and post in the (say it with me: aptly titled) Singer Plans To Direct Superman Returns Sequel thread.

[DDM]

They need to make a movie where Superman goes to the Mid East and kicks arab terrorist religious zealot @$$. Bet alot of people would go to see that.

Many Clancy books have Arab terrorists, but politically correct Hollyweird transforms the Arabs into German Nazis.

[The Punished]

Cool, love the fact he will continue.

[Ontir]

When Supes is done kicking zealot ass in the Middle East, can he come back and do it here too?!? :evilsmile

[Shellhead]

When Supes is done kicking zealot ass in the Middle East, can he come back and do it here too?!? :evilsmile

Only if he starts paying some child support. He's about five years in arrears at this point.

[Ontir]

IIRC, that depends upon whose name is on the birth-certificate. If it's Richard's, then it's a more complicated issue, plus Clark had half his paycheck sent weekly to Martha, he'd have no problem paying his share for Jason's up-keep.

[phantomstranger]

Horn Planning Superman Sequel for 2009
Source: Los Angeles Times
August 18, 2006


Warner Bros. Pictures President Alan Horn talked to the Los Angeles Times about the performance of Superman Returns and echoed director Bryan Singer's comments from Comic-Con that they are hoping for a sequel in 2009:

Horn expects "Superman Returns" to eventually gross about $400 million worldwide, more than last year's hit "Batman Begins." Nonetheless, "Superman" fell at least $100 million short of his expectations.

"I thought it was a very successful movie, but I think it should have done $500 million worldwide," Horn said. "We should have had perhaps a little more action to satisfy the young male crowd."

Still, he's betting Warner has firmly reestablished the "Superman" franchise and is planning another installment for summer 2009.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Horn Planning Superman Sequel for 2009
Source: Los Angeles Times
August 18, 2006


Warner Bros. Pictures President Alan Horn talked to the Los Angeles Times about the performance of Superman Returns and echoed director Bryan Singer's comments from Comic-Con that they are hoping for a sequel in 2009:

Horn expects "Superman Returns" to eventually gross about $400 million worldwide, more than last year's hit "Batman Begins." Nonetheless, "Superman" fell at least $100 million short of his expectations.

"I thought it was a very successful movie, but I think it should have done $500 million worldwide," Horn said. "We should have had perhaps a little more action to satisfy the young male crowd."

Still, he's betting Warner has firmly reestablished the "Superman" franchise and is planning another installment for summer 2009.


That " spit take " you heard was a lot of the naysayers doubting a sequel would happen. He wanted at least $ 500 million but will settle for the $ 400 million worldwide.

I'm sure Singer will bring the action in the next film in this series.

[cactusmaac]

That's interesting. Still, if WB suffers another poor year like this one, I wouldn't count on Horn staying in the job.

[CaptainAwesome]

I think their best stratagy would be to make sure to release it at least a month ahead or behind any other major summer blockbuster. One of the main reasons SR didnt do so well is because Pirates came out the very next week. I say that if there is going to be a major movie (Spiderman 4, Pirates 4 ect.) they should steer clear of it completely.

[Steve Brady]

Settling for $400 million, before DVD sales and excluding secondary products.

Poor, poor studio :P

[SnowTrooper]

The release date for Returns was really bad, WB should have released it at the end of July when there was nothing really to compete against. Hopefully the sequel will have more action and better advertising.

[Spike-X]

Horn Planning Superman Sequel for 2009


Let the bitching begin.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Let the bitching begin.


Heh...imagine how many will not want Bryan Singer for the sequel. ;)

[Buzz Dixon]

More action, less Jason.

[the film freak]

More red and blue, less burgandy and cyan.

[Ontir]

Settling for $400 million, before DVD sales and excluding secondary products.

Poor, poor studio :P

Before 2nd run, Pay-Per-View, Subscription Channels, Basic Cable, and Broadcast, as well as VHS, DVD, PSP, Blu-Ray, HDVD, & Download, excluding other merchandizing!

[nonhosonno]

I'm sure Singer will bring the action in the next film in this series.

He intends to. We're definitely going to see a "supernemesis." Somehow, I don't think it'll be Phantom Zone Villains Revisited, either.

[Buzz Dixon]

Me no want BiZaRrO!!!

[cactusmaac]

Before 2nd run, Pay-Per-View, Subscription Channels, Basic Cable, and Broadcast, as well as VHS, DVD, PSP, Blu-Ray, HDVD, & Download, excluding other merchandizing!

This was over at the Superman forum.

As I've mentioned before, WB gets $0 for TV rights. They have the same deal as with Batman. The WB Network (now CS Network I guess) gets exclusive first run TV rights. Since the WB network is owned by WB, they don't pay themselves for the TV rights. If any other networks carry the movie, it will be 5-10 years down the road and the revenue won't be booked to the movie, but rather to the WB catalog in general.

Really all that is left is standard PPV and DVD/VHS (my estimates already included the few million they got for hotel chain early PPV's).

I think there may very likely be a sequel, but as I've said before, unless they want a huge budget again (and thus a huge amount of risk), Singer cant be behind the helm (since he is contractually guarenteed a pay increase), Spacey can't return (since he is contractually guarenteed a pay increase), and they won't be able to spend as much on CGI. It could turn out to be the best thing that happens for the franchise, or it could go horribly wrong (ala Batman and Robin).

Again, my guess is a movie with Superman mostly punching it out with a human sized super villain to reduce CGI costs (hopefully not Zod, even Darkseid/Doomsday would be a stretch because of CGI). I guess if they can do the Thing in FF on a reasonable budget, they might be able to do a Darkseid.

[Black Atom]

That " spit take " you heard was a lot of the naysayers doubting a sequel would happen. He wanted at least $ 500 million but will settle for the $ 400 million worldwide.

I'm sure Singer will bring the action in the next film in this series.

This sequel announcement doesn't seem anymore conrete than Singer's announcement before. Note how the words "hoping" and "betting" are thrown around.

Still, I have no doubt that there will be an eventual sequel. Who's directing and when it comes out? Well, who knows. I expect this sequel to get lost in limbo like Hulk's. Neither movie really left audiences chomping at the bit to see the story continued.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Still, I have no doubt that there will be an eventual sequel. Who's directing and when it comes out? Well, who knows. I expect this sequel to get lost in limbo like Hulk's. Neither movie really left audiences chomping at the bit to see the story continued.

The difference between the Hulk and Superman franchises is that Universal didn't own the Hulk so putting more money into the franchise wasn't really in their best interest because the rights would eventually revert to Marvel, as has just happened--which is why Eric Bana isn't coming back.

With Superman, however, Warners owns the rights to the character. They can afford to shovel even more cash into this thing because they know that the franchise will always be in their hands.

[the film freak]

I'm expecting a lower budget movie. I doubt Warners wants to spend 200 million on Superman Returns 2.

Still this is good news to me I didn't love Superman Returns but I"m all for more Superman movies. Hopefully Singer will step up the action in this one.

I'm all for Bizarro. Or someone other then Luthor and wacky girlfriend.

[the film freak]

This sequel announcement doesn't seem anymore conrete than Singer's announcement before. Note how the words "hoping" and "betting" are thrown around.

Still, I have no doubt that there will be an eventual sequel. Who's directing and when it comes out? Well, who knows. I expect this sequel to get lost in limbo like Hulk's. Neither movie really left audiences chomping at the bit to see the story continued.

I think Hulk 2 is pretty close to being green lit. If it hasn't already. They are aiming for Hulk 2 to come out in 2008.

[J. Robb]

I wouldn't worry, the next Superman movie will probably be out in 2009 like they say. Internet people will start complaining about how terrible a movie it is in 2008.

[Frankie Dennis]

More action, less Jason.

Couldn't agree more.

[the film freak]

I wouldn't worry, the next Superman movie will probably be out in 2009 like they say. Internet people will start complaining about how terrible a movie it is in 2008.

Dude you can start now.

[West Mantooth]

Singer could get a pay increase, but he'll probably lose the extra money from DVD sales, and toys, etc.

I don't understand the money stuff but this is from SSH

FX has bought the cable TV rights to Superman Returns six months in advance of its June 30 theatrical premiere, reports Variety.

The network has agreed to pay Warner Bros. Domestic Cable about 12% of the eventual domestic gross, with a cap at between $17 million and $25 million, depending on the contract's length of term and on whether Warner finds another buyer to share the window with FX.

The channel gets the first burst of "Superman" runs in its TV premiere early in 2009.

FX previously bought rights to Spider-Man 2, Batman Begins, Fantastic Four and X2: X-Men United.

Superman Returns will appear on HBO next year in the exclusive pay TV window as part of HBO's output deal with Warner Bros. Pictures.


Guess the saying is true "You're only as good as your last film." Have a little more faith in Singer.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Singer could get a pay increase, but he'll probably lose the extra money from DVD sales, and toys, etc.

I don't understand the money stuff but this is from SSH

FX has bought the cable TV rights to Superman Returns six months in advance of its June 30 theatrical premiere, reports Variety.

The network has agreed to pay Warner Bros. Domestic Cable about 12% of the eventual domestic gross, with a cap at between $17 million and $25 million, depending on the contract's length of term and on whether Warner finds another buyer to share the window with FX.

The channel gets the first burst of "Superman" runs in its TV premiere early in 2009.

FX previously bought rights to Spider-Man 2, Batman Begins, Fantastic Four and X2: X-Men United.

Superman Returns will appear on HBO next year in the exclusive pay TV window as part of HBO's output deal with Warner Bros. Pictures.


Guess the saying is true "You're only as good as your last film." Have a little more faith in Singer.

Well that pretty much kiboshes this arguement( down below ). I was gonna bring it up that WB has sold TV rights to Batman Forever at one point to TNT years ago for a high figure. So they will sell TV rights to make $$$$ people.


Originally Posted by Broken Shakespeare
As I've mentioned before, WB gets $0 for TV rights. They have the same deal as with Batman. The WB Network (now CS Network I guess) gets exclusive first run TV rights. Since the WB network is owned by WB, they don't pay themselves for the TV rights. If any other networks carry the movie, it will be 5-10 years down the road and the revenue won't be booked to the movie, but rather to the WB catalog in general.



Superman as a whole will pretty much when you figure in all the revenue from merchindice ( toys,action figures , clothes) , DVD/VHS Sales , PPV and Video Demand ect ect will crank out near a Billion dollars Worldwide when ya factor all that crap in. ;)

[Black Atom]

The difference between the Hulk and Superman franchises is that Universal didn't own the Hulk so putting more money into the franchise wasn't really in their best interest because the rights would eventually revert to Marvel, as has just happened--which is why Eric Bana isn't coming back.

With Superman, however, Warners owns the rights to the character. They can afford to shovel even more cash into this thing because they know that the franchise will always be in their hands.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying. Didn't Universal already have the rights? It's not like they'd have to purchase them again. They didn't pursue a sequel because they felt it wouldn't be profitable based on the performance of the first and the fact that Hulk just didn't leave people wanting MORE Hulk. The situations seem pretty similar, I feel.

Saying that, WB would be retarded not to make a Supes sequel. I'd be very shocked, however, if they bring Singer and crew back, considering how everyone seems to feel the film's performance was mediocre.

[West Mantooth]

I'm not sure I get what you're saying. Didn't Universal already have the rights? It's not like they'd have to purchase them again. They didn't pursue a sequel because they felt it wouldn't be profitable based on the performance of the first and the fact that Hulk just didn't leave pe
ople wanting MORE Hulk. The situations seem pretty similar, I feel.

I think he is saying that since WB will always own the rights, then they could do a sequel, and if it fails then do a restart in 10-15 years. Universal only owns the Hulk for a limited time so they want to make money ASAP.

I compare SR to FF. FF made a profit but that doesn't mean the general audience wants a sequel. Fox is doing it but are taking into account what people said about it. We all know what SR was lacking so put some action in it and see what happens!

[the film freak]

I'm not sure I get what you're saying. Didn't Universal already have the rights? It's not like they'd have to purchase them again. They didn't pursue a sequel because they felt it wouldn't be profitable based on the performance of the first and the fact that Hulk just didn't leave people wanting MORE Hulk. The situations seem pretty similar, I feel.

Universal let the Hulks rights lapse. since there was no progress on Hulk 2 they went back to Marvel (I think this year). They retain distribution rights though. Same thing happened with Iron Man at New Line. No progress on the Iron Man movie so Marvel got the rights back.

[Ontir]

Dude you can start now.

I think they started in June!

[Benny D]

Title; The Man Of Steel, That's what i think it should be called.

[Buzz Dixon]

I vote for SUPERMAN: THE APOLOGY.











...yeah, yeah, I know, old joke -- but when has that ever stopped me? :p

[the film freak]

SUPERMAN DOES SOMETHING AWESOME would be my pick.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

SUPERMAN: WE HAVE A BETTER SCRIPT would be my pick.

[Sean Whitmore]

SUPERMAN: WE HAVE A BETTER SCRIPT would be my pick.


Tom Manciewicz's Superman 2 would sound pretty good to me.


SEAN

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Tom Manciewicz's Superman 2 would sound pretty good to me.


SEAN

Aren't we getting that in a few weeks on DVD? Can't wait to see what the Donner Cut looks like. The Brando scenes alone will be worth buying this movie.

[Sean Whitmore]

Aren't we getting that in a few weeks on DVD?

I just didn't think Superman Returns II had the right ring to it. :)


Can't wait to see what the Donner Cut looks like. The Brando scenes alone will be worth buying this movie.

I've seen it, and the Brando scenes indeed justify the purchase.


SEAN

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I just didn't think Superman Returns II had the right ring to it. :)

I've seen it, and the Brando scenes indeed justify the purchase.

How well do the action scenes hold up? Donner didn't have time to finish some of the bigger effects sequences like the Metropolis battle. How were they able to cut that together without any footage?

[Sean Whitmore]

How well do the action scenes hold up? Donner didn't have time to finish some of the bigger effects sequences like the Metropolis battle. How were they able to cut that together without any footage?

He had at least some of the footage, as there were definitely a few new shots in the beginning of the fight. But when it gets to about the part where Zod talks about people being Superman's weakness, it stays the same as the theatrical version. Minus, of course, all the goofy attempts at humor throughout. In the commentary, Donner laments the loss (or in some cases nonexistence) of a lot of scenes.

I am disappointed, however, they replaced my favorite line of the fight (and the film) with one that doesn't work nearly as well. "Would you care to step outside?" becomes "Haven't you ever heard of freedom of the press?"


SEAN

[OverMaster]

Tom Manciewicz's Superman 2 would sound pretty good to me.


SEAN

SUPERMAN ACTUALLY FIGHTS SOMEONE would make my day.

[cactusmaac]

SUPERMAN FOREVER to be followed by SUPERMAN AND ROBIN.

[Ontir]

I'd still like to see a non-stop film called Superman in Action!

[BoosterBronze]

I think Brainiac would be the bomb, mainly because he can be introduced on his own.

Darkseid would require a whole complicated ass mythos to be introduced.

[artist2b]

I just read on Joblo.com that there will be a sequel to Superman Returns, which is no surprise. If they brought back Zod and the other two Kryptonians that would be cool. But I think they should also put in a character like Braniac. It's not like they're hurting for more villains. They don't need to overuse the ones from the previous movies. Richard Donner was going to put Brainiac in Superman III. There's also Parasite and Bizarro.

[Black Atom]

Well, this time around they'll be working with a smaller budget ($140-175 mil, as opposed to $208 mil according the CBR article) so I don't know how many extravagant super-fights with multiple villains that will afford them.

Either way, I'd stay away from Zod at all costs.

[The Batman]

Well given that a fair bit of the budget of Superman Returns was from the false starts and pay outs to guys like Burton and Cage that doesn't sound like that big of a cut to the budget that will actually go into the film.

[Chiasm]

I'd stay away from any villians that Smallville has recently blasphemied like Zod or Braniac. In fairness, Braniac was okay but they didn't resolve his story very well. Zod on the other hand - he should have been a season long big bad instead of being introduced and defeated in a two part episode.

[Ontir]

The other thing to consider, in terms of budget, is that they've already done a good deal of construction, in terms of standing sets like the Kent Farm, the Daily Planet, Lois & Richard's house, and the Fortress of Solitude, not to mention the CGI to go with them, and Metropolis in general. They also had to build the flight rig, and the camera apparatus for the flying sequences, now that it's built, they can re-use them. All of these things are going to be substantial savings in terms of the next film.

[CaptainAwesome]

I think another thing that can be done to reduce the budget is better planning on Singer's part. Ive read that there was an entire sequence of Superman in space that was cut, and Ive also read that it was the most expensive scene to shoot. I believe Singer said that it didnt really fit in with the themes of the movie (or something to that effect), and it just seems like he could have avoided it entirely if he had thought it out more.

[Captain Trips]

I really do hope they stay away from Zod and do something new with a villain. As great as Zod and the Kryptonians were in Superman II, bringing them back would just be rehashing something we've already seen (which was something I didn't like about SR in regards to Lex Luthor).

I guess I don't know enough about Superman's rogues gallery to recommend a good villain for the next film, but I would like it to be somebody that we haven't seen in a Superman movie. I do know who Braniac, Parasite, and Bizarro are. Of the three, I would go with Parasite, but even he isn't that appealing to me. There have to be some other good ones that could go toe-to-toe with Superman.

[Ontir]

Sometimes you don't know you can do without something, until you've got it in front of you. That's fairly typical of filmmaking. Large sections are shot, because they seem integral in the script, and they may well have been; but in the alchemy of the shoot, performances bring out things that you didn't see, and then in cutting the film together, what was once a "must have," becomes a "not needed." Singer did hint that the sequence might be used in the future, even beyond the DVD, which he's said he isn't eager to be the format in which it's revealed. Depending upon whom the villain is, and/or how it's set up, that sequence could be the springboard for the sequel.

[the film freak]

Well, this time around they'll be working with a smaller budget ($140-175 mil, as opposed to $208 mil according the CBR article) so I don't know how many extravagant super-fights with multiple villains that will afford them.

Either way, I'd stay away from Zod at all costs.

If Zod was in it they would use the same effects as Superman versus trying to develop the effect technology for a completely new villan. It'd be more cost efficient then say someone like Brainiac, Darkseid or Doomsday (depending on what they would do with those characters). If they wanted to save money and make it exciting I'd say using Zod or Bizarro wouldn't be a bad idea.

Part of the reason the Spider-man budgets go up is they have to develop new technology and effects for new characters. A good chunk of Spider-man 3's budget is going into trying to make Sandman work. According to Sam Raimi they spend a lot of work on trial and error. Same deal with Doc Ock in the last movie. And Raimi has said they haven't had too many technical challenges for Venom because basically they can use a lot of the same technology they do for Spider-man.

[IamtheRock3]

Well, this time around they'll be working with a smaller budget ($140-175 mil, as opposed to $208 mil according the CBR article) so I don't know how many extravagant super-fights with multiple villains that will afford them.

Either way, I'd stay away from Zod at all costs.


Well a good that cost included previous Superman movies that failed to get off the ground

like 30 mill

that free up some cash
also sets can be reused

also there was a krypton scene that was film and cut out
that a chunk of doe right there that added to the movie

[cactusmaac]

Well given that a fair bit of the budget of Superman Returns was from the false starts and pay outs to guys like Burton and Cage that doesn't sound like that big of a cut to the budget that will actually go into the film.

The production budget was about $220m although they got a tax break which brought the cost down to $208m.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

The film has crawled and scratched its way as I expected to $ 200 Million US Domestic. That was the contingent. As long as it made that mark there would be a sequel.

Singer should get to continue the story he started . I want to see Brianiac and Lex Luthor team up in this one. As well as finish the Lois Lane/Superman love story. Singer has to end that one right because fans wanna see the hero get the girl in the end. This isn't Batman.

[hoffmandu]

Brainiac and Chris Tucker as a computer programmer spells DOOM!

[Arune Singh]

The film has crawled and scratched its way as I expected to $ 200 Million US Domestic. That was the contingent. As long as it made that mark there would be a sequel.
.

Actually, that's never been officially be confirmed. It's been a rumor, but never ever confirmed by anyone.

[CaptainAwesome]

Sometimes you don't know you can do without something, until you've got it in front of you. That's fairly typical of filmmaking. Large sections are shot, because they seem integral in the script, and they may well have been; but in the alchemy of the shoot, performances bring out things that you didn't see, and then in cutting the film together, what was once a "must have," becomes a "not needed." Singer did hint that the sequence might be used in the future, even beyond the DVD, which he's said he isn't eager to be the format in which it's revealed. Depending upon whom the villain is, and/or how it's set up, that sequence could be the springboard for the sequel.
While I understand what you mean the fact still remains that when a sequence is that expensive to shoot and you dont end up using it in your movie it just feels like a waste. I think that Singer should be more careful in the future. If the production team can avoid that kind of thing I think Warner Bros. will be much happier with them in the future.

[Guts/Batman]

What I think the problem with using Doomsday is that SInger used the "Superman's dead?" thing at the end of the movie.

[Ontir]

The film has crawled and scratched its way as I expected to $ 200 Million US Domestic. That was the contingent. As long as it made that mark there would be a sequel.

Singer should get to continue the story he started . I want to see Brianiac and Lex Luthor team up in this one. As well as finish the Lois Lane/Superman love story. Singer has to end that one right because fans wanna see the hero get the girl in the end. This isn't Batman.

Actually, the sequel was announced by the head of Warners' weeks, if not months before it hit the $200 million domestic.

I wouldn't hold your breath on Superman and Lois getting together anytime soon. Richard was set up as Jason's "Jonathan Kent" for a reason. That's a long-term plan. If the 2 get back together, it'll be a long way off in this series. I'm not ruling it out, it's just not likely until Jason's a teen.

The problem with using Doomsday, is that he sucks! There's only one reason to justify that wretched character's inclusion: If Routh is going to leave the part, and a new actor is coming in, you have Doomsday kill Routh's Superman, and then revive him with another actor in the part. Then watch the people complaining about the Messianic stuff go nuts!

[Black Atom]

What I think the problem with using Doomsday is that SInger used the "Superman's dead?" thing at the end of the movie.

Not to mention, they've effectively squashed the relationship with Lois, the most humanizing aspect of the character. I have to say, they really shat on their options for an ongoing franchise. If they think they can appease everyone with 90 minutes of punching, they'll be quite mistaken.

[Ontir]

I don't think they "shat" on anything. The problem Singer was faced with, from the chosen starting point, is that Lois and Clark had been together. He couldn't ignore that, while addressing the long time between films. For him to jump in from the last films, either in II, in which he choses his duties over his love for Lois, or from IV, in which Lois is barely present, and she and Clark/Superman really have no relationship beyond work, with them getting married, just wouldn't work.

In making this leap, he's created another humanizing aspect, by making Superman a father. While he's done this, he also hasn't eliminated the Lois and Clark relationship, he's actually strengthened it, because they are now bound together, through Jason. Additionally, he can still play up the tension between them, which can rise and wane, depending upon the needs of the story, and at some point, when Jason is older, and it makes sense to do so, Richard can be killed off, making Jason take the step Clark took after Jonathan's death, and Lois will again be free to pursue, and be pursued by Superman. It's total, classic Delayed F@$%!

[MaxofSteel]

Idunno about you guys, but as far as villains go I definitely would love to see Bizarro get some movie spotlight for once. This next villain should force supes to really use his fists, and who else better to do that than "himself?"

For me, the only thing that was lacking in SR was some good old fashioned street brawlin'.

[IamtheRock3]

my Dream movie is an Alien invsaion via Darksied

but they may want to save that for 3

either Braniac..or Bizzaro's good

[Black Atom]

I don't think they "shat" on anything. The problem Singer was faced with, from the chosen starting point, is that Lois and Clark had been together. He couldn't ignore that, while addressing the long time between films. For him to jump in from the last films, either in II, in which he choses his duties over his love for Lois, or from IV, in which Lois is barely present, and she and Clark/Superman really have no relationship beyond work, with them getting married, just wouldn't work.

There are about a billion other ways Singer could've gone (including simply starting from scratch) that would've left him more options, but he seemed
to have a pretty clear picture of the movie he wanted to make from the get-go. So be it.


In making this leap, he's created another humanizing aspect, by making Superman a father. While he's done this, he also hasn't eliminated the Lois and Clark relationship, he's actually strengthened it, because they are now bound together, through Jason. Additionally, he can still play up the tension between them, which can rise and wane, depending upon the needs of the story, and at some point, when Jason is older, and it makes sense to do so, Richard can be killed off, making Jason take the step Clark took after Jonathan's death, and Lois will again be free to pursue, and be pursued by Superman. It's total, classic Delayed F@$%!

That sounds terrific for a season of "One Life to Live" but it's hardly an effective approach to a Superman franchise. You can't play up any romantic tension between the two without making both characters look morally questionable. Now that there's a kid in the picture, Superman and Lois' feelings are secondary to whatever's best for the child. Besides, how long do you expect audiences to keep coming back to see movies about Superman gazing wistfully at Lois Lane?

Singer wanted to make his "mature", cynical melodrama now he'd better have the testes to stick with it. If he can't make a good Superman movie (which has been proven) he should at least strive to make a good melodrama. Let Superman remain alone to revel in the solitude that his poor decisions have brought him. Better yet, kill off Jason!

[IamtheRock3]

You know

Lobo
or manchester Black might be good

new EXTREME anti hero

vs the true blue Superman

[J. Robb]

I really hope they go with Brainiac. He's a classic villain with different incarnations, I'd pick and choose the best bits and try to really put the "ultimate" Brainaic on screen.

[CaptainAwesome]

my Dream movie is an Alien invsaion via Darksied

but they may want to save that for 3

either Braniac..or Bizzaro's good
I think they could do the same thing with Braniac and it would be about three hundred times better than using Darksied. Darksied isn't really a Superman villain imo, and it would take a lot of explaining to get him to fit in this movie. Brainiac, on the other hand, is very much a Superman villain and it wouldnt be to hard to explain him. Plus, since he is a super genius he could build an army of super robots for Superman to fight.

[Guts/Batman]

Just one more thing from me: Save Darkseid for a JLA movie.

[Jmacq1]

Mongul actually wouldn't be a bad choice either, though not better than Brainiac. Plus the whole "Superman in Space" thing wouldn't make a lot of sense considering he just got back, so to speak. ;)

[Captain Trips]

There are about a billion other ways Singer could've gone (including simply starting from scratch) that would've left him more options, but he seemed
to have a pretty clear picture of the movie he wanted to make from the get-go. So be it.

I completely agree with this. I never liked the idea of making this movie a sequel to Superman II. That movie came out nearly 30 years ago, had an entirely different cast, and already had two films come after it. It just didn't work for me, and I thought SR suffered as a result of it. I have mentioned my other criticisms of the movie in other posts, so I won't rehash them here, but suffice it to say I think Singer would have been better served to start over from scratch with this franchise.



That sounds terrific for a season of "One Life to Live" but it's hardly an effective approach to a Superman franchise. You can't play up any romantic tension between the two without making both characters look morally questionable. Now that there's a kid in the picture, Superman and Lois' feelings are secondary to whatever's best for the child. Besides, how long do you expect audiences to keep coming back to see movies about Superman gazing wistfully at Lois Lane?

Singer wanted to make his "mature", cynical melodrama now he'd better have the testes to stick with it. If he can't make a good Superman movie (which has been proven) he should at least strive to make a good melodrama. Let Superman remain alone to revel in the solitude that his poor decisions have brought him. Better yet, kill off Jason!

Again, I completely agree. I never minded the idea of the mature, real-world take that Singer was going for in this movie. And, believe it or not, I thought the level of action in the film was fine. But the situations the characters were put in as a result of this approach just didn't work very well. And seeing Superman quell earthquakes and natural disasters is nothing new. It's been done before. Give him something new to do.

I do think that a good sequel can be made. But I'd almost like to see Singer do what is being done with the Hulk sequel and just have it be a reboot as though the first film never happened. If SR can pretend that Superman III and IV never took place, why can't SR II (or whatever they call it) do the same with SR?

[KenK]

That sounds terrific for a season of "One Life to Live" but it's hardly an effective approach to a Superman franchise. You can't play up any romantic tension between the two without making both characters look morally questionable. Now that there's a kid in the picture, Superman and Lois' feelings are secondary to whatever's best for the child. Besides, how long do you expect audiences to keep coming back to see movies about Superman gazing wistfully at Lois Lane?

This was one of my big issues with the film, and why I'm wary of how the sequel will play out. The implications of Superman and Lois having a sexual relationship just opens a door that need not be opened. Thinking about it from a standpoint of Superman being more of an icon than a person, under what circumstances did Lois and Superman have sex. How would such a situation come about? At least in Superman II, Lois had discovered everything. Superman was no longer just this symbol for the good of mankind, he was a person she had fallen in love with.

Singer wanted to make his "mature", cynical melodrama now he'd better have the testes to stick with it. If he can't make a good Superman movie (which has been proven) he should at least strive to make a good melodrama. Let Superman remain alone to revel in the solitude that his poor decisions have brought him. Better yet, kill off Jason!

If that's the case, they might as well just not make the damn sequel. We get enough cynical melodrama on Smallville, and we get 22 hours of it every year for free!

[Dennis K]

Superman II: Doomsday Oh yeah.

[cactusmaac]

It'll be Zod. They won't have the budget for doing a CGI monster like Doomsday.

[OverMaster]

Maybe they should just go with the World's Finest Movie idea co-starring Batman instead.

[regnak]

Maybe they should just go with the World's Finest Movie idea co-starring Batman instead.

That would give Singer a chance to screw up the Batman franchise too.

[KenK]

It'll be Zod. They won't have the budget for doing a CGI monster like Doomsday.

If it is, I swear to Zod I'm not seeing it. I got fooled into seeing one Superman remake, I won't sit through another. 'Cause after that, it'll be Superman and whoever the "Flavor of the Month" black comedian at the time happens to be.

[OverMaster]

That would give Singer a chance to screw up the Batman franchise too.

Unless of course he doesn't direct it, eh? Or unless he knows how to handle Batman like with the X-Men (really, he was sorely missing in X3).

[regnak]

Unless of course he doesn't direct it, eh? Or unless he knows how to handle Batman like with the X-Men (really, he was sorely missing in X3).

In an interview that was posted a few months back BS said that Batman would be the villian in a Superman/Batman movie. Need I say more?

[Black Atom]

In an interview that was posted a few months back BS said that Batman would be the villian in a Superman/Batman movie. Need I say more?

Given Singer Superman's penchant for getting the everloving crap kicked out of him by people with no powers, that's probably accurate.

[Captain Trips]

This was one of my big issues with the film, and why I'm wary of how the sequel will play out. The implications of Superman and Lois having a sexual relationship just opens a door that need not be opened. Thinking about it from a standpoint of Superman being more of an icon than a person, under what circumstances did Lois and Superman have sex. How would such a situation come about? At least in Superman II, Lois had discovered everything. Superman was no longer just this symbol for the good of mankind, he was a person she had fallen in love with.

The worst part of the whole thing is that she had a child with the guy, yet she doesn't know he is also Clark Kent. And Superman decides not to tell her even though he works in the same office with her everyday at the Daily Planet. It makes him seem pretty immoral.

[Ontir]

There are about a billion other ways Singer could've gone (including simply starting from scratch) that would've left him more options, but he seemed to have a pretty clear picture of the movie he wanted to make from the get-go. So be it.

There are a number of reasons, and good ones, why he didn't start from scratch, which have been well enumerated; but here goes again. The Donner film still holds up, and it had a great conceptualization of Krypton, which can be better explored now, thanks to the abilities of CGI, than was possible in 1978. Smallville has been on the air, and successful for years. Yes, this is a separate entity; but it needn't stomp on the show's toes. Singer's not wild about origin stories, and as Superman is one of the most recognizable brands on Earth, it wasn't needed.

That sounds terrific for a season of "One Life to Live" but it's hardly an effective approach to a Superman franchise. You can't play up any romantic tension between the two without making both characters look morally questionable. Now that there's a kid in the picture, Superman and Lois' feelings are secondary to whatever's best for the child. Besides, how long do you expect audiences to keep coming back to see movies about Superman gazing wistfully at Lois Lane?

Singer wanted to make his "mature", cynical melodrama now he'd better have the testes to stick with it. If he can't make a good Superman movie (which has been proven) he should at least strive to make a good melodrama. Let Superman remain alone to revel in the solitude that his poor decisions have brought him. Better yet, kill off Jason!

Let's see, the "DF" worked from 1938 to 1993, I think it'll probably hold up over the course of a few films. Showing some adult behaviour (in the mature and non-pornographic sense), amidst some character flaws is something that can actually be done outside a soap opera - although that's what comics have been since Stan Lee and Jack Kirby launched the Fantastic Four. I saw nothing cynical about "SR," and Singer had more than enough balls to make a fantastic film, which is going to hold up quite well. Obviously he's NOT going to kill of Jason, there are too many franchise possibilities to do that, and let's not pretend he did this in a vacuum. Warners' approved every page of the script, and knew exactly what he was going to do. Why you think Superman is going to be reveling in solitude, defies all logic. For the first time since his infancy, he's no longer alone. He has Jason, that was the purpose of his son's creation, so that he's no longer unique in the universe, and we know from the end of the film, that he's going to be a constant presence in his son's life. How, several months later, people can still not have gotten the most obvious implications of his speech - word for word, what Jor-el said to him - is completely unbelievable.

Captain Trips,

The "real world" take of Singers, wasn't actually his. TPTB @ Warners' were looking at the rushes of Batman Begins as the other gawdawful "Superman" project was joining the others in the toilet, and decided that the new film should be more along the lines of what Nowlan was doing on "BB." That was the charge Singer was given.

[CaptainAwesome]

I just think its just something to note that a super-kid has been (or will be soon) introduced into the Superman comic books. I havent read the issue yet (if it has come out) but I think that if the super-kid in the comics is a permanent character, Jason will also be a permanent character. Frankly, I hope they both are.

Another thing that I just want to mention is that a lot of people seem to be confused as to what SR was a sequel to. Most of the movie's nay-sayers think it is a direct sequel to Superman 2, and most of the people who liked it say it was a sequel to Superman the Movie (the first one). Now, I'm not sure exactly where WB stands on that, but I think that if that single thing was cleared up then a lot more people would have positive opinions about the movie. I'm just saying that its something to think about.

[Ontir]

It's a sequel to Donner's 2 Superman films. The second of which, we've not yet seen. That's due out in a few weeks, IIRC. I wish that they'd gotten it out prior to "SR's" release, because I think it'd clear a great deal up.

[Black Atom]

There are a number of reasons, and good ones, why he didn't start from scratch, which have been well enumerated; but here goes again. The Donner film still holds up, and it had a great conceptualization of Krypton, which can be better explored now, thanks to the abilities of CGI, than was possible in 1978. Smallville has been on the air, and successful for years. Yes, this is a separate entity; but it needn't stomp on the show's toes. Singer's not wild about origin stories, and as Superman is one of the most recognizable brands on Earth, it wasn't needed.

Choosing to start SR as a continuation was not, necessarily, a bad idea. The problem is that SR, itself, feels more like a franchise-ender than a movie that’s supposed to jumpstart a new series of stories.


Let's see, the "DF" worked from 1938 to 1993, I think it'll probably hold up over the course of a few films.

It worked because the audience was being strung along by the hope that the two could someday get together. Throw a child and the feelings on an innocent man in the mix and you’ve got a terribly different dynamic. How are we supposed to root for Superman to get the girl knowing the effect it’s going to have on the lives of Richard and Jason? Do you think a prolonged series about a Superman and Lois who are both miserable because they can’t consummate their love unitl their kid grows up and Richard White dies is a good way to go? For a Superman franchise?? No, I’d say the best way to go is to shut the door on the romance for good.

Showing some adult behaviour (in the mature and non-pornographic sense), amidst some character flaws is something that can actually be done outside a soap opera - although that's what comics have been since Stan Lee and Jack Kirby launched the Fantastic Four. I saw nothing cynical about "SR," and Singer had more than enough balls to make a fantastic film, which is going to hold up quite well. Obviously he's NOT going to kill of Jason, there are too many franchise possibilities to do that, and let's not pretend he did this in a vacuum. Warners' approved every page of the script, and knew exactly what he was going to do. Why you think Superman is going to be reveling in solitude, defies all logic. For the first time since his infancy, he's no longer alone. He has Jason, that was the purpose of his son's creation, so that he's no longer unique in the universe, and we know from the end of the film, that he's going to be a constant presence in his son's life. How, several months later, people can still not have gotten the most obvious implications of his speech - word for word, what Jor-el said to him - is completely unbelievable.

Lois was Superman’s link to humanity, but he’s gone and boofed that up. Also, the situation with his son has complications. Supes has NO RIGHT to claim him and take him away to his Fortress where they can be last sons of Krypton together, dooming Jason to the same solitude that he now suffers.

Singer has tried his damndest to turn Superman into the Silver Surfer, flying around constantly lamenting how goddamned lonely he is because he’s the last Kryptonian and longing, more than anything, to return to the cosmos (is that why we saw so little of Clark in SR?) he may as well follow through with it.

[Ontir]

I disagree with about 98% of what you've said. Obviously, as Jason grows and his powers manifest, he's going to need direction, and he's going to need answers to questions. Superman will be there, probably at first, just as a friend of the family. I don't expect Jason will know the whole truth, until he's considerably older, either when he's told, or when he can put the pieces together for himself. Not that it can't be done now; but for safety considerations, I think it'll wait. A son is also a far greater connection to humanity than Lois ever was.

I don't see any overwhelming Silver Surfer connections; but this Superman is far more connected to the Silver Age, than the Byrne version we've read for the last 20 years, and that Superman very often felt isolated and alone. That's hardly new.

He found out where Krypton was, and went to check it out. That's not unreasonable or irresponsible, in and of itself, especially as others have said, if he was concerned about the events of Superman II. I like that he's seeing that all actions, even the most innocent, have consequences, and it works.

[Black Atom]

I disagree with about 98% of what you've said.

That's okay. I know we have very different opinions of the movie.


Obviously, as Jason grows and his powers manifest, he's going to need direction, and he's going to need answers to questions. Superman will be there, probably at first, just as a friend of the family. I don't expect Jason will know the whole truth, until he's considerably older, either when he's told, or when he can put the pieces together for himself. Not that it can't be done now; but for safety considerations, I think it'll wait.

But in the meantime, Lois and Superman knowingly hide the truth about the boy? Jason would probably ask why has super-strength (if he ever develops a personality). I would expect A) Superman to tell Lois he is Clark Kent and B) Superman and Lois both to tell Richard the truth about Jason. This should've happened at the end of SR, really.

A son is also a far greater connection to humanity than Lois ever was.

How is his Kryptonian son more of a connection to humanity than the acceptance of human woman (or human parents, for that matter)?


I don't see any overwhelming Silver Surfer connections; but this Superman is far more connected to the Silver Age, than the Byrne version we've read for the last 20 years, and that Superman very often felt isolated and alone. That's hardly new.

Well, he's not silver and doesn't surf but otherwise, pretty similar. Except that Norrin remains morally unimpeachable. Isolation was never the defining aspect of Superman's character as it has now become in SR.


He found out where Krypton was, and went to check it out. That's not unreasonable or irresponsible, in and of itself, especially as others have said, if he was concerned about the events of Superman II. I like that he's seeing that all actions, even the most innocent, have consequences, and it works.

I imagine we'll never agree on this.

[Sean Whitmore]

How is his Kryptonian son more of a connection to humanity than the acceptance of human woman (or human parents, for that matter)?


His half-Kryptonian son, born of a human woman, on Earth. That's, like, the definition of a connection to humanity.


SEAN

[Black Atom]

His half-Kryptonian son, born of a human woman, on Earth. That's, like, the definition of a connection to humanity.


SEAN

Okay, I'll buy that.

[Ontir]

But in the meantime, Lois and Superman knowingly hide the truth about the boy? Jason would probably ask why has super-strength (if he ever develops a personality). I would expect A) Superman to tell Lois he is Clark Kent and B) Superman and Lois both to tell Richard the truth about Jason. This should've happened at the end of SR, really.

I think Richard knows a good deal more than was said, based upon his actions in his final scenes. I don't think Superman needs to tell Lois anything, because I think she already knows it all, which, if you look at the film with that in mind, adds a good deal to their scenes. Wait until you see the Donner Cut, I think it'll make much more sense then.

How is his Kryptonian son more of a connection to humanity than the acceptance of human woman (or human parents, for that matter)?

Jason is a greater connection, because A) He's a blood relative. The only one in the universe. B) He's part-Kryptonese, making him more like Clark than anyone else in the universe. C) He's part human, therefore a part of Clark's adopted world.

Well, he's not silver and doesn't surf but otherwise, pretty similar. Except that Norrin remains morally unimpeachable. Isolation was never the defining aspect of Superman's character as it has now become in SR.

I imagine we'll never agree on this.

Norrin Rad gave up everything, his world, his love, his emotions for a long while, and anything resembling a "human" life, in service to an unstoppable force, as the sole means to safeguard his world. When finally freed from that servitude, he was prevented from having anything to do with that world, that life, that love, at the risk of them all. That's NOTHING like Superman, on any level, except the isolation, which has, since at least the creation of Superboy, been a major part of the character. Prior to that, we knew relatively little about his youth. The dailies gave more information; but nowhere near what was eventually introduced, including his inability to ever fully blend in with the kids around him. Partially because of the need to hide his powers, and partially because of his duties, which caused him to be absent and/or unreliable. This, in turn, was brought into the adult Clark, in the Superman comics.

[CaptainAwesome]

Ontir, I have a stupid question. Did you see the Donner cut of Superman 2 or have you just heard about it. I dont mean to come off as a dick, but I havent heard anything official as to SR being directly related to the Donner cut of S2, so I just want to know if this is speculation or what.

[Captain Trips]

Captain Trips,

The "real world" take of Singers, wasn't actually his. TPTB @ Warners' were looking at the rushes of Batman Begins as the other gawdawful "Superman" project was joining the others in the toilet, and decided that the new film should be more along the lines of what Nowlan was doing on "BB." That was the charge Singer was given.

Hmmm. I actually didn't know that. He used a similar real world take on X-Men that I thought worked really well. And I think that take was the way to go with SR as well. I just didn't like some of the decisions that were made with the characters.

I am interested in seeing what Singer does with the sequel. I had problems with SR, but I do think Singer is a good film maker. X2 was a huge step up from the first X-Men (which I did really like). I have a feeling the next Superman film will be a big step up from SR.

[Black Atom]

I think Richard knows a good deal more than was said, based upon his actions in his final scenes. I don't think Superman needs to tell Lois anything, because I think she already knows it all, which, if you look at the film with that in mind, adds a good deal to their scenes. Wait until you see the Donner Cut, I think it'll make much more sense then.

None of that's really apparent from watching the movie. I wouldn't expect the Donner Cut to explain a whole lot either. When questioned at length about it, he pretty much admitted SR was based on a loose interpretation of Superman II.


Jason is a greater connection, because A) He's a blood relative. The only one in the universe. B) He's part-Kryptonese, making him more like Clark than anyone else in the universe. C) He's part human, therefore a part of Clark's adopted world.

Fair enough.


Norrin Rad gave up everything, his world, his love, his emotions for a long while, and anything resembling a "human" life, in service to an unstoppable force, as the sole means to safeguard his world. When finally freed from that servitude, he was prevented from having anything to do with that world, that life, that love, at the risk of them all. That's NOTHING like Superman, on any level, except the isolation, which has, since at least the creation of Superboy, been a major part of the character.

I know the origins are different. That's not what I'm talking about. And Superman's isolation was never played up as much as the Surfer's, who never even had a secret identity.

Prior to that, we knew relatively little about his youth. The dailies gave more information; but nowhere near what was eventually introduced, including his inability to ever fully blend in with the kids around him. Partially because of the need to hide his powers, and partially because of his duties, which caused him to be absent and/or unreliable. This, in turn, was brought into the adult Clark, in the Superman comics.

One of the things I preferred about Byrne's take on Superman is that he thought of himself as Clark Kent. Jonathan and Martha Kent were his parents--not Jor-El. Obviously, that's not really the case in the Donner movies, but Singer has played up the isolation and messiah complex even more, diminishing the role of Clark Kent almost entirely (yet, ironically, at the same time making him more flawed than he was before) and having him mope around viewing everyone from above with a detached lonliness. In that way, he's become more like the Silver Surfer than any Superman we've seen except for on rare occasions.

[Corky]

They should include Supergirl and Brainiac in this sequel! John Malkovic can play Brainiac and who could play Supergirl?

[Cayman]

Hopefully Singer will take the opportunity to find someone new to write the script.

[Captain Trips]

I really don't know anything about the character, so I ask this with zero sarcasm. Why is Braniac such a popular choice for a villain in the sequel?

[Ontir]

None of that's really apparent from watching the movie. I wouldn't expect the Donner Cut to explain a whole lot either. When questioned at length about it, he pretty much admitted SR was based on a loose interpretation of Superman II.

Not exactly. He referenced the first film specifically, and was very hazy about the second, then said that if people wanted, they could still fit "III," and "IV" into continuity, which is true, the lack of relationship between Lois and Clark in those films, would flow nicely out of "SR." However, even if he HAD said it was loosely based upon "II," the question remains, which "II?" There are substantial differences, from what I'm hearing, between the two versions. Singer knows, and spoke with Donner about what he was going to do, as Donner was over-seeing the restoration of his version of that film. Singer is a huge fan of Donner's, and I believe that when we see that cut, "SR" will be far more in continuity with that, than the previously released version.

I know the origins are different. That's not what I'm talking about. And Superman's isolation was never played up as much as the Surfer's, who never even had a secret identity.

It's not JUST their origins, it's the elements that make up the characters which are fundamentally different, making the two largely incomparable.

One of the things I preferred about Byrne's take on Superman is that he thought of himself as Clark Kent. Jonathan and Martha Kent were his parents--not Jor-El. Obviously, that's not really the case in the Donner movies, but Singer has played up the isolation and messiah complex even more, diminishing the role of Clark Kent almost entirely (yet, ironically, at the same time making him more flawed than he was before) and having him mope around viewing everyone from above with a detached lonliness. In that way, he's become more like the Silver Surfer than any Superman we've seen except for on rare occasions.

If you're comparing "SR" to the "Byrne-d" Superman, than yes, there are major tonal differences; but this Superman is far more like the character of my childhood, than Byrne ever approached. Superman/Clark struggled often with the duality of his existence, and he was far more isolated in some ways, because he'd lost both sets of parents. He had his cousin, who wasn't around much, a girlfriend he couldn't get close to, and a city full of his people, who he seemed to feel he'd let down, because they were still stuck in that damn bottle.

Trips,

He's just friggin' cool! An extremely powerful, aggressive AI, from an advanced civilization, who was able to steal an entire city from the surface of Krypton, which was also a wildly advanced society. A relentless, smart, predator, who will never stop hunting the Man of Steel

[Sean Whitmore]

I really don't know anything about the character, so I ask this with zero sarcasm. Why is Braniac such a popular choice for a villain in the sequel?


Brainiac and Luthor basically represent the "big two" of Superman villains. With Luthor done to death, Brainiac's the obvious next choice. And, as a world-conquering evil robot, there's a good chance his plot won't involve some real estate scam. :)


SEAN

[Captain Trips]

Not exactly. He referenced the first film specifically, and was very hazy about the second, then said that if people wanted, they could still fit "III," and "IV" into continuity, which is true, the lack of relationship between Lois and Clark in those films, would flow nicely out of "SR." However, even if he HAD said it was loosely based upon "II," the question remains, which "II?" There are substantial differences, from what I'm hearing, between the two versions. Singer knows, and spoke with Donner about what he was going to do, as Donner was over-seeing the restoration of his version of that film. Singer is a huge fan of Donner's, and I believe that when we see that cut, "SR" will be far more in continuity with that, than the previously released version.

Again, there is zero sarcasm in this question. Do you really feel that SR could have any kind of continuity with Superman II? Even Donner's version? I ask that because the only continuity that can be construed, in my opinion, is that this movie has the characters of Superman/Clark Kent, Lois Lane, Perry White, Jimmy Olsen, and Lex Luthor - all who haven't aged in 30 years because they are portrayed by an entirely different cast. Granted, there is some of the same music (the main theme), Marlon Brando as Jor-El, and the crystals that were in the first two Superman films. However, while Singer tried to have the same feel as the Donner films (and I think he succeeded to an extent), there are just way too many factors to maintain continuity with films that came out nearly 30 years ago.

[Sean Whitmore]

Again, there is zero sarcasm in this question. Do you really feel that SR could have any kind of continuity with Superman II? Even Donner's version? I ask that because the only continuity that can be construed, in my opinion, is that this movie has the characters of Superman/Clark Kent, Lois Lane, Perry White, Jimmy Olsen, and Lex Luthor - all who haven't aged in 30 years because they are portrayed by an entirely different cast. Granted, there is some of the same music (the main theme), Marlon Brando as Jor-El, and the crystals that were in the first two Superman films. However, while Singer tried to have the same feel as the Donner films (and I think he succeeded to an extent), there are just way too many factors to maintain continuity with films that came out nearly 30 years ago.


That's exactly why Singer has called this a "loose" sequel, or thematic sequel. Obviously, the fact that Superman II took place in the 70s and SR in 2006 keeps it from being as continuous as the X-Men films. The best way to look at it is that the events of Superman I and II basically happened in sort of that way, probably in the year 2000.

The Kryptonian criminals might or might not have escaped, Luthor may or may not have been to the Fortress before...those elements really don't mean much to SR. All that we know happened for a certainty is that Pa Kent died, Clark joined the Planet, Superman and Lois had sex, and Superman arrested Lex Luthor.


SEAN

[Ontir]

Again, there is zero sarcasm in this question. Do you really feel that SR could have any kind of continuity with Superman II? Even Donner's version? I ask that because the only continuity that can be construed, in my opinion, is that this movie has the characters of Superman/Clark Kent, Lois Lane, Perry White, Jimmy Olsen, and Lex Luthor - all who haven't aged in 30 years because they are portrayed by an entirely different cast. Granted, there is some of the same music (the main theme), Marlon Brando as Jor-El, and the crystals that were in the first two Superman films. However, while Singer tried to have the same feel as the Donner films (and I think he succeeded to an extent), there are just way too many factors to maintain continuity with films that came out nearly 30 years ago.

I have no problem with their being continuity between the films, just like I have no problem with their being continuity between the Star Trek films, which had different directors, different Saaviks, actors who played different characters in more than one film (Mark Lenard, and David Warner). I still think that when we see how Donner's film plays out, there will be MORE, not less continuity.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I still think that when we see how Donner's film plays out, there will be MORE, not less continuity.

I agree, and if Donner's Cut of Superman II ends the way I've heard it does, it clears up Lois' somewhat dubious behavior after Superman departure for Krypton pretty nicely.

It also explains why the Phantom Zone villains haven't escaped yet...

[Captain Trips]

I agree, and if Donner's Cut of Superman II ends the way I've heard it does, it clears up Lois' somewhat dubious behavior after Superman departure for Krypton pretty nicely.

It also explains why the Phantom Zone villains haven't escaped yet...

I know what you are referring to, and, while I have to agree that it clears those issues up (again if you view these movies as all being connected), I still think having Zod and his cronies be the villains in SRII wouldn't be a great idea. I would much prefer to see a villain(s) who has never appeared on the screen before.

[Captain Trips]

That's exactly why Singer has called this a "loose" sequel, or thematic sequel. Obviously, the fact that Superman II took place in the 70s and SR in 2006 keeps it from being as continuous as the X-Men films. The best way to look at it is that the events of Superman I and II basically happened in sort of that way, probably in the year 2000.

The Kryptonian criminals might or might not have escaped, Luthor may or may not have been to the Fortress before...those elements really don't mean much to SR. All that we know happened for a certainty is that Pa Kent died, Clark joined the Planet, Superman and Lois had sex, and Superman arrested Lex Luthor.


SEAN

I can see where you are coming from with that point of view. I guess I just really would have prefered a complete reboot to the franchise. To me, having any connections to the previous films did more damage than good. I think Singer could have rebooted the franchise without having to do another origin story. Superman, most of all iconic figures, has a backstory that just about everyone is familiar with and can be explained in 3 sentences.

[Black Atom]

It's not JUST their origins, it's the elements that make up the characters which are fundamentally different, making the two largely incomparable.

Well, if Singer portrayed Superman as dark and brooding, constantly saying criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot, then I’d say he was acting like Batman, which would be true regardless of how fundamentally different the characters are. My observation was that Superman in SR reminds me a lot more of Norrin Radd than most interpretations of Superman that I’m familiar with (including those of the Donner films). And the characters aren’t all that dissimilar thematically.


If you're comparing "SR" to the "Byrne-d" Superman, than yes, there are major tonal differences; but this Superman is far more like the character of my childhood, than Byrne ever approached. Superman/Clark struggled often with the duality of his existence, and he was far more isolated in some ways, because he'd lost both sets of parents. He had his cousin, who wasn't around much, a girlfriend he couldn't get close to, and a city full of his people, who he seemed to feel he'd let down, because they were still stuck in that damn bottle.

Different strokes, I guess. Focusing on Superman’s isolation is a good way to show vulnerability, I just don’t like that, in SR at least, it’s become the defining aspect of the character. I’m much more accustomed to a Superman that gives us some message of hope, despite what he’s struggling through.

I agree about Brainiac, though. I’d heard that he was Donner’s pick for the sequel he never got to work on.

[J. Robb]

If anything, I'd consider "Returns" a sequel to the original Donner movie only.

I really wouldn't put the Donner cut of II into the mix, because it uses the same ending as the first movie (or rather, the first movie stole the ending meant for the sequel), so I can't really consider it a separate film in itself.

[The Man of Steel]

I'd say the villain in this should either be Lex again or Metallo :cool:

[MaxofSteel]

NO more Lex. But I'll accept Metallo plzkthx. :)

Or Brainiac.

[metalhead_dave743]

I'll bite.

Lex is over exposed. No more Lex as the main villain, maybe he could have a Superman II style part.

I'm for Brainiac. Have him like the Timmverse Brainiac, coming to Earth pretending to be a peaceful entity but really he wants to suck all the knowledge from earth and then blow it up. Supes has gotta stop Brainiac, and goes to war against hordes of Brainiac's alien machines. And Brainiac's hardware would be powerful and big enough to give Supes more than a hard time.

[The Zapper]

Bryan Singer.

[The Mutt]

Lex is the worst thing to happen to the Superman movies. If I want to see Superman fight gangsters, I've got the TV show.

Brainiac + Parasite vs Superman = Teh Awesome.

[The Man of Steel]

what's wrong with lex coming back?

[The Mutt]

what's wrong with lex coming back?

Because I could beat Lex. Why would we need Superman?

[The Man of Steel]

Because I could beat Lex. Why would we need Superman?

lol, I bet anyone could :D

[Toku King]

OH XXXX FREAKIN' YES!!!!!!!!

Finally! Someone besides Luthor! *crosses fingers* Darkseid or Doomsday, bitch!

[Toku King]

what's wrong with lex coming back?

Because I'm tired of the exact same enemy and freakishly similar evil plots being used over and over?

[Justin D.]

Let's watch the language in this thread, please.

[Ramiel]

Yeah, we seriously need a new main villian for the Superman movies, Lex can be there being, you know Lex, but I think we need a new villian to mix things up and bring more action to the table.

I hope to see Darkseid myself, see some JLU level fight scenes in it.

[Toku King]

They should go STAS if they use Darkseid.

[Ramiel]

They should go STAS is they use Darkseid.

Agreed, but I'd still like to see a bit of their JLU fight scene, that was classic.

[Armless Penguin]

http://movies.ign.com/articles/843/843409p1.html

Apparently neither Singer nor Routh will be returning for the film.

[Toku King]

http://movies.ign.com/articles/843/843409p1.html

Apparently neither Singer nor Routh will be returning for the film.

Routh was good, but I am so happy Singer's gone!

[Jared]

If they go want a younger JLA Superman, why not put Tom Welling in the suit already? Hell, they've already introduced some of the other characters.

Good riddance to Singer. I'm more concerned about Batman being "PG". Surely he must have meant PG-13?!

[kalorama]

If they go want a younger JLA Superman, why not put Tom Welling in the suit already?

If I'm not mistaken, Welling is actually older than Brandon Routh.

[Armless Penguin]

If I'm not mistaken, Welling is actually older than Brandon Routh.

By two years, yes. Welling's actually 30.

[Toku King]

If they go want a younger JLA Superman, why not put Tom Welling in the suit already? Hell, they've already introduced some of the other characters.

Good riddance to Singer. I'm more concerned about Batman being "PG". Surely he must have meant PG-13?!

http://screenrant.com/archives/the-dark-knight-to-be-a-hard-p-1128.html

[Dr. Banner]

Routh was good, but I am so happy Singer's gone!

Because Singer's never been seen to improve a franchise with a sequel?

X-Men 2 as leaps and bounds better than the first. Why couldn't his next Superman movie potentially do the same leap in quality?

[Toku King]

Because Singer's never been seen to improve a franchise with a sequel?

X-Men 2 as leaps and bounds better than the first. Why couldn't his next Superman movie potentially do the same leap in quality?

Because "X-Men" was good too, so that gave way to an even better sequel. But "Superman Returns" sucked, so no matter what, his 'vision' would suck, because I know the type of movies he does, and it just doesn't work with Superman.

[Toku King]

New Superman casting choice? (http://quiz.ravenblack.net/blood.pl?biter=Toku+King)

[DonC]

http://movies.ign.com/articles/843/843409p1.html

Apparently neither Singer nor Routh will be returning for the film.


Someone call Brett Ratner!

[kmeyers]

While Singer is a good film maker, his style just doesn't work for Superman.

Superman is not the dark outcast that Wolverine and the XMen were.

Superman is THE Boy Scout. Not some shady stalker, who abandons his baby's mama in search of other things.

I hated pretty much everything about Superman Returns after the first 20 minutes...

I have never been so happy about a retcon ever...

[kmeyers]

Someone call Brett Ratner!

Boo this man!

[Captain_Video]

http://movies.ign.com/articles/843/843409p1.html

Apparently neither Singer nor Routh will be returning for the film.

Urrrrkk, great.

Well I guess all the people who want nothing more than "Superman puuuuunching a giant wobot" will be happy now.

"There wasn't enough aaaaaaction".

I honestly can not see who they are going to get that will be better than Routh and Singer, Returns felt like Superman, it didn't seem horribly post modern in some terrible way, it just seemed like a Superman story, picking up where we left off in the movies and taking the character forward...it was sweet and subtle, it could have delved more into the "does the world need a Superman" which I found fascinating, but over all I really like the movie, its heart more than shone through.

On the Younger Superman thing, Routh is 29 ! Its not like he some old fart tottering around the place embarassing everyone, sigh.

[GRANT!]

Urrrrkk, great.

Well I guess all the people who want nothing more than "Superman puuuuunching a giant wobot" will be happy now.

Why would they be? There's no guarantee we're getting that.

Or if we're getting a new Superman movie in the near future.

[Toku King]

I have never been so happy about a retcon ever...

Where exactly is the retcon here?

[Agent Helix]

Haha, I win the pool.

[Sean Whitmore]

Well I guess all the people who want nothing more than "Superman puuuuunching a giant wobot" will be happy now.

And I guess all the people who want nothing more than "Superman staaaaaaaaawking his ex-giwlfwiend" are crap out of luck.

See how stupid it sounds when you generalize like that?


SEAN

[Toku King]

Urrrrkk, great.

Well I guess all the people who want nothing more than "Superman puuuuunching a giant wobot" will be happy now.

"There wasn't enough aaaaaaction".

I honestly can not see who they are going to get that will be better than Routh and Singer, Returns felt like Superman, it didn't seem horribly post modern in some terrible way, it just seemed like a Superman story, picking up where we left off in the movies and taking the character forward...it was sweet and subtle, it could have delved more into the "does the world need a Superman" which I found fascinating, but over all I really like the movie, its heart more than shone through.

On the Younger Superman thing, Routh is 29 ! Its not like he some old fart tottering around the place embarassing everyone, sigh.


Because we had enough time for pure drama and Superman and Lois stuff for two movies(original, Returns), and with the fantastic results of "Superman 2", I say we're up to do something more exciting.

So "Superman puuuuunching a giant wobot" is really "Superman doing something more eventful than flying around, bugging Lois, and going through tasks we know he'll succeed at."
Honestly, what do you think will get us to the movie theater faster: Another movie with Superman doing the exact same things as last movie and the movie before that, or taking on a new threat that really challenges Superman to his full potential?

[metalhead_dave743]

Who says Routh won't be returning? Just because there is going to be the Justice League movie doesn't mean there is going to be a Man of steel movie.

[The Batman]

Reading both the Variety and LatinoReview articles I can't help but wonder - where's the news here?

These are the same rumours that have been floating around for awhile now that JL has been announced but they've yet to be either confirmed or denied by anyone official.

I don't know that they're wrong - I hope they are and I think losing Singer and especially Routh is a bit of a mistake - but no matter what I do think that we need to take these sorts of things with a grain of salt or two.

I mean, for how many weeks(months?) now have we been told that an official announcement about JL was coming?

[kmeyers]

Where exactly is the retcon here?

Singer isn't returning, so hopefully most of his ideas won't be returning either.

[The Batman]

If they drop Singer and Routh chances are what we'd be getting is a restart rather than a retcon.

[Phil Clark]

Superman Begins? :eek: :cool:

[Agent Helix]

Chances are there won't be another Superman movie until at least 2010, and it will be a complete revamp with no ties to the previous films.

[Toku King]

Singer isn't returning, so hopefully most of his ideas won't be returning either.

That's not a retcon.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

http://movies.ign.com/articles/843/843409p1.html

Apparently neither Singer nor Routh will be returning for the film.

As far as I can tell, those are the columnist's impressions on what's gonna happen, and not fact. She doesn't point to any reliable source, and only says that it's "highly unlikely".

I for one want Singer and Routh back for the sequel.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Chances are there won't be another Superman movie until at least 2010, and it will be a complete revamp with no ties to the previous films.

Which would be, IMO, a sad thing.

[Toku King]

I want Routh back for both the sequel and the JLA movie, but just keep Singer out. He reminds me of why I don't like Superman as a character.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

I want Routh back for both the sequel and the JLA movie, but just keep Singer out. He reminds me of why I don't like Superman as a character.

I disagree. If you're talking about the religious allegories, I loved them, and think it was something that the character sorely needed. If it's because you're in the group who thinks Superman in SR was a "Super-stalker", then I'd say you're wrong.

And I dunno if I'd want Routh in the JLA movie... I have a bad feeling about that flick. I hope to be wrong, though.

[Toku King]

I disagree. If you're talking about the religious allegories, I loved them, and think it was something that the character sorely needed. If it's because you're in the group who thinks Superman in SR was a "Super-stalker", then I'd say you're wrong.

And I dunno if I'd want Routh in the JLA movie... I have a bad feeling about that flick. I hope to be wrong, though.

No. I mean Superman being boring, invincible, perfect in everyway, and annoying as hell. There's no character in that! Give him anger, needs, aggrevation! Like STAS or "Superman II"!

[The Batman]

As far as I can tell, those are the columnist's impressions on what's gonna happen, and not fact. She doesn't point to any reliable source, and only says that it's "highly unlikely".

I for one want Singer and Routh back for the sequel.

I think that's pretty much what we've got here - alot people's impressions of what might happen and very little solid fact. Which is all well and good, but we should remember that before we get worked up too much either way.

As I've said before, I think it'd be a mistake to get rid of Singer and especially Routh. The movie they made was well received by both the critics and the audience despite its flaws. The problem was that the movie just cost so damn much to make that it absolutely had to be a pop culture phenomena for Warner Bros. to be happy.

It seems to me that instead of getting rid of Routh and Singer, the smarter move would be to work to control spending and bring the budget down while simultaneously addressing the short comings the movie did have.

[Black Atom]

It's no secret that I found Superman Returns thoroughly (thoroughly) unenjoyable, but I wouldn't mind seeing Routh return. I believe it's possible for Singer to direct an enjoyable Superman movie, but where I'm concerned, he certainly hasn't so far. I'm not sure where people ever got the idea he was integral to the success of Superman but I won't shed any tears if he goes. I'd rather have no Supermans than more Superman Returnses.

[kmeyers]

That's not a retcon.

Retcon, redo, revamp, do over, mulligan, restart, whatever makes the bastard son of Superman and the rest of Superman Returns like it never happened, is great news to me.

[kalorama]

Except we don't know that's what's going to happen.

[kmeyers]

Except we don't know that's what's going to happen.

I can hope.

But Singer not coming back is a step in the right direction.

[Toku King]

Retcon, redo, revamp, do over, mulligan, restart, whatever makes the bastard son of Superman and the rest of Superman Returns like it never happened, is great news to me.

But this is a sequel.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

No. I mean Superman being boring, invincible, perfect in everyway, and annoying as hell. There's no character in that! Give him anger, needs, aggrevation! Like STAS or "Superman II"!

And why would you want another anti-hero? Superman is special not only because of his vast powers, but because he's the archetypal Superhero. He does things because is the right thing to do, and not out of revenge or anger.

I think that's pretty much what we've got here - alot people's impressions of what might happen and very little solid fact. Which is all well and good, but we should remember that before we get worked up too much either way.

As I've said before, I think it'd be a mistake to get rid of Singer and especially Routh. The movie they made was well received by both the critics and the audience despite its flaws. The problem was that the movie just cost so damn much to make that it absolutely had to be a pop culture phenomena for Warner Bros. to be happy.

It seems to me that instead of getting rid of Routh and Singer, the smarter move would be to work to control spending and bring the budget down while simultaneously addressing the short comings the movie did have.

Well, I didn't see any shortcomings with that movie, as you probably know. However, if people want more action, let's give it to them.

And yes, WB wasn't entirely happy with the movie because it didn't make the money they were expecting. As for Singer, he's the only director right now who I think has the right vision for a Superman movie. Who do people want? Bret Rattner (sp?)? Tim Burton? Hell, McG? I hope not.

[Toku King]

So he's an anti-hero because he has everyday feelings? So Spider-Man's an anti-hero.

[metalhead_dave743]

And why would you want another anti-hero? Superman is special not only because of his vast powers, but because he's the archetypal Superhero. He does things because is the right thing to do, and not out of revenge or anger.


Are you saying S:TAS makes Superman to be an antihero? So Superman can't get pissed off at a villain at all?

[Captain_Video]

And I guess all the people who want nothing more than "Superman staaaaaaaaawking his ex-giwlfwiend" are crap out of luck.

See how stupid it sounds when you generalize like that?


SEAN

There is no group clamouring for stalking it was a natural moment that came out of the story being told, it wasn't stalking either, does the Christian idea of god stalk the people who worship him ? Does Vincent in Beauty and the Beast ( the T.V show ) stalk Catherine ? Superman in that moment is watching over the people he cares about most in the world and realising they have ceased caring about him they have moved on, thats some tragic lovely storytelling, how must Superman feel that all these people he gives his life for, could care less and that he is ultimately alone.

I also disagree ( politely ) that I was generalising, as the number one request, on almost every Superman board is that he fight some form of giant robot in the movies, I agree this would be a powerful vision, but it has nothing to do with anything remotely interesting about the Superman character and as such those type of things only tend to happen in the first four pages of the comics.

There are obviously times when it is not in the first four pages, but I am sure you get what I mean.

What a lot of people seem to vocally want from a Superman movie has nothing to do with character or drama and everything to do with feats of strength and high octane action.

Superman is so powerful that the only real drama can be a human one, as we know he is going to stick the giant robot up Luthors ass.

Bryan Singer and Routh really understood the majority of what makes Superman compelling and it is shame they won't be coming based not on the films gross, or on how good\interesting it was, but based on the dumb idiots before them who ran up millions of production debt, they had recoup.

I wanted to see the sequel so bad, as it felt like the logical next step in the Superman cinematic story.

[Sean Whitmore]

I also disagree ( politely ) that I was generalising, as the number one request, on almost every Superman board is that he fight some form of giant robot in the movies

It's generalizing to say that people want "no more than" Superman fighting someone.

There's no reason in the world that plot, character moments, emotion, and an entertaining fight sequence can't all coexist in a super hero movie.


SEAN

[BYC]

I thought Superman Returns was a good film, and I enjoyed it (not the same thing). I really liked that Singer tried to show Superman trying to relate to the world, and showing his emotional weakness after being gone for so long. That being said, Returns needed more action. Movies for superheroes are difficult to do because there's a limited time to develop characters as well as giving the audience good action.

Superman definitely showed anger in Returns. He was more than peeved that somebody dared descrete the Fortress of Solitude. Superman showed anger in Superman the Movie as well. His disdain for Lex was obvious, and Reeve portrayed that very well. In the end, I believe the Superman film franchise won't ever reach the top of the ladder mainly due to Christopher Reeve STILL in our minds. We'll never accept Routh unless he absolutely acts his ass off in the next Superman movie and wins like an Oscar or something. I liked Superman Returns, and I STILL rather have Reeve instead. I really think that's the biggest barrier preventing the franchise from being blockbuster. Until the day I die I associate Christopher Reeve as live-action Superman.

[Toku King]

It's generalizing to say that people want "no more than" Superman fighting someone.

There's no reason in the world that plot, character moments, emotion, and an entertaining fight sequence can't all coexist in a super hero movie.


SEAN

Exactly. We saw examples of that in "Superman II", "Hellboy", "Spider-Man", and "Spider-Man 2".

And all four are some of the best comic book movies to date.

[GRANT!]

It's generalizing to say that people want "no more than" Superman fighting someone.

There's no reason in the world that plot, character moments, emotion, and an entertaining fight sequence can't all coexist in a super hero movie.


SEAN

It's also more fun then watching Superman getting exposed to kryptonite and get his ass kicked by street thugs.

[Sean Whitmore]

It's a little disappointing Spider-man fought a giant monster in the movies before Superman

And, rather ironically, Superman fought a clone before Spider-Man.


SEAN

[Toku King]

And, rather ironically, Superman fought a clone before Spider-Man.


SEAN

That wasn't a clone. It was a split personality of himself.

[Toku King]

It's also more fun then watching Superman getting exposed to kryptonite and get his ass kicked by street thugs.

Best part of the movie by far.

[Sean Whitmore]

That wasn't a clone. It was a split personality of himself.

No-no, I mean Nuclear Man. Created from one of Supes' hairs. :)


SEAN

[GRANT!]

Man how much did it suck that after Superman II (Where Superman fought three villans with his powers) he fought an evil version of himself and his clone.

They needed to step it up in the Superman villan department for a long time.

I'd even take that giant spider Jon Peters was pitching.

[Toku King]

No-no, I mean Nuclear Man. Created from one of Supes' hairs. :)


SEAN

I try to forget that one.

[Sean Whitmore]

I'd even take that giant spider Jon Peters was pitching.

Or as Kevin Smith called it, the Thanagarian snare beast.


SEAN

[Toku King]

Man how much did it suck that after Superman II (Where Superman fought three villans with his powers) he fought an evil version of himself and his clone.

They needed to step it up in the Superman villan department.

I say:

Man Of Steel: Darkseid and crew, Lex Luthor(minor role), and Metallo(cameo)
Superman 7: Darkseid and crew, Lex Luthor(slightly larger role), and Doomsday

[Toku King]

Well, it could've been worse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Peters).

Spider monster thing? Ok. Brainiac? Sounds good. Polar bear fight? Cool. Gay robot sidekick voiced by Dwight Ewell? God no. No costume or flight? Ok, movie's ruined.

[metalhead_dave743]

I'd rather the Man of Steel have Brainiac as the badguy, and it could end where Luthor could help Superman out against Brainiac, take credit for stopping Brainiac which would result in him getting a pardon. This and the fortune he inherited from that old bag could result in him creating Lex Corp.

[Toku King]

I want to see Darkseid really badly. He is, without a doubt, Superman's ultimate nemesis. He is the personification of everything Superman fights against. I would pay big bucks just to watch him kick Superman's ass on the big screen.

[Sean Whitmore]

Well, take it for what it's worth, but maybe Routh isn't out of the cape just yet.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35200


SEAN

[Toku King]

Nice! I just wish that he was also in JLA.

[Captain_Video]

It's generalizing to say that people want "no more than" Superman fighting someone.

There's no reason in the world that plot, character moments, emotion, and an entertaining fight sequence can't all coexist in a super hero movie.


SEAN

Of course there is no reason all those can't happen.

But the number one thing people seem to be clamouring for is a fight with a giant robot or a villain or something like that, which, OK we all obviously enjoy being comic geeks, but its the least important part of making the next Superman movie good....and going down that road of demanding action and villains and bigger sequences, leads to Batman and Robin....yeah the action is cool but, so what.

Why is Superman fighting Darkseid ? Why are you telling this story with a movie ? What is the point ? ...if the writer or director can answer all those with anything other than "because it kicks ass" then its probably worth doing.

Everything in Superman Returns made dramatic and thematic sense, even though, it kind of wimped out on the whole "does the world need a Superman" idea.

Good news that Routh might not be out, too.

[Superbeast]

Of course there is no reason all those can't happen.

But the number one thing people seem to be clamouring for is a fight with a giant robot or a villain or something like that, which, OK we all obviously enjoy being comic geeks, but its the least important part of making the next Superman movie good....and going down that road of demanding action and villains and bigger sequences, leads to Batman and Robin....yeah the action is cool but, so what.

Why is Superman fighting Darkseid ? Why are you telling this story with a movie ? What is the point ? ...if the writer or director can answer all those with anything other than "because it kicks ass" then its probably worth doing.

Everything in Superman Returns made dramatic and thematic sense, even though, it kind of wimped out on the whole "does the world need a Superman" idea.

Good news that Routh might not be out, too.

Bringing in Darkseid might be a bit much due to the mythology behind him, but villains like Parasite or Brainiac wouldn't need too much effort to pull off. Even Mongul attacking Earth, fighting Superman to test his abilities and then teleporting them both to Warworld where Supes has to fight or else Mongul aims a laser straight down Mount Etna to cause a superquake/world wide volcanic explosions so Earth goes kablooey like Krypton could work. Superman saving planes and fighting Luthor is all well and good, but we've seen similar before and given Supes rogues gallery, they really need to give him a real threat to deal with.

[metalhead_dave743]

Why is Superman fighting Darkseid ? Why are you telling this story with a movie ? What is the point ?

I didn't mean to turn this into an essay but...

The point is it could be a great story to tell and it's able to be done. Superman's movie character has already been established. Now the character can be put into some real peril.

Plus having a physical enemy like Darkseid would be a breath of fresh air. Yes, Superman II had physical rivals within Zod and friends, but that movie was more about Clark's choice to rather be Superman or Clark Kent while Zod and co were more of an afterthought. Having a grand enemy such as Darkseid, or Brainiac, or someone else coming around to screw earth up and show Superman that he isn't so super until he could whoop this enemy's ass is pretty much the road less traveled. It would provide an element of danger and excitement to Supes. Superman's going to actually have a big challenge to face and he might not make it out of this one. There is something dramatic and thematic about Superman taking on an enemy that is just as powerful or more powerful than him and coming out on top.

And the fighting in Supes Two just wasn't that good. I'm not knocking what they did. They worked with what they had, but all the punches and kicks just looked so phony. With all the progress in filmaking, Supes could have a freaking nasty fight with an enemy. Tell me you wouldn't mark out like a ten year old wrestling fan if you saw a live action version of what TAS Supes did to Darkseid; punching him hard enough to send him flying through three skyscrapers and then using his speed to catch up to Darkseid and knock him down with enough force to create a crater the size of a stadium.

Hollywood can do shit like that now and make it look fantastic. How the Matrix was worked out with flying and crashing into buildings and putting craters in the ground(which is the only thing I'll ever give credit to the Matrix fights) could be upped on the volume to make something like Superman knocking Darkseid three miles away or something better. Yeah there are shit CG fights that suck and can be easily seen through, but when Hollywood is able to make it emphasise the action instead of become the action, it makes things better.

But the number one thing people seem to be clamouring for is a fight with a giant robot or a villain or something like that, which, OK we all obviously enjoy being comic geeks, but its the least important part of making the next Superman movie good....and going down that road of demanding action and villains and bigger sequences, leads to Batman and Robin....yeah the action is cool but, so what.

Batman and Robin is an aberration, and it was more than just the villains and the action sequences that killed the movie. It was the way the entire movie was presented. Batman and Robin was a joke, just like Nuclear Man and the Supercomputer, they were presented as a joke by people who didn't take Superman or Batman seriously.

You take a Superman villain, portray him in a serious light(i.e. no freaking puns) and make his encounters with Superman frightful and serious, as well as exciting, you'll stray away from Batman and Robin.

[Toku King]

For example, Green Goblin's been done in the media to look like nothing more than a trickster. But then Sam Raimi gets on, makes GG just like his comic counterpart, and then the stakes are enormous. Same with the other "Spider-Man" films. Doc Ock wasn't just some guy who liked money, but someone who could've killed millions of people.

People like it when the stakes are high. Do you think that the bridge scene in "Spider-Man" would've been as famous if some smart criminal just showed up? No. They got big when a super smart, super powerful lunatic had Spider-Man's morals in his hands. That's what it's all about.

[Lord of Denial]

Superman vs Darkseid needs to happen simply because up until right now Hollywood has been afraid to pull the trigger on a truly epic comic book fight sequence. Name one live action comic book fight of epic scale?

If WB comes out and does it and does it right. Where building are being laid waste and each blow is shattering windows and overturning cars and you can really feel the power of these two going at it I know I will see the movie several times and every comic book geek in America will as well.

And guess what when the Superman movie after that comes out and it will simply because of word of mouth I will be first in line to see Superman in action again.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

So he's an anti-hero because he has everyday feelings? So Spider-Man's an anti-hero.

Are you saying S:TAS makes Superman to be an antihero? So Superman can't get pissed off at a villain at all?

What you had said earlier sounded like you wanted to make Superman like someone dark or something, hence my post.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Of course there is no reason all those can't happen.

But the number one thing people seem to be clamouring for is a fight with a giant robot or a villain or something like that, which, OK we all obviously enjoy being comic geeks, but its the least important part of making the next Superman movie good....and going down that road of demanding action and villains and bigger sequences, leads to Batman and Robin....yeah the action is cool but, so what.

Why is Superman fighting Darkseid ? Why are you telling this story with a movie ? What is the point ? ...if the writer or director can answer all those with anything other than "because it kicks ass" then its probably worth doing.

Everything in Superman Returns made dramatic and thematic sense, even though, it kind of wimped out on the whole "does the world need a Superman" idea.

Good news that Routh might not be out, too.

Agreed. Many people think SR sucks simply because "Superman didn't punch anyone". And that doesn't make SR a bad movie.

[metalhead_dave743]

Agreed. Many people think SR sucks simply because "Superman didn't punch anyone". And that doesn't make SR a bad movie.

Here's one case against Superman Returns. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rp2f2OcCpQ)

And here's another one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnHHDzQ4Axw)

It's more complex than just "Superman didn't punch anyone."