Will the next Superman movie blow the box office away? [Archive]

eggie

06-17-2007, 11:15 AM

I'm not sure...I mean Singer has said that there will be more action and the
SR was mostly set-up, but I don't think the casual movie goer will see the sequel...my wife doesn't want to see but I will drag her kicking and screaming on opening weekend...she was very disappointed in SR, it was not at all what she was expecting. I believe the next one will be better action wise but it may be too late for the non-comic book audience because they are used to Spider-Man and Batman Begins blowing them away out of the gates and Superman Returns didn't do that for them.

Preus

06-17-2007, 12:01 PM

That's true so even if it is good it probably still won't make a lot of money.

Binker

06-17-2007, 12:31 PM

It all comes from the promotionals and what we see from what the film will have. Like all movies.

Again, look at X-Men 1 & 2

MaxofSteel

06-17-2007, 03:31 PM

I have high hopes for it.

My only worry is how Supes Jr. and Rich White will fit in to the whole thing.

Other than that, I'm sure it'll up the ante.

Preus

06-18-2007, 10:38 PM

Albert

06-18-2007, 10:58 PM

& I want a major villain in the film like Metallo.

I think that's the key to the next film's success right there. While Lex is integral to the Superman mythos, people can turn on Smallville and get Lex. Whatever villian is next on the slate, he needs to have both a visually interesting look and a compelling, fresh motive other than flat-out world domination.

Preus

06-18-2007, 11:07 PM

The Parasite could end up being a good movie villain too, especially if they could make it similar to what happened in the Superman: TAS.

Question_Authority

06-18-2007, 11:15 PM

They need a compelling villian like Brainiac, the robotic version from Pre-Crisis who was living metal and possess the skull ship. Within the confines of his ship, inside a stasis globe, the miniturized city of Kandor, ready for Supes to rescue. Perhaps even have Supes find Super girl in the begining then lead to Brainiac finding earth by following Kara's ship. Supes could then battle robotic drones, advanced technological defenses before he and Kara have a showdown with the big B.

JPop

06-19-2007, 02:40 AM

I agree that robot Brainac could be a really good villian and a good movie visual as well. SR just wasn't visually stimulating in the way that the Spiderman movies have been.

Bored at 3:00AM

06-19-2007, 07:50 AM

It depends upon how good the word of mouth is, but I think Superman Returns killed off a lot of interest the general public had in this incarnation of the character.

marshal99

06-19-2007, 09:20 AM

Blow the box office away ? Probably not , the movie will probably just blow like superman returns.

People anticipate the next spider-man movies because they know it will generally always deliver on the action front. On the other end , people aren't interested in seeing "son of superman" , thanks but no thanks. Stupid son of superman storyline , boring long talky melodrama crap.

TimT

06-19-2007, 09:33 AM

I hated to click on a choice that contained such poor grammar. Oh well, I am still hopeful despite my choice. If the villain is good and the trailers show it clearly, then the movie will succeed.

Ruthless_Pryde

06-19-2007, 02:10 PM

i voted that it will do "worser" than the first. I hate to admit it but I think they may have blew it with this one. Bryan Singer, you sir, came up short with this one. Go talk to Chris Nolan or Zack Synder. Or just watch your Xmen movies to get your mojo back

SuperSince92

06-19-2007, 03:56 PM

Another "worser" vote here.

I can confidently vote that way without even knowing much of the plot and who the villians are. Just based on what is left laying around from the previous film (the kid, Lois engaged).

BLEH

The Batman

06-19-2007, 05:09 PM

marshal99

06-19-2007, 08:10 PM

I'm going for better.

I mean, with all the flaws that I'm told Superman Returns has it still managed to do fairly well at the box office so the sequel, with Singer having learned lessons from Superman Returns and how it was recieved, should do even better.

Fairly well at the box office ?! It was a box office flop. With the big advertising and marketing hype , the movie was a abysmal failure for the studio.

Budget
$270,000,000 (estimated)

Gross
$200,069,408 (USA)

Compare that to Spider-man 3 which is still running ...

Budget
$258,000,000 (estimated)

Gross
$325,585,149 (USA) (10 June 2007)

Ruthless_Pryde

06-19-2007, 09:09 PM

Fairly well at the box office ?! It was a box office flop. With the big advertising and marketing hype , the movie was a abysmal failure for the studio.

Budget
$270,000,000 (estimated)

Gross
$200,069,408 (USA)

Compare that to Spider-man 3 which is still running ...

Budget
$258,000,000 (estimated)

Gross
$325,585,149 (USA) (10 June 2007)

While accurate it's not exactly correct. The thing with the superman number is that it reflects ALL of the cost associated with the movie, including the ones that never got made. That is taking in to account the scripts from Kevin Smith, Tim Burton, Bret Ratner and everyone else you have heard associated with the project. They don't have a number for what it cost for Brian Singer alone to make the movie. Don't get me wrong, I am sure it is is the 200 mill mark any way, but this movie was in limbo for years and moved around and talked about since Batman and Robin came out. So Warner just rolled it ALL into one big fat number. Go figure.

dancj

06-20-2007, 06:01 AM

I hated to click on a choice that contained such poor grammar.
I couldn't bring myself to, so I clicked on "don't know"

TimT

06-20-2007, 07:59 AM

I couldn't bring myself to, so I clicked on "don't know" It was hard to click on that link.

TimT

06-20-2007, 08:01 AM

MythicBrawn

06-20-2007, 10:45 AM

It will have to drop the superkid storyline. Also, it needs to establish it's own identity and move away from the legacy of Christopher Reeve. He was a great Superman but his movies were relevant two decades ago. Kids now are saying "Christopher Who?" All the resources at their disposal and Superman Returns was the result. SR 2 needs a banging villain. If Lex must be there, mainly because the contract requires it, make his role minor. And, PLEASE give him a better motivation then trying to acquire real estate.

Brainiac should be the primary villain with Metallo brought in for muscle. Lex Luthor needs to have his role established as the malevolent businessman. He gets off the island and establishes himself as a redeemed philanthropist. This is just in time for Brainiac's arrival on Earth where they both try to take over/destroy the world. Brainiac uses Lex's resources to create Metallo and take down Superman. They betray each other and ultimately Superman saves the day. The movie ends with the setup for the return of Zod. Remember Zod and the other criminals were taken away in S2, never to be heard from again. Since SR picks up after S2, it wouldn't be that hard to bring those three back. SR2/SR3 would give a little backstory and then bring those three back strong.

The Batman

06-20-2007, 12:19 PM

These figures don't include all the money they made worldwide and it was a big success overseas, with far less money put out.

It also doesn't include all the money the movie brought in from merchandising, from DVD, and from cable and satellite showings.

TimT

06-20-2007, 12:33 PM

It also doesn't include all the money the movie brought in from merchandising, from DVD, and from cable and satellite showings. Yup! So, I'm afraid that Marshall99 is overstating the case a little with this quote:
It was a box office flop. With the big advertising and marketing hype , the movie was a abysmal failure for the studio.
Really, it was a DOMESTIC disappointment on box office sales (and maybe fanboy credit). Otherwise, it was pretty strong.
;)

Mister Mets

06-20-2007, 02:14 PM

Do you all think that the next Superman movie will do better at the box office than Superman Returns?

Well, if it's action packed it'll probably do better than SR but I don't think any other superhero film will outdo the Spider-Man franchise.

One flaw with the question.
This movie could easily make more money than Superman Returns, and still not blow the box office away.

I think it'll make more money than Superman Returns, but it won't exceed the box office of any of the Spider-Man films.

J. Robb

06-20-2007, 03:42 PM

I don't care how it does at the box office, only whether or not I like it.

I'd rather see "The Rocketeer"-level quality (which bombed) than "Spider-Man 3"-level (which was a huge hit.)

TimT

06-20-2007, 08:45 PM

I don't care how it does at the box office, only whether or not I like it.

I'd rather see "The Rocketeer"-level quality (which bombed) than "Spider-Man 3"-level (which was a huge hit.)
Personally, I agree; however, it has to have a certain level of commercial success or we'll go another 20 years before we get a new one.:eek:

Captain Smith

06-21-2007, 01:42 PM

If there is a trace of whining Lois and psycho stalker Supes and funny Bald Lex - they are going to kill Supes movies for another 20 years.

They need to treat SR as a dream sequence and ditch Singer. Get an action oriented team and do classic DCU supervillian slugfest mythology.

The FF/SS team said they learned from SR to cut the crap and get to the action.

I fear for the new Hulk as their team said it would be like the TV show and love story - barf, barf.

J. Robb

06-21-2007, 02:46 PM

Personally, I agree; however, it has to have a certain level of commercial success or we'll go another 20 years before we get a new one.:eek:
That's fine with me. Movies based on comics tend to be dumbed-down for mass appeal anyways, I'm happy just sticking to the comics.

Titan76

06-22-2007, 09:16 AM

These figures don't include all the money they made worldwide and it was a big success overseas, with far less money put out.
It only made $189 million overseas, I wouldn't call that a big success for an Icon like Superman.

As for the next movie I don't know how well it will do. After watching Singer ruining the X-men and ruining Superman in his first film I will have to see I don't have a lot of convinced in him.

And if the villain for the next movie is Zod then I won't even bother watching it. I want someone else that we haven't seen yet in the movie. I would also love it if Lex weren't in it as well even though he was great(the only thing that was great)in SR.

karasu

06-22-2007, 09:19 AM

These figures don't include all the money they made worldwide and it was a big success overseas, with far less money put out.

Studios don't make a lot of money off of world wide box office takes. The bulk of their money comes from domestic release.

Gernot

06-22-2007, 09:30 AM

karasu

06-22-2007, 09:49 AM

Superman has been infinitely better on television than he has been in movies. At least IMO. Even though he was a non fighting weakling for the first couple seasons of the Justice League.

Titan76

06-23-2007, 06:39 AM

Studios don't make a lot of money off of world wide box office takes. The bulk of their money comes from domestic release.
Yeah, that is wrong on sooo many levels. Check this site out (http://worldwideboxoffice.com/) to see why.

Citizen V

06-23-2007, 06:18 PM

Im not sure,i can say for sure..that some people were scared away with Superman Returns.The film will have to be extremly well to win people over.

4thHorseman

06-24-2007, 09:44 AM

I want it to be a hit, and I think it'll be worthy of one, but I think that the first one turned too many people off because it wasn't what they were expecting more. Thus, they will not go back and see this one.

Preus

06-24-2007, 11:29 PM

Some will if they are convinced by the trailer that the movie will be good. But, if this one lets down a lot of people & doesn't make more money than
"Superman Returns", Singer mine as well forget about making a third film.

marshal99

06-24-2007, 11:39 PM

As long as they have the stupid son of superman storyline , it won't be a success. It's just plain dumb because the script is going to be hampered by it. No matter what awesome storylines writers can come up with , they still have to find some way to fit in the son of superman into it.

colossus34

06-25-2007, 12:01 AM

HARD TO TELL....X-men 1 did mediocre at the BOX office and X2 blew everything else out of the water. So it all depeneds on the hype/amount of action and character relatabilty. How they make Clar Kent more human etc...

Honestly, like someone else said its tougher for Superman movie to feel as much like an event as Batman, Spidey etc since Clark Kent in live action form as been around consistantly for past 25 years. Hopefully Smallville will have been off the air for quite some time until Superman2. But lets face it every Superman has to get beyond the iconic version of Chris Reeves, but no Bruce Wayne actor has to live up to George Clooney!

Preus

06-25-2007, 12:04 AM

That's all so true. The next Superman film is going to need to have killer action. Superman Returns was good story wise but now we need action.

Chase

06-25-2007, 01:53 AM

Well, it certainly can't blow more than the first film. It'll sell, as it's Superman, for crepe's sake. ;o

Titan76

06-25-2007, 02:04 AM

HARD TO TELL....X-men 1 did mediocre at the BOX office and X2 blew everything else out of the water.
While I hated X-men 1 it didn't do mediocre at the Box Office. It had a $75 million budget and cashed in $300 million worldwide and jump started the comic book movie making again.

The next Superman movie is going to need a lot of action in it to make up for no action at all in the first one. Which is why they need to bring in a villain like Doomsday or Brainiac.

Preus

06-25-2007, 02:33 AM

Screw Brainiac, I'm still pulling for Metallo or Mongul.

karasu

06-25-2007, 02:46 AM

Yeah, that is wrong on sooo many levels. Check this site out (http://worldwideboxoffice.com/) to see why.

You misunderstand. What I'm saying is that the studio doesn't get most of that money. Their profit comes mainly from the domestic box office and dvd releases. If I remember correctly they pocket less than 35% of what the film makes internationally. Whereas they get over fifty percent of what it makes at home (the rest going to the theaters).

Titan76

06-25-2007, 03:14 AM

You misunderstand. What I'm saying is that the studio doesn't get most of that money. Their profit comes mainly from the domestic box office and dvd releases. If I remember correctly they pocket less than 35% of what the film makes internationally. Whereas they get over fifty percent of what it makes at home (the rest going to the theaters).
I have never heard of this before, got any links?

I have heard that for the domestic box office the studio gets 75% of the money for the first week. It dips down the longer the movie says in theaters to the point where the movie theater can more of the money then the studio.

From what I have read nowa days its the international Box Office that keep movies alive or were the studio is getting most of its money from their Blockbuster movies. For movies like King Kong it was the international box office and the DVD that saved it from being a huge flop and the studio losing a ton of money.

Preus

06-25-2007, 03:22 AM

Yeah, people tend to pay more attention to the worldwide gross of films rather than the gross in certain countries.

karasu

06-25-2007, 04:20 AM

I don't have any links. It's leftover information from film courses long ago.

KenK

06-25-2007, 07:22 AM

One thing that I think REALLY hurt the movie (and I'm not talking about anything about the movie itself here) was I think much of the public has seen Superman on TV for several years now.

We had Superboy, Lois & Clark, Superman: The Animated Series, Justice League (in both incarnations), Krypto, and now Legion of Super-Heroes, and Smallville. Superman's been on TV almost CONSTANTLY since 1988!Christopher Reeve's movies and George Reeves' TV show both show up on different cable channels.

"Why should we PAY for something we can get for FREE?" is probably something a lot of the non-comicbook public was asking.

That's EXACTLY what I've been saying since the movie came out. The public's NEVER been without Superman on television since the last Reeve film. Couple that with the fact that the film is so much of a retread of the first Donner film, that's it's not hard to see how some people might have been disappointed by it, leading to bad word of mouth. And what new stuff is added to the film mythos is poorly conceived. There's really zero effort put into the circumstances under which Lois and Superman could conceive a child. Even if we're approaching it from the standpoint of it continuing the story point from Superman II, Clark ERASED HER MEMORY!! Shouldn't Lois be freaked the f*** out by the realization that Superman's her son's father?!?

Titan76

06-25-2007, 07:56 AM

Even if we're approaching it from the standpoint of it continuing the story point from Superman II, Clark ERASED HER MEMORY!! Shouldn't Lois be freaked the f*** out by the realization that Superman's her son's father?!?
No because Singer has said that SR isn't continuing from Superman I and II.

KenK

06-25-2007, 08:52 AM

No because Singer has said that SR isn't continuing from Superman I and II.

That's why I said "IF". But yeah, you've basically got Lois having Superman's kid, and for me, I just don't see how that happens without her being a part of his life as both Superman AND Clark. I can accept Lois sleeping with Clark, and knowing that he's Superman. That's one thing. Superman Returns would have us believe that Lois and Superman got it on, in a situation where all Clark/Kal-El is to Lois is Superman. As Superman, I don't think the character is meant to be so accessible that he'd make love to a woman without caring enough about that woman to reveal every part of his life. There's a big difference in knowing who a person is and what a person is. In the context of Superman II, Lois made love to WHO Superman is, versus Superman Returns where she made love to WHAT Superman is.

Ekko

06-25-2007, 11:34 AM

The next Superman movie is absolutely going to be an action packed spectactle, which is all it will need to to be a mega hit.

dupersuper

06-25-2007, 02:09 PM

Personally, I agree; however, it has to have a certain level of commercial success or we'll go another 20 years before we get a new one.:eek:

20 years between movies isn't that bad considering you still get plenty to fill that void. Between Superman 4 (:rolleyes: ) and SR, there were the comics of course, and novels...at least 1 video game for every system (including an arcade game), song/pop-culture references, tonnes of internet stuff, the Ruby Spears cartoon, Superboy, Lois & Clark, a very bad Steel movie, the Timmverse cartoons, Smallville, and Legion of Superheroes was about to start. I never understand when people say Supes hasn't been popular...

colossus34

06-26-2007, 12:52 AM

Screw Brainiac, I'm still pulling for Metallo or Mongul.

Metallo??? Sorry to average joe blow america that's like sticking terminator in a Superman movie...makes no sense and wouldn't be orignal looking enough. Mongul is too convoluted/one-dimensional of a villian to work in a movie.

Really Singer and company CANT go wrong with Brainiac, he has ties to Superman's past, provides tons of action, intellectual prowess that shows Superman more than Brawn, and is a morally ambigious villain himself. Best of all it gives an excuse to revist Superman's origin story and tie Brainiac too it.

666MasterOfPuppets

06-26-2007, 06:44 AM

I'm confident that Superman: The Man Of Steel will do better than Superman Returns at the BO.

After all, it makes total sense. People wants to see Superman hitting something, and they'll get it. :rolleyes:

666MasterOfPuppets

06-26-2007, 06:48 AM

No because Singer has said that SR isn't continuing from Superman I and II.

Where and when did he say this?

IIRC, in fact Singer attributed Jason's existence to that one time Superman and Lois slept together in Superman II.

666MasterOfPuppets

06-26-2007, 06:53 AM

I want Richard to die off but not in a way where everyone goes: "Well, he's dead. Oh well, move on!" He should die off in a somewhat heroic way (maybe a villain is about to deliver the final blast to Superman but Richard intervenes & dies). I want Superman to reveal that he's really Clark Kent to Lois & I want a major villain in the film like Metallo.

Metallo is a good villain when written properly, but I wouldn't say he's a MAJOR villain. He's not in the league of Darkseid, Brainiac, Lex Luthor and hell, even Manchester Black.

In this regard, I agree with what someone else stated somewhere around here: Singer CAN'T go wrong with Brainiac.

666MasterOfPuppets

06-26-2007, 07:04 AM

Yup! So, I'm afraid that Marshall99 is overstating the case a little with this quote:
Really, it was a DOMESTIC disappointment on box office sales (and maybe fanboy credit). Otherwise, it was pretty strong.
;)

Agreed. It is sad that northamericans can't see beyond the "Superman is good only when he hits something/someone" statement, what with the fact that he was created in the US and all...

We all should know by now that Superman is MUCH MORE than that. He goes beyond simple, mindless violence. Superman is inspiration, goodness, glory, greatness, majesty... Traits that no other hero/superhero can even aspire to acquire, at least not nowhere near the level of greatness and majesty Superman has.

As for SR NOT being as visually impressive as the Spidey movies, well, sir (whoever you are who said that), I must say that you're seriously wrong. IMHO, SR raised the bar for Superhero movies, visually speaking.

The Batman

06-26-2007, 08:49 AM

Where and when did he say this?

IIRC, in fact Singer attributed Jason's existence to that one time Superman and Lois slept together in Superman II.

With Superman Returns Bryan Singer seemed to be using Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie as a 'vague history' for the character. I take this to mean that the basics of Superman: The Movie happened - Superman arrived on Earth, met Lois, stopped Luthor etc - but the details might be slightly different. I don't know if Superman II is part of that vague history though. I don't think it is, and if it was it'd probably be the Donner Cut which has most of the story being undone so Jason wouldn't be a product of their date in the Fortress.

I seem to remember Singer saying that Jason didn't come out of Superman II but rather that following the events of Superman: The Movie - Superman didn't leave for Krypton immediately after the movie after all - Superman and Lois had some sort of relationship that involved having sex at least once. I can't remember where I read it though and if anyone else can please let me know, I'd really appreciate it.

karaokefanboy

06-26-2007, 09:19 AM

We have to face that Doomsday is a very likely candidate for a villain in the next Superman movie. We're dropping names like Parasite and Metallo, but nobody knows who these baddies are, and the WB is interested in bringing people to the theater, not appealing the film to fans. Other than Lex, Doomsday is the only Superman villain that a general public might recognize, thanks only to the media spectacle that was "The Death of Superman." (And an animated movie about the subject only adds to the hype, 15 years later.) This is the Venom-in-the-third mentality -- it doesn't matter what the director wants. If the studio wants a bad guy they think the public will eat up, it'll happen, and in this case, Doomsday would probably be some agent of Lex anyway.

And again, it'll recycle an old concept that we need NOT see again.

I think Richard needs to seperate from Lois, because he wants do to some mission work in Darfur or something. He's TOO NICE to do anything else with. Then Supes needs to reveal his identity to Lois and his kid, in between kicking the crap out of a ton of Intergang goons. (We all know our favorite action-oriented part of Returns was the weirdo with the gattlin gun. We need more of that "Rocketeer" industrialism, as was mentioned.)

And we need new music.

666MasterOfPuppets

06-26-2007, 02:14 PM

With Superman Returns Bryan Singer seemed to be using Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie as a 'vague history' for the character. I take this to mean that the basics of Superman: The Movie happened - Superman arrived on Earth, met Lois, stopped Luthor etc - but the details might be slightly different. I don't know if Superman II is part of that vague history though. I don't think it is, and if it was it'd probably be the Donner Cut which has most of the story being undone so Jason wouldn't be a product of their date in the Fortress.

I seem to remember Singer saying that Jason didn't come out of Superman II but rather that following the events of Superman: The Movie - Superman didn't leave for Krypton immediately after the movie after all - Superman and Lois had some sort of relationship that involved having sex at least once. I can't remember where I read it though and if anyone else can please let me know, I'd really appreciate it.

I support your request. If anyone knows whee we can read this, we'd appreciate it.

Froggy

06-26-2007, 02:33 PM

I'd like to see a new vilian, maybe even bizarro.......or better yet, I know it'll never happen but the elite would be cool to show supes status as an american icon for justice

Titan76

06-27-2007, 08:13 AM

Where and when did he say this?.
At the San Fransisco Wonder Con last year. He and Brandon Ruth were there and a member in the audience ask Singer this question.

Wally_West

06-27-2007, 10:27 AM

Have any of you seen the Kevin Smith interview on youtube?

heres a link:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vgYhLIThTvk

Thats a movie I want to see.

666MasterOfPuppets

06-28-2007, 06:11 AM

At the San Fransisco Wonder Con last year. He and Brandon Ruth were there and a member in the audience ask Singer this question.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Have any of you seen the Kevin Smith interview on youtube?

heres a link:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vgYhLIThTvk

Thats a movie I want to see.

Yep, I saw it a while ago. But everything WB came up with for Superman Lives was crap. In fact, Jon (sp?) Peters himself said he had the wrong approach to the franchise until Singer and Co. came and showed him their ideas for the character.

Wally_West

06-28-2007, 12:12 PM

Yep, I saw it a while ago. But everything WB came up with for Superman Lives was crap. In fact, Jon (sp?) Peters himself said he had the wrong approach to the franchise until Singer and Co. came and showed him their ideas for the character.

Well, what I meant was the main premise of the story...not the non-flying-superman without the suit. I mean, from what I gathered, he was going to fight doomsday, die, then come back just like in the comics, and end up fighting brainiac. jon peters is a f***tard.

imo, kevin smith would have done a MUCH better version of the superman movie that brian singer did (if he had uncontrolled freedom).

pisses me off how hollywood producers are such morons.

The Batman

06-28-2007, 12:24 PM

Smith's script for Superman seemed, for the most part, to be kinda not good to me.

Your Imaginary Pal

06-28-2007, 12:41 PM

Not sure because I can't praise or damn it before i even know what it's about.

I wanted to like Returns, but yawnfest 2006 is what it was. Aside from the plane and Lex shanking him there was nothing that said "wow." maybe the bullet in the eye, but that's really it.

If they use someone other than Luthor and show supes kicking lots of arse I'm thinking it will be better.

PretenderNX01

06-29-2007, 04:05 AM

Bullet to the eye was cool but I saw it for free in the trailer. Plane rescue was cool but I saw it in IMAX 3D.

Just about anything is cool in Imax 3d- well not li'l Clark bouncing through the cornfields of Kansas. That was still boring in Imax 3D.

666MasterOfPuppets

06-29-2007, 08:38 AM

Well, what I meant was the main premise of the story...not the non-flying-superman without the suit. I mean, from what I gathered, he was going to fight doomsday, die, then come back just like in the comics, and end up fighting brainiac. jon peters is a f***tard.

imo, kevin smith would have done a MUCH better version of the superman movie that brian singer did (if he had uncontrolled freedom).

pisses me off how hollywood producers are such morons.

Agreed. Smith's script was crap (Lexiac anyone?), but it's true that Peters had much to do with it. Then Alex Ford came along, and another crappy script was delivered. At the end of that script, BTW, Lois gets pregnant, and I don't need to tell you who is the father. Later, another script was given to the WB, which was just as pathetic as the rest. JJ Abrams' one is part of that bunch.

Smith's script for Superman seemed, for the most part, to be kinda not good to me.

And it wasn't.

The Batman

06-30-2007, 05:30 PM

I thought JJ Abrams script was well done. It wasn't Superman at all, but it was well done.

666MasterOfPuppets

07-01-2007, 03:45 PM

I didn't read the whole thing, just the "core" parts, like the suit, Krypton not exploding, Luthor being a CIA agent (IIRC), et cetera.

Ult. Fireboy

07-09-2007, 09:00 PM

I am not sure. I loved Superman Returns, but I now that a lot of people didn't. If this new one does come out, I will definately see it.

shyguy

07-10-2007, 10:20 AM

It would be pretty easy to make a Superman movie that does great at the box office. Just adapt The Death of Superman. Lots of people are vaguely familiar with the story, it's a catchy title, and it lends itself to all kinds of over-the-top action (keep in mind that 300 was a huge hit and was basically two hours of fighting).

Do I think Singer will make that movie? Nope. I think he harbors wayyy too much sentimentality toward the Donner movies to make a good one of his own. After Superman Returns, it's going to be hard to get the public to jump onboard for a new Supes movie in the same vein when it's clear that what people want are hyperkinetic comic book movies like Spider-Man and 300.

As for SR NOT being as visually impressive as the Spidey movies, well, sir (whoever you are who said that), I must say that you're seriously wrong. IMHO, SR raised the bar for Superhero movies, visually speaking.

Regardless (and I think the Spidey movies are visually superior to SR in every single respect), the Spidey movies have been a lot more influential, visually. Pretty much every superhero movie since has taken cues from what Sam Raimi has been doing in Spider-Man, and scenes from the films have become iconic in pop culture (the Mary Jane/upside-down Spidey kiss).

666MasterOfPuppets

07-15-2007, 05:11 PM

It would be pretty easy to make a Superman movie that does great at the box office. Just adapt The Death of Superman. Lots of people are vaguely familiar with the story, it's a catchy title, and it lends itself to all kinds of over-the-top action (keep in mind that 300 was a huge hit and was basically two hours of fighting).

Do I think Singer will make that movie? Nope. I think he harbors wayyy too much sentimentality toward the Donner movies to make a good one of his own. After Superman Returns, it's going to be hard to get the public to jump onboard for a new Supes movie in the same vein when it's clear that what people want are hyperkinetic comic book movies like Spider-Man and 300.

WB tried to do that several times before. All of those attempts failed miserably.

Regardless (and I think the Spidey movies are visually superior to SR in every single respect), the Spidey movies have been a lot more influential, visually. Pretty much every superhero movie since has taken cues from what Sam Raimi has been doing in Spider-Man, and scenes from the films have become iconic in pop culture (the Mary Jane/upside-down Spidey kiss).

Is that so? What scenes, specifically? As for that specific scene you mention, granted, it's popular. But I don't think it reached the iconic status the Superman movies have. Nowhere near that.

DaeJi

07-15-2007, 06:00 PM

We all should know by now that Superman is MUCH MORE than that. He goes beyond simple, mindless violence. Superman is inspiration, goodness, glory, greatness, majesty... Traits that no other hero/superhero can even aspire to acquire, at least not nowhere near the level of greatness and majesty Superman has.

All of which is remarkable boring to watch. I don't want to see Superman the ideal superhero inspiring me. I want to see Superman the man raised in Kansas by human parents with human feelings and values beating the crap out of a planet-threating villain in a way only he could. With the movies we are able to finally see a huge fight the like which only cartoons could show us before. Screw goody goody Supes, give me violence! Give me Superman vs. Super Cool Gaint Brainiac with Death Rays!

666MasterOfPuppets

07-15-2007, 07:16 PM

All of which is remarkable boring to watch. I don't want to see Superman the ideal superhero inspiring me. I want to see Superman the man raised in Kansas by human parents with human feelings and values beating the crap out of a planet-threating villain in a way only he could. With the movies we are able to finally see a huge fight the like which only cartoons could show us before. Screw goody goody Supes, give me violence! Give me Superman vs. Super Cool Gaint Brainiac with Death Rays!

Superman inspiring people, or at least trying to, is core to the character, as is the fact that when anyone sees Superman, that person should feel nothing less than awe. I'm not saying that a good fight would be bad, though. I'm just saying that the lack of a fight isn't necessarily a bad thing.

DaeJi

07-15-2007, 07:41 PM

Superman inspiring people, or at least trying to, is core to the character, as is the fact that when anyone sees Superman, that person should feel nothing less than awe. I'm not saying that a good fight would be bad, though. I'm just saying that the lack of a fight isn't necessarily a bad thing.

But people don't feel awed by Superman. They feel bored. As great and noble as he is the public is pretty much jaded with him. You can't sell Superman on that feeling anymore: a human Superman is the order of the day. That and fights.

666MasterOfPuppets

07-15-2007, 07:51 PM

Which is why I keep saying that people don't get Superman.

Anyway, I'm pretty much sure that we'll get some cool fights for the next movie.

Preus

09-15-2007, 09:25 PM

We better. Superman Returns was a good movie because of the plot & it being about Superman return to the good side & Lex's return to the bad side but this movie should be about Supes whooping ass.

Mister Mets

09-16-2007, 10:43 AM

Do you all think that the next Superman movie will do better at the box office than Superman Returns?

Well, if it's action packed it'll probably do better than SR but I don't think any other superhero film will outdo the Spider-Man franchise.
Your poll choices are wrong, as Superman Returns didn't blow the box office away, and there may be people who think the next one will make as much money as this one.

I suspect the next one will make more money, as it'll probably have more action, and Bryan Singer's superhero movies make more money than their predecessors. However, I'm uncertain whether it'll make enough money to pay for its budget/ promotion/ the lackluster returns of Superman Returns. In order for that to happen, it pretty much has to be the top movie of 2009 (unless it's a very good year for the top blockbusters like 2007 has been).

And no one knows which sequels will make more money their prequels.

* Edit- Didn't realize I had posted here a few months ago.

Mister Mets

09-16-2007, 10:53 AM

Screw Brainiac, I'm still pulling for Metallo or Mongul.
I'd prefer Darkseid myself, but apparently Warner Brothers was impressed by a Brainiac plot. That could easily have traditional action, and apocalyptic sequences, though "Man of Tomorrow" might become the more appropriate title with Brainiac.

I think Metallo would be too mundane as a Superman foe, for an entire movie. It would give Superman the chance to punch something, but it wouldn't give him awesome rescue sequences.

One thing that I think REALLY hurt the movie (and I'm not talking about anything about the movie itself here) was I think much of the public has seen Superman on TV for several years now.

We had Superboy, Lois & Clark, Superman: The Animated Series, Justice League (in both incarnations), Krypto, and now Legion of Super-Heroes, and Smallville. Superman's been on TV almost CONSTANTLY since 1988!Christopher Reeve's movies and George Reeves' TV show both show up on different cable channels.

"Why should we PAY for something we can get for FREE?" is probably something a lot of the non-comicbook public was asking.
Yet look at the Simpsons movie's success (which hadn't happened when you made that post.)

The Batman

09-16-2007, 11:14 AM

They could use Metallo, or something like Metallo, for a pre-credit action sequence couldn't they? It works for the James Bond films.

As for Darkseid, the biggest problem is that Darkseid requires ALOT of baggage to make cool and credible. I mean, the Animated Series spent alot of time explaining the Fourth World and building Darkseid up into a fearsome baddie. I don't know that a movie would have the time to do that, and do it properly and I'd rather not see a pale imitation that's more Skeletor than Darkseid.

With Brainiac, or maybe even a return of the Phantom Zone villians, we can get some good action and characters that we can set up reasonably well in the two hours or so of film we've got. I just hope that Brainiac doesn't get turned into a Borg-lite.

lovefist911

09-16-2007, 11:38 AM

Do you all think that the next Superman movie will do better at the box office than Superman Returns?

Well, if it's action packed it'll probably do better than SR but I don't think any other superhero film will outdo the Spider-Man franchise.

I think so. The franchise can't get any worse after Superman Returns. I'd really like to see a big throw down with a super-baddie, kinda of like the end of the last Matrix movie. Point is, the next Superman movie needs tons of action. If any franchise can outdo Spiderman, it's Superman. As we saw with the Spiderman movies, they went downhill after the first one, Superman movies can only get better after the crap that was the first film, as long as Singer and his writters don't hug on Donner's nuts for inspiration and basically copy his work.

marshal99

09-17-2007, 12:01 AM

As long as superbrat is still in the movie , it will never be that good a movie since the story of superbrat will just bog the movie down.

Bored at 3:00AM

09-17-2007, 04:56 AM

As long as superbrat is still in the movie , it will never be that good a movie since the story of superbrat will just bog the movie down.

If the rumors are true, you may be happier with the sequel....

666MasterOfPuppets

09-17-2007, 05:04 AM

I think so. The franchise can't get any worse after Superman Returns. I'd really like to see a big throw down with a super-baddie, kinda of like the end of the last Matrix movie. Point is, the next Superman movie needs tons of action. If any franchise can outdo Spiderman, it's Superman. As we saw with the Spiderman movies, they went downhill after the first one, Superman movies can only get better after the crap that was the first film, as long as Singer and his writters don't hug on Donner's nuts for inspiration and basically copy his work.

It did get worse: Superman IV.

666MasterOfPuppets

09-17-2007, 05:05 AM

I think Metallo would be too mundane as a Superman foe, for an entire movie. It would give Superman the chance to punch something, but it wouldn't give him awesome rescue sequences.

Hadn't thought about Metallo that way. You're right about that.

Preus

09-17-2007, 06:41 AM

Superman Returns wasn't a bad movie. People just think so because we didn't get a supervillain but I guess that makes "Superman: The Movie" a bad movie too, huh? Hell no. Superman IV is the worst Superman movie ever made, followed by Superman III, Superman Returns is not the worst Superman movie ever. And to all those who hate the five year old kid, grow the f*ck up. He's a kid, there's no reason to hate him just because he's in the movie.

The Batman

09-17-2007, 04:31 PM

Anyone know of any new news on this project?

I know that Singer is shooting Valkrye with Tom Cruise right now, does that mean that no work is being done with the Superman Returns follow up?

Spiffy

09-17-2007, 06:32 PM

There's no way to know until we know more about it.

bjtrdff

09-17-2007, 06:57 PM

Maybe if they had some sort of actual 'bad guy' he could fight.

Pretty solid grammar in that poll too.

666MasterOfPuppets

09-18-2007, 04:58 AM

Anyone know of any new news on this project?

I know that Singer is shooting Valkrye with Tom Cruise right now, does that mean that no work is being done with the Superman Returns follow up?

I read somewhere that some sort of "killer pitch" had been thrown at TPTB, and they liked it a lot. Supposedly, the Justice League movie won't interfere with the SR sequel.

SUPERMAN FOREVER!!!!

EDIT: No, that's not the name for the sequel. It's just me being a hopeless fanboy. ;)

dancj

09-18-2007, 05:53 AM

Hell no. Superman IV is the worst Superman movie ever made, followed by Superman III, Superman Returns is not the worst Superman movie ever.
You'll get no argument from pretty much anyone about Superman IV, but Superman III is great!

666MasterOfPuppets

09-18-2007, 05:57 AM

Superman III isn't a bad movie. Richard Pryor made it a quite funny movie. Plus, it had its moments of glory. Not as good as the first two, though.

The Batman

09-18-2007, 10:56 AM

Superman III is, to me at least, an alright movie. It's got some good moments and some bad moments. The biggest problem with it was that it wasn't so much a Superman movie as it was a "Richard Pryor meets Superman" movie.

As a kid I remember thinking that the computer at the end was supposed to be Brainiac and being disappointed in that but the junkyard fight was cool.

pariah-1972

09-18-2007, 11:10 AM

Well unfortunately Singer has some problems when he gets down to making a sequel for Superman returns and most of that is casting and that kid,
i don't see how he can completely forgot about that kid without making it seem like he's admitting that bringing him in wasn't such a great idea and since Singer is promising more of an action driven movie i'm not sure how that kid is going to fit in there.
of course i feel the same way with the Mary Jane Watson angle,
if they ignore her character it would seem strange
but i can't for the life of me see how they can bring her character back and i for one don't even want to see her back considering how bad her character has been handled.
of course noone cared that Vicky Vale wasn't in the second Batman movie and i always felt like there relationship wasn't resolved entirely.

666MasterOfPuppets

09-18-2007, 11:17 AM

What would be the casting problems that Singer would face?

pariah-1972

09-18-2007, 11:30 AM

What would be the casting problems that Singer would face?Well just about everyone save for Luthor and Richard didn't do a great job acting wise.

666MasterOfPuppets

09-18-2007, 11:32 AM

I think that everyone was OK. Spacey was the best of the bunch, of course. But all in all, everyone did a fine job.

Routh should get some more lines this time.

Bored at 3:00AM

09-18-2007, 11:45 AM

What would be the casting problems that Singer would face?

Kate Bosworth was pretty much the blandest Lois Lane I can think of and there weren't exactly fireworks between Routh & her on-screen. Given that the entire story of Superman hinges upon that relationship, that's a pretty big hurdle for Singer to overcome.

pariah-1972

09-18-2007, 12:36 PM

I think that everyone was OK. Spacey was the best of the bunch, of course. But all in all, everyone did a fine job.

Routh should get some more lines this time.Umm have you heard his voice? i'm sorry but he doesn't have the strong authoritative tone that Christopher reeve has.

The Batman

09-20-2007, 03:32 PM

I read somewhere that some sort of "killer pitch" had been thrown at TPTB, and they liked it a lot. Supposedly, the Justice League movie won't interfere with the SR sequel.

SUPERMAN FOREVER!!!!

EDIT: No, that's not the name for the sequel. It's just me being a hopeless fanboy. ;)

Sorry to say but it seems that the SR sequel is taking a backseat to the JL movie and that neither Bale nor Routh will be involved.

Hopefully that rumour about an killer pitch is true and WB is gonna go ahead with the Singer movie and this one but I've just become an awful lot less optimistic about that.

666MasterOfPuppets

09-21-2007, 06:27 AM

Kate Bosworth was pretty much the blandest Lois Lane I can think of and there weren't exactly fireworks between Routh & her on-screen. Given that the entire story of Superman hinges upon that relationship, that's a pretty big hurdle for Singer to overcome.

I know what you mean. I dunno. Perhaps the next movie will make you think different.

Umm have you heard his voice? i'm sorry but he doesn't have the strong authoritative tone that Christopher reeve has.

Huh?

Sorry to say but it seems that the SR sequel is taking a backseat to the JL movie and that neither Bale nor Routh will be involved.

Hopefully that rumour about an killer pitch is true and WB is gonna go ahead with the Singer movie and this one but I've just become an awful lot less optimistic about that.

That's an old rumor now, that appeared before the one I just told you about.

In any case, let's keep our fingers crossed.