Singer Signs For Superman Returns Sequel

[JayC]

http://enewsi.com/news.php?catid=190&itemid=10369

[Dark Horse]

Great. Another s****y comic movie that I won't be seeing.

 

[mod edit: language]

[gruntcast]

I will not see this unless he erases what happened in the first one and gets new writers, They should of let Sam Rami take this one, he knows how to make comic book movies right! I think I will never waste my money on another singer comic book movie again. @grumpy@

[h-7]

Singer = doom for comic movies

 

i really belive the first 2 xmen movies would of been better if directed by rattner

[acethebathound]

Yay!

 

Can't wait for the sequel!

[Last Son of Krypton]

I'll be seeing it for sure. I really think this is what he was banking on when taking on the first film. He had to bridge the gap between the first two Superman films while still bringing in some new elements, obviously which didn't agree with some people. Its a new era for a new Superman, and without first bridging the gap or re-hashing the original Reeve films, I really think Singer wanted to establish Supes first before taking off into new territory. I will be looking forward to the next film as I'm sure it will be offering us things never seen before, and will truly be the film we had hoped the first would be.

[biglebowski9999]

I will see it, but I will expect nothing out of it (this time). Expected so much from the last movie and it was lame. Only took 117 days to hit the $200 million domestic mark required to get the green light from WB for the sequel. Congrats Singer, you douche.

[SlushyFrog]

I really liked Superman Returns so I'm looking forward to the sequel. I hope they don't use Zod, and I'm wondering what they're gonna do about the kid, 'cause the actor will have aged 3 years by the time the sequel comes out. My gripe about Singer directing Superman Returns would be that he wasn't able to direct X3.

[slao]

Eh, hopefully he can make this one better, but I'm not betting on it. I was expecting some big things from Superman Returns, but I came out of it disappointed like most. As a result of that movie, Singer really didn't do much to revive my interest in a Superman movie franchise. I think I'll go back to watching the 4 original Man of Steel movies.

[yojoebro82]

Put me down for liking what Singer did with Superman. If nothing else, adding the kid got Supes AWAY from the status quo (IE, Superman, with sceret identity Clark Kent, who dates Lois Lane, who works at the Daily Planet, and no matter how tough the bad guy, will ALWAYS win and go back to life as usual). The comic has followed that formula for SO long.....Superman Returns and even the Smallville show give us a Superman with the same ideals, but at least try to mix it up a little.

Unfortunately it seems we now have an annorexic (sp?) Lois Lane so we'd have to do something about that.

 

(BTW, I can't get over how some people say SINGER wrecked X Men. Sorry, but WHO killed Cyclops??????)

[muppethost]

Say what you will about Superman Returns, but it was still WAY better than Superman 4:The Quest for Peace.

That's one movie that I like to pretend never happened.

[slao]

Say what you will about Superman Returns, but it was still WAY better than Superman 4:The Quest for Peace.

That's one movie that I like to pretend never happened.

 

Call me foolish, but I actually like Nuclear Man.

[m.arndt]

Say what you will about Superman Returns, but it was still WAY better than Superman 4:The Quest for Peace.

That's one movie that I like to pretend never happened.

 

Call me foolish, but I actually like Nuclear Man.

You're foolish.

[Ghosts of Razgriz]

So the last one was called Superman Returns, does that mean this one is going to be called Superman Exchange?

[slao]

Say what you will about Superman Returns, but it was still WAY better than Superman 4:The Quest for Peace.

That's one movie that I like to pretend never happened.

 

Call me foolish, but I actually like Nuclear Man.

You're foolish.

 

Uh thanks @hmmm@ I did find Superman 4 entertaining though, despite being the most lackluster of the originals

 

Superman Exchange does have a good ring to it.

[Darren]

Well since Singer did his "opus" with Superman Returns...NOW he can get to that "action" and "sci-fi" element that he was preaching about in some previous interviews.

 

I just hope he learns from his mistakes with SR and maybe takes a look at the Spider-man movie series to get a hint on how to create a comic movie that can entertain and appeal to EVERYONE.No doubt that it is highly likely that Spider-man 3 will be THE top grossing movie of summer '07 because Raimi has already drawn in not only the comic crowd but everyone else.Aside from nitpicking details, I have never heard anyone who has NOT liked the Spiderman movies overall.

 

I hope WB or whoever are financing this movie keeps Singer focused on making not only a good character movie,but a good superhero movie. There are a lot of things he needs to do to bring the Superman franchise back from a lackluster restart and Superman Returns 2 will either make or break the hope of continuing the the SR franchise.

[CkRtech]

Haha - I actually thought that Superman IV, while not a really good movie, was somewhat entertaining compared to the horror that was Superman III.

 

I've always said that if you want to torture someone and/or drive them insane, you sit them in a room and get them to watch Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Superman III, and Star Trek V back to back to back. (Of course there are others, but that's not my point)

 

Why were most people disappointed in Superman Returns? Climax not climactic enough?

[Moshbot]

I'll be seeing it for sure. I really think this is what he was banking on when taking on the first film. He had to bridge the gap between the first two Superman films while still bringing in some new elements, obviously which didn't agree with some people. Its a new era for a new Superman, and without first bridging the gap or re-hashing the original Reeve films, I really think Singer wanted to establish Supes first before taking off into new territory. I will be looking forward to the next film as I'm sure it will be offering us things never seen before, and will truly be the film we had hoped the first would be.

 

I agree,once the environment and characters are set (Singer`s version), now he can go to the action.It`s not a bad movie, but could have been better.

[Darren]

Why were most people disappointed in Superman Returns? Climax not climactic enough?

 

It's a combination of things in my opinion.

 

-Lex Luthor, while certainly "evil", seems more like a common thug and evil real-estate villain than the super-smart genius he is in the comics. He just didn't seem like that big of a "threat" to Superman. While some filmmakers can depict the "brains vs. brawn" quite well...it just DIDN'T work out the way it should've for Singer. The common moviegoer would MUCH rather see Superman vs. a huge robot or something like that than seeing the conflict of Luther and Supes. I think Luthor serves much better IN THE MOVIES as the mastermind behind-the-scenes and he's better off creating or manipulating a threat for Superman. And I'm not talking about just some giant island of Kryptonite....but howabout a legitimate powerhouse against Superman like Metallo..or Doomsday...or Brainiac?

 

-Someone who worked on the movie commented that the Kryptonite Island was initially supposed to be RIGHT OFF the coast of Metropolis and not miles away...posing much more of a threat to the land and people than it did in the movie. It seemed like the most Metropolis got from the island was a few waves and that was about it. This same person also stated that Singer didn't want to depict people "getting hurt"...I think this just made it seem like Luthor's whole island was less of a threat. Part of the psychology of Superman is though he is invincible,the people and city he protects ARE NOT...Luthor's agenda most certainly would've been moe threatening if it would've destroyed most of Metropolis and actually HURT people.

 

-The whole Superman's son thing turned some people away. While I didn't like it at first, I slowly accepted it and actually consider it minor to some of the other issues with the movie.

 

-Word of mouth damaged the film.With comic-fans split in half over it and casual moviegoers perhaps "less-than-satisfied" with it, I think it turned away a lot of people who were intending to go see it.

 

-Fitting into Donner's run. This might have turned away a whole new generation of fans who aren't so familiar with Superman and/or Donner's films....so there could've been a lot of confusion for those who have not seen the previous movies so they didn't know what the heck was going on.

 

-Spider-Man movie franchise & Batman Begins: Spidey had kicked superhero movies up a notch. Spidey is loved "all around" as both he and his alter-ego Peter Parker deal with their own problems (girls,school,family,etc.) while Superman is still the "Big Blue Boy Scout" and Kent is well.....boring. Spidey appeals to everyone not only as a superhero movie, but it touches on so many levels cause Parker was an "everyday man" who was granted powers through an accident, but even with that he still had to deal with so much in his life. The same goes with Batman as Batman Begins was much more of a psychological tale into Bruce Wayne becoming the Dark Knight. A lot of critics stated that the movie was more interesting with the Bruce Wayne parts than it was with the Batman parts. So needless to say...both the Spidey series and Batman Begins put expectations pretty high for Superman Returns.

[Reminator]

:) I personally, love Superman Returns. I think it's a lot better than Supeman I,III,IV. To me, Supeman III was horrible. The one thing I love most about Superman Returns is that it connected Superman I,II. I also love the scoring as well. As for the outfit, at first I hated it, but now I love it. Personally, they need to bring Brandon back. He made good Superman and he looks very much like Christopher Reeve.

[boff123]

it was okay, had some good moments, definite visual film. the story was semi lame though. spacey was a great luthor, calm yet furious right under the surface. the whole kid angle was stupid. you know that part 2 is going to have supes near death and his son is going to come and rescue him. they both will overcome whatever villian they are going to throw at them. lois is evil, basically living with someone she has no interest in and can't even tell him that he is not the father. even with the power of the sun, he is still affected by kryptonite so he should have never been able to pick up that giant island.

[Straight Edge]

Why were most people disappointed in Superman Returns? Climax not climactic enough?

 

Like most people, for me it was a mountain of things. Principle among them is the fact that no one (not even Singer) knows if this movie was supposed to be a revamp/sequel to Donner's 2 films, or a remake. If it was a sequel, it failed because it treaded the exact same story as the first movie, and hit all the same chords. It did nothing new, for the characters or the audience.

 

(Plus, there's the questionable practice of sequelizing two movies in a series, and "omitting" the other two. It's kind of hard to retcon movies. If an audience has seen them, they're going to take those movies into account. And now WB is releasing Returns in the Ultimate Superman Box Set, driving hom the fact that this movie is #5 in the series.)

 

On the other hand, If it was a remake, it failed because it started in media res and did a piss-poor job of explaining why Superman was in the situation he was in.

 

At the end of the day, the flick was intended to be both, and achieved neither. Because Singer didn't have a strong script, or a clear concept of what he was doing, there's nothing to be taken from the movie. By the end, the only compelling thread to take into a sequel is the kid, which turns off most fans just for the sheer idiocy of it.

 

Lex is marginalized by his horrible retro depiction as a murdering real estate tycoon. He should've been revamped as the businessman with a dark side that made him stand out in the Post-Crisis/animated era. It's such a real-world depiction, and would translate so well on film. Now, he's just the same ho-hum get-rich-quick con-artist he's been for 3 or 5 movies (depending on who you ask).

 

Lois has a kid that she knows is Superman's, but based on the second movie, Supes made her forget their time together, and her knowledge of him being Clark Kent. So shouldn't she be more upset, like a rape victim, or at least ask, just once, "Hey, Superman! When the hell did we f***?" Again, Singer retconned events from the movies he's sequelizing, to fit his needs. But he has no way to communicate those changes to the audience, so it just causes confusion.

 

Lastly, the plot meandered, the movie was slow, and long, and the climax didn't satisfy. I just don't buy how one little chip almost killed him, but a entire *island* of Kryptonite just kind did nothing. Kryptonite is irradiated. It doesn't have to penetrate him physically to hurt him. The *poison* is the radiation... it goes through him as soon as he gets close. So the climax *should* have been Superman getting crushed and buried under the Island, as it continues to grow and take over the world.

 

For me, those are the three strikes.

1) Muddled sequel/remake status, and poor scripting

2) Badly adapted characters, some poor castin

3) Failure to entertain on the face of it, continuity problems, and a senseless conclusion.

 

I'll not be seeing the sequel. This bastardized Lex will be back, we'll probably get Zod or Doomsday, and we'll still have to deal with the kid (and they can't ignore him, or they'll be admitting the mistake of bringing him about in the first place).

[slao]

^^Good Summary, you pretty much hit all the reasons why I was not pleased with Superman Returns. I'm actually glad you did it too...if I'd listed all the inconsistencies and faults of the film, It would have disappointed me even more

[ARROW]

Straight Edge and Darren have hit a lot of the points I have problems with. I went into the movie with high-hopes and saw them dashed and spat on.

The story took the worst elements of Superman 2 and made them worse.

Clark and Lois having a tryst is "bad" enough in the face of the characters history, but having a sickly) albeit super-powered), illegitimate bastard child come of the union is............well, it takes the pinnacle of 70's cynicism and runs it up to new heights.

 

 

 

 

No, I'm not a prude, not preaching some moral standard here.......I think the handling of this aspect of the characters, particularily Superman's character tends to fly in the face of who he is. It reduces him down to the mundane, and Superman is supposed to be anything BUT mundane.

Singer's focusing on Lois' smoking habits turned me off. Aside from the very bland performance by what's-her-name ( yep, you know she left an "impression" when you cannot remember who the broad is...) focusing on THAT aspect of Lois......lessens her. I kept getting the impression throughout THIS film that all Singer and Co. took regarding Lois from the other films was how UNWORTHY she is to be a consort of Superman.

None of the films have explored WHY Clark/Kal-el digs her--none of them address this. They simply have a relationship. Oh, I know they have to instill flaws in the characters to humanize them, and make them relateable to the audience. I think there's ways of doign this and maintaining a degree of wholesomeness and poise, and yet still hitting the character points they want to hit.

Granted, I've been of the mind that Margot Kidder was horribly mis-cast as Lois in the first movies.........so they go ahead and do the same thing with this most recent film.

 

The kid thing...........I just wish would go away. This gutted the movie for me.

Didn't need to happen, doesn't do anything for the character of Superman-----its just baggage. By rights, remaining true to the character, Superman would drop darn near everything to be a father figure for this kid. The "responsibility" he has a Superman goes out the door........the film sets up its own precedent for that too. Superman flies off to pursue his OWN aims for 5 years leaving Erath to fend for itself. Comes back, learns he has a kid and is NO LONGER the "last Son of Krypton"--what is there to keep Superman from saying he'll forego svaing the world's ass all the time to raise his kid? By logic and the definitions of the character , as we know them, there is none.

That is a major story-hole they've dropped the franchise into, imo.

Maybe the kid will pop a tantrum, speed around the planet and turn back time.....knocking himself out of existence.

We can only wish....

 

Lex.............y'know......I loved Spacey as Lex. He lit up the screen every time he was on. That's Kevin Spacey for you. But I agree that Lex was......yet again......and bumbling, though sinister, nitwit. Where's the threat? He's a schemer--big deal! He's Superman's sowrn enemy............pretty much because we are told he is....and that's lame.

Still Spacey was so much fun to watch--and I would enjoy him again in the follow up if they found a place for him.

 

 

 

My biggest problem with Superman Returns is the utter pointlessness of it. If they are going to make this next one more of an action flick......then why not have done that with Superman Returns? If Superman Returns is supposed to be the "first" story, all over again, then why have it connected AT ALL with the earlier films?

Returns might have been a "good" story for any other character, but its NOT a Superman story, imo.

 

I think, at the end of the day, that Superman Returns is a product of its own history. The film was stuck in development hell for 15+ years, run through endless conflicting visions and finally bound by someone who said that A vision had to prevail. I think itwas the wrong story, at least in execution, with the wrong plot-points inserted. I think its set up weak ( and decidedly UN-super) format for an sequel.

I'm considerably LESS jazzed about the idea of a sequel than I was about Superman Returns. I feel that Returns sucker-punched me with a sloppy story, and whatever story follows this had better be something absolutely mind-blowing.

Unfortunately, I don't think that is in the cards, I think we'll get more schlock.

[Animalchandler]

I really liked Superman returns, I'll be looking forward to the sequel. Granted I'm not as versed in Supes as Batman, I decided to watch the film. The only thing I thought was pretty bad about the film was that Kevin Spacey was a tad OTT, and we didn't see enough action from the man of steel himself - thought his powers could be used abit more.

 

I don't think Bryan Singer is the worst comic book director - if anything, he's the first director that gave the comic book movie the prestige it deserved, with X Men. True the genre has evolved since then, but as soon as X men was made, it allowed a benchmark and a way of making comic book films.