Singer Signs For Superman Returns Sequel

[ARROW]

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.

 

 

Technically speaking the first director(s) to bring prestige to comic book movies should be either Richard Donner who brought a legitimacy to Superman, or Tim Burton, who took a slant OTHER than camp with his first Batman film.

Prior to to the latter film , camp was a mainstay of superhero films/tv shows, mostly brought on by the 60's Batman tv series, and the first Superman is still riddled with it.

 

Even still, if it concerns purely "serious" comic book movies, Blade precede X-men with its darker-serious horror tone by a couple of years.

[Animalchandler]

True, Burton and Donner were the ones that had the foresight, and they have my kudos, but I could name films which didn't do anywhere near as well inbetween; the punisher, Captain America, the never released FF, subsequent Batman films and to some extent the first Blade didn't have break out quality.

I guess it depends on which way you want to look at it. I tend to look at comicbook adaptations purely as films, not as a moving version of a comic book story, and in the same way that comic story telling has evolved, so too must filmaking. I feel that Bryan Singer has been able to create worlds and ideas that exist in comics books that relate and make sense to contemporary audiences, while at the same time being relevant to the fans themselves, which is what Burton and Donner were able to do.

Story telling at the moment is different from what it used to be, and will evolve again, IMO Bryan Singer has been able to make films (Both X men and Supes) that are enjoyable to watch. If he puts another superman film together, I will be there to watch it.

[gruntcast]

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.

 

I agree

:quote " I'm sure it will be offering us things never seen before" Like Superman paying child support, being a home wreaker, and turning to alcoholism @loll@ @loll@ @loll@ @loll@

[ARROW]

True, Burton and Donner were the ones that had the foresight, and they have my kudos, but I could name films which didn't do anywhere near as well inbetween; the punisher, Captain America, the never released FF, subsequent Batman films and to some extent the first Blade didn't have break out quality.

 

Well, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and The Rocketeer were both very true to their comic-book roots, albeit they were mostly whimsical films. Both preceded the X-men, but followed Batman.

Rocketeer was not really even a modest success, but TMNT was a hit, though box-office success doesn't always equate with how good the film is. For my own tastes, I'd place Rocketeer up there in the top three of any comic-book movie list simply because of how faithfully it treated its source material.

The thing is though..........the first Superman and Batman movies are both horribly flawed. It not that they have some deviations from their source material.........that I don't mind......its that they have either really dumb/hokey story-points or characters in spots.

X-men tended to play its material totally straight......which, like Blade, is its innovation--if you want to call it that.

It also took enough liberties with the source material to avoid the hokey/dumb stuff, but at the same time became its own animal--quite seperate from the comics which spawned it.

[Deacon Dispair]

A Superman Vs Doomsday Movie were Doomsday is heading towards metroplis there for threating Supermans son has $$$ all over it..

[Dragonrider1227]

I liked Superman returns. Bryan Singer's a good director. It was a little slow, but it could've be worse. It could be Schumocker (sp?) I can't wait to see the next one. Especially since I hear the first one was mainly as it was to reintroduce the chacters (It HAS been thirty years, people) and I hear the next one is going to be more action packed

PS. I too think a Superman vs Doomsday film would ROCK!! I also think it'd be cool to bring in brainiac or Lex Luthor's battle suit. The possibilites are really endless here

 

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.

Which is (in my opinion) why he passed out and had to be rushed to the emergncy room afterwards

 

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.

Really? To each their own, but it really jump-started my interest in Superman. I havn't been this obsessed with the Man of Steel since my childhood when I was watching the old movies

 

PS. To everyone who wonders why Superman IV isn't well liked by us? Two words BRICK VISION! XD

[The Darkness]

I am still waiting for SR to hit DVD before seeing it but from all that I've read from spoiler forums I am not thrilled with the movie. Singer needs to go back to the roots and make a superhero movie, not a Donner movie that he thought people will embrace. He needs to put his own stamp on the movie and make a movie people want to see. Spiderman is and will continue to be the most successful superhero franchise ever. Spidey 3 will be the top 3 movies of 2007 and perhaps even the highest gross movie of 2007, a very daunting task considering Shrek 3 and PotC3 will both come out on the same month, but I have faith they won't be able to beat Spidey 3 because of how awesome it is.

 

But I digress... if SR 2 failed to outgross SR then Singer probably won't be back for the sequel. I think WB is giving him another chance to make a blockbuster Superman movie and that's it. Let's hope he'll deliver this time.

[Dragonrider1227]

Of course, i'm pretty sure the only reason SR didn't do as well as they had hoped was because Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest premiered the following weekend and blew everything else away. Not even SUPERMAN could stand up against the power that is Johnny Depp XD

[Straight Edge]

I could name films which didn't do anywhere near as well inbetween; the punisher, Captain America, the never released FF

 

Funny, because the infamous Roger Corman Fantastic Four movie was actually never *meant* to be released. Whatever studio produced it had the license, and it would expire if they didn't start production on *something*, so they gave Corman a nothing budget, and told him to start filming *something* so they could legally keep the license. Corman is a master of low/no budget filmmaking, but they were using his talents to buy them some time, not because they wanted a marketable Fantastic Four movie.

 

I really hate seeing this film get trashed, as if it were a polished and developed blockbuster that just fell short. It's essentially a storyboard animatic with people! A prototype for a movie that never got made.

 

Well, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and The Rocketeer were both very true to their comic-book roots, albeit they were mostly whimsical films.

 

It's crazy-making to see comic fans lambasting a good film because it doesn't fit their perceptions of what should and shouldn't be.

 

TMNT is one of the most profitable movies of all time. It's well-regarded by kids who grew up on the cartoon, as well as adults who were fans of the comics (which it was a direct adaptation of, regardless that it came out in the toon/toy sell-out era). The comic was a satire/comedy as much as it was an action/superhero book. So if the movie has that same mood, it's not "whimsical", it's true to the source material.

 

i'm pretty sure the only reason SR didn't do as well as they had hoped was because Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest premiered the following weekend and blew everything else away.

 

Even with a five day opening weekend, Superman Returns was doing only moderate business it's first weekend (comparable to it's budget). With very little exception, movies do their biggest business their first weekend (hell, opening day is almost always the biggest single-day boxofice total). SR wasn't up to snuff from day one.

 

In the kill-or-be-killed summer season, you expect a film to take in a *lot* it's first weekend, because there'll always be something new next weekend. The fact that Warner put it the week before Pirates indicates, to me, that they knew it was going to bomb (which it did, regardless of ho they spin it). Reports from independent media (and lots of insiders) give the distinct impression that Warner wasn't thrilled with what Singer produced, and had no idea how to market it. But they were happy to finally be passed the 10 year rut of failed attempts, they just put it out there, let it limp to 200 million, and cut their losses at that.

 

I'm frankly shocked they didn't go with a different director, or a totally different direction... but I suppose with even the abysmal Fantastic Four movie (the real one) making enough money to justify a sequel, it'd be more embarrassing to admit their failure than just pressure the existing cast and crew into making something more marketable, and less campy.

[ARROW]

It's crazy-making to see comic fans lambasting a good film because it doesn't fit their perceptions of what should and shouldn't be.

 

TMNT is one of the most profitable movies of all time. It's well-regarded by kids who grew up on the cartoon, as well as adults who were fans of the comics (which it was a direct adaptation of, regardless that it came out in the toon/toy sell-out era). The comic was a satire/comedy as much as it was an action/superhero book. So if the movie has that same mood, it's not "whimsical", it's true to the source material.

 

You are the one seeing "lambasting" here, I'm afraid. I loved both TMNT and the Rocketeer and I did say they were true to their roots--its in the lines you quoted from me.

When I say whimsical, I'm meaning they were light-hearted fun and both films were just that.

Oh, they were great action-romps too, with a few "serious" elements....but coming after the dreary Burton Batmans.......I'd called them great fun in comparison.

 

 

I'm frankly shocked they didn't go with a different director, or a totally different direction... but I suppose with even the abysmal Fantastic Four movie (the real one) making enough money to justify a sequel, it'd be more embarrassing to admit their failure than just pressure the existing cast and crew into making something more marketable, and less campy.

 

They could have stuck with Tim Burton and his "vision" for Superman ( Nicolas Cage???????), or Jon Peters' vision which would have had Superman sans cape, and.........<snicker> fighting a giant spider in the climax..."because spiders are the sharks of the insect world". Peters' was the guy that gave us the Wild, Wild West and a producer on SR.

[DPrime]

I thought Superman Returns was awesome, and I'm looking forward to owning the DVD and seeing the sequel. I thought it was great that it used the first two films as a backdrop, and I have no problem with the kid. It was BOUND to happen one way or another - just because it didn't happen in the comic FIRST shouldn't be an issue.

 

Seriously, a lot of the reasons people seem to bring up sound like Comic Book Guy quotes, but whatever.

[Doom Saber]

It's crazy-making to see comic fans lambasting a good film because it doesn't fit their perceptions of what should and shouldn't be.

 

TMNT is one of the most profitable movies of all time. It's well-regarded by kids who grew up on the cartoon, as well as adults who were fans of the comics (which it was a direct adaptation of, regardless that it came out in the toon/toy sell-out era). The comic was a satire/comedy as much as it was an action/superhero book. So if the movie has that same mood, it's not "whimsical", it's true to the source material.

 

You are the one seeing "lambasting" here, I'm afraid. I loved both TMNT and the Rocketeer and I did say they were true to their roots--its in the lines you quoted from me.

When I say whimsical, I'm meaning they were light-hearted fun and both films were just that.

Oh, they were great action-romps too, with a few "serious" elements....but coming after the dreary Burton Batmans.......I'd called them great fun in comparison.

 

 

I'm frankly shocked they didn't go with a different director, or a totally different direction... but I suppose with even the abysmal Fantastic Four movie (the real one) making enough money to justify a sequel, it'd be more embarrassing to admit their failure than just pressure the existing cast and crew into making something more marketable, and less campy.

 

They could have stuck with Tim Burton and his "vision" for Superman ( Nicolas Cage???????), or Jon Peters' vision which would have had Superman sans cape, and.........<snicker> fighting a giant spider in the climax..."because spiders are the sharks of the insect world". Peters' was the guy that gave us the Wild, Wild West and a producer on SR.

 

Don't forget that Tim Burton wanted Superman to teleport since flying is "lame."

 

 

And if JJ Abrams was director, we would have gotten a Lex who was really a secret agent from Krypton

[ARROW]

I thought Superman Returns was awesome, and I'm looking forward to owning the DVD and seeing the sequel. I thought it was great that it used the first two films as a backdrop, and I have no problem with the kid. It was BOUND to happen one way or another - just because it didn't happen in the comic FIRST shouldn't be an issue.

 

Seriously, a lot of the reasons people seem to bring up sound like Comic Book Guy quotes, but whatever.

 

 

I don't think you fully understand or appreciate the baggage that this places on the character, and ultimately the franchise. The "sickly son of Superman" creates some real problems that just cannot be written away without appearing really dumb.

Given how they established Superman at the START of Superman Returns--being so fixated on his lost homeworld Krypton and his heritage that he abandons Earth and humanity for 5 years, then returns how to find out he's fathered a son--he's got this obsessive streak in him.

Now he's got this kid milked from his own loins and he's just going to........leave him to Lois and her hubby to raise??

That makes zero sense in terms of the internal logic they have set up.

By THEIR OWN DEFINITIONS of the character, he should abrogate everything to be around his kid, his only link to himself, his homeworld and his heritage and in turn to Earth. Its his offspring, his own legacy.....and they pretty much state that he's just going to let that all just be?

I don't buy that reasoning.

Hell, one could really argue that he's REALLY defied Jor-el's dictum not to interfere in human history. He's really planted his seed this time....

 

Its nothing to do with the comics, which can be clearly understand to have their own canon, this film tries to tack on the canon from the first two films but doesn't understand what its trying to do on its own. ( Heck the upcoming Richard Donner re-edit of Superman II puts that film is a very different light--and by the sounds of it, REALLY messes up the characters.

The Super-squirt is just wrong all around........

 

 

A similar thing is the marriage of Superman and Lois Lane--which was sparked by the TV series Lois and Clark, and then was followed up on the comics.

That change to the characters precipitated a DROP in the ratings for the show, leading to its cancellation. Alot of the Superman comic creators rued the day that decision was made, as it created some problem for the character and the stories they wanted to tell. Many have been heard to say that they'd love to find a way to just wipe it all out.

 

I think change in characters like this is a positive thing, with one caveat: as long as they remain true to the core concept and essence of the characters. Giving Superman a kid, is like having Batman and Robin coming out of the closet and actually admitting they are really gay. ( they aren't, but its a similar affected example) There comes a point when you tack on that one thing too many to a character and it just sacks it.

 

This is, imo, one of those things.

[I AM SCI-FI]

I love X-Men 1 & 2, but after Superman Returns I'm leary about him returning to the Superman franchise. Plus, if he were to return to the X franchise, with as little comic book knowledge he had before doing the first X-Men movie, I'm afraid we won't see Apocalypse any time soon.

[DPrime]

I don't think you fully understand or appreciate the baggage that this places on the character, and ultimately the franchise. The "sickly son of Superman" creates some real problems that just cannot be written away without appearing really dumb.

Given how they established Superman at the START of Superman Returns--being so fixated on his lost homeworld Krypton and his heritage that he abandons Earth and humanity for 5 years, then returns how to find out he's fathered a son--he's got this obsessive streak in him.

Now he's got this kid milked from his own loins and he's just going to........leave him to Lois and her hubby to raise??

That makes zero sense in terms of the internal logic they have set up.

By THEIR OWN DEFINITIONS of the character, he should abrogate everything to be around his kid, his only link to himself, his homeworld and his heritage and in turn to Earth. Its his offspring, his own legacy.....and they pretty much state that he's just going to let that all just be?

I don't buy that reasoning.

 

That's a VERY good point you made, but I definitely think this is part of the set-up for the next movie. I don't think Singer's just going to leave it at that, which I guess is why I didn't see a big problem with it.

 

It's like the end of the first Spider-Man movie - you KNOW Peter's not actually going to leave Mary Jane forever.

 

But anyway, I still liked this movie!

[yojoebro82]

Of course, i'm pretty sure the only reason SR didn't do as well as they had hoped was because Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest premiered the following weekend and blew everything else away. Not even SUPERMAN could stand up against the power that is Johnny Depp XD

 

Not to get too off topic, but that movie was NOT very good. This coming from someone who likes Jonny Depp and wants to marry Keira Knightly. I'm passing on that DVD.

[gruntcast]

Pirates stomped on Superman Return's dead ass. hahahaahahaha I hope the next Superman if done by Singer or his writers gets beat by another movie hahaahahaha

Singer + Superman = CRAP hahaahahahaahah @firedevil@

@firedevil@

[DPrime]

Of course, i'm pretty sure the only reason SR didn't do as well as they had hoped was because Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest premiered the following weekend and blew everything else away. Not even SUPERMAN could stand up against the power that is Johnny Depp XD

 

Not to get too off topic, but that movie was NOT very good. This coming from someone who likes Jonny Depp and wants to marry Keira Knightly. I'm passing on that DVD.

 

Yeah, I was pretty disappointed in it too.