Singer confirmed for the next Superman Movie

[CheckmyFresh]

I just read an article from Den of Geek stating that Warner Bros has confirmed that Bryan Singer will be directing the next Superman movie, and bringing back Brandon Routh.

 

Here is the link if anyone wants to readVisit My Website

 

I don't know how true the story, but I will have to see the end result before I start bashing their decision. By the way I fell asleep during Superman Returns so he's got a lot of work ahead of him.

[aerosmith6703]

I'm pretty sure those are just rumors right now, but Singer was planning on working on a script as of this time last year. He promised to shake things up and to have a movie where the "stakes are raised".

[Wolverine042]

never really liked Bryan Singer's approach to the movie. he has a lot of work to do. especially with the recent success of the Dark Knight movie. The whole Superman and Lois Lane having a kid is just lame. No problem with Brandon Routh coming back.

[azrael23]

Well if Routh is back, I'm pleased, can't say the same regarding Singer though especially since

he botched it so badly the first time by turning Supes into a Father for the first Superman film in decades. I wonder

whether this will be a sequel or reboot.

[BigDawg]

...but I will have to see the end result before I start bashing their decision.

 

Well, I'll start to bash now!

 

What do we need to wait for? Are Routh and Singer all of a sudden going to suddenly sprout the talent to make a good Superman film? How many bad Superman movies do we have to suffer before its okay to admit that these guys don't have a solid grasp of the character or his appeal and can only cough up a tepid, uninspired imitation of the brilliant Superman I and II?

 

I'm really skeptical about this story. Superman Returns was an embarrassing disappointment for Warner Bros almost from its release date. Singer's relationship with Warners wasn't too rosy during or after filming so I have a hard time believing that Warners is interested in repeating the experience.

[yojoebro82]

No problem with Brandon Routh coming back.

 

Me either. But a complete recast of all characters besides him IS called for.

 

I forget all of what was said or not said and who said what to who in the movie....but any chance that kid could be Zod and Ursa's son? Maybe take a page from what they did recently in the comics? I'm all for shaking up the status quo but I'm having a hard time with the Superman Jr. plot.

[CheckmyFresh]

...but I will have to see the end result before I start bashing their decision.

 

Well, I'll start to bash now!

 

What do we need to wait for? Are Routh and Singer all of a sudden going to suddenly sprout the talent to make a good Superman film? How many bad Superman movies do we have to suffer before its okay to admit that these guys don't have a solid grasp of the character or his appeal and can only cough up a tepid, uninspired imitation of the brilliant Superman I and II?

 

I'm really skeptical about this story. Superman Returns was an embarrassing disappointment for Warner Bros almost from its release date. Singer's relationship with Warners wasn't too rosy during or after filming so I have a hard time believing that Warners is interested in repeating the experience.

 

 

Dawg, I completely agree, but it's really not gonna stop us from eventually seeing this thing. The last one made over 200 mil, sadly my 10 dollars contributed to it but I still saw it even though I hated the maroon cape and the small S I still checked it out, just like we all will this one no matter how much I think Singer sucks I'll see it opening day

[Prime2099]

I was hoping Warners would go with Mark Millar's idea for a reboot. I'm not really a fan of Singer so hopefully he gets it right, but we'll have to see.

[SUPREMEQUEEN]

...but I will have to see the end result before I start bashing their decision.

 

Well, I'll start to bash now!

 

What do we need to wait for? Are Routh and Singer all of a sudden going to suddenly sprout the talent to make a good Superman film? How many bad Superman movies do we have to suffer before its okay to admit that these guys don't have a solid grasp of the character or his appeal and can only cough up a tepid, uninspired imitation of the brilliant Superman I and II?

 

I'm really skeptical about this story. Superman Returns was an embarrassing disappointment for Warner Bros almost from its release date. Singer's relationship with Warners wasn't too rosy during or after filming so I have a hard time believing that Warners is interested in repeating the experience.

 

 

Dawg, I completely agree, but it's really not gonna stop us from eventually seeing this thing. The last one made over 200 mil, sadly my 10 dollars contributed to it but I still saw it even though I hated the maroon cape and the small S I still checked it out, just like we all will this one no matter how much I think Singer sucks I'll see it opening day

 

 

How well you know us my friend................how well you know us .

 

I to was like #WTF# , are we taliking about the same Singer who thinks its ok to shank Sups with a kry knife and lift a city sized kry meteorite in to an escape orbit around earth??? BUT then it dawned on me! Remember people WB has been trying to get a Justice League Movie up and running for quite some time now. And its my thinking that DC and WB are like to hell with the "solo Superman" franchise for now and just run with what we got and segway in to The Justice League movie.

 

Routh might not be right for a solo superman but IMO i thiink he'd make a great Justice League Superman. Plus theres one more factor in this whole super hero movie franchise that IMO is being brought on by the medioaker mainstream success of Watchmen (a movie where after all the efforts to keep it 98 percent comic accurate, the fans still found something to #$#@# and moan about).

 

I think Hollywood has HAD IT with fans boys having their overbearing say on all these comic movies (DC and Marvel alike). I think Hollywood it about to stick their middle finger up at the fan boy demographic and just go back to doing comic movies the old school way. In other words they wont GIVE A DAMN if you dont think their pick for Wonder Woman, Superman, Batman (joker too), Green Lantern, and all the rest dont meet to the fan boy's level of "PERFECT".

 

And thats because its TOTALY impossible to make happy every fan boy with two cents to say. Face it people, Singer and his "BOY TOY" Brandon Routh are coming back to give us the next Superman movie! And just like Checkmyfresh says, i'll be right there, first one in line at the IMAX to get the best possible seat. My only hope is that the movie will include a wicked segway at the end to indicate a Justice League movie like the end of Ironman @supes@

[Neo Mikomi]

People need to get real with all of this "fanboy bashing" stuff. The Watchmen didn't do so stellar because it's the Watchman, a niche market graphic novel, not because it did or didn't follow the source material. Yes it's popular but it is as universally popular as Spider-Man or Superman, not even close. If it had strayed from the source material then it's own niche market wouldn't have even watched it. These movies are being made because they have shown that they can generate a lot of cash. They can generate a lot of cash at the box office because most of them have decades of branding and good source material. It is completely stupid IMO for hollywood to turn it's back on the source material completely.

[Opticon]

Forget Routh, bring back Dean Cain!

 

 

Seriously, he's the only on-screen version of superman I really liked.

[Stevy Maximus]

Dawg, I completely agree, but it's really not gonna stop us from eventually seeing this thing. The last one made over 200 mil

On a budget of almost $270 million, even then, the film STRUGGLED to break that milestone. And from what I heard, the toy sales were fairly mediocre as well, compared to other superhero films like Batman or Mattel's other push that year, Cars.

 

For all intents and purposes, Superman Returns was a flop, and I have a hard time believing Warner would opt to let him do a sequel to a sequel of a film 20 years old. Unless he intends to start over and put his own spin on the mythos (as was done with Batman and Hulk), I don't have much faith.

 

Superman Returns, like Watchmen, was a perfect example of a director letting their love of a source material (in this case, the original feature film) override their personal vision and what is best for the film. If he doesn't intend to REALLY reboot, I don't see a big point in a sequel.

[Wolverine042]

if this will be a reboot then forget Singer!

[SUPREMEQUEEN]

People need to get real with all of this "fanboy bashing" stuff. The Watchmen didn't do so stellar because it's the Watchman, a niche market graphic novel, not because it did or didn't follow the source material. Yes it's popular but it is as universally popular as Spider-Man or Superman, not even close. If it had strayed from the source material then it's own niche market wouldn't have even watched it. These movies are being made because they have shown that they can generate a lot of cash. They can generate a lot of cash at the box office because most of them have decades of branding and good source material. It is completely stupid IMO for hollywood to turn it's back on the source material completely.

 

So who said any thing about Hollywood turning its back on "source material"? I know I did'nt. I was speaking about Hollywood"s "gamble" on catering to fan boy demands for comic accurate fimls. Both The Fantastic Four and Watchmen would seem to prove that fan boys dont always know whats best for a movie. Dont get me wrong, when Hollywood swing WAY TO FAR to the left field the results are just as catostrophic which is how we ended up with Superman Returns, X Men3, and Spiderman 3.

 

Whats that old saying....."you gotta give to get". die hard fans are gonna have to give up a lil of their precious comic accuracy in order to have a main stream workable movie.

[Neo Mikomi]

People need to get real with all of this "fanboy bashing" stuff. The Watchmen didn't do so stellar because it's the Watchman, a niche market graphic novel, not because it did or didn't follow the source material. Yes it's popular but it is as universally popular as Spider-Man or Superman, not even close. If it had strayed from the source material then it's own niche market wouldn't have even watched it. These movies are being made because they have shown that they can generate a lot of cash. They can generate a lot of cash at the box office because most of them have decades of branding and good source material. It is completely stupid IMO for hollywood to turn it's back on the source material completely.

 

So who said any thing about Hollywood turning its back on "source material"? I know I did'nt. I was speaking about Hollywood"s "gamble" on catering to fan boy demands for comic accurate fimls. Both The Fantastic Four and Watchmen would seem to prove that fan boys dont always know whats best for a movie. Dont get me wrong, when Hollywood swing WAY TO FAR to the left field the results are just as catostrophic which is how we ended up with Superman Returns, X Men3, and Spiderman 3.

 

Whats that old saying....."you gotta give to get". die hard fans are gonna have to give up a lil of their precious comic accuracy in order to have a main stream workable movie.

 

As an artist sometimes you have to say F the audience; If the audience doesn't like it then oh wells. There are times where you stand up for your vision, creativeness and just make your art. Say what you will say about Star Wars and George Lucas but I do respect that he has made his movies the way he wanted to make them because they were HIS vision.

 

These comic book stories however are not these directors and producers original vision. I like that Spider-man was initially given to someone who loves the source material and respected it. What's so wrong with that? Isn't that what the fanboys want? I could care less about small little changes like organic spider web vs home made. If the fantastic four had a better producer / director and a larger budget they could have told a story worth telling, made a movie that was enjoyable to watch more time and time again, would have made their money back and then some, and would have made it possible to keep the series going much longer.

 

As for the Watchmen... It will probably make a profit when it's all said and done. Someone decided to make the movie, and they made the best version imaginable so kudos to them. If they had made a more hollywood version and less of a fanboys dream come true then it would have disappointed even more.

[SUPREMEQUEEN]

People need to get real with all of this "fanboy bashing" stuff. The Watchmen didn't do so stellar because it's the Watchman, a niche market graphic novel, not because it did or didn't follow the source material. Yes it's popular but it is as universally popular as Spider-Man or Superman, not even close. If it had strayed from the source material then it's own niche market wouldn't have even watched it. These movies are being made because they have shown that they can generate a lot of cash. They can generate a lot of cash at the box office because most of them have decades of branding and good source material. It is completely stupid IMO for hollywood to turn it's back on the source material completely.

 

So who said any thing about Hollywood turning its back on "source material"? I know I did'nt. I was speaking about Hollywood"s "gamble" on catering to fan boy demands for comic accurate fimls. Both The Fantastic Four and Watchmen would seem to prove that fan boys dont always know whats best for a movie. Dont get me wrong, when Hollywood swing WAY TO FAR to the left field the results are just as catostrophic which is how we ended up with Superman Returns, X Men3, and Spiderman 3.

 

Whats that old saying....."you gotta give to get". die hard fans are gonna have to give up a lil of their precious comic accuracy in order to have a main stream workable movie.

 

As an artist sometimes you have to say F the audience; If the audience doesn't like it then oh wells. There are times where you stand up for your vision, creativeness and just make your art. Say what you will say about Star Wars and George Lucas but I do respect that he has made his movies the way he wanted to make them because they were HIS vision.

 

These comic book stories however are not these directors and producers original vision. I like that Spider-man was initially given to someone who loves the source material and respected it. What's so wrong with that? Isn't that what the fanboys want? I could care less about small little changes like organic spider web vs home made. If the fantastic four had a better producer / director and a larger budget they could have told a story worth telling, made a movie that was enjoyable to watch more time and time again, would have made their money back and then some, and would have made it possible to keep the series going much longer.

 

As for the Watchmen... It will probably make a profit when it's all said and done. Someone decided to make the movie, and they made the best version imaginable so kudos to them. If they had made a more hollywood version and less of a fanboys dream come true then it would have disappointed even more.

 

 

ok, soooooooo on one hand you acknowledge that all the "artisic vision" is causeing a lack of box office sales, yet you want Hollywood to just keep saying F it and do their own thing?? good luck with that.

 

like i said..... you gotta give to get. Also bigger budget dose'nt always mean better movie. After all why do you think Hollywood has been shamlessly raiding the 70ies and 80ies film vault to do remake after remake. because all thoes films of yester year had great scripts and REAL TALENT to drive them forward on their then shoe string budget. Actors earned their Academy awards on talent and passion rather than good looks and "f**kablity the way things are done today.

[Superpowers1980]

For the record

 

1.

Bryan Singers vision for the X-Men sucked. Fans can pretend like X-Men 1 and 2 were good but in fact they were a fiasco. Even the ridiculous X3 was better than the first 2, not in terms of story but overall.

 

2.

Singer and his 2 henchmen writers basically destroyed the Superman's 20 year comeback in one fell swoop. The movie was more absurd than Superman 3 and 4 in which that arrogant Singer tried to deny. The entire cast was bad, Routh has no charisma and no stature as the greatest hero of all time. Perry White was terrible and boring, Jackie Cooper played that part. Lois was terrible. Jimmy Olsen was the only one played and looked correct. The story was ridiculous, Superman believes a fake story about a surviving Krypton...ummmmm ok??? Luthor was a common thug and a parody of Gene Hackman's original character, whose plan was to create a new island/continent in which half of its content was made from a radioactive, mineral from outerspace..yeah that sure is bright. Also the homosexual rumors about Singer came to life when many gay magazines noted the deep undertones of certain aspects of the movie and claimed that the new Superman is very much gay and intended to attract a gay audience (Not gay bashing but what he did in this fashion isn't Superman) the outfit a colors were terrible, Also the poor deluded Singer demanded no Superman comic books on the set, if the dolt had half a brain he should of picked up a comic book and took note of what Superman was about and just what he looks like.

 

3.

The toys captured the movie exactly in all its pathetic glory. Even the sculptors captured Routh's weak and underwhelming chin, thin/thin shorts and ugly burgundy colors. They were soon discounted everywhere and sat on the shelves forever. The movie made less than what it cost domestically, and compared to all other comic book movies it was received as a critical failure, everyone I know hated it. My mother even watched and said that it wasn't Superman.

 

4.

The son....NUFF SAID

 

Goodbye to Singer, hello to someone who can do it right

[yojoebro82]

Forget Routh, bring back Dean Cain!

 

 

Seriously, he's the only on-screen version of superman I really liked.

 

That's a bold statement. IF you're serious

[gruntcast]

"Boy Toy" Queen you had me rolling with that one. I come from the Christopher Reeves Superman era , Where Superman was still clean cut and a Man lol. I'm afraid this might turn into a wanna be Watchman and they'll try to turn Supes into some super flawed hero douche bag with dark secrets like the Comedian. Please no singer, no roth, and no Miller. Miller wanted to do some 3 part epic where in the last movie Supes is alone on the earth mad and crazy after a apocalyptic end. Just give me my Clean cut Supes, A Real Evil Lex like on Smallville or the JLU cartoon (not some comic relief like the past movie) and a Good story.

[SUPREMEQUEEN]

The only thing I thought was wrong with the first two Xmen movies was that they lacked action and reaked of "budget constraints" (something that the 3rd installment tried to correct, but the script by then was WACK). And yes Superpowers, you are very much correct with your (or who evers it was), observation of the gay undertones in Superman Returns. Singer dew from the worlds 2nd biggets gay party "The Blue Angel Ball" (FYI: the 1st biggest gay party is the White Party which requires about 15 grand to attend, but i digress).

 

Routh was made out to be this Blue Angel of sorts saveing humanity. As hot of a concept as it may sound, the truth is Superman IS NOT gay and nor would I want him to be. It ok to tweek lil things about Sups mythos here and there, but you can't just up and change some of the founding principals that make Superman, Superman! Like Kryotnite kills Superman!!!! Sorry but crazy crap like his love and sheer will power can over come his injuries and the fact he has a chunk of it still in him just does'nt cut it.

 

This is realy gonna be very interesting to see how this thing plays out.

[azrael23]

The only thing I thought was wrong with the first two Xmen movies was that they lacked action and reaked of "budget constraints" (something that the 3rd installment tried to correct, but the script by then was WACK). And yes Superpowers, you are very much correct with your (or who evers it was), observation of the gay undertones in Superman Returns. Singer dew from the worlds 2nd biggets gay party "The Blue Angel Ball" (FYI: the 1st biggest gay party is the White Party which requires about 15 grand to attend, but i digress).

 

Routh was made out to be this Blue Angel of sorts saveing humanity. As hot of a concept as it may sound, the truth is Superman IS NOT gay and nor would I want him to be. It ok to tweek lil things about Sups mythos here and there, but you can't just up and change some of the founding principals that make Superman, Superman! Like Kryotnite kills Superman!!!! Sorry but crazy crap like his love and sheer will power can over come his injuries and the fact he has a chunk of it still in him just does'nt cut it.

 

This is realy gonna be very interesting to see how this thing plays out.

 

Well if its a sequel which I doubt, I have no idea where the hell they would take it. I mean honestly you

have Superman leaving Earth for 5 years to search for remnants of a placed believed destroyed but scientist

somehow comes to the conclusion that the planet may still be around this entire concept is glossed over, then you

have Superman fathering a bastard son, a son that calls another man dad, then Singer has the audacity to portray Superman

as some love struck lurker, Kryptonite has little to no effect on Superman as he is able to lift a damn continent of the substance.

I mean seriously how do you do a worthy follow up sequel to that?

 

Singer and his 2 henchmen writers basically destroyed the Superman's 20 year comeback in one fell swoop.The toys captured the movie exactly in all its pathetic glory. Even the sculptors captured Routh's weak and underwhelming chin, thin/thin shorts and ugly burgundy colors. They were soon discounted everywhere and sat on the shelves forever.

@loll@ @loll@

[ARROW]

Well if its a sequel which I doubt, I have no idea where the hell they would take it. I mean honestly you

have Superman leaving Earth for 5 years to search for remnants of a placed believed destroyed but scientist

somehow comes to the conclusion that the planet may still be around huh.gif this entire concept is glossed over, then you

have Superman fathering a bastard son, a son that calls another man dad, then Singer has the audacity to portray Superman

as some love struck lurker, Kryptonite has little to no effect on Superman as he is able to lift a damn continent of the substance.

I mean seriously how do you do a worthy follow up sequel to that?

 

Heh, and that's just beginning to delve into the permutations and repercussions of Superman Returns.

In terms of tone, the movie was okay........Routh was great as Clark and okay as Superman--he played the part sincerely. Where the film went horribly astray was with the story.

I think the reason the story was so flawed was because they needed to give Lois something to do ( besides trying to light up a cigarette), and in coming up with SOMETHING to create conflict......they have it so that KaL-El's super-jizz worked its magic back in Superman 2.

 

I've talked about what I see as the flaws before in other threads ( mostly about how Superman would have to abrogate his responsibilities to the world because he's sired a new Kryptonian heir--this in order to be true to his character as established in the movie), but to "correct" these errors they will have to commit ever worse derivations to the character.

 

Think about it......Luthor is still out there, alive. He KNOWS about the kid. He KNOWS the kid has health issues, despite having some superhuman attributes.

And he can get to the kid, once he gets back to civilization.

Superman, however........does NOT know this. As he wasn't anywhere near to where that drama was taking place at the time.

So whatever the story will be......this will have to be addressed at some point.

Sure, they can just write it under the table and accept the sin of omission, but if they continue from Returns at all--they have to acknowledge these things for the "logic-train" to continue and be consistent.

 

This is why the sickly bastard jizz-spawn of Superman is such an albatross around his neck. Now that he's there you cannot get rid of him without really messing up Superman for who he is.

Once they make the notion of the "last son of Krypton" a foremost thought in Superman's psyche and identity, and then give him a illegitimate child to further address that........they HAVE TO address it to a resolution. If they kill the kid, they have to address the outcome: Superman would seek revenge ( which is not Superman). If they de-power the kid, he's still alive--still an heir--and that will need to be addressed at some point.

At the very least.....even if they reboot......and drop the idea of the kid........some of the audience will go " didn't Superman have a kid in the last movie?"

<frustrated sigh>

The more I ponder what they did with Superman Returns, the more I hate......truly revile the story it had. Its truly a case of damaging the goods.

[azrael23]

Think about it......Luthor is still out there, alive. He KNOWS about the kid. He KNOWS the kid has health issues, despite having some superhuman attributes.

And he can get to the kid, once he gets back to civilization.

Superman, however........does NOT know this. As he wasn't anywhere near to where that drama was taking place at the time.

So whatever the story will be......this will have to be addressed at some point.

Sure, they can just write it under the table and accept the sin of omission, but if they continue from Returns at all--they have to acknowledge these things for the "logic-train" to continue and be consistent.

 

While this could be something to explore in a sequel I would be highly surprised if it was an aspect not severely scrutinized especially since

we have many people who think that an sequel should focus entirely on a new threat with absolutely no presence from Lex Luthor whatsoever.

We also have to consider the fact that the kid is one thing about the movie universally criticized or hated.

 

This is why the sickly bastard jizz-spawn of Superman is such an albatross around his neck. Now that he's there you cannot get rid of him without really messing up Superman for who he is.

Once they make the notion of the "last son of Krypton" a foremost thought in Superman's psyche and identity, and then give him a illegitimate child to further address that........they HAVE TO address it to a resolution. If they kill the kid, they have to address the outcome: Superman would seek revenge ( which is not Superman). If they de-power the kid, he's still alive--still an heir--and that will need to be addressed at some point.

At the very least.....even if they reboot......and drop the idea of the kid........some of the audience will go " didn't Superman have a kid in the last movie?"

<frustrated sigh>

 

Which is why I don't really see them continuing that story. Killing the kid would be the easy way out, not to mention it would be Singer

admitting that introducing Jason was a mistake in the first place, if they reboot it with same cast it will confuse many who thought

Superman had a kid. Personally an overall reboot would be the only real alternative, no sense in making a lose sequel from a lose sequel.

 

The more I ponder what they did with Superman Returns, the more I hate......truly revile the story it had. Its truly a case of damaging the goods.

 

Couldn't agree more. Every time I watch it, it truly disgust me at times because it was such an opportunity wasted, potential unrealized.

After Batman got a phenomenal reboot worthy of the character, many Superman fans were expecting their "Superman Begins" so to speak.

[nonameshmo30]

Forget Routh, bring back Dean Cain!

 

 

Seriously, he's the only on-screen version of superman I really liked.

 

Are you serious... Really are you friggin serious. No offence my friend but cane was a puss in tights.

[SUPREMEQUEEN]

Forget Routh, bring back Dean Cain!

 

 

Seriously, he's the only on-screen version of superman I really liked.

 

Are you serious... Really are you friggin serious. No offence my friend but cane was a puss in tights.

 

 

Plus the fact that Mr. Cain has porked up quite a bit sence his Lois and Clark days. I'm talkin dude has packed on no less than 40+ pounds.