Maira Oliveira - All Headline News Reporter
Hollywood, CA (BANG) - "Alfie" actor, Jude Law, is currently in talks to appear in the "Superman Returns" sequel as Superman's arch enemy.
He is set to play the Man of Steel's most hated foe General Zod, which was made famous by Terence Stamp, who played the character in the 1980 movie "Superman 2."
Producers say they see a resemblance between Stamp and Law.
A source told Britain's Daily Express newspaper, "Zod is going to be
the main bad guy in the second film. Some say they should use an unknown
but the director Bryan Singer is looking at Jude. The similarities between him
and Stamp are clear."
The 33-year-old has so far steered clear of superhero movies, fearing
they would typecast him and ruin his chances of starring in other film
genres.
Just two years ago Law turned down the role of Superman.
He said at the time, "My greatest fear is that a role like that would
define me. Do I want to be known from here on in as Superman? I'd feel the
same way about James Bond. They are iconic characters and there is also pressure
in stepping into someone else's tights."
The "Superman Returns" sequel will see Brandon Routh return as the Man
of Steel and Kevin Spacey will reprise his role as Lex Luther.
Pay attention to the last sentence in this article... to quote Batman Begins' Ducard:
" So familiar! Haven't you got anything new?!"
===================================
I clearly recall predicting this plotline awhile ago--right down to Luthor coming back to chew the scenery again,but was joking and hoped it would never come to pass.
As for originality?What's that?Singer's only point of reference for Superman is the first two films--nothing else at all.In Starlog(I think it was this magazine),one of the screenwriters talked about writing SR.Apparently DC sent him and his partner TPBs reprinting a wide array of Superman stories for inspiration.He recalled looking at some of them and said(I paraphrase),"I don't know this character--I don't like this character!"So much for open minds and creativity...Yikes.:o
Ten to one,the camera setups in Superman II:The Wrath of Zod--will be almost identical to those in the original Superman II.Much of the dialogue will have an all too eerie similarity as well.It'll look as much like a Richard Donner movie as possible.Deja Vu all over again.There'll be a curious echo in the movie theaters wherever SII #2 is shown.
But maybe the CGI fight between Superman and Zod will be more violent and destructive this time around...
Of course it's probably good business to remake SII.It's a familiar movie with characters the general public knows.A Superman film using characters that are better known to comics fans only might be a harder sell.But it's disappointing to see that--if this story's true--Singer would rather just redo what came before with only a few minor alterations as opposed to actually being creative.
======
It would,however,be nice to see Clark Kent make a brief cameo in the next Batman movie--as MBE suggested.Nothing too special,just him with a group of other reporters--maybe competing for Bruce Wayne's attention at a press conference and possibly even starting to ask a question as the conference comes to a halt.A very short moment.Something to acknowledge DC's shared universe.
I clearly recall predicting this plotline awhile ago--right down to Luthor coming back to chew the scenery again,but was joking and hoped it would never come to pass.
I guess all that's left is to decide who plays Ursa and Non. I like Napoleon's idea about Zoe Lucker.
It would,however,be nice to see Clark Kent make a brief cameo in the next Batman movie--as MBE suggested.Nothing too special,just him with a group of other reporters--maybe competing for Bruce Wayne's attention at a press conference and possibly even starting to ask a question as the conference comes to a halt.A very short moment.Something to acknowledge DC's shared universe.
There was a quick line in Superman Returns about Superman being spotted in Gotham City. Clearly the powers that be are not averse to acknowledging other superheros. Who knows, this might actually come to pass. It would also be a great way to gauge any potential public interest in a crossover movie.
I clearly recall predicting this plotline awhile ago--right down to Luthor coming back to chew the scenery again,but was joking and hoped it would never come to pass.
I guess all that's left is to decide who plays Ursa and Non. I like Napoleon's idea about Zoe Lucker.
It would,however,be nice to see Clark Kent make a brief cameo in the next Batman movie--as MBE suggested.Nothing too special,just him with a group of other reporters--maybe competing for Bruce Wayne's attention at a press conference and possibly even starting to ask a question as the conference comes to a halt.A very short moment.Something to acknowledge DC's shared universe.
There was a quick line in Superman Returns about Superman being spotted in Gotham City. Clearly the powers that be are not averse to acknowledging other superheroes. Who knows, this might actually come to pass. It would also be a great way to gauge any potential public interest in a crossover movie.
========
I suggested Lucy Lawless as Ursa-IMO she'd still be good,although Sable or Torri Wilson might be equally okay.Singer might even approach Claire Forlani.Whatever-the new Ursa will be made up to look as much like Sarah Douglas did in the first SII as possible so it probably won't matter very much who plays her.However,taking a cue from the redesign of Superman's costume,maybe Ursa#2 will have a considerably smaller outfit than she did initially, but with same general color scheme as before.
Tyler Mane could play Non.But just imagine Hulk Hogan as Non:"Hey Kal-El!I hate your guts,brother!You're goin' DOWN!"Or The Rock:"Kal-El!Can you smell what Non is cooking?"
It probably won't be too difficult for Luthor to free them from the Phantom Zone now that he knows a great deal about the Fortress of Solitude's inner workings.A rubber band and a kazoo will probably do the trick.Anyway,once Zod's loose,hopefully he'll hold Luthor prisoner and torture him a little bit.I'd like that.
Luthor:"You need me!"
Zod:"Silence,insignificant Earthman!(Faces Luthor and turns on heat vision full blast )ZZZZZZTTT!!!!"
Luthor:"YAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!!!"
Zod:"KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!!"
Conversely, Luthor might lord over the evil Kryptonians with some Kryptonite instead--either they do his bidding or he'll kill them.Regardless, Luthor will eventually have to team up with Superman in order to defeat the evil Kryptonians.Can't depart too greatly from the 1st SII.
Hmm...it's also possible that Richard White could be turned into a Bad Guy by Luthor.It takes absolutely no imagination whatsoever to consider that turn of events so it's something we may well see.Or maybe he'll simply run off with Kitty or Ursa.Or die nobly at the hands of Zod and Luthor while attempting to help Superman.
(Or he'll become Earth's Green Lantern and have his own franchise.)
Whatever,after the excitement wears down and he's gone, Lois can look adoringly into Superman's eyes and tell him that she never loved Richard anyway.
* * *
Another unimaginative prediction:
The third Singer Superman movie will probably be a composite of elements from SIII and SIV,since there really aren't any other Superman stories in existence anywhere.Luthor will again be the villain, but he'll come up with a synthetic kryptonite(Singer and Co. aren't aware of Red K--even with it's occasional appearances on "Smallville"),and possibly a create a synthetic bad guy for Superman to fight on the moon(name the wrestler of your choice).
At one point during the movie Superman will have been divided into two separate beings,and they'll have a big fight in the skies over Metropolis--until he reunites his selves.
There'll also be a courageous computer-using scientist--possibly played by Samuel L.Jackson or Dave Chappelle or Cedric the Entertainer--who'll come to Superman's asistance.He won't be at the center of the film but will be one of the more prominent heroic characters.Maybe he'll even be smarter than Luthor.Chris Reeve's idea of Superman attempting to remove all of the Earth's nuclear weapons will be ignored,however.
God,this all sounds horrible--so something like it will probably happen.
Unless SIII#3 teams up Clark and Jimmy Olsen in a Lethal Weapon type of film set in Kandor--"Nightwing and Flamebird".Think of the money saved.
Didn't Superman kill General Zod at the end of Superman II? And he took away Zod's powers by tricking him. I'm sure they'll come up with an explanation but Singer does seem to be placing his character in the specific history set by the first two films.
I'm all for Zod returning because Superman has to have someone worthy to fight in S2 (or is that 2.2?). I think a Doomsday/Death of Superman story could be done but they'll avoid it. Ka-el could awake in the fortress of solitude after he and Doomsday have 'killed' one another and find that someone has taken his place as Superman. This imposter would be just The Eradicator rather than the robot/Henry steele/Superboy clone imposters of the original comics.
I suggested Lucy Lawless as Ursa-IMO she'd still be good,although Sable or Torri Wilson might be equally okay.Singer might even approach Claire Forlani.Whatever-the new Ursa will be made up to look as much like Sarah Douglas did in the first SII as possible so it probably won't matter very much who plays her.However,taking a cue from the redesign of Superman's costume,maybe Ursa#2 will have a considerably smaller outfit than she did initially, but with same general color scheme as before.
Tyler Mane could play Non.But just imagine Hulk Hogan as Non:"Hey Kal-El!I hate your guts,brother!You're goin' DOWN!"Or The Rock:"Kal-El!Can you smell what Non is cooking?"
I was just about to say "I just hope they don't use any wrestlers, then you go and steal my thunder. )
Claire Forlani is an interesting choice; I've always found her irresistably attractive (I might even be persuaded to leave Halle Berry for her) though I don't know if she has the presence to play a supervillain
Hmm...it's also possible that Richard White could be turned into a Bad Guy by Luthor.It takes absolutely no imagination whatsoever to consider that turn of events so it's something we may well see.Or maybe he'll simply run off with Kitty or Ursa.Or die nobly at the hands of Zod and Luthor while attempting to help Superman.
(Or he'll become Earth's Green Lantern and have his own franchise.)
Come to think of it, James Marsden could make a pretty good Kyle Rayner, don't know if he's Hal Jordan material though.
Didn't Superman kill General Zod at the end of Superman II? And he took away Zod's powers by tricking him. I'm sure they'll come up with an explanation but Singer does seem to be placing his character in the specific history set by the first two films.
The movie left it a little vague, obviously to keep it open for a sequel.
I'm all for Zod returning because Superman has to have someone worthy to fight in S2 (or is that 2.2?). I think a Doomsday/Death of Superman story could be done but they'll avoid it. Ka-el could awake in the fortress of solitude after he and Doomsday have 'killed' one another and find that someone has taken his place as Superman. This imposter would be just The Eradicator rather than the robot/Henry steele/Superboy clone imposters of the original comics.
Believe it or not, that was pretty much the plot of Kevin Smith's unused Superman screenplay.
Regardless of what they do, I also hope Superman returns (no pun intended). I'd prefer an original storyline, but if I have to fast forward over the dull bits to get to scenes like Superman saving the Space Shuttle and the 747, well I guess I can live with that.
I suggested Lucy Lawless as Ursa-IMO she'd still be good,although Sable or Torri Wilson might be equally okay.Singer might even approach Claire Forlani.Whatever-the new Ursa will be made up to look as much like Sarah Douglas did in the first SII as possible so it probably won't matter very much who plays her.However,taking a cue from the redesign of Superman's costume,maybe Ursa#2 will have a considerably smaller outfit than she did initially, but with same general color scheme as before.
Tyler Mane could play Non.But just imagine Hulk Hogan as Non:"Hey Kal-El!I hate your guts,brother!You're goin' DOWN!"Or The Rock:"Kal-El!Can you smell what Non is cooking?"
I was just about to say "I just hope they don't use any wrestlers, then you go and steal my thunder. )
Claire Forlani is an interesting choice; I've always found her irresistably attractive (I might even be persuaded to leave Halle Berry for her) though I don't know if she has the presence to play a supervillain
Hmm...it's also possible that Richard White could be turned into a Bad Guy by Luthor.It takes absolutely no imagination whatsoever to consider that turn of events so it's something we may well see.Or maybe he'll simply run off with Kitty or Ursa.Or die nobly at the hands of Zod and Luthor while attempting to help Superman.
(Or he'll become Earth's Green Lantern and have his own franchise.)
Come to think of it, James Marsden could make a pretty good Kyle Rayner, don't know if he's Hal Jordan material though.
Didn't Superman kill General Zod at the end of Superman II? And he took away Zod's powers by tricking him. I'm sure they'll come up with an explanation but Singer does seem to be placing his character in the specific history set by the first two films.
The movie left it a little vague, obviously to keep it open for a sequel.
I'm all for Zod returning because Superman has to have someone worthy to fight in S2 (or is that 2.2?). I think a Doomsday/Death of Superman story could be done but they'll avoid it. Ka-el could awake in the fortress of solitude after he and Doomsday have 'killed' one another and find that someone has taken his place as Superman. This imposter would be just The Eradicator rather than the robot/Henry steele/Superboy clone imposters of the original comics.
Believe it or not, that was pretty much the plot of Kevin Smith's unused Superman screenplay.
Regardless of what they do, I also hope Superman returns (no pun intended). I'd prefer an original storyline, but if I have to fast forward over the dull bits to get to scenes like Superman saving the Space Shuttle and the 747, well I guess I can live with that.
Interestingly enough,when I saw Marsden as Richard White, I immediately thought,THERE'S Hal Jordan.I'm thinking back to the late 50s-early 60s look Hal had when the great Gil Kane drew him.Tall,lanky and boyishly handsome.I never liked Kyle Rayner except in that one episode of Superman:The Animated Series where he had Hal Jordan's origin and charged his ring at the Battery of Power with all of the other GLs and their oath echoed through space.If only he'd also been called Hal Jordan, I'd have liked that episode even more.For me Rayner was only a pretender to the throne...
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
edited August 2006
This is true:
I had a dream last night where I kicked the cr@p out of Singer and literally chased him off of the studio lot with a Scottish Claymore sword then oversaw the next Superman movie myself.
I fired Bosworth, the kid(whatever his name was); upsetting his mother after I planted a big one on her lips and sending them on their way and castrated Singer's writers...emasculating them like they did our beloved Superman.
I then held auditions for the part of Lois personally from my trailer; they had to read their lines in bikinis ;% ....I then woke up. My wife claimed I yelled "ACTION". Thank goodness I fell asleep in my recliner. )
I'll try and suggest the dream tonight before bed for the conclusion.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Interestingly enough,when I saw Marsden as Richard White, I immediately thought,THERE'S Hal Jordan.I'm thinking back to the late 50s-early 60s look Hal had when the great Gil Kane drew him.Tall,lanky and boyishly handsome.I never liked Kyle Rayner except in that one episode of Superman:The Animated Series where he had Hal Jordan's origin and charged his ring at the Battery of Power with all of the other GLs and their oath echoed through space.If only he'd also been called Hal Jordan, I'd have liked that episode even more.For me Rayner was only a pretender to the throne...
I suppose Marsden could work as Hal; I'd pay to see a GL movie with him in the lead.
Agree totally on the whole Kyle vs. Hal thing. Despite Ron Marz's assertions, Hal was always the one true Green Lantern for me as well ( even though Alan Scott came first ).
The animated episode was well done, though I did wish it had been Hal; I especially liked the "Col. Hal Jordan" signature on the jet plane that Kyle crashes into, that helped a little.
For me, the JLA was forever compromised by using John Stewart instead of Hal (that they made him a hothead army type didn't help). Has Hal ever appeared in any of the JLA/JLU episodes? I seem to remember seeing someone who looked like him in a clip but never saw an episode with him.
Of course, he did appear with Duck Dodgers when their uniforms were mixed up at the cleaners. I can't remember the name of the episode (was it The Green Loontern??).
I had a dream last night where I kicked the cr@p out of Singer and literally chased him off of the studio lot with a Scottish Claymore sword then oversaw the next Superman movie myself.
I fired Bosworth, the kid(whatever his name was); upsetting his mother after I planted a big one on her lips and sending them on their way and castrated Singer's writers...emasculating them like they did our beloved Superman.
I then held auditions for the part of Lois personally from my trailer; they had to read their lines in bikinis ;% ....I then woke up. My wife claimed I yelled "ACTION". Thank goodness I fell asleep in my recliner. )
I'll try and suggest the dream tonight before bed for the conclusion.
That's a pretty vivid dream there Rogue. My dreams usually involve being back in college and having to take a final after having missed class all year.
Make sure you hide all frying pans and blunt instruments before making said suggestion to your wife. )
I had a dream last night where I kicked the cr@p out of Singer and literally chased him off of the studio lot with a Scottish Claymore sword then oversaw the next Superman movie myself.
I fired Bosworth, the kid(whatever his name was); upsetting his mother after I planted a big one on her lips and sending them on their way and castrated Singer's writers...emasculating them like they did our beloved Superman.
I then held auditions for the part of Lois personally from my trailer; they had to read their lines in bikinis ;% ....I then woke up. My wife claimed I yelled "ACTION". Thank goodness I fell asleep in my recliner. )
I'll try and suggest the dream tonight before bed for the conclusion.
It's good to know that you're not a bitter man,Rogue.Just imagine if you were upset or even disappointed by Singer's movie.:o
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
I had a dream last night where I kicked the cr@p out of Singer and literally chased him off of the studio lot with a Scottish Claymore sword then oversaw the next Superman movie myself.
I fired Bosworth, the kid(whatever his name was); upsetting his mother after I planted a big one on her lips and sending them on their way and castrated Singer's writers...emasculating them like they did our beloved Superman.
I then held auditions for the part of Lois personally from my trailer; they had to read their lines in bikinis ;% ....I then woke up. My wife claimed I yelled "ACTION". Thank goodness I fell asleep in my recliner. )
I'll try and suggest the dream tonight before bed for the conclusion.
It's good to know that you're not a bitter man,Rogue.Just imagine if you were upset or even disappointed by Singer's movie.:o
I was subliminally more damaged about this film than I thought. But I'll admit that this hurt my feelings the way Singer just stripped Superman down like a coat of paint. Being a bias DC guy doesn't help.
And Tony... hiding all pots and pans as I speak... although I'm sure I didn't cover everything... )
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Interestingly enough,when I saw Marsden as Richard White, I immediately thought,THERE'S Hal Jordan.I'm thinking back to the late 50s-early 60s look Hal had when the great Gil Kane drew him.Tall,lanky and boyishly handsome.I never liked Kyle Rayner except in that one episode of Superman:The Animated Series where he had Hal Jordan's origin and charged his ring at the Battery of Power with all of the other GLs and their oath echoed through space.If only he'd also been called Hal Jordan, I'd have liked that episode even more.For me Rayner was only a pretender to the throne...
I suppose Marsden could work as Hal; I'd pay to see a GL movie with him in the lead.
Agree totally on the whole Kyle vs. Hal thing. Despite Ron Marz's assertions, Hal was always the one true Green Lantern for me as well ( even though Alan Scott came first ).
The animated episode was well done, though I did wish it had been Hal; I especially liked the "Col. Hal Jordan" signature on the jet plane that Kyle crashes into, that helped a little.
For me, the JLA was forever compromised by using John Stewart instead of Hal (that they made him a hothead army type didn't help). Has Hal ever appeared in any of the JLA/JLU episodes? I seem to remember seeing someone who looked like him in a clip but never saw an episode with him.
Of course, he did appear with Duck Dodgers when their uniforms were mixed up at the cleaners. I can't remember the name of the episode (was it The Green Loontern??).
I'm not sure about the Duck Dodgers title but I don't think Hal's ever appeared in animation otherwise(although that face you recall might've been him intentionally salted away by the artists to hide among a cast of thousands).Kyle Rayner was little more than Peter Parker with a power ring to me.
Clearly DC was attempting to bring in the Marvel readers who might've been reluctant to follow a comic book featuring a man in his 30s(until he almost overnight became a man in his mid-40s).But I still didn't care for the meat axe approach to altering certain characters.
Sometimes the comics writers seem to write more for themselves than they do for their readers--I'm thinking of Roy Thomas and Gerry Conway as I write.Roy was superb on the Conan stuff but his superhero things occasionally became overly complicated and chatty for some readers despite the comics company.But that could've been handled more adroitly than what finally happened.
I love history--including comic book history--and I really enjoyed All-Star Squadron,for example but suspect this title may have become too inclusive for the average reader because of that.It was a pretty good book,though and should have survived--along with Earth 2.
But it was the arbitrary decisions made by various writers at Marvel and DC alike that since a character didn't exactly "speak to them" anymore,then obviously that character was incredibly outdated,clearly uninteresting and therefore had to die so it could be replaced by a more modern and revised version,that really ticked me off.And no--Roy Thomas wasn't the only writer to think this way:not by a long shot.Lots of them did--especially in the 80s.Really--Hal Jordan could've gone off on a mission to a distant galaxy for an unspecified amount of time and left Rayner behind until he returned.Or retired.Killing him off was pointless.
Additionally,I didn't think the DC multiverse ever needed "fixing" or simplification regardless of what Marv Wolfman and other former Marvel-turned-DC writers once said.This argument never held water for me.All of the various Crisis series have only managed to muddle and destroy things.I never had any problems understanding the differences between Earth 1 and Earth 2 or Earth X or any other universe.The differences were usually spelled out pretty plainly in each story.And if one reader was confused by this wealth of riches ofered via those alternate universes,that's unfortunate but it shouldn't have been the signal to dismantle everything in order for him to then appreciate a comic book.
It's ironic that now DC's streamlined itself once again--- by throwing out a lot of wonderful stuff along the way-- that rather than resemble Marvel(the one time goal) their universe seems to have become almost impossible to traverse unless you were familiar with their books before everything was deconstructed to begin with.
By contrast,Marvel has it's alternate universes like DC once did and an average reader doesn't need an encyclopedia in order to know what's going on.DC's damaged themselves,and I say this as someone who's been a DC fanboy since 1956.I'm hoping they recover from their self-inflicted wounds and I think Darwyn Cooke's New Frontier series is a move in the right direction...
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
Bryan Singer Discusses Plans For The Superman Franchise
By Christina Radish
In Superman Returns, writer-director Bryan Singer has reinvigorated the Superman legend. Returning from a mysterious five-year absence, during which the love of his life, Lois Lane, has moved on, Superman is faced with a Metropolis ridden with crime and a nemesis (Lex Luthor) intent on using Superman’s technological secrets for his own personal gain and glory.
A self-taught director who specializes in dark movies about characters who are never quite what they seem, the 39-year-old USC cinema school graduate made a name for himself bringing such films to life as The Usual Suspects, and X-Men and X2: X-Men United. During his recent visit to the San Diego Comic Convention, Singer talked to MediaBlvd Magazine about what fans can expect from the Superman sequel.
MediaBlvd. Magazine> Can you talk about the next Superman film? Do you have a title or anything?
Bryan Singer> No, I have nothing. I only have ideas.
MB> Can you share any of those?
BS> I can’t.
MB> Just a little hint?
BS> Just that I know that there were certain things that were established in Superman Returns, like certain aspects of the characters, the relationships of the characters, certain reveals, and a great sense of unresolve in the romantic dilemma that Superman faces. And, now that the character is established, I’d like to take an opportunity to bring in, perhaps, a more threatening, foreboding, terrible element to the story.
MB> Someone from Krypton perhaps?
BS> Perhaps.
MB> Is it hard to walk the line between pleasing the fans of the old Superman and pleasing the new fans?
BS> I would probably take the characters, as they are established now, in Superman Returns and move from there. Having things that are referential and nostalgic are very special and very important to those of us who grew up with the Richard Donner film, as well as George Reeves’ interpretation of it, and the comic book. There will always be a place in my heart for that. But, this will be the starting place. Like with the first X-Men, I had to find a place to begin to educate people who weren’t familiar with that universe. Here, there’s a whole generation not familiar with Superman, and there was a lot of value in having him return to a version of the Donner universe, but yet still continue it forward. It’s always a delicate balance, particularly with a character this steeped in history and this ubiquitous. He means something to so many people, all over the world.
MB> Why did you end up cutting out the great James Karen?
BS> Because, in the final moments, I looked at those sequences, as they were in the picture, between he and Martha Kent and, although they were a wonderful concept -- the notion that Martha Kent, Superman’s mother, had moved on, like Lois Lane. It was just too much happening on the Kent farm, and I wasn’t getting to the Daily Planet fast enough for my taste. And so, what I ended up doing, in the final weeks before the opening, was removing three key scenes that existed on the farm between Martha Kent, Clark and, ultimately, James Karen, and adding that scene that’s in the movie and doing a different transition than I had planned. Originally, I was going to transition from a baseball to the Daily Planet and just cut to the city.
MB> Were you surprised at the grief you picked up over the “Truth and justice” line that Clark says in the film?
BS> No, not at all. Particularly now, because we’re at war and the United States is under a lot of scrutiny, people said, “Oh, wow, you had him say ‘Truth and justice,’ but you didn’t have him say ‘The American way.’” I had him say the lead in, so I felt that was very patriotic. I’m fiercely patriotic. And, I also have to remind people that, even in 1978, when Superman said, “I’m here to fight for truth, justice and the American way,” they did make humor of it. Lois said, “You’re going to end up fighting every politician in Washington,” and he said, “You don’t really mean that, Lois.” I think he’s a global superhero. We’ve opened the picture in various countries and it’s been extraordinary. If you just say, “Truth, justice and the American way,” it’s going to sound strange to people in other parts of the world.
MB> How is the film being received overseas?
BS> It’s playing huge, unexpectedly. We’ve only opened in 65% of our territories outside of the United States, and we’ve already crossed the $100 million mark. We had one of the largest openings in China. It’s a phenomenon in countries in Europe and Asia. We did not expect that, and that’s been exciting. It broke records and made history with $19,000 at the IMAX theater in China, in one day. They ran it around the clock.
MB> Why do you think the characters resonate so well outside of the United States, particularly in China?
BS> Because Superman is the first super hero and he is the ultimate immigrant and because he’s, ultimately, a really cool character with great powers, who flies and is very virtuous, and he’s been around for 70 years. Something about his iconography has grown. I’d like to say there’s some Judeo-Christian allegory that also is in play, but that wouldn’t explain the success in Asia, as much as it has in Europe. He’s just gotten more famous, over the years.
MB> With all of these super hero characters, like Spider-Man and Batman, back in films at the same time, is there any chance that their worlds might collide?
BS> Eventually, but not now. Not yet. You’re not ready to do that yet. The worlds are so distinct and so different. Sam Raimi has created such a distinct world with Spider-Man, Chris Nolan has re-created such a distinct world with Batman, and we tried to do the same here with Superman, and also, with X-Men. Right now, I wouldn’t want to mush those universes together. I think you’d dilute them.
MB> Were you told to cut the scene where Clark Kent returns to his home world of Krypton?
BS> I was never forced to cut out anything. Everything I cut and added was my own choice, in terms of editing. I’m afforded that kind of freedom now, for better or worse. I had the sequence where Clark returns to the shattered remains of his home world. There were some symbolic moments in it. It’s a very majestic sequence that somehow, in stepping back from it and seeing it in the context of the whole film, as wonderful and neat as it was, it felt like it belonged in some kind of 3-D IMAX incarnation of the movie. I didn’t feel that it served the central story and thrust of the movie that you saw, so I cut it, very late in the game. I just pulled it out.
MB> Will it be on the DVD?
BS> I don’t know if I want to put that on the DVD. I may want to try to re-release the film, possibly in IMAX, in a year, and maybe have them do a more elaborate 3-D process on other aspects that they didn’t have time to make 3-D, and then 3-D that sequence as well. That would be a personal fantasy. Whether the numbers make sense or not, we’ll see. It’s very expensive to create those IMAX prints. They’re complicated. But, if we can pull it off, what I would do is create more 3-D material and add that sequence. If you saw the sequence, it’s just crying out to be 3-D IMAX. It’s got fragments of planets and things and a crystal ship and Brandon Routh in a different outfit. Also, it wasn’t the first way I wanted to show Superman, either. I stepped back from it and thought it was troublesome enough to have him be so weak and to fall into his mother’s arms, but for us to see him in this way first was weakening to me and I didn’t want to do that. I wanted to hold you out there, have you get to know Clark, and then have that happen.
MB> It seems like you made a lot of last minute changes to the film.
BS> Very often, I do make radical changes. I believe a film is written three times, once on the page, once on the set, and a third time in the editing room. This film, frankly, was very much together, in the cutting room. I spent about the last three months of shooting, every night, going into the cutting room, and I had a pretty solid version of it. It was just this beginning part of it, with the return to Krypton and too much at the farm. And, there was a subplot that I removed, which was very small, throughout the rest of the picture. But, the picture was moving pretty well. I had a two hour and 45 minute version that I screened for a bunch of friends and family, and that was when I stepped back and said, “This movie is front heavy.”
MB> What was that subplot?
BS> The subplot was that Lex Luthor was somehow responsible for Superman leaving the Earth, and it involved Kal Penn’s character a lot more. It broke my heart to cut it because Kal Penn was great, and I had to remove some elements of Kal. These were tiny pieces, but once you removed them all, it kept the story cleaner. There was a different discovery on the farm. And, originally, he didn’t read the article in the Daily Planet about why the world doesn’t need Superman. Originally, he read it in the basement. So, I think that scene might be on the DVD.
MB> Will you have time to make another film before the Superman sequel, or is your entire focus on that now?
BS> I’m going to try to make a small film before that. I did the TV series House. Not only did I direct the pilot for House, but I’m an executive producer on it and I directed the first episode, to break in the L.A. crew. House was not a full feature, but it was like a small feature undertaking.
MB> Would you like to return to TV at all?
BS> Yeah, I absolutely would love to. I might make a deal to develop some television, and I’d like to go back and direct some House episodes.
MB> What happened to your version of Battlestar Galactica?
BS> I sold it to NBC Universal, and they made a great hit show out of it.
MB> Did it break your heart that it wasn’t the version you pitched?
BS> No. I was just very happy that it was so successful.
MB> And idea when Superman 2 might come out?
BS> It will be released sometime in 2009.
MB> What did Richard Donner and Tom Mankiewicz think of Superman Returns?
BS> They were very moved, and felt like the torch had been past.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
If this interview is anything to go by, it seems Singer is determined to go forward with the kid, the love triangle and General Zod. Again, I have to wonder what WB thinks about all that and I'll believe it when I see it; 2009 is a long ways off.
Personally, I wish he'd left the scenes on Krypton and the subplot with Lex being behind Superman leaving Earth in the first place. Both were in the novel were very entertaining (far more than the subplots that were left in). He'd be well advised to include them on the DVD as I doubt WB will be willing to add more overhead to SR's already-in-the-red balance sheet by paying for a new IMAX version.
It's also kinda sad that the rest of the world seems to love Superman more than America, the place of the character's birth. I guess it's just another institution (much like jazz) that was born here but now flourishes elsewhere.
Let's see, Batman Returns was followed by Batman Forever. So, does that mean Singer will call the next one "Superman Forever" ? )
After all, why rip off just the Superman movies; there's plenty of stuff in the Batman movies they can steal too.
Since Singer is such a Star Trek fan,I think he'll seriously consider Superman II:The Wrath of Zod.This way he can not only pay tribute to Donner/Mankiewicz but can also refer to one of the best Star Trek movies ever made.Not too original,but those words might also describe Singer's take on Superman as well.
I liked Donner's 2 Superman movies but never thought either one(yes,I know Lester finished SII but apparently Donner had filmed most of it before the Salkinds canned him)was a masterpiece.Too many gaping holes in the stories,too much campiness and some indifferent acting.The best thing about them is Christopher Reeve whose sincere performances as both Superman and Clark Kent almost effortlessly(or so it looked)made it seem as if we were actually seeing Kal-El on the screen.Without him,they'd be okay--but nothing special--in my opinion,anyway.I agree with the late Gene Siskel and Richard Donner in thinking that Reeve deserved an Academy Award--or at the very least a nomination recognizing the quality of his performance(s)-- but the Academy would never consider doing anything like that for anyone who played something so clearly unchallenging and unimportant as a comic book character.After all,anyone could do that.
So I guess Zod will be quoting Melville in the next movie and the plot will involve an ancient Kryptonian device which can reorganize matter. You can really have fun with this kind of thing all day.
I enjoyed Superman I a lot although back then I was more of a Marvel fan and not knowing the Superman mythos probably aided in my enjoyment. Looking back now, I know that Otis and Miss Tessmacher have no business being in the movie and I know that Gene Hackman is way too hammy. And yet I still love it just the way it is and would never dream of having it altered (other than what Donner did in the director's cut).
Superman II on the other hand has not held up as well as the original for me. I think Lester's "contributions" give it a schizophrenic feel which has bothered me more and more over the years. I'll be curious to see Donner's restored cut as hopefully it will make a better (or at least more consistent) companion to the original than the Donner/Lester hybrid.
Total agreement on the Academy's short-sightedness when it comes to recognizing genre performances. I've always felt that in some ways an FX heavy film is even harder to act in since so often you're reacting to nothing, and that is taking acting about as far as it can go. Reeve should have been recognized, as should have Bale for Batman Begins. And Ian McDirmid should have gotten a nomination for Palpatine/Sidious in Episode III.
November 28, 2006. All the movies are being re-released though not official announcement regarding Superman Returns has surfaced yet. Here's an article with more info on all the versions coming out:
So I guess Zod will be quoting Melville in the next movie and the plot will involve an ancient Kryptonian device which can reorganize matter. You can really have fun with this kind of thing all day.
I enjoyed Superman I a lot although back then I was more of a Marvel fan and not knowing the Superman mythos probably aided in my enjoyment. Looking back now, I know that Otis and Miss Tessmacher have no business being in the movie and I know that Gene Hackman is way too hammy. And yet I still love it just the way it is and would never dream of having it altered (other than what Donner did in the director's cut).
Superman II on the other hand has not held up as well as the original for me. I think Lester's "contributions" give it a schizophrenic feel which has bothered me more and more over the years. I'll be curious to see Donner's restored cut as hopefully it will make a better (or at least more consistent) companion to the original than the Donner/Lester hybrid.
Total agreement on the Academy's short-sightedness when it comes to recognizing genre performances. I've always felt that in some ways an FX heavy film is even harder to act in since so often you're reacting to nothing, and that is taking acting about as far as it can go. Reeve should have been recognized, as should have Bale for Batman Begins. And Ian McDirmid should have gotten a nomination for Palpatine/Sidious in Episode III.
Hmmm...I was 27 years old when I first saw Superman:the Movie.I believed a man could fly.I believed that Chris Reeve was just amazing as Clark/Superman, but aside from a few scattered moments(all of the Smallville sequences,Clark changing into Superman for the first time and discovering phone booths don't exist anymore,Superman in action,etc.),I was disappointed by the overall storyline.The whole Krypton thing seemed pretentious beyond words("We're all Shakesperian actors here on Krypton--and everything we say and do is majestic and IMPORTANT.").I realize the Salkinds set great store on having The Godfather in their movie--his participation,like Nicholson's on Batman,brought prestige to the production-- but I was and remain singularly unimpressed with the entire Krypton sequence.
Then there's Lex Luthor:his "grand plan" seemed beneath the greatest genius on this planet--and we all know he's a genius because he keeps telling us he is.Real estate?C'mon...No--Luthor could've done much better than that.Maybe if Hackman hadn't hated being in the movie(he's acknowledged that at the time he felt this movie was far beneath his talents),he might've come across as at least vaguely threatening.But he isn't.
Comic Relief Otis didn't do anything for me either, nor did the beautiful Valerie Perrine(who I've desired for years) as Luthor's screwy Judy Holliday/Marilyn Monroe-esque moll.
In all fairness,I fully understand that this movie (and the sequel) were being written practically as the film was being made.I know that Tom Mankiewicz worked almost day and night on it.Still,the campy Luthor("Wheee!!!LOOK at MEEE!!!!I'm EEEvill!!!")belongs on the Batman TV series, but is probably--along with Miss Teschmascher--one of the few holdovers from the rejected screenplay the David and Leslie Newman came up with.Mario Puzo lent his name to the script, but at least one interview I've found he said that he really didn't write very much of it.The Luthor sequences almost seem like outtakes from a Superman musical--not surprising since the Newmans had previously written the Broadway musical It's a Bird-It's a Plane-It's Superman.All that's missing are songs by Luthor telling everyone how brilliant and evil he is,backed up by Otis and Miss T. and a corps of dancers-possibly wearing black masks and prison uniforms:ala Scrooge McDuck's adversaries, the Beagle Boys.
This version of Luthor disappointed me.
And there's one other thing that irks me about this movie--and that's the scene where Superman spins the Earth backwards on it's axis in order to bring Lois back to life and zips up the San Andreas faultline along the way.If Superman can literally control time--at least the events of the past-- then there's really nothing Superman can't do.He's a god.He can always change time as it suits him.Talk about Groundhog Day.To be incredibly extreme,if he wanted to,The Man of Steel could actually kill anyone he chose and then restore them to life only to kill them again and again and again.Not that he ever would of course but surely once he got bored enough the temptation would definitely be there.Or he could marry Lois only to then become a bachelor whenever the idea struck his fancy.:)
I don't think Superman II holds up much better than Superman Idid(when I look at them critically), aside from the fact that this time around Superman has foes who can match his steel(pun intended).For it's time, those fights with Zod and the gang were pretty darn incredible.Comic book moments on the screen.As always,Luthor is--IMO--ineffectual,but at least he plays a smaller part in the overall motion picture.I too could have done without Lester's forced "comedic" touches.They're not funny most of the time but they are distracting--kind of like that drunk who always does a double take and then examines his bottle in some of Sir Roger's Bond films.Funny for a child perhaps, but not for me.
I actually liked the idea of Superman losing his powers, but not by sacrificing them willingly--even for love.Here's where a little Red K might've come in handy.Of course, that might've turned Clark into a chimp instead.:)Overall,I prefer Superman II to at least the latter half of Superman I.They're both entertaining, but they're also fraught with the kinds of plot points a "serious" motion picture would probably do it's best to avoid.And that's a shame.
Again, these motion pictures were absolutely incredible undertakings, and I definitely respect what Mankiewicz wrote and what Donner did(and they were both working to meet a deadline--plus making history with the first big superhero epic), but their movies didn't always speak to me as strongly as they clearly did to others.That said,I was definitely moved when Superman returned to DC with the flag and told President E.G.Marshall that he'd never let him down again--who wouldn't be?
And naturally anything Donner can do to excise Lester's creative "touches" will no doubt improve Superman II.I look forward to seeing his cut.
Geeez..I probably sound every bit as cranky as Lewis Black usually does.I'm not really--I'm just particular.;)
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
edited August 2006
Well...any chance of SR keeping pace with Batman Begins has just gotten dimmer. For the first time since the film opened, it has fallen out of the top 15 Friday night while films like PIRATES just keep chugging along.
I got the info from boxofficemojo.com.
I do expect a sequel, but whether Singer remains at the helm for the next venture is iffy at best. Even if he does at this point, the constraints Warner will put on him might force him out on his own accord... We'll see.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
I do expect a sequel, but whether Singer remains at the helm for the next venture is iffy at best. Even if he does at this point, the constraints Warner will put on him might force him out on his own accord... We'll see.
Who cares? 8-)
Sorry Rogue, it's just that unlike with Batman and Spider-Man, I don't really care what happens with Superman 2. I think... sorry, I just thought of something. Routh was signed to a 3-film contract, so do you think that in the third film the kid will have grown up and team up with his father in a father-son crime fighting team?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I do expect a sequel, but whether Singer remains at the helm for the next venture is iffy at best. Even if he does at this point, the constraints Warner will put on him might force him out on his own accord... We'll see.
Who cares? 8-)
Sorry Rogue, it's just that unlike with Batman and Spider-Man, I don't really care what happens with Superman 2. I think... sorry, I just thought of something. Routh was signed to a 3-film contract, so do you think that in the third film the kid will have grown up and team up with his father in a father-son crime fighting team?
I can see it now:if SII#2 is called Superman Forever--ala' the earlier Batman movies, then the Superman sequel could be titled Superman and Superboy(it'd make more sense than Superman and Robin).By that time Lois and Clark will be married--even if that event never happened in a Richard Donner film.
Or Singer will have another creative brainstorm and Clark will share joint custody of the kid as a single father. :v
Warner Bros. Pictures execs are mulling whether to go ahead with a planned sequel and ink another deal with director Bryan Singer.
The film is not such a blockbuster that a follow-up is inevitable -- but not such a disappointment that a sequel would be ludicrous. After all, the first "Austin Powers" pic was a modest hit that begat two huge grossers.
Word on the Warners lot is that the studio is trying to lock down a deal with Singer for a sequel.
Many speculate that WB has invested too much time and money to walk away. What's more, the film fuels a number of Time Warner outlets, including homevid, ancillaries and merchandising -- even subsid DC Comics.
Warners and co-financing partner Legendary Pictures have a shot at breaking even on "Superman" once all the revenue streams are accounted for, but it's going to be a long, tough haul.
Warners and Legendary -- which splits all profits with the studio down the middle -- are counting on strong home entertainment sales to make up for slower-than-expected box office. (WB's 2005 "Batman Begins," whose B.O. was comparable to that of "Superman," earned $167 million in DVD sales, according to estimates by Variety sister pub Video Business.) Then there are the various TV windows.
There's no doubt that with Legendary as a partner, Warners has a far easier time justifying big-budget efforts like "Superman." At the same time, Legendary has investors to answer to.
Officially, Warners says it's premature to talk about any sequel, since "Superman" has yet to open in certain key international territories.
Last month at the fanboy gathering Comic-Con in San Diego, Singer enthusiastically predicted the second film would bow in 2009. He promised fans more action, saying he used the first pic to "lay the foundation" for the relaunch of the franchise.
Singer said he'll "go all 'Wrath of Kahn' " on the next installment -- a reference to the fact that Paramount's long-running "Star Trek" film franchise really kicked in with its second installment, which was tighter, faster and better received than the original "Star Trek: The Motion Picture."
Negotiations between Singer and the studio would get delicate if Warners wants to include over-budget penalties. Warners certainly can't wrest control away from a director like Singer, but it can try to make sure the budget stays under a certain level.
Word is that WB and Legendary will want to keep the budget of the next one at $200 million or below, but the studio denies any such cap.
Sequels are generally costlier than the original pics, since they need more action and more special effects to tempt auds. In theory, a "Superman" follow-up could be cheaper, since expensive sets are already built, and some CGI experimentation is out of the way (e.g., how does his cape look when he flies?).
On the other hand, Universal threw in the towel with the Hulk after the first pic in the potential franchise failed to wow.
But is the character too retro? While "Superman Returns" received better notices than nearly all of the other 2006 summer tentpoles, some reviewers questioned whether the superhero is too stolid for modern-day fans, who favor darker, more complicated characters, such as Batman or Spider-Man.
Warners had believed that Superman, because of his good-beats-evil mythology, would appeal to a broader audience than Batman.
WB's "Batman Begins" grossed $203.5 million domestically and $166.5 million overseas. "Superman Returns" could edge past its predecessor. It has grossed $190.5 million in the U.S. and $146.5 million overseas, where it has yet to open in several key territories. Conservative estimates are that the pic will gross at least $170 million overseas, bringing its worldwide total to about $360 million.
But "Superman" was far more expensive than "Batman," whose sequel, "The Dark Knight," was just announced by Warners. Pricetag for "Superman" included a production budget of at least $223 million, offset by $20 million in Australian tax breaks. The P&A budget was well north of $100 million.
There is an added $40 million in previous development costs for earlier aborted attempts to resurrect the superhero. The studio wrote off those costs in previous years.
Top studio execs, along with Legendary, insist they will make money on the pic when all is said and done.
But some have speculated that -- based on box office alone and just counting the production budget -- Warners and Legendary could each be out more than $20 million. Those losses could rise sharply when factoring in marketing costs.
As one of the few people who enjoyed SR I would actually be gutted if we didn't get another film. It's bound to much better although I'm all for discarding the superkid subplot.
I read a Superman article the other day which said that Henry Cavill was pratically cast as Superman until Singer came in and chose Routh. That would make young Henry the acting equivalent of a man who was one number away from winning the lottery...twice.
I think there'll be a sequel.SR left several plot threads dangling even as it reestablished Superman as a motion picture hero.Warners has spent an inordinate amount of money attempting to give the Man of Steel a relaunch but now that it's finally occured,it'd be foolish for them to turn back.They have a cast established and sets ready to use again.All that's needed is a story that can showcase Superman at his best.
Comic book based movies are enjoying an unusually strong wave of popularity and critical respect right now and this'd be the wrong time to throw in the towel.So SR didn't please everyone--it wasn't exactly an artistic failure either and the people involved probably did the best they could given their interests and the general circumstances.
I think that if Warners signs off now they may never have a chance to put another live-action version of Superman on the screen again for a long time to come.
Maybe he didn't own the Summer.Maybe the famous costume was needlessly altered.But still,The Man of Steel remains an extremely prestigious character.Unlike The Hulk,this is Superman--the king and father of all the costumed comic book heroes.With all due respect to Stan Lee and Jack Kirby,Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster's creation transcends that of the Hulk both in influence and historical importance.I repeat--this is SUPERMAN.
Although Superman has never really needed any extra validation by being turned into a movie character,I think he deserves at least one more motion picture to show the filmgoing public what he's capable of.IMO the character's potential is remarkable and limited only by the extent of his writer's imaginations.And with CGI so highly developed the most amazing sequences are certainly possible to put on the screen.
But even if all a SR sequel turns out to be is just a bigger and more technically proficient variation on the first Superman sequel,that might not be a bad thing at all.
I think Singer(or whomever winds up directing SRII) should bring in Paul Dini and some of the other writers of the animated Superman series to assist in creating the next screenplay--people who are well versed in Superman lore and have proven that they know how to successfully dramatize this character while keeping him interesting to modern audiences.
Just throw out all of the campy crap,develop the characterizations further,make the villains truly fearsome and worthy antagonists for Superman,build up the suspense and then ramp up the action so The Last Son of Krypton can go through his paces in style.
Superman Sequel Officially in Limbo
Posted Aug 15th 2006 12:31PM by Erik Davis
Filed under: Warner Brothers, RumorMonger, Box Office, DIY/Filmmaking, Newsstand, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Remakes and Sequels
Before you start throwing out the names of actors who would be perfect as General Zod in a Superman Returns sequel, you may want to wait and see if the studio actually makes the thing. According to a story in Variety, Warner Bros., having taken a hit at the box office with Superman Returns, is still trying to decide whether the Man of Steel is worth another sequel. (I know, it's sick to think a film can make almost $200 million and still lose money, right? That's Hollywood for ya.)
Though Bryan Singer felt confident there would be another Supes adventure when he recently spoke at Comic-Con, the dude is not officially signed to direct one. Word on the street is Warner Bros. wants to do a sequel, seeing as they've invested a whole lot in the character, but some feel all that time and money were spent on a character that's simply not as popular as, say, the darker, more complicated Batman and Spider-Man.
Personally, my biggest problem with Superman Returns was that I just didn't believe in the character. Of course, you're immediately comparing Brandon Routh to Christopher Reeve, but I truly attempted to go in with an open mind, as I've done with every single Batman flick. Fact is, Routh didn't convince me. He didn't show me a super man. Instead, all I saw was a soap-opera actor with way too much make-up on. You know things are bad when Superman is just about to kick some major ass and you can't help but think, "Damn, why does he have so much blush on?"
I want a sequel of Superman...Just cut Singer and Co. off at the source and get some people who know what they're doing with the mystique or mythos of Superman....
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Comments
===================================
I clearly recall predicting this plotline awhile ago--right down to Luthor coming back to chew the scenery again,but was joking and hoped it would never come to pass.
As for originality?What's that?Singer's only point of reference for Superman is the first two films--nothing else at all.In Starlog(I think it was this magazine),one of the screenwriters talked about writing SR.Apparently DC sent him and his partner TPBs reprinting a wide array of Superman stories for inspiration.He recalled looking at some of them and said(I paraphrase),"I don't know this character--I don't like this character!"So much for open minds and creativity...Yikes.:o
Ten to one,the camera setups in Superman II:The Wrath of Zod--will be almost identical to those in the original Superman II.Much of the dialogue will have an all too eerie similarity as well.It'll look as much like a Richard Donner movie as possible.Deja Vu all over again.There'll be a curious echo in the movie theaters wherever SII #2 is shown.
But maybe the CGI fight between Superman and Zod will be more violent and destructive this time around...
Of course it's probably good business to remake SII.It's a familiar movie with characters the general public knows.A Superman film using characters that are better known to comics fans only might be a harder sell.But it's disappointing to see that--if this story's true--Singer would rather just redo what came before with only a few minor alterations as opposed to actually being creative.
======
It would,however,be nice to see Clark Kent make a brief cameo in the next Batman movie--as MBE suggested.Nothing too special,just him with a group of other reporters--maybe competing for Bruce Wayne's attention at a press conference and possibly even starting to ask a question as the conference comes to a halt.A very short moment.Something to acknowledge DC's shared universe.
I guess all that's left is to decide who plays Ursa and Non. I like Napoleon's idea about Zoe Lucker.
There was a quick line in Superman Returns about Superman being spotted in Gotham City. Clearly the powers that be are not averse to acknowledging other superheros. Who knows, this might actually come to pass. It would also be a great way to gauge any potential public interest in a crossover movie.
========
I suggested Lucy Lawless as Ursa-IMO she'd still be good,although Sable or Torri Wilson might be equally okay.Singer might even approach Claire Forlani.Whatever-the new Ursa will be made up to look as much like Sarah Douglas did in the first SII as possible so it probably won't matter very much who plays her.However,taking a cue from the redesign of Superman's costume,maybe Ursa#2 will have a considerably smaller outfit than she did initially, but with same general color scheme as before.
Tyler Mane could play Non.But just imagine Hulk Hogan as Non:"Hey Kal-El!I hate your guts,brother!You're goin' DOWN!"Or The Rock:"Kal-El!Can you smell what Non is cooking?"
It probably won't be too difficult for Luthor to free them from the Phantom Zone now that he knows a great deal about the Fortress of Solitude's inner workings.A rubber band and a kazoo will probably do the trick.Anyway,once Zod's loose,hopefully he'll hold Luthor prisoner and torture him a little bit.I'd like that.
Luthor:"You need me!"
Zod:"Silence,insignificant Earthman!(Faces Luthor and turns on heat vision full blast )ZZZZZZTTT!!!!"
Luthor:"YAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!!!"
Zod:"KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!!"
Conversely, Luthor might lord over the evil Kryptonians with some Kryptonite instead--either they do his bidding or he'll kill them.Regardless, Luthor will eventually have to team up with Superman in order to defeat the evil Kryptonians.Can't depart too greatly from the 1st SII.
Hmm...it's also possible that Richard White could be turned into a Bad Guy by Luthor.It takes absolutely no imagination whatsoever to consider that turn of events so it's something we may well see.Or maybe he'll simply run off with Kitty or Ursa.Or die nobly at the hands of Zod and Luthor while attempting to help Superman.
(Or he'll become Earth's Green Lantern and have his own franchise.)
Whatever,after the excitement wears down and he's gone, Lois can look adoringly into Superman's eyes and tell him that she never loved Richard anyway.
* * *
Another unimaginative prediction:
The third Singer Superman movie will probably be a composite of elements from SIII and SIV,since there really aren't any other Superman stories in existence anywhere.Luthor will again be the villain, but he'll come up with a synthetic kryptonite(Singer and Co. aren't aware of Red K--even with it's occasional appearances on "Smallville"),and possibly a create a synthetic bad guy for Superman to fight on the moon(name the wrestler of your choice).
At one point during the movie Superman will have been divided into two separate beings,and they'll have a big fight in the skies over Metropolis--until he reunites his selves.
There'll also be a courageous computer-using scientist--possibly played by Samuel L.Jackson or Dave Chappelle or Cedric the Entertainer--who'll come to Superman's asistance.He won't be at the center of the film but will be one of the more prominent heroic characters.Maybe he'll even be smarter than Luthor.Chris Reeve's idea of Superman attempting to remove all of the Earth's nuclear weapons will be ignored,however.
God,this all sounds horrible--so something like it will probably happen.
Unless SIII#3 teams up Clark and Jimmy Olsen in a Lethal Weapon type of film set in Kandor--"Nightwing and Flamebird".Think of the money saved.
I'm all for Zod returning because Superman has to have someone worthy to fight in S2 (or is that 2.2?). I think a Doomsday/Death of Superman story could be done but they'll avoid it. Ka-el could awake in the fortress of solitude after he and Doomsday have 'killed' one another and find that someone has taken his place as Superman. This imposter would be just The Eradicator rather than the robot/Henry steele/Superboy clone imposters of the original comics.
I was just about to say "I just hope they don't use any wrestlers, then you go and steal my thunder.
Claire Forlani is an interesting choice; I've always found her irresistably attractive (I might even be persuaded to leave Halle Berry for her) though I don't know if she has the presence to play a supervillain
Come to think of it, James Marsden could make a pretty good Kyle Rayner, don't know if he's Hal Jordan material though.
The movie left it a little vague, obviously to keep it open for a sequel.
Believe it or not, that was pretty much the plot of Kevin Smith's unused Superman screenplay.
Regardless of what they do, I also hope Superman returns (no pun intended). I'd prefer an original storyline, but if I have to fast forward over the dull bits to get to scenes like Superman saving the Space Shuttle and the 747, well I guess I can live with that.
Interestingly enough,when I saw Marsden as Richard White, I immediately thought,THERE'S Hal Jordan.I'm thinking back to the late 50s-early 60s look Hal had when the great Gil Kane drew him.Tall,lanky and boyishly handsome.I never liked Kyle Rayner except in that one episode of Superman:The Animated Series where he had Hal Jordan's origin and charged his ring at the Battery of Power with all of the other GLs and their oath echoed through space.If only he'd also been called Hal Jordan, I'd have liked that episode even more.For me Rayner was only a pretender to the throne...
I had a dream last night where I kicked the cr@p out of Singer and literally chased him off of the studio lot with a Scottish Claymore sword then oversaw the next Superman movie myself.
I fired Bosworth, the kid(whatever his name was); upsetting his mother after I planted a big one on her lips and sending them on their way and castrated Singer's writers...emasculating them like they did our beloved Superman.
I then held auditions for the part of Lois personally from my trailer; they had to read their lines in bikinis ;% ....I then woke up.
I'll try and suggest the dream tonight before bed for the conclusion.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
I suppose Marsden could work as Hal; I'd pay to see a GL movie with him in the lead.
Agree totally on the whole Kyle vs. Hal thing. Despite Ron Marz's assertions, Hal was always the one true Green Lantern for me as well ( even though Alan Scott came first
The animated episode was well done, though I did wish it had been Hal; I especially liked the "Col. Hal Jordan" signature on the jet plane that Kyle crashes into, that helped a little.
For me, the JLA was forever compromised by using John Stewart instead of Hal (that they made him a hothead army type didn't help). Has Hal ever appeared in any of the JLA/JLU episodes? I seem to remember seeing someone who looked like him in a clip but never saw an episode with him.
Of course, he did appear with Duck Dodgers when their uniforms were mixed up at the cleaners. I can't remember the name of the episode (was it The Green Loontern??).
That's a pretty vivid dream there Rogue. My dreams usually involve being back in college and having to take a final after having missed class all year.
Make sure you hide all frying pans and blunt instruments before making said suggestion to your wife.
It's good to know that you're not a bitter man,Rogue.Just imagine if you were upset or even disappointed by Singer's movie.:o
I was subliminally more damaged about this film than I thought. But I'll admit that this hurt my feelings the way Singer just stripped Superman down like a coat of paint. Being a bias DC guy doesn't help.
And Tony... hiding all pots and pans as I speak... although I'm sure I didn't cover everything...
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
I'm not sure about the Duck Dodgers title but I don't think Hal's ever appeared in animation otherwise(although that face you recall might've been him intentionally salted away by the artists to hide among a cast of thousands).Kyle Rayner was little more than Peter Parker with a power ring to me.
Clearly DC was attempting to bring in the Marvel readers who might've been reluctant to follow a comic book featuring a man in his 30s(until he almost overnight became a man in his mid-40s).But I still didn't care for the meat axe approach to altering certain characters.
Sometimes the comics writers seem to write more for themselves than they do for their readers--I'm thinking of Roy Thomas and Gerry Conway as I write.Roy was superb on the Conan stuff but his superhero things occasionally became overly complicated and chatty for some readers despite the comics company.But that could've been handled more adroitly than what finally happened.
I love history--including comic book history--and I really enjoyed All-Star Squadron,for example but suspect this title may have become too inclusive for the average reader because of that.It was a pretty good book,though and should have survived--along with Earth 2.
But it was the arbitrary decisions made by various writers at Marvel and DC alike that since a character didn't exactly "speak to them" anymore,then obviously that character was incredibly outdated,clearly uninteresting and therefore had to die so it could be replaced by a more modern and revised version,that really ticked me off.And no--Roy Thomas wasn't the only writer to think this way:not by a long shot.Lots of them did--especially in the 80s.Really--Hal Jordan could've gone off on a mission to a distant galaxy for an unspecified amount of time and left Rayner behind until he returned.Or retired.Killing him off was pointless.
Additionally,I didn't think the DC multiverse ever needed "fixing" or simplification regardless of what Marv Wolfman and other former Marvel-turned-DC writers once said.This argument never held water for me.All of the various Crisis series have only managed to muddle and destroy things.I never had any problems understanding the differences between Earth 1 and Earth 2 or Earth X or any other universe.The differences were usually spelled out pretty plainly in each story.And if one reader was confused by this wealth of riches ofered via those alternate universes,that's unfortunate but it shouldn't have been the signal to dismantle everything in order for him to then appreciate a comic book.
It's ironic that now DC's streamlined itself once again--- by throwing out a lot of wonderful stuff along the way-- that rather than resemble Marvel(the one time goal) their universe seems to have become almost impossible to traverse unless you were familiar with their books before everything was deconstructed to begin with.
By contrast,Marvel has it's alternate universes like DC once did and an average reader doesn't need an encyclopedia in order to know what's going on.DC's damaged themselves,and I say this as someone who's been a DC fanboy since 1956.I'm hoping they recover from their self-inflicted wounds and I think Darwyn Cooke's New Frontier series is a move in the right direction...
http://www.mediablvd.com/magazine/Magazine-Home/MBMag_20060420237.html
Bryan Singer Discusses Plans For The Superman Franchise
By Christina Radish
In Superman Returns, writer-director Bryan Singer has reinvigorated the Superman legend. Returning from a mysterious five-year absence, during which the love of his life, Lois Lane, has moved on, Superman is faced with a Metropolis ridden with crime and a nemesis (Lex Luthor) intent on using Superman’s technological secrets for his own personal gain and glory.
A self-taught director who specializes in dark movies about characters who are never quite what they seem, the 39-year-old USC cinema school graduate made a name for himself bringing such films to life as The Usual Suspects, and X-Men and X2: X-Men United. During his recent visit to the San Diego Comic Convention, Singer talked to MediaBlvd Magazine about what fans can expect from the Superman sequel.
MediaBlvd. Magazine> Can you talk about the next Superman film? Do you have a title or anything?
Bryan Singer> No, I have nothing. I only have ideas.
MB> Can you share any of those?
BS> I can’t.
MB> Just a little hint?
BS> Just that I know that there were certain things that were established in Superman Returns, like certain aspects of the characters, the relationships of the characters, certain reveals, and a great sense of unresolve in the romantic dilemma that Superman faces. And, now that the character is established, I’d like to take an opportunity to bring in, perhaps, a more threatening, foreboding, terrible element to the story.
MB> Someone from Krypton perhaps?
BS> Perhaps.
MB> Is it hard to walk the line between pleasing the fans of the old Superman and pleasing the new fans?
BS> I would probably take the characters, as they are established now, in Superman Returns and move from there. Having things that are referential and nostalgic are very special and very important to those of us who grew up with the Richard Donner film, as well as George Reeves’ interpretation of it, and the comic book. There will always be a place in my heart for that. But, this will be the starting place. Like with the first X-Men, I had to find a place to begin to educate people who weren’t familiar with that universe. Here, there’s a whole generation not familiar with Superman, and there was a lot of value in having him return to a version of the Donner universe, but yet still continue it forward. It’s always a delicate balance, particularly with a character this steeped in history and this ubiquitous. He means something to so many people, all over the world.
MB> Why did you end up cutting out the great James Karen?
BS> Because, in the final moments, I looked at those sequences, as they were in the picture, between he and Martha Kent and, although they were a wonderful concept -- the notion that Martha Kent, Superman’s mother, had moved on, like Lois Lane. It was just too much happening on the Kent farm, and I wasn’t getting to the Daily Planet fast enough for my taste. And so, what I ended up doing, in the final weeks before the opening, was removing three key scenes that existed on the farm between Martha Kent, Clark and, ultimately, James Karen, and adding that scene that’s in the movie and doing a different transition than I had planned. Originally, I was going to transition from a baseball to the Daily Planet and just cut to the city.
MB> Were you surprised at the grief you picked up over the “Truth and justice” line that Clark says in the film?
BS> No, not at all. Particularly now, because we’re at war and the United States is under a lot of scrutiny, people said, “Oh, wow, you had him say ‘Truth and justice,’ but you didn’t have him say ‘The American way.’” I had him say the lead in, so I felt that was very patriotic. I’m fiercely patriotic. And, I also have to remind people that, even in 1978, when Superman said, “I’m here to fight for truth, justice and the American way,” they did make humor of it. Lois said, “You’re going to end up fighting every politician in Washington,” and he said, “You don’t really mean that, Lois.” I think he’s a global superhero. We’ve opened the picture in various countries and it’s been extraordinary. If you just say, “Truth, justice and the American way,” it’s going to sound strange to people in other parts of the world.
MB> How is the film being received overseas?
BS> It’s playing huge, unexpectedly. We’ve only opened in 65% of our territories outside of the United States, and we’ve already crossed the $100 million mark. We had one of the largest openings in China. It’s a phenomenon in countries in Europe and Asia. We did not expect that, and that’s been exciting. It broke records and made history with $19,000 at the IMAX theater in China, in one day. They ran it around the clock.
MB> Why do you think the characters resonate so well outside of the United States, particularly in China?
BS> Because Superman is the first super hero and he is the ultimate immigrant and because he’s, ultimately, a really cool character with great powers, who flies and is very virtuous, and he’s been around for 70 years. Something about his iconography has grown. I’d like to say there’s some Judeo-Christian allegory that also is in play, but that wouldn’t explain the success in Asia, as much as it has in Europe. He’s just gotten more famous, over the years.
MB> With all of these super hero characters, like Spider-Man and Batman, back in films at the same time, is there any chance that their worlds might collide?
BS> Eventually, but not now. Not yet. You’re not ready to do that yet. The worlds are so distinct and so different. Sam Raimi has created such a distinct world with Spider-Man, Chris Nolan has re-created such a distinct world with Batman, and we tried to do the same here with Superman, and also, with X-Men. Right now, I wouldn’t want to mush those universes together. I think you’d dilute them.
MB> Were you told to cut the scene where Clark Kent returns to his home world of Krypton?
BS> I was never forced to cut out anything. Everything I cut and added was my own choice, in terms of editing. I’m afforded that kind of freedom now, for better or worse. I had the sequence where Clark returns to the shattered remains of his home world. There were some symbolic moments in it. It’s a very majestic sequence that somehow, in stepping back from it and seeing it in the context of the whole film, as wonderful and neat as it was, it felt like it belonged in some kind of 3-D IMAX incarnation of the movie. I didn’t feel that it served the central story and thrust of the movie that you saw, so I cut it, very late in the game. I just pulled it out.
MB> Will it be on the DVD?
BS> I don’t know if I want to put that on the DVD. I may want to try to re-release the film, possibly in IMAX, in a year, and maybe have them do a more elaborate 3-D process on other aspects that they didn’t have time to make 3-D, and then 3-D that sequence as well. That would be a personal fantasy. Whether the numbers make sense or not, we’ll see. It’s very expensive to create those IMAX prints. They’re complicated. But, if we can pull it off, what I would do is create more 3-D material and add that sequence. If you saw the sequence, it’s just crying out to be 3-D IMAX. It’s got fragments of planets and things and a crystal ship and Brandon Routh in a different outfit. Also, it wasn’t the first way I wanted to show Superman, either. I stepped back from it and thought it was troublesome enough to have him be so weak and to fall into his mother’s arms, but for us to see him in this way first was weakening to me and I didn’t want to do that. I wanted to hold you out there, have you get to know Clark, and then have that happen.
MB> It seems like you made a lot of last minute changes to the film.
BS> Very often, I do make radical changes. I believe a film is written three times, once on the page, once on the set, and a third time in the editing room. This film, frankly, was very much together, in the cutting room. I spent about the last three months of shooting, every night, going into the cutting room, and I had a pretty solid version of it. It was just this beginning part of it, with the return to Krypton and too much at the farm. And, there was a subplot that I removed, which was very small, throughout the rest of the picture. But, the picture was moving pretty well. I had a two hour and 45 minute version that I screened for a bunch of friends and family, and that was when I stepped back and said, “This movie is front heavy.”
MB> What was that subplot?
BS> The subplot was that Lex Luthor was somehow responsible for Superman leaving the Earth, and it involved Kal Penn’s character a lot more. It broke my heart to cut it because Kal Penn was great, and I had to remove some elements of Kal. These were tiny pieces, but once you removed them all, it kept the story cleaner. There was a different discovery on the farm. And, originally, he didn’t read the article in the Daily Planet about why the world doesn’t need Superman. Originally, he read it in the basement. So, I think that scene might be on the DVD.
MB> Will you have time to make another film before the Superman sequel, or is your entire focus on that now?
BS> I’m going to try to make a small film before that. I did the TV series House. Not only did I direct the pilot for House, but I’m an executive producer on it and I directed the first episode, to break in the L.A. crew. House was not a full feature, but it was like a small feature undertaking.
MB> Would you like to return to TV at all?
BS> Yeah, I absolutely would love to. I might make a deal to develop some television, and I’d like to go back and direct some House episodes.
MB> What happened to your version of Battlestar Galactica?
BS> I sold it to NBC Universal, and they made a great hit show out of it.
MB> Did it break your heart that it wasn’t the version you pitched?
BS> No. I was just very happy that it was so successful.
MB> And idea when Superman 2 might come out?
BS> It will be released sometime in 2009.
MB> What did Richard Donner and Tom Mankiewicz think of Superman Returns?
BS> They were very moved, and felt like the torch had been past.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Personally, I wish he'd left the scenes on Krypton and the subplot with Lex being behind Superman leaving Earth in the first place. Both were in the novel were very entertaining (far more than the subplots that were left in). He'd be well advised to include them on the DVD as I doubt WB will be willing to add more overhead to SR's already-in-the-red balance sheet by paying for a new IMAX version.
It's also kinda sad that the rest of the world seems to love Superman more than America, the place of the character's birth. I guess it's just another institution (much like jazz) that was born here but now flourishes elsewhere.
Zzzzz...
SII#2 doesn't have much of a ring to it.
Let's see, Batman Returns was followed by Batman Forever. So, does that mean Singer will call the next one "Superman Forever" ?
After all, why rip off just the Superman movies; there's plenty of stuff in the Batman movies they can steal too.
Since Singer is such a Star Trek fan,I think he'll seriously consider Superman II:The Wrath of Zod.This way he can not only pay tribute to Donner/Mankiewicz but can also refer to one of the best Star Trek movies ever made.Not too original,but those words might also describe Singer's take on Superman as well.
I liked Donner's 2 Superman movies but never thought either one(yes,I know Lester finished SII but apparently Donner had filmed most of it before the Salkinds canned him)was a masterpiece.Too many gaping holes in the stories,too much campiness and some indifferent acting.The best thing about them is Christopher Reeve whose sincere performances as both Superman and Clark Kent almost effortlessly(or so it looked)made it seem as if we were actually seeing Kal-El on the screen.Without him,they'd be okay--but nothing special--in my opinion,anyway.I agree with the late Gene Siskel and Richard Donner in thinking that Reeve deserved an Academy Award--or at the very least a nomination recognizing the quality of his performance(s)-- but the Academy would never consider doing anything like that for anyone who played something so clearly unchallenging and unimportant as a comic book character.After all,anyone could do that.
Suuurrre they could...
I enjoyed Superman I a lot although back then I was more of a Marvel fan and not knowing the Superman mythos probably aided in my enjoyment. Looking back now, I know that Otis and Miss Tessmacher have no business being in the movie and I know that Gene Hackman is way too hammy. And yet I still love it just the way it is and would never dream of having it altered (other than what Donner did in the director's cut).
Superman II on the other hand has not held up as well as the original for me. I think Lester's "contributions" give it a schizophrenic feel which has bothered me more and more over the years. I'll be curious to see Donner's restored cut as hopefully it will make a better (or at least more consistent) companion to the original than the Donner/Lester hybrid.
Total agreement on the Academy's short-sightedness when it comes to recognizing genre performances. I've always felt that in some ways an FX heavy film is even harder to act in since so often you're reacting to nothing, and that is taking acting about as far as it can go. Reeve should have been recognized, as should have Bale for Batman Begins. And Ian McDirmid should have gotten a nomination for Palpatine/Sidious in Episode III.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
November 28, 2006. All the movies are being re-released though not official announcement regarding Superman Returns has surfaced yet. Here's an article with more info on all the versions coming out:
http://dvd.ign.com/articles/720/720499p1.html
Hmmm...I was 27 years old when I first saw Superman:the Movie.I believed a man could fly.I believed that Chris Reeve was just amazing as Clark/Superman, but aside from a few scattered moments(all of the Smallville sequences,Clark changing into Superman for the first time and discovering phone booths don't exist anymore,Superman in action,etc.),I was disappointed by the overall storyline.The whole Krypton thing seemed pretentious beyond words("We're all Shakesperian actors here on Krypton--and everything we say and do is majestic and IMPORTANT.").I realize the Salkinds set great store on having The Godfather in their movie--his participation,like Nicholson's on Batman,brought prestige to the production-- but I was and remain singularly unimpressed with the entire Krypton sequence.
Then there's Lex Luthor:his "grand plan" seemed beneath the greatest genius on this planet--and we all know he's a genius because he keeps telling us he is.Real estate?C'mon...No--Luthor could've done much better than that.Maybe if Hackman hadn't hated being in the movie(he's acknowledged that at the time he felt this movie was far beneath his talents),he might've come across as at least vaguely threatening.But he isn't.
Comic Relief Otis didn't do anything for me either, nor did the beautiful Valerie Perrine(who I've desired for years) as Luthor's screwy Judy Holliday/Marilyn Monroe-esque moll.
In all fairness,I fully understand that this movie (and the sequel) were being written practically as the film was being made.I know that Tom Mankiewicz worked almost day and night on it.Still,the campy Luthor("Wheee!!!LOOK at MEEE!!!!I'm EEEvill!!!")belongs on the Batman TV series, but is probably--along with Miss Teschmascher--one of the few holdovers from the rejected screenplay the David and Leslie Newman came up with.Mario Puzo lent his name to the script, but at least one interview I've found he said that he really didn't write very much of it.The Luthor sequences almost seem like outtakes from a Superman musical--not surprising since the Newmans had previously written the Broadway musical It's a Bird-It's a Plane-It's Superman.All that's missing are songs by Luthor telling everyone how brilliant and evil he is,backed up by Otis and Miss T. and a corps of dancers-possibly wearing black masks and prison uniforms:ala Scrooge McDuck's adversaries, the Beagle Boys.
This version of Luthor disappointed me.
And there's one other thing that irks me about this movie--and that's the scene where Superman spins the Earth backwards on it's axis in order to bring Lois back to life and zips up the San Andreas faultline along the way.If Superman can literally control time--at least the events of the past-- then there's really nothing Superman can't do.He's a god.He can always change time as it suits him.Talk about Groundhog Day.To be incredibly extreme,if he wanted to,The Man of Steel could actually kill anyone he chose and then restore them to life only to kill them again and again and again.Not that he ever would of course but surely once he got bored enough the temptation would definitely be there.Or he could marry Lois only to then become a bachelor whenever the idea struck his fancy.:)
I don't think Superman II holds up much better than Superman Idid(when I look at them critically), aside from the fact that this time around Superman has foes who can match his steel(pun intended).For it's time, those fights with Zod and the gang were pretty darn incredible.Comic book moments on the screen.As always,Luthor is--IMO--ineffectual,but at least he plays a smaller part in the overall motion picture.I too could have done without Lester's forced "comedic" touches.They're not funny most of the time but they are distracting--kind of like that drunk who always does a double take and then examines his bottle in some of Sir Roger's Bond films.Funny for a child perhaps, but not for me.
I actually liked the idea of Superman losing his powers, but not by sacrificing them willingly--even for love.Here's where a little Red K might've come in handy.Of course, that might've turned Clark into a chimp instead.:)Overall,I prefer Superman II to at least the latter half of Superman I.They're both entertaining, but they're also fraught with the kinds of plot points a "serious" motion picture would probably do it's best to avoid.And that's a shame.
Again, these motion pictures were absolutely incredible undertakings, and I definitely respect what Mankiewicz wrote and what Donner did(and they were both working to meet a deadline--plus making history with the first big superhero epic), but their movies didn't always speak to me as strongly as they clearly did to others.That said,I was definitely moved when Superman returned to DC with the flag and told President E.G.Marshall that he'd never let him down again--who wouldn't be?
And naturally anything Donner can do to excise Lester's creative "touches" will no doubt improve Superman II.I look forward to seeing his cut.
Geeez..I probably sound every bit as cranky as Lewis Black usually does.I'm not really--I'm just particular.;)
I got the info from boxofficemojo.com.
I do expect a sequel, but whether Singer remains at the helm for the next venture is iffy at best. Even if he does at this point, the constraints Warner will put on him might force him out on his own accord... We'll see.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Sorry Rogue, it's just that unlike with Batman and Spider-Man, I don't really care what happens with Superman 2.
I can see it now:if SII#2 is called Superman Forever--ala' the earlier Batman movies, then the Superman sequel could be titled Superman and Superboy(it'd make more sense than Superman and Robin).By that time Lois and Clark will be married--even if that event never happened in a Richard Donner film.
Or Singer will have another creative brainstorm and Clark will share joint custody of the kid as a single father. :v
Warner Bros. Pictures execs are mulling whether to go ahead with a planned sequel and ink another deal with director Bryan Singer.
The film is not such a blockbuster that a follow-up is inevitable -- but not such a disappointment that a sequel would be ludicrous. After all, the first "Austin Powers" pic was a modest hit that begat two huge grossers.
Word on the Warners lot is that the studio is trying to lock down a deal with Singer for a sequel.
Many speculate that WB has invested too much time and money to walk away. What's more, the film fuels a number of Time Warner outlets, including homevid, ancillaries and merchandising -- even subsid DC Comics.
Warners and co-financing partner Legendary Pictures have a shot at breaking even on "Superman" once all the revenue streams are accounted for, but it's going to be a long, tough haul.
Warners and Legendary -- which splits all profits with the studio down the middle -- are counting on strong home entertainment sales to make up for slower-than-expected box office. (WB's 2005 "Batman Begins," whose B.O. was comparable to that of "Superman," earned $167 million in DVD sales, according to estimates by Variety sister pub Video Business.) Then there are the various TV windows.
There's no doubt that with Legendary as a partner, Warners has a far easier time justifying big-budget efforts like "Superman." At the same time, Legendary has investors to answer to.
Officially, Warners says it's premature to talk about any sequel, since "Superman" has yet to open in certain key international territories.
Last month at the fanboy gathering Comic-Con in San Diego, Singer enthusiastically predicted the second film would bow in 2009. He promised fans more action, saying he used the first pic to "lay the foundation" for the relaunch of the franchise.
Singer said he'll "go all 'Wrath of Kahn' " on the next installment -- a reference to the fact that Paramount's long-running "Star Trek" film franchise really kicked in with its second installment, which was tighter, faster and better received than the original "Star Trek: The Motion Picture."
Negotiations between Singer and the studio would get delicate if Warners wants to include over-budget penalties. Warners certainly can't wrest control away from a director like Singer, but it can try to make sure the budget stays under a certain level.
Word is that WB and Legendary will want to keep the budget of the next one at $200 million or below, but the studio denies any such cap.
Sequels are generally costlier than the original pics, since they need more action and more special effects to tempt auds. In theory, a "Superman" follow-up could be cheaper, since expensive sets are already built, and some CGI experimentation is out of the way (e.g., how does his cape look when he flies?).
On the other hand, Universal threw in the towel with the Hulk after the first pic in the potential franchise failed to wow.
But is the character too retro? While "Superman Returns" received better notices than nearly all of the other 2006 summer tentpoles, some reviewers questioned whether the superhero is too stolid for modern-day fans, who favor darker, more complicated characters, such as Batman or Spider-Man.
Warners had believed that Superman, because of his good-beats-evil mythology, would appeal to a broader audience than Batman.
WB's "Batman Begins" grossed $203.5 million domestically and $166.5 million overseas. "Superman Returns" could edge past its predecessor. It has grossed $190.5 million in the U.S. and $146.5 million overseas, where it has yet to open in several key territories. Conservative estimates are that the pic will gross at least $170 million overseas, bringing its worldwide total to about $360 million.
But "Superman" was far more expensive than "Batman," whose sequel, "The Dark Knight," was just announced by Warners. Pricetag for "Superman" included a production budget of at least $223 million, offset by $20 million in Australian tax breaks. The P&A budget was well north of $100 million.
There is an added $40 million in previous development costs for earlier aborted attempts to resurrect the superhero. The studio wrote off those costs in previous years.
Top studio execs, along with Legendary, insist they will make money on the pic when all is said and done.
But some have speculated that -- based on box office alone and just counting the production budget -- Warners and Legendary could each be out more than $20 million. Those losses could rise sharply when factoring in marketing costs.
I read a Superman article the other day which said that Henry Cavill was pratically cast as Superman until Singer came in and chose Routh. That would make young Henry the acting equivalent of a man who was one number away from winning the lottery...twice.
Comic book based movies are enjoying an unusually strong wave of popularity and critical respect right now and this'd be the wrong time to throw in the towel.So SR didn't please everyone--it wasn't exactly an artistic failure either and the people involved probably did the best they could given their interests and the general circumstances.
I think that if Warners signs off now they may never have a chance to put another live-action version of Superman on the screen again for a long time to come.
Maybe he didn't own the Summer.Maybe the famous costume was needlessly altered.But still,The Man of Steel remains an extremely prestigious character.Unlike The Hulk,this is Superman--the king and father of all the costumed comic book heroes.With all due respect to Stan Lee and Jack Kirby,Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster's creation transcends that of the Hulk both in influence and historical importance.I repeat--this is SUPERMAN.
Although Superman has never really needed any extra validation by being turned into a movie character,I think he deserves at least one more motion picture to show the filmgoing public what he's capable of.IMO the character's potential is remarkable and limited only by the extent of his writer's imaginations.And with CGI so highly developed the most amazing sequences are certainly possible to put on the screen.
But even if all a SR sequel turns out to be is just a bigger and more technically proficient variation on the first Superman sequel,that might not be a bad thing at all.
I think Singer(or whomever winds up directing SRII) should bring in Paul Dini and some of the other writers of the animated Superman series to assist in creating the next screenplay--people who are well versed in Superman lore and have proven that they know how to successfully dramatize this character while keeping him interesting to modern audiences.
Just throw out all of the campy crap,develop the characterizations further,make the villains truly fearsome and worthy antagonists for Superman,build up the suspense and then ramp up the action so The Last Son of Krypton can go through his paces in style.
http://dailydose.cinematical.com/2006/08/15/superman-sequel-officially-in-limbo/
Superman Sequel Officially in Limbo
Posted Aug 15th 2006 12:31PM by Erik Davis
Filed under: Warner Brothers, RumorMonger, Box Office, DIY/Filmmaking, Newsstand, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Remakes and Sequels
Before you start throwing out the names of actors who would be perfect as General Zod in a Superman Returns sequel, you may want to wait and see if the studio actually makes the thing. According to a story in Variety, Warner Bros., having taken a hit at the box office with Superman Returns, is still trying to decide whether the Man of Steel is worth another sequel. (I know, it's sick to think a film can make almost $200 million and still lose money, right? That's Hollywood for ya.)
Though Bryan Singer felt confident there would be another Supes adventure when he recently spoke at Comic-Con, the dude is not officially signed to direct one. Word on the street is Warner Bros. wants to do a sequel, seeing as they've invested a whole lot in the character, but some feel all that time and money were spent on a character that's simply not as popular as, say, the darker, more complicated Batman and Spider-Man.
Personally, my biggest problem with Superman Returns was that I just didn't believe in the character. Of course, you're immediately comparing Brandon Routh to Christopher Reeve, but I truly attempted to go in with an open mind, as I've done with every single Batman flick. Fact is, Routh didn't convince me. He didn't show me a super man. Instead, all I saw was a soap-opera actor with way too much make-up on. You know things are bad when Superman is just about to kick some major ass and you can't help but think, "Damn, why does he have so much blush on?"
I want a sequel of Superman...Just cut Singer and Co. off at the source and get some people who know what they're doing with the mystique or mythos of Superman....
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -