Nope. What Marvel doesn't quite understand is that a CGI main superhero character can't carry a movie. In addition, and the most important factor, is that the general public's attitudes towards the Hulk as a character is directed towards the tv series, not the comics. In the eyes of the majority of America, the Hulk is a steroid monster painted green, not a 20 foot CGI effect.

I think you are greatly exaggerating the influence of the show. I'm 25 and i've never seen one episode, so any reference (other then knowing who Lou Ferrigno is) was lost on me. I guarantee the "majority" of the America is in a similar boat.

I like Hulk, but he's just not as appealing as the other superheroes. Why would a Hulk movie make half a billion bucks? I have never read a gripping Hulk comic book, so I think it's the same that would go for the movie. Spiderman, X-Men, Iron Man have had some great touching storylines in the comic books. Name one touching Hulk story?

Either way, if they want a Superman movie to make massive amounts of money, they better put epic universe action in there. As long as there is distance to Superman's most famous characters (Lois Lane and Lex), the movie could be good and successful.

I would be really upset if they dumped Singer and re-casted Superman. I actually really liked Superman Returns and thought it was a great re-introduction to the character. Although, I wouldn't mind a re-cast of Lois to Rachel McAdams.

Other than spending way too much money, I thought Singer did a great job.

"Fan fic" is the perfect descriptive phrase.
And for everyone here that professes love for Returns, has there been one post that is excitedly speculating about seeing more screen time devoted to expanding and embellishing the relationship of Superman and Jason? All any fan of the film ever says is "great start- now let's see 'er rip with a bigger villan".
It's amusing that the only original idea that Singer contributed to this characters mythos, is the one big aspect of the sequel no one seems interested in speculating about- despite the fact the film left this a huge dangling thread. The situation is laid out there and (unlike Lee's Hulk) not resolved at all. On the contrary, the movie makes a big maudlin point about his new genetic ties to this world, and yet it is supposed to be a triumphant note when he flies off at the end after acknowledging his paternity- with nothing more substantial than a casual "I'll be around once and a while (maybe...if I'm not busy with something else)."
Do fans of the film really understand the half assed concepts Singer is (inadverently apparently) promoting as 'heroic' here? Or is modern society so numbed to the concept of non-accountable breeding and non-responsible rearing that this situation is viewed as something heartwarming and eddifying?

Agree to disagree.

I have probably only watched an episode or so, but from a pop culture reference, that is the only Hulk the general public knows, whether or not they watched the show or not.

But combine that with the fact that you are being asked to care about a completely CGI character, and it is a recipe for average numbers.

I didn't even remember the kids name. In fact, I made an effort to try and forget it.

Having Superman have a son was the worst superhero movie idea since Batman getting nipples. Why and who thought of this Jason concept? Did the producers/Singer do some survey asking people what would be the juiciest, conflicty storyline for a Superhero movie and it turned out to be Superman having a son? It's just retarded. It's like the equivalent of Spiderman having a son with Mary Jane Watson.

The next Superman movie needs to be a total revamp. They need new casting. The Superman actor had the presence of a zombie. Kate Bosworth was boring and skanky-looking as Louis. And drop Lex Luthor even if they could get Gene Hackman back. It's a shame Spacey was so bad. Eventhough he's a good actor, his portrayal of Lex Luthor is nothing in comparison to what an actor can do with a villain role just from watching Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight trailers.

Another factor is that they don't even need Clark Kent. If anyone's watched the Superman 90s cartoon/Justice League, Superman doesn't always revolve around Clark Kent, The Daily Planet, Kryptonite, Lois Lane, and Lex Luthor. It's time to stray away from his usually cheesy storylines revolving these factors.

Superman's got so many villains other than Lex: Bizarro, Brainiac, Cyborg Superman, Darkseid, Doomsday, Metallo, Mongul, Mr. Mxyzptlk, Parasite, Solomon Grundy, Toyman.

If Batman Begins became the greatest superhero movie without a well-known villain (Ra's a Ghul, Scarecrow), than so can a Superman movie.

Actually, that one makes sense. Mary Jane does know that Peter Parker is Spiderman and they do eventually get married........

BTW, supposedly Batman has a son with Talia, named Damian. Oh the horror!

I'm still not convinced that some how Morrison won't write that off. Maybe this whole ARC is Bruce being in the isolation chamber?

Assuming Returns was bad, how does that make it Singers fault rather than the writers?

Luckily, in comic books a ton of stupid ideas happen that are erased via stupid world events. In movies that only happen once every 3 years or so? The story better be grand and epic!

Story by:
Bryan Singer &
Michael Dougherty &
Dan Harris

Producers:
Gilbert Adler
Jon Peters
Bryan Singer

Screenplay by:
Michael Dougherty &
Dan Harris
Who Bryan Singer brought with him after they wrote X2.

oh...
Director:
Bryan Singer


So, if one accepts the posit that Returns is bad, Singer shoulders a very big part of it being bad.

Singer felt (and I understand this while not neccessarily agreeing) that the clark/lois/superman triangle has been done to death already and that a new external rival would kick the material up and give it a fresher dynamic.
It might have worked if so much else in the film hadn't been so audaciuosly unoriginal when not being blatantly plageristic..
When the 'vehicle' of the villans plot is Kyrptonian, when Superman is despondant over his alien nature and distance from humanity, when he has just gotten back from deep space exploration...of course the one villan that would thematically tie all these elements together would be...Lex Luthor...again.
As the character itself would say...WROOOOONNNNNGGG!
Singer, not understanding these characters beyond a facile appreciation of the Donner film, wanted to tell two different films. One is a speculative sequel to Superman II, the other is the remake of Superman I.
Singer has nothing to say in regards to the former...at all! The idea is merely presented and the story finds resolution in Superman merely acknowledging this happened. That's all that happens. The main concern of the film is a completely unneccessary remake of the first film.
The former is merely inept, while the latter is just sad. The film is the epitome of half-assed and unneccessary.

The former is merely inept, while the latter is just sad. The film is the epitome of half-assed and unneccessary.

Bravo!

As one poster noted, these criticisms and rants against SUPERMAN RETURN have been done to death. Again and again...

Is there anyway to put a moratorium on the expression of haters, and instead just focus on news about the sequel? Like discussion about the STAR WARS prequels, the nerdy rants get predictable and old really fast.

While I was the one to mention that these are the same debates we've had for 2 years, to be fair this all started again with an article about them going without Singer and there were people jumping on how Singer should get another chance. It isn't just the haters.

Exactly. It isn't as if this thread was resurrected just to complain. Instead, it is talks about a potential sequel and if Singer should come back or not. Big difference.

Well, I realize that. It's just that the whole "hate/love" arguments get to be a bit overwhelming and fosters nothing but emotionally charged negativity. You have a bunch of people who rant about the movie, while those who enjoyed it tend not to have to exclaim it's achievements or go on and on about their appreciation.

And really, unless Singer is replaced, or WB actively solicits internet opinion (yeah, right), does it really do any good at this time to bitch so vehemently about the director? There's a big difference between being a fan, and being a fanboy.

Anyway, to get back directly on the topic, according to some site out there, Routh has been quoted that Singer is working on getting a script done soon. Any additional news would be greatly appreciated...

I don't think anyone is really bitching, we're just discussing the future of the franchise. What's wrong with that? It's kind of like how people are already discussing on if Nolan will come back for a third Batman film. Or Rami and the fourth Spider-Man film.

It's fun to speculate.

As for Routh and his comment about Singer and a script. I think Singer really thought a sequel was going to get the green light right off the bat, but after the film got some negative backlash, it seems WB is a tad more skittish about bringing Singer back. I wouldn't even count on the fact that Singer is doing anything for a sequel, he may of simply moved on.

What about Livewire? She could be an interesting villain if done properly.

And thank God you left off Zod.

I think it would have been awesome for the film the end with Doomsday's fist bashing against a metal door.

When you guys are talking about Brainiac as a villain, are you talking about the green guy with the bald head, or the revised incarnation from the eighties where he's some giant robot?

Doomsday would be okay, but an all-CGI creature would be a little mind-numbing after awhile.

I never thought Superman's villains were ever that great: Terra-Man, Toyman and Mr. Mxyztlk are all rather ridiculous. However, early drafts of SUPERMAN III were supposed to use Mxyzptlk and Brainiac in one fashion or another.

With all the problems that Singer is having with Valkyrie, it's hard to believe the studio is all that eager to get him back on this.
Stranger things have happened though.