|
Superman Returns Sequel is a GO!
Superman Returns sequel confirmed:
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/061026e.php The "Superman" Sequel Moving Forward Posted: Thursday October 26th 2006 12:38am Source: IESB Author: Garth Franklin Warner Bros. has kept "Superman Returns" playing long enough that this past weekend it finally cracked the $200 million mark domestically and so the studio will move forward with a sequel. The IESB has learned that Bryan Singer has finalized a deal to move forward with the sequel this past weekend and the studio is planning to start production sometime as early as next September with much of the same team behind "Returns". This would indicate shooting would probably begin early 2008 for a Summer 2009 release. In a very smart move as well, the two big criticisms thrown against the film are being directly addressed - the budget and the lack of action & fun in the film. The action quotient will be strongly ramped up and a non-Lex DC villain looks like it will be the main villain of the piece. In regards to the cost, 'Returns' had an official budget around $204-208 million, plus tens of millions in development costs over the years. No development costs this time around, and the production budget will be set at a perfectly sound $140-175 million. |
I remember hearing Singer say that the sequel will be a darker/sci-fi oriented sequel.
|
I was checking out boxofficemojo many months ago and I think it was in the range of $195mil or so. Warner must of really wanted that magical $200mil mark. I had no idea it was still playing anywhere.
|
Well, all they have to do is recast Lois, kill the kid, and come up with a villain not named Lex Luthor and it could turn out alright.
|
Originally Posted by Doughboy
Well, all they have to do is recast Lois, kill the kid, and come up with a villain not named Lex Luthor and it could turn out alright.
It's good to see they at least acknowledged there was no action and fun in the first one, and are going to try to improve in that area. |
there was no action and fun in the first one |
Aside from the plane sequence, I cannot recall any action. I do remember Superman stalking his ex girlfriend and sleeping in the hospital, so hopefully they cut down on some of that.
|
The lack of action wasn't necessarily the problem with the movie. Comparitively speaking, Superman I has less action than Superman II but it's still great. My biggest problem with it was the lack of fun. This was the gloomiest Superman I've ever seen.
|
Aside from the plane sequence, I cannot recall any action. I do remember Superman stalking his ex girlfriend and sleeping in the hospital, so hopefully they cut down on some of that. |
Yeah I guess there were action scenes in there, but like rennervision said, it was definitely lacking in the fun department. And action without fun is just a waste.
|
Originally Posted by Doughboy
Well, all they have to do is recast Lois, kill the kid, and come up with a villain not named Lex Luthor and it could turn out alright.
|
i remember a lot of heavy lifting.
supes needs to go up against a non-human opponent, like alien or mutated something or other; something that, in the beginning, is shown to do some real damage and ends up pushing the man o steel to his limits by the end. |
Originally Posted by HN
i remember a lot of heavy lifting.
supes needs to go up against a non-human opponent, like alien or mutated something or other; something that, in the beginning, is shown to do some real damage and ends up pushing the man o steel to his limits by the end. |
Great, great news. I was worried there for a bit that we were done with Superman. Glad that isn't the case.
|
Originally Posted by RichC2
Plane, ship, mini-airplane, earthquake/island bit, on island bits, there seemed like a lot to me.
|
Brainiac will most likely be the villain.
Maybe throw in some small-time villains, like Metallo and Mxy as well. |
Happy to hear this despite having reservations about how the first came out (the biggest being some miscast/annoying characters, a distractingly slavish devotion to the first 2 Reeves movies, and the aforementioned lack of fun). Singer's obviously a talented filmmaker, and with some lessons learned from the first movie there's good reason to expect things to get better.
Especially glad to hear the use of a non-Lex (and certainly not Lex with another crazy real-estate scheme after suckering in Supes with stolen kyptonite) DC supervillain. And as much as I love him, not General Zod (or any other Krytonian villain). Singer needs to break free from the earlier movies and make something new. Darkseid and Braniac are the 2 obvious biggies. Both of which will push a movie more heavily into sci-fi territory -- which I think is a good thing. Braniac is probably easier, at least without major changes from the comic/cartoon character. Darkseid with all his co-horts on Apokolips and New Genesis would be a bit much for the mainstream movie audience. Any movie version of Darkseid is likely to be massively simplified. |
Any reason why Doomsday wouldn't work? too boring? too strong? (never read the comic)
|
Originally Posted by HN
Any reason why Doomsday wouldn't work? too boring? too strong? (never read the comic)
It would take a couple movies to build Superman up to truly being super before knocking him off the pedestal again. |
$140 to $175 million for the sequel? Is Warners just looking to break-even on these films? Because a sequel won't top $150 million at the box office...no matter HOW good it is. That's just the law of diminishing returns...although there are a few exceptions, like POTC 2. But Superman is nowhere near as popular right now as that franchise.
|
Yeah, I'm worried about the same thing, But I figure if an terrible movie like Pirates 2 can break $1b, then a Superman sequel can at least break even at the box office and profit on homevideo/cable.
A Superman movie with action. Say it ain't so. |
Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt
$140 to $175 million for the sequel? Is Warners just looking to break-even on these films? Because a sequel won't top $150 million at the box office...no matter HOW good it is. That's just the law of diminishing returns...although there are a few exceptions, like POTC 2. But Superman is nowhere near as popular right now as that franchise.
|
Maybe Superman's kid will be killed when Darkseid discovers the boy is responsible for creating "The Genesis Device" and stabs him with a knife when he won't reveal its secrets.
Superman then yells "You alien bastard! You killed my son!!!" Then goes all bad-ass. :) |
Originally Posted by RichC2
Yeah, I'm worried about the same thing, But I figure if an terrible movie like Pirates 2 can break $1b, then a Superman sequel can at least break even at the box office and profit on homevideo/cable.
Well no joke. Providing examples is always a double edged sword. |
Originally Posted by DVD Josh
I'm just curious why a Superman movie that is heavy on action is a bad thing in your mind.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...fe/Action1.JPG |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:09 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.