SUPERMAN RETURNS and BATMAN BEGINS made roughly the same $$$ at the box office. The former is considered a disappointment and the latter a hit (primarily because of costs and box office expectations), but regardless of what the budgets were, AUDIENCES supported both films equally.

So I don't think there's any question about Singer and Routh getting another shot at Superman.

I would love to see a sequel with the cast and crew returning but it doesn't seem like its gonna happen. Routh better have not blown all that money he got from the first one or I fear he may soon be busing tables at the waffle house.

Call me crazy, but that's kind of a big deal when you're watching a 2-hour + film. There have been numerous films made over the years with casts that directors would die to work with and people would clamor to see on screen, but when all was said and done the films simply sucked. It doesn't matter who the talent is, if you don't have a good script you don't have <i>anything</i>. Period.

I hope you are correct.

Ya know...I was re-reading the VARIETY article, and besides the fact that it is speculation, I also notice that the statement is rather (deliberately?) vague. It states that Bryan Singer is unlikely to shoot the next Superman movie, then states "the next Superman we will see on the big screen will not be Brandon Routh" which of course refers to JLA. It really doesn't mention the next Superman sequel.

I am not sure if this is Thompson trying to be cute or coy about the events, or if it's just poor writing on her part.

Well Michael Dougherty, one of the writers already dropped off right? I have't heard anything from Dan Harris. Hopefully they hire someone who can make a great story though.

And this is why I think Singer is vastly overrated by fans. Yes, you are correct; the Christ metaphors were implicit in the original film. But the big difference is they were implied thru dialouge and they were supported by the entire film- The character is presented as a saviour who makes sacrifices in his personal hapiness for a higher cause (until he transgresses in the end, which would have had ramifications explored in the sequel).
Here, Singer just throws out these visual metaphors for the only reason that "uh...it was a great idea in the Donner movie". He seems to lack the most basic story-telling understanding that you have to support these kinds of things in the narrative.
While Christ was appropriate for the origin story of the original, the metaphor to follow here should have been "the Prodigal Son"

sorry. I just see Returns as an affectionate but mostly inept product of a hack whose vision rarely goes beyond bodily lifting from other creators work, and on the rare occassions when it does (such as the additions of the son to the plot/universe), it is woefully out tune with these characters.




labeling Spaceys character as 'campy' kind of misses the large point that the character is inconsistent, and not in a good way- only a sloppy way.
In his first conversation with the Eve Teshmacher-redux, he presents himself as "I don't want to bring fire to the people, I just want to make a buck" which falls perfectly in line with Donner & Mankiewiczs version of the character as venal schemer. Fine. But then by the middle of the picture the character has had a wholesale change precipitated by nothing that we can see, and he declares to Lois that "she isn't seeing the big picture here" He is going to give the world alien technology, and entirely new land masses. In other words, he does want to bring fire to the people.
Singer has the character say lines that harken back to the film he loved, yet the actions he gives these character completely betray these lines-
And Singer never seems to realize there is any kind of disconnect here.

Sorry. Unlike the Hulk which gets ritually slagged as being a "bad" movie but is actually thoughtful and consistent, Returns actually is a bad movie. It is sloppy, sentimental, intellectually and emotionaly dishonest, foolish, and frequently a beat for beat swipe of another filmmakers work.

I didn't want this thread (as if I control and rule over it) to degenerate into another discussion over the merits of SUPERMAN RETURNS, but I guess it was inevitable since discussing a sequel always brings us back to how people enjoyed the original.

I did want to know if people thought that WB was making a mistake - assuming rumors are true - in not letting Singer and Routh make another Superman film. If we're going to return back to the pre-Singer days of Tim Burton-Nic Cage-McG- Kevin Smith-JJ Abrams ideas just because the movie underperformed and just because some people didn't like it, then it is an act of creative cowardice on the studio's part.

I agree. Singer and Routh should do the sequel.

Exactly. I am amazed how many people did not take a step back and realize how awful some of the plot points were. Just brutal. Feel bad for Routh as it was not his fault, but start this over with no attachment to two movies made almost 30 years ago.

That's ok, the best Batman adaption has been the animated series as well. And without even seeing the JLA movie, I'll throw my vote to the animated series yet again.

Routh looked the part and played the bumbling idiot Clark Kent almost as well as Chris Reeve. My biggest complaint about Superman Returns was the lack of chemistry between Lois and Clark. Margot Kidder was no babe, but she and Chris Reeve had major chemistry and were fun to watch. Routh and whatever-her-name-was were stiff and awkward together. Hope they bring Routh back if Superman Returns Again.

Well, AICN says its a load of crap.

http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/node/35200

:shrug:

and weren't a lot of the costs of SR due to them changing cast and crew a few times in the early stages?

I believe part of the final budget included salaries paid to those who were going to participate before, including Tim Burton, McG, and Nic Cage.

I'm not sure I trust Ain't It Cool News as a credible source to either verify or refute rumors, etc.

My only hope is that if they do make another standalone Superman movie, that Bryan Singer not be involved. He's an excellent filmmaker but he clearly doesn't understand how to make a good Superman movie. Odd, since he clearly loves the original '79 version, and yet his own take on the character was a bland, joyless, incomprehensible affair. He took all the fun out of Superman and now I think it's best for everyone that he move on and let someone who understands the character take over.

As I say, Mr. Singer is a great director- but this wasn't a good match for him.

Yo Lois

i liked routh, but i guess if they wanted to stay with someone who has played the role, which would probably a good idea, let tom welling play the role and give him some acting classes as he does have some frozen bland moments in the show.

I went into Superman Returns with no expectations, right up until I saw Jon Peters credited as a producer in the opening credits. It was at this point I became completely jazzed for the film. I knew I was in for A) A fight with a polar bear (or possibly Chewbacca), and B) A giant spider in the third act. I was horribly disappointed when neither of those showed up.

In all seriousness though, I had no expectations for this film due in large part to Singer's insistence on making this Superman 3. But even that paled in comparison to the horrible atrocity that was Kevin Spacey's rendition of Hackman's Luthor. And with Singer stating he had lured Spacey out of retirement to reprise his role as Lex, I won't be seeing the sequel.

I'm aware of the Christ metaphor being there, but Singer REALLY was over the top with it, it was completely ridiculous, from the voice over, to the stabbed in the side with the spear, the "ressurrection" at the end, it was just silly. It was way too over to top.

Hackman was campy, but the comics haven't had a campy lex in 30+ years, if you're going to "serious" up the movie why keep the campy element of lex? It was just a mess.

I was not a huge fan of the Reeve movies either, they were silly, but they were at least entertaining and fluffy and you could just forget them after seeing them.

As far as the animated series go, yes I think that the Timm/Dini animated series are not only the best media adaptions of DC Comics I think that they improve on the comics quite a bit in general. The Justice League animated series is easily the best comic adaption ever.

For the love of god I hope not, Superman Returns was absolute tripe. Singers vision was garbage, and the story and performances sucked. I hope a sequel never gets green lighted ever.

I liked it and wouldn't mind seeing another one. Don't care who directs it.. but it sounded like Singer knew what the issues were with the first one. Didn't he keep saying he'd go straight to the action and make a tighter film with the sequel?

yes, why not give him a chance to see if he can produce a better film? I mean, Fantastic Four got a freaking sequel, as did The Hulk. I think Supes deserves another chance.

But Hulk ISN'T getting a sequel. It was so bad that they are starting fresh with The Incredible Hulk. It is not a sequel, and it has a completely new cast and crew.

Why not give Singer another chance? Because he screwed up the first one so badly. It was just so uninspired. Much of it was basically a rehash of the original Superman movie--especially the Lex Luthor plot. The Jesus imagery was clumsily shoved down our throats, and giving Superman a superpowered son was just a terrible move. This is Superman we're talking about--the most well-known of all the comicbook heroes. The movie should have been a slam-dunk. You screw it up and you don't get a second chance.

I liked Routh and so I wouldn't mind a sequel with him as long as Singer was not involved and they somehow drop the son from the story.

Or just do a restart from scratch in a few years like they are doing with The Incredible Hulk.

HULK was infinitely better than the first Fantastic Four movie.

I completely disagree--Hulk sucked donkey balls.

But regardless of that it's all about performance against expectations. Hulk had a solid cast, a name director, and a character with a history in live-action television as well as the comic books and cartoons. There were high expectations for it and they weren't met.

Fantastic Four had much less hype but it was fun and family-friendly (very important!) and it did better than expected. So it got a sequel. Which also outperformed Hulk.