SUPERMAN Movie Franchise...Likely Dead Again

Message

Paul MacLean · #16 Post by **Paul MacLean** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:30 pm

MarkB wrote:One last thing concerning the kid: If you are willing to accept that Superman would sleep with Lois Lane in SUPERMAN II, you have to be willing to accept that there might be consequences. Remember, those seeds weren't planted in this film (pun intended).

But Superman was no longer "super" when he slept with Lois. Therefor his sperm cells were likely "un-super" as well. From whence then does the kid get his powers?

Franky I always found that scene in Superman II to be rather distasteful myself.

In any case, has anyone ever read this? Its quite interesting (and quite a hoot!)...

http://www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html

Paul

AndyDursin · #17 Post by **AndyDursin** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:52 pm

Wasn't he still Supes when they "bed"?? I'm trying to remember, wasn't it around the time he baked souffle with X-ray vision?

Of course it doesn't make any sense if it follows SUPERMAN II because, in this movie, she has no idea Clark is Superman, yet at the same time, seemingly has no issue with the fact that this kid IS Superman's child! (How could she remember one thing and not the other??).

MarkB · #18 Post by **MarkB** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:32 pm

The issue is deliberately vague in SUPERMAN RETURNS. My point was, the child didn't necessarily have to have been conceived during the SUPERMAN II storyline. If the two of them slept together once, there's no reason to think it couldn't have happened again, so having a child shouldn't be that shocking of a development. (For the record, I didn't care much for the sexual angle in SUPERMAN II, either. I think it was more acceptable back then. Times have changed. But it did still happen.)

As far as SUPERMAN RETURNS is concerned, I'm not exactly sure what Lois does or doesn't know. Nothing is explicitly explained. Lois could very well have known that the child was Superman's, but was simply in a state of denial. When Luthor asks the identity of the father, she isn't 100% convincing when she answers, "Richard." (After all, she ain't stupid. Jason's now five, and Superman left five years ago. She can do the math.) But I think she'd rather everyone thought Richard was the father, and she seemed to be happier living that lie, intentional or not. There's not enough evidence in the film to confirm or contradict things either way. Her shocked reaction to Jason's first-time display of "super" strength could be just that, and have nothing to do with suddenly recognizing the implied paternity.

Obviously, there are a lot of issues to be worked out in any possible sequel. Assuming there still is one. (Damn the haters!

)

Mark

Paul MacLean · #19 Post by **Paul MacLean** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:35 pm

AndyDursin wrote:Wasn't he still Supes when they "bed"?? I'm trying to remember, wasn't it around the time he baked souffle with X-ray vision?

I recall they had dinner and while Lois went to "change into something more comfortable" Superman spoke to his mother, who told him he must become human in order to be with Lois.

So he entered the machine, lost his powers and then he and Lois hopped in the silver waterbed.

Actually I've always wanted to know -- how is it that the machine which eradicated his powers also furnished him with a shirt and slacks? And how did he and Lois get back to civilisation? Did they actually hike over the tundra (with Lois in high heels)? And where did they get the car?

Paul

romanD · #20 Post by **romanD** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:10 am

that's called Moviemagic!

Carlson2005 · #21 Post by **Carlson2005** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:24 am

AndyDursin wrote:Of course it doesn't make any sense if it follows SUPERMAN II because, in this movie, she has no idea Clark is Superman, yet at the same time, seemingly has no issue with the fact that this kid IS Superman's child! (How could she remember one thing and not the other??).

Women, huh?

AndyDursin · #22 Post by **AndyDursin** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:24 pm

Fall out from the Comicon Bryan Singer press conference:

"- A talk with an unnamed crew member on SUPERMAN RETURNS influenced the final scene in the film, with Superman looking at his child asleep in bed. One of the crew had fathered a boy, a relationship where she just wanted a baby and he essentially donated his sperm. He had to push and push to see the child and she finally relented, but he could only see him for 5 minutes when he was a year and a half. And only when he was sleeping. That encounter greatly influenced the direction Singer took with the end scene."

Hey great idea for a scene, but again, this is why Singer drives you crazy as a filmmaker at times. Save it for the MURPHY BROWN movie, not SUPERMAN.

- They spent $10 million on the Return to Krypton sequence. Bryan ultimately felt it didn't feel like a part of the same movie, so he cut it. It WILL NOT be on the DVD. It may appear in a special theatrical release later, like a new IMAX release or something. He loves it, but feels it needs to be seen on the big screen.

It doesn't belong in the movie and it cost $10 million, but they won't put it on the DVD so they can show it in Imax...but I'm guessing they're not attaching it to the film proper when they do so? Genius! (Is this where all of Marlon Brando's scenes went, too?).

- There will NOT be an Extended Edition. The DVD will have many of the cut scenes, but not cut back into the movie.

The movie couldn't have possibly been any longer than it was. Bravo to Singer here for not going the Peter Jackson route, at least.

- Someone commented on the marketing of SUPERMAN RETURNS and how much it sucked. They pointed at SPIDER-MAN 3 and said they know how to market their movie. Singer just nodded his head and kept starting and stopping himself... and just said, "I'm not going to speak about the marketing." He was obviously not happy with it, but didn't want to step on too many toes. He did mention later that "a lot of people did their job... some didn't."

Amazing that for a movie with trailers in theaters for months...on TV every 5 seconds...talk about it all over the internet...marketing tie-ins from Burger King to Quaker Oats to video games to action figures to T shirts to cereals...Brandon Routh marketed like he was already a star...and with all of that, Singer blames the MARKETING for this film. Unbelievable. Sure I'll agree the poster was horrible but there wasn't much of a way to make the movie look appealing, IMO. Throw the Williams music over Singer's drab cinematography and call it a day -- it's not as if there were witty one-liners to make use of, and there's really only one "money" action scene in the entire movie to show glimpses of (in fact I can't think of one amusing line Kevin Spacey had in the entire film).

This may have been the most promoted film of the entire summer, in fact!
You couldn't turn on any TV show without seeing relentless ads for it. What a crock.

- Someone asked if he could "repair the damage" done by X3. His immediate answer was, "I'd have to see who's left in the cast..." got a big laugh. He then went very political, commenting positively on what Ratner was able to pull off in the time alloted to him.

Indeed he should have gone political, considering X-MEN 3 kicked the stuffing out of Superman at the box-office, bad "fan boy" buzz going into it and all!

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23943

AndyDursin · #23 Post by **AndyDursin** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:02 am

Interesting report from Dark Horizons, noting polarized reaction from fans at Comicon -- like I said, a lot of hard-core comic book aficionados would be horrified by where Singer took this franchise in certain areas, and apparently they weren't afraid to speak out about it!

During the Warner Bros. presentation at this weekend's San Diego Comic Con, Directors Bryan Singer and Richard Donner came on stage to talk a bit about "Superman Returns" post release with the attendees in the same 6,000 seat hall that premiered the first footage from the film at last year's convention.

Most interesting tidbit was that Singer says a sequel is planned for 2009 and whilst he has no deal yet in place, he hopes to direct it. He also talked a bit about the tone, saying 'Returns' essentially laid the groundwork to re-introduce and establish the characters, and the second film would be able to involve much more crowd-pleasing style action with hint of an "alien terror".

The comment comes from Singer despite the film's disappointing box-office on both domestic and international fronts, and genuine mixed reaction from Con attendees. The film remained a hot topic throughout the weekend with fanboys and industry people getting into debates over its merits in both crowded auditoriums and big-budgeted industry parties.

The presentation's audience, who gave the man a standing ovation several times last year, were more tepid in their reaction this time around and whilst respectful to Singer with mostly positive questions and polite applause, there was a notable large cheer when one fan stated his disappointment with the film before asking his question.

Only one question touched upon the box-office performance and was essentially avoided, yet Singer remained in good humour and at one point joked that he wanted to thank everyone here... "at least those who saw it". Drawing far better reaction was a quite hilarious outtakes reel from the film with scenes like James Marsden spouting out some naughtier alternate titles for Lois Lane's news articles, Routh and Spacey flubbing their lines, and Parker Posey having a fun rant that "why does he keep saying cut, aren't we shooting in digital for f**k's sake".

Reaction was equally positive for a fun scene that was deleted from the second "Superman" film. Donner introduced the clip and talked a bit about his new cut which is due out for release with a 14-disc DVD set later this year.
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/060724g.php

Carlson2005 · #24 Post by **Carlson2005** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:16 am

Well, if he thinks the Krypton scene should be seen on the big screen, why did he shoot in a crappy digital system which looks like a muddy cable TV show with all the colour drained out of it? It even looks low quality on the TV clips!

romanD · #25 Post by **romanD** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:14 am

well, I can only speak for the marketing here in Germany and Sweden and I have to say it seems like they arenot even trying... themovie opens this week in Sweden and still in the theaters they only show the teaser!!! can you believe that? who is running to the movies for that?

and in Germany they seldomly show the first trailer only, but with all the groans from the audience it seems like they would only waste money with spending more for marketing. Im not surprised if it not even makes no 1 in Germany...

and now with POTC 2 already out in both countries it will even have a harder time to compete with that crowd pleaser...

please do yourself a favor dear Mr. Singer and skip on the sequel... I have this TOMB RAIDER feeling, where the movie made decent money, but was obvious that nobody was interested in seeing a sequel... (especially not such a bad one... lol)

AndyDursin · #26 Post by **AndyDursin** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:10 pm

please do yourself a favor dear Mr. Singer and skip on the sequel... I have this TOMB RAIDER feeling, where the movie made decent money, but was obvious that nobody was interested in seeing a sequel... (especially not such a bad one... lol)

Singer is talking more about the sequel than the studio -- not a good sign for him, nor is how he's already promising more "action" and WRATH OF KHAN-like intensity in the next film, almost admitting there wasn't enough of that in this movie.

I tend to believe that Comicon report, with the mixed reaction from the fans there (I mean, it's reflective of the polarized reactions we've seen even here on my board!).

If you don't have Superman fans energized by the movie, there's no reason to go forward. They might have a reasonable box-office result but the problem is -- will audiences actually be interested in seeing a sequel? (especially when it will revolve around Supes' bastard offspring). Are they guaranteed of making more money the next time around? You saw how expensive this film was to produce, and if reaction was lukewarm and they anticipate a sequel not topping this movie's business (again, Tim Burton's PLANET OF THE APES comes to mind), they won't do it.

Right now I think there's a better possibility of that BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN movie now than there is SUPERMAN RETURNS 2.

romanD · #27 Post by **romanD** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:42 pm

BATMAN vs. SUPERMAN sounds even more iditoic than AVP... seriously, not all comic books are classics!

and regarding the trailers again, I thought they all were just not very good... I can understand Singer's disappointment with them

AndyDursin · #28 Post by **AndyDursin** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:46 pm

romanD wrote:and regarding the trailers again, I thought they all were just not very good... I can understand Singer's disappointment with them

Here's the problem though Roman -- there are only so many ways you could make this movie look good, if you know what I mean.

IMO Warner's did a good a job with those theatrical trailers as they could. They threw the Williams music over it trying to capture the essence of the old movies and get people excited.

The cinematography in the film is ugly, there are only so many action scenes, and Spacey is so totally unfunny and obnoxious there wasn't much to exploit. The romance is likewise limp, and nobody wanted to know about the kid, so what does it leave you with?

romanD · #29 Post by **romanD** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:01 pm

yeah, thats the impression I got from the trailers. Usually they show you the most exciting things and the audience always reacted like "that's it??? that's all the bought for 300 million dollars?"

DavidBanner · #30 Post by **DavidBanner** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:35 pm

Keep in mind part of that gigantic pricetag is the fact that this film has been funded in development for YEARS with multiple writers, directors and actors who came and went and each were paid.

In retrospect, it probably would have been a better idea if Fox had gone with Singer on X3 and made a better film of that, and if Warners had maybe shelved Returns and instead invested elsewhere. We'll see what history reveals.

X3 certainly made more money on the initial release than Superman, but everyone I've talked to truly disliked X3, whereas the same people were simply ambivalent about Superman. X3 also plummeted after a huge opening weekend (during which it dropped pretty quickly afterward). If you look at the drop-off on X3, you can see the bad word of mouth spreading. Let's see how the DVDs sell, and you'll have a better picture.

And I'm flabbergasted that Singer is openly holding back footage that could easily go on a DVD or Hi-Def DVD, which could play just as well on a large screen at home. This feels like a blatant reach toward a second DVD or a second theatrical release, and I don't know that Warner Bros. will give him that.

Finally, Hackman was notably dangerous as Luthor in the first Superman film. In the showdown with Reeve when he pulls out the Kryptonite, he's clearly playing for keeps. But granted, he has a lot of funny lines before then.