Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread - Page 2

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

Count me in as someone who loves the Metallo from Richard idea. Would work flawlessly, IMO.

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

I think they'll just write Richard out by him sacrificing himself for Superman at a crucial spot in the 3rd act. Turning Richard into Metallo would be too much to take, especially if Superman had to dispose of him eventually, and that would create far too much emotional separation between Lois and Superman (regardless if Superman was doing the right thing).

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

The idea of turning Richard White into some sort of villan seems to me to be about as cheap and cliched an idea as having the kid (or Richard) be a sacrifical lamb in the next film. But thats basically the corner Singer painted this set of characters into. No one is going to settle for stasis in the relationship of these four characters by the end of the next film, and the only ways to move anything forward is to
1) get rid of Richard in some fashion
or
2) get rid of the kid

if they're going to get rid of Richard, I'd vote for just having the relationship break down. Singers Lois is a self absorbed, cold fish anyway, it would be extremely satisfying to see her get 'dumped' - and that would be the probably be the least expected resolution for that situation out of all of them.
Other than killing off Lois, and if shes still being essayed by Bosworth, I'd probably actually be on board for that.

I still think there is only one way to undo the damage wraught by Singer to these characters ( yeah I know I'm in the minority feeling that they are damaged at this point)- and thats to bring in Mytztptlyx .
I'd rather see a whole movie of a cosmic prankster fucking with Supermans head, than more banal nods to Jesus Christ, or a blatant attempt to definitively invalidate the half baked complications of the first film (and have Richard turn villian or killing off the kid would be examples of that).
On the other hand, if those things were done in the context of a hallucination, or mind fuck, then the film could get away it.

Even more importantly though, with Mytzptlyx, you also have the opportunity of starting off the film with a considerably lighter tone (" Whats a pink gorilla doing on top of the Daily Planet globe?!), which washes away some of the bad taste left from the mopey-stalker-deadbeat dad Superman of Returns. But that character wouldn't preculde the story from turning darker or more serious for the second or third acts, as the pranks become more unsettling or deadly.

If not Mytzptlyx, I'd vote for Brainiac. Darkseid would seem to require too much in the way of backstory and supporting characters. My big wish would be that they forget about Luthor entirely, however since there are still a few lines of dialouge from the second film that Singer hasn't boosted yet, I'm sure a reappearance by Spacey is a lock.

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

I don't agree with you Paul on the kid aspect. Using him as the catalyst for the next movie provides the opportunity for rich dramatic ground. How would Superman react if his one true link to Earth was taken away from him? That is a story I would be very interested in seeing.

Whatever Singer does in the next movie, it has to be a clean break away from the Reeves movies.

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

Nolan started from scratch with "Batman Begins", as if the other Batman films had never existed so he's not really retreading anything. This is obviously not the case with Singer and "Superman Returns" or the sequel.

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

Deleted.

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

1) Again, I agree with Doug. Singer basically "redid" a lot of Donner's film...Nolan did not. The Joker has appeared in dozens of great Batman stories...Zod in one. A Donner movie. So that's a baseless comparison.

2) Making Richard evil? Might as well make Superman evil. He was a fully developed, noble, GOOD character in Superman Returns, and no friend of Lex. I fail to see a believable way to make Richard a villain (except mind control) that doesn't scream "Get rid of this guy!!!!" by the screenwriter. It's not there. I think Paul S. is correct on Richard.

3) I disagree with Lou (and it's why I have an abiding disagreement with returns). Jason is not Superman's "only" link to Earth and humanity. He has parents (one in the movies), Lois, and a real human connection to ALL of humanity. Jason provides an interesting dynamic, but he is hardly the sole link between Clark and humanity.

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

Chuck,

I'd agree with you on your assessment of Superman's connection to Earth but as you say, the dynamic is much different now. As much as he has a connection to Smallville, Marth, Lois, and the whole of humanity, Jason is blood. That runs far deeper than anything. This is why I say the ending of the film, the fly away as its called, is supremely excellent because Superman is as content as he's ever been. His issues with Jor-El and Krypton are gone.

Since he's been there, Earth has been his home but going to Krypton and seeing what he sees and now having Jason, it shows us that he has and can move forward. Earth is really home now and the possibilities to this franchise, in terms of story, are endless.

I, too, don't want Richard to turn evil because it would be a cliche cop out to get Lois and Superman together. Richard can be developed even more but ulitmately something tragic has to happen to him...something that would make Superman question his usefulness. It would be the same situation for Jason as it was for Clark when he lost his adopted father all those years ago...only this time, Superman is there to help Jason, but should he? That would be interesting.

Another aspect I want to see in the series, if it continues, is having Clark introduce Jason to his grandmother of sorts. Something about that idea appeals to me. It may never happen but it would be interesting to see.

Singer has alot of options. One option he shouldn't do is Zod, as much as I like him. And I think Singer wouldn't go that way anyway. He's heard it from everywhere that his film is a remake of sorts. I think he's going to avoid that at all costs in the sequel.

Still, I like the beginning he's at with Superman Returns.

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

Fair enough Chuck, my previous post is based on the groundwork laid in SR.

SR, rightly or wrongly, did create a special link between Superman and the boy that has been given precedence that exceeds the other ones you detailed. Since the groundwork has been laid in SR, it would only be logical to pursue a storyline with the boy as the catalyst.

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

I don't believe blood trumps all...though I am aware the link between a parent and child is stronger than any other.

I think SR said the link exceeded all others...but didn't show it. Others disagree with me on that. Perhaps if that connection had felt earned, or if Singer had not marginalized ALL OTHER connections except Lois, I would have responded more strongly to it. And therefore, the film.

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

I'd also hate to see Richard become evil. In my mind, it would be a total cop out on the ending of SR, and a waste of all the effort that went into showing that Richard is a better man for Lois than Superman. This dilemma and its resolution was the single most successful aspect of SR, in my opinion.

I guess I'm in the minority on this, but from the moment my first viewing of SR ended, I just couldn't imagine a good idea for a sequel. For me, SR feels like an ending to the "Donner trilogy" that brings the story full circle.

Singer will probably deliver a story that makes me eat these words, but for the time being I don't have any brilliant ideas about where to take the films from here. Putting Jason in jeopardy wouldn't be too bad. I think it would be better to keep him helpless in the sequel, rather than play him as some kind of Superboy.

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

Ahh, you are just being stubborn. Your POV is well founded. However if Singer chooses to expand on that relationship, and if that is the story direction for the sequel, the telling should become a showing.

Ideally, not at the expense of the other links, but by interweaving them all and strengthening all the facets of Superman's relationships with and on earth.

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

That's what I'd like. I liked Jason, the character and the actor who played him. And I am being stubborn

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

if, after 29 years, two loving parents, several infatuations, many friends, and the respect, awe and gratitude of the majority of the people he comes into contact with- if after all these Superman doesn't already have a 'strong connection' to earth and humanity, I'd say kick him off the planet- or the next story I would want to see is how a band of earth heros conspires to get this character off of and out of earths affairs.

I maybe could get interested in a movie where the hero feels disconected to those he saves day in and day out- but I would need to see how and why and what caused him to get to that point, before I could appreciate him 'getting over it'. That key set up - that very foundation is not only absent here, any sense of it is undercut by the very thing it throws out at the end to resolve it- the presence of the 'love-child'. This aspect of the movie (a fundemental one to be sure) is remarkably weak and ill defined, and because of that, i feel, poorly supports these 'themes' of connection and ties.
I could more easily accept that the flight to Krypton was to get away from the demands he felt constantly ("You said the world didn't need a saviour...I hear them")- Thats an understandable (if ignoble) condition-but if so, the epiphany at the end would be altered to imply that Superman is now happy because he can be a little sloppier with the rest of the world now that he has a flesh and blood offsprings well being to maintain as his first priority, thus streamlining his existence here.
I felt the original interpretation of the ending was an insult to the core of this character (that his own child makes him finally feel a 'connection' to the rest of humanity), and this other take would be equally offensive.
But where else does Singer give room for interpretation?


Kingdom Come had a sensible. logical, rational excuse for Superman cutting himself off from society for an extended period of time- and neither the self exile or return were emotionally inconsistent with his core character as a noble and heroic figure.
Here he leaves, comes back, and when he is back he seems to be in a similar mindset that would imply he's just killing time here until something better or a good reason to stay comes along. He mopes, he stalks, he has banal, superficial conversations with supposedly 'close' friends and allies. Its like hes back only because he has nowhere else to go. What an inspiring figure.


This to me, seems like a massive mis-reading of the essential nature of this character.
Jason, his flesh and blood heir becomes his main reason for giving a crap to be here? wow, thats just sad. If the sequel that people want is the further continuation of that character...I don't know what to say.

One thing I just realized though- and that's one reason why I took to The Hulk as much as I did and still like it. It subverted these sentimental notions that the newfound existence of a flesh and blood link trumps all else and instills an instant rapport, sympathy, relationship, or sense of fidelity where none existed previously. Fantasy movies indeed.

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

Good stuff Lou. I think there is alot of potential there. Singer is capable of showing this and is able to go down other roads as well.

The blood link was a big one in SR, but not until the end really. What hooked me in was the portrayal and the performance of Superman/Kent by Routh. While I LOVED Batman Begins and Spiderman 2, the core of Superman Returns set it apart just a bit for me.

I mentioned this before; I've never read a Superman comic in my life so I have no idea about the villain pool. The idea of Zod returning doesn't seem like a good one...but I do trust Singer. Whatever they choose I feel confident will work on screen.

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

I think with the Richard ----> Metallo argument, the point the few of us trying to make here are that Richard himself isn't becoming evil, but he is being transformed into a monster - make it so its out of his control. Hence, why, if Luthor did it (kidnapped/experimented on him), it would be incredibly tough for Supes to determine what to do - do I kill this guy? do I try to save him? Can I save him?

Yeah, its a bit half baked, but he's like the only Supes villian I know off the top of my head besides Darkseid.

Oh, and I can't fail to mention, no thanks on Zod, that one is for sure. I'm open to just about anything, though, other then that.

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

From the previous Superman Returns thread, I had mentioned that the easiest way to re-insert the footage of the Krypton visit is to include it, and then have the reveal being that Superman was being observed by Braniac, and he follows Superman to earth due to some form of prime directive his programming entails when it comes to dealing with certain beings of Kryptonian heritage (House of El), and that would not only involve Superman, but also the munchkin. Having Braniac target Jason is how you could have Richard sacrifice himself to save Jason (although Richard might still not know that Jason has similar super powers, albeit on a lesser scale, but enough invulnerability to ward off the initial attack, but Richard wouldn't know, and dies trying to save Jason, anyway). Save Zod for the 3rd installment (have it be revealed that it was Zod who had Braniac constructed and he shows up after following Braniac to earth but showing up after Superman has dealt with Braniac in a battle royale).

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

While I'm afraid Zod would be a retread, I could see it making sense. I mentioned this in the last thread, but not that Superman has a son, Zod needs to make another heir of Jor El kneel before him.

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

Pretty intense stuff there Patrick. Sounds kind of interesting...

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

Seems WB is still intent on the Superman/Batman teamup movie which, according to this article, actually helped greenlight the "Superman Returns" sequel... read on.

http://www.moviehole.net/clint/20061...nt_291006.html

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

I'd be afraid to see something like this with Singer and his ensemble, based on what I saw in SR. Instead of Superman fighting the age-old "is it right to sacrifice one person for the greater good?" (a theme young Clark wrestles with on Smallville--even saving Lex time and again despite knowing his potential for evil) we'd be seeing an adult Superman's wheels turning thinking "Hmm...if I kill this good man (Richard) I'd have Lois and my kid all to myself, but that would be wrong, but me wants the PRECIOUSSSSS." Or at least it would easily be perceived that way.

Smallville has a lot to culivate because it can explore how Clark BECOMES the Superman character we all know from the comics. The problem with Superman for some is they find him boring. He's uninteresting because he IS so mature, selfless, and well-adjusted. A dark, edgey character like Batman is much more interesting to that "Superman is boring" crowd. I find it unappealing that Singer seems to have to take the character backwards to try to make him interesting. MY Superman's already gotten all this shit out of the way and has that true blue view of right and wrong--Truth, Justice, and the American Way and all that. I don't want to see him wrestling with selfish things. Make it any man being unwillingly transformed into some monstrous supervillain and you force Superman to make the kind of tough call that should plague him. Make it Richard and there's this temptation that shouldn't even enter Superman's mind. In the right hands, it could be shown that way, but I can virtually guarantee it will play that Superman is tempted to do something for his own personal benefit. Even if Singer and co. don't intend that, somebody will interpret it that way, so I think it's best just to avoid that setup and not risk further tarnishing the character.

Rather than strip the man of steel of his emotional maturity and his connection with humanity, Singer could have challenged him by having something truly horrible happen. Give him something to wrestle with. In keeping with Paul's notion, perhaps if we'd killed Bosworth's Lois Lane when Superman returned to the big-screen (preferably before we got to know her at all so we could all imagine her as our ideal Lois Lane--at least Bosworth can LOOK good, though her hair was shit through most of the film) that could have started Superman on an emotional journey.

Or maybe, to make him a little more Superman-like yet, have an entire population destroyed so we could see him take it just as a normal person would take the loss of a loved one. Then perhaps he could turn to Lois (or a new interest) to get him through this emotional time. Because, really, it's hurting humanity that hurts Superman the most, not just one person. They could have had Lex break out and actually achieve something. If Singer really wanted his "Return From Krypton" premise, it would have been a lot more powerful if something had actually HAPPENED while Superman was gone. Then Superman could really beat himself up that he wasn't there to save the day. How ironic if Lex had destroyed a continent right before he returned to Earth? It's perhaps more implausible that Lex didn't start anything until exactly when Superman returned to Earth. We could have had a great, "What have I done?!" moment had Superman for once been too late.

Problem with that is I'd still need a better explanation of why he actually left. It's like if you went on vacation and just left your dogs and cats to fend for themselves. I suppose (in a new universe severing his ties with Jor-El), the vacation could have been prompted by Jor-El, telling his son he should explore his roots a bit more and that his leaving would actually be GOOD for humanity since they would grow too dependent on him otherwise (that's along the lines of Superman TM with Jor-El telling him he must maintain his secret identity and not be on-call 28 hours a day). Then, after the disaster that transpires, he could politely (or not so politely, destroy the Fortress?) tell his father he's going to do things his own way from now on; he's not a Kryptonian anymore, but an Earthling, sworn to protect the home that nurtured him (as opposed to the father who "natured" him ).

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

Brainiac or Darkseid. I really do think Darkseid,providing a worldwide threat, can work on film and it would be epic. I wouldnt mind Metallo.

I do hope Zod isnt the main guy as alot of people complained about Returns being too much a remake of the first film. So they should avoid comparisons to the second.


"Jason, his flesh and blood heir becomes his main reason for giving a crap to be here?"

No its the people - who do need him. This is shown in the scene where hes floating above earth and listening to all the chaos below. People of the planet earth do need him and its for them he's here -not for Lois or his mother or his kid. The theme in this film is similair to Spiderman where in all the sacrifices he makes he wonders, "wheres my happiness?" His mission on earth is still the one his father gave him.

You know I really think it was the right way to go. While alot of people were turned off by Lois moving on and the kid, thats the way life is. And it puts Superman in territory we havent previously seen him in

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

I've always been skeptical about this idea, only because I think it's easier to accept multiple costumed superheroes in comic books than it is on screen. I found it hard enough to buy into the idea of Batman in Nolan's otherwise great film, nevermind introducing Superman into the mix. If Nolan or Singer were involved in the team-up film, though, I'd definitely be excited to see the result.

I don't know how anyone can be excited about the idea of this project being in the hands of Wolfgang Petersen.

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

I still not under standing the problem with superman having a kid. That possibility has always been out there.

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

No Zod...Its been done. Brainaic, Metallo or Bizarro would be much better choices. And I agree while making Richard bad (in becoming Metallo). Maybe, him becoming Metallo not by his own choice and it screws with his mind....Also, the kid needs to go. Sorry, the kid just presents to many drawbacks in any future series.

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

Darkseid!!!! Bring him on!

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

Please no Zod created Brainiac, thats Smallville. Brainiac is not from Krypton!

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

I was never a big fan of the animated series, but in the pilot, the one idea I dug very much was that Braniac was the main CPU for Krypton and thru A.I.'d hubris developed a grudge against the house of El (and also being a machine was able to flee Krypton and survive).

I think a scenario like the one Patrick suggested would be a fine premise to start with -in fact I think Returns would have been quite a bit better had they totally dispensed with Luthor and used some form of Kryptonian parasite brought back as the source of the main external conflict for the second and third acts. At the very least it would have been more original.

If they are going that way for the next film, it would make sense that Singer is holding back the Krypton footage already produced. Nothing like having spfx material already in the can to help stretch your limited budget further.

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

Good stuff JonZ!

Re: Superman Returns Sequel discussion thread

Tim, I noticed that you have the SR cover art in your signature - A), is that a official, and B), isn't the bar wrong and its supposed to be a combo disc? I sure hope it isn't, I hate combo discs.