Singer's been talking about the sequel. He doesn't have a story, just a release date for 2009. He knows he wants to do a "Wrath of Khan" equivalent sequel. He further referenced "Star Trek" by alluding that the first "Star Trek" film had to spend so much time on developing the characters.

Here's my problem: Since Singer decided he wanted to make a Superman movie following the first two films, he had two movies of character development to work with already. Setting his film five years in the future might explain why he felt he needed a movie to reintroduce Superman to us 'idiots' out there. Except, most audiences agreed the extra running time and less emphasis on action did not mean more character development and story. The fact that he doesn't even have a story planned for SR2/S4 tells me, "Superman Returns" did not plant as many seeds for a sequel as say "X-Men" had. What the heck was he doing!?

As for "Star Trek", "The Motion Picture" is my least favorite of the films. I would agree with Singer that it's a film that reintroduces the crew of the Enterprise to the world after a long absence. The film doesn't focus on its plot, but instead on visual effects and character. It's kind of a fun movie, but most Trekkies prefer some of the sequels. "The Wrath of Khan" was a notable sequel because it did weave an intricate plot with a real character motivated story (Genesis being the object of desire, but the film is really about Kirk accepting his age and dealing with mortality). Why WoK is one of the best sequels ever made is because it holds up on its own. You don't need to have seen the first movie (as the film ignores it altogether anyway) and you don't even need to have seen the show. I saw 'Khan' years before I saw the episode "Space Seed" which the movie "continues" after, but I loved the hell out of WoK anyway.

I'm giving Singer this, if his "Wrath of Khan" comment meant: "We're going to make a kickass sequel that holds up on its own merits" I will be completely satisfied. I know he's a Trek fan, so there's a chance that's what he meant and that he didn't mean "There'll be a lot more action with an awesome villain"*. Nonetheless, his treatment with "Returns" was definitely lower than ST:TMP, but, there's always hope. He still made "The Usual Suspects", "Apt Pupil", and "X2".

Even without looking between the lines, 2009 and no story? I'm a bit nervous. "The Dark Knight" also is aimming for 2009 and they start filming in Jan. The script is in the usual production rewrite stages right now. Tick-tick-tick.


*Actually, WoK only had two big action sequences. The rest of the film was character driven. There's a couple of minor action sequences (the opening test, Paul Winfield kills himself), but it's not this hardcore action film people seem to remember it being. The belief it was more "action packed" was due to the stronger, more dramatic story line and overall tone of the film.

Excuse the "Star Trek" sequel discussion. I wrote a few analysis essays about the film series and (slowly) crafting a nonfiction book about them. As a result, I'm a little obsessed with the topic.

lordsathien wrote:

What're your thoughts on a World's Finest movie pairing Bale with this new Superman?

I've only heard rumors about it (one being from Bale's mouth). I can't say much about it, but I'm optimistic. The new Superman/Batman comics have been a pretty big letdown to me, but I did highly enjoy Sandy Collora's "World's Finest" fan trailer. I believe a good Superman/Batman film is possible. The problem is balance.

Ugh... So I watched the deleted scenes from "Superman Returns". One question: WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED TO TEASER TRAILER SCENES!?

Krypton (a little dark)


Young Clark standing in front of his vessel


BTW, if you saw the "Richard Donner Cut" of "Superman II", Superman now fucks Lois as Superman and not as mortal Clark Kent. So, that fills up that plot hole... except for the whole ending of that version.

Syd Lexia wrote:

Having rewatched the original Superman recently, I have a whole new appreciation for Superman Returns and how well they recaptured the style of it.

<rant>
Style my ass. Superman: The Movie is a Christ metaphor; Superman Returns is a gay metaphor. Superman Returns is nowhere near the level of quality Donner once had. It's even a rung lower than Timeline.

I have seen 'Returns' five times now and I just don't know why I keep putting myself through this torture. It was better the second time, about the same the third. Sucked worst than the first time the fourth and the last time was outright horrible.

It does not have any of the charm, mysticism, appeal, magic, nor wonder that the first or second movie (any versions of either) had. "Devil's Rejects" is a homage film, "Kill Bill" is a homage film, "Superman Returns" is an overproduced bore.

Speaking of money, the final budget was $204 million! What did they spend the money on, because the film looks like $40 million? I still don't understand how they let the script have so many problems. I understand this project was rushed; they went into filming without a completed script, but even Apocalypse Now and Armageddon pulled enough shit together to be decent flicks. For some reason, that didn't happen here. The director wasn't fired, no actor wanted to drop out while filming, and there was no producer who was overly incompetent like the other films. It had three times more support than Donner had. This film should've been much better than it was.

Honestly, the documentary for the film is better than the movie, because the documentaries make it look like they're making a Superman movie.

</rant>

EDIT: I did like the deleted scene where Sups used his "super breath". Sure he never uses the power again in the film and it was completely a "show off" moment, but it was nice.

DarkMaze wrote:

Tebor wrote: BTW, if you saw the "Richard Donner Cut" of "Superman II", Superman now fucks Lois as Superman and not as mortal Clark Kent. So, that fills up that plot hole... except for the whole ending of that version. Oh, that's right. I forgot how we were expected to watch a not-yet-available alternate version of another film in order to understand what the fuck Singer was thinking.

Well... it was in development for over 9 months... and... yeah, no. It's a really bad retcon job.

LUCAS!!!
We need you at the WB lot...
(and if you hate Lucas' retcons)
Get off the WB lot!!!

EDIT: SUPERMAN II NEW CUT SPOILERS
The documentary and commentary both say the ending in the new cut is not canon, as it does officially happen in Superman I. I assume then that Superman does NOT destroy the Fortress of Solitude and he does not turn back time to undo Lois' pregnancy. Of course, finding any sort of continuity is kind of a moot thing to do.

JEW wrote:

I recently saw "an evening with kevin smith" and can at least say I'm glad we didn't end up with the version of superman with the gay R2D2, brainiac fighting polar bears, and the "giant fucking spider."

There were bad things in Kevin Smith's script, but I felt it was actually stronger than the film we got. And J.J. Abrams script also had really bad things in it (Lex Luthor is Kryptonian), but his script was easily the most emotional out of all the different versions.

Another Superman Reboot

THANK GOD! Superman Returns is being forgotten already. WBs is restarting the Superman franchise again because "Returns" sucked so hard (power phrasing).

I expected to hear Singer's resignation before this week ended, but so far he hasn't. But he better.

Edit: Fuck you, mods, I'm not starting a new thread.

Fuck me? No, fuck you. Ban!