Singer's Superman 3?
In Focus interviewer Mike Russell asks, "Is Superman Returns the unofficial Superman III?" And SR screenwriter Michael Dougherty replies, "Okay, uhm, it's funny...I think Bryan [ Singer] and Dan and I need to sit down and discuss this answer before we talk to too many other reporters. My personal belief -- and I know Bryan has been quoted as saying differently -- is that this is not Superman III. I don't feel like it's appropriate to discount Superman III and IV, because a lot of people put a lot of hard work into them, and even if you don't like them or don't think they're up to a certain quality, they're still Superman movies." And then SR screenwriter Dan Harris says, "It’s complicated. If this is a sequel to I and II, then everything in I and II happened. But if we’re picking and choosing what we want -- which is what I think is what happened, using our memories of Superman: The Movie to build our back story  then I can guarantee that it's not the specifics, but the broad strokes of those movies that are part of the Superman we’re making." -- from Russell's In Focus interview with the screenwriters (June '06 issue).
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 1, 2006 at 6:17 AM
comment #1
Nick says ...
What's really funny is that a Reuters story said it was the first Superman movie since "Superman III." Clearly, the wire service lacks long-term memory of Nuclear Man and Jon Cryer as Luthor's kid.
Posted by Nick at June 1, 2006 6:46 AM
comment #2
Snatchy McMuff says ...
From the beginning, Singer and Co. have labeled Supes I & II and being a "vague history" to the new film. It's funny how many fanboys and media types have failed to wrap their minds around the concept. A direct sequel would open too many logic and continuity problems. THIS IS NOT A DIRECT SEQUEL.
Posted by Snatchy McMuff at June 1, 2006 8:16 AM
comment #3
Daniel Zelter says ...
I never saw Superman III, because they rarely broadcast it on tv, and I haven't had time to rent it, but Superman IV's not as bad as some sequels. Now that Supergirl movie sucks, and 20 years later with Catwoman, Warner still hasn't learned how to target women with comics book adaptations. Although I don't think FOX did a much better job with Elektra...They probably should just do a Poison Ivy and/or Harley Quinn flick.
Posted by Daniel Zelter at June 1, 2006 11:31 AM
comment #4
Nicol D says ...
Once Singer and Co. decided to use Brando as Jor-El, the Williams Theme and the dress of Reeve as Clark Kent for Routh they made a defacto sequel.
Now they can't get thier stories straight as to what the hell they made and the public is as equally confused.
I suspect things will get even more confused once people see the final flick.
Way to go Warners! Way to go!
Posted by Nicol D at June 1, 2006 12:30 PM
comment #5
Mathew says ...
I have a soft spot for Superman 3. It was probably the one I most watched as a kid. If I were to watch it again today I would probably feel different. However I do remember scenes really sticking with me especially those involving the 'bad' Superman kicking the crap out of Clark Kent in the junk yard.
"You always wanted to fly Kent, now here's your chance..."
I dare say that it was Christopher Reeves best performance...ever. Its kind of cool knowing this would be severely disagreed with by the majority of Supes fans.
Posted by Mathew at June 1, 2006 12:44 PM
comment #6
Mathew says ...
"Clearly, the wire service lacks long-term memory of Nuclear Man and Jon Cryer as Luthor's kid."
Superman 4 is garbage for the most part. They tried really hard to bring back the 'magic' of the first one complete with Lois flying with Supes but...
The thing is a mess. Poor SFX (thanks Cannon), lame story (thanks Christopher Reeve), mediocre direction and acting (I'm too lazy to IMDB the thing to find out who directed). Overall really just a b-movie with A-list actors (how did they manage to get Hackman back?). Granted Supes 3 is probably a mess too (see my post above) but at least it had its charms.
Posted by Mathew at June 1, 2006 12:52 PM
comment #7
Josh Ehrnwald says ...
:::The thing is a mess. Poor SFX (thanks Cannon), lame story (thanks Christopher Reeve), mediocre direction and acting (I'm too lazy to IMDB the thing to find out who directed).:::
Sidney Furie, who helmed all four "Iron Eagle" flicks (the first two I happened to catch in the theaters...pure fourth-grader/seventh-grader crack, baby).
The REAL big question here is, of course: will *Mariel Hemingway* return in the Singer flick?
Posted by Josh Ehrnwald at June 1, 2006 1:09 PM
comment #8
delbomber says ...
The problem with all the Superman flicks is their lack of sobriety...they persisted with corny 70s humor in lue of a more serious tone. It wasn't until Burton's 'Batman' that anyone, as far I can remember, approached this genre by blending fantasy with drama instead of comedy-adventure. While Superman is nowhere near as dark a character as Batman, and inherently less interesting, a more steaded approach will make this movie everything 'Superman I' & 'II' could have been.
Reeves and the score were perfect, and I think recycling both (via Routh) is a good move.
The most amusing thing I've read is about concerns over continuity...are these people even remotely familiar with the evolution of Superman? My god, there are more dimensions, iterations, and revisions than Malkovich's in 'Being John Malkovich'.
Posted by delbomber at June 1, 2006 2:01 PM