comment #1

MASON says ...

I'm curious, Jeff. I like Rachel M as much as the next guy, but why do you think she would even want to do a Superman flick? She's pretty content doing... well, anything but.

comment #2

KAM2112 says ...

I am hungry of the superman disc much less the second movie. I want singer's new version with the additional 30 mins he cut form the film. Don't know why he cut it in the first place.

comment #3

KAM2112 says ...

and another thing. I guess a guy has the right to change his mind but jeff you certainly have done a 720 on this film.

comment #4

MathewM says ...

All I care is if Jon Peters is producing I expect giant spiders this time.

comment #5

MagillaOrangutang says ...

I seem to remeber that Peters also wanted a gay Brainiac. That gay thing is so "IN" right now!

comment #6

lesterg says ...

What is the deal with Bryan Singer? In the past few weeks he has:

- Blamed marketing for the domestic gross, despite the fact that he had marketing approval.
- Claimed international figures were fantastic, when they're (pretty clearly) normal/average.
- Claimed that the film has already turned a profit, when it hasn't.

So is Singer a) spinning b) delusional or c) completely out-of-the-loop? It's very strange behavior.

comment #7

MagillaOrangutang says ...

Actually, Peters may have wanted a gay Super-dog in the movie. Is that right? (Im not making a stupid joke)

comment #8

Daniel Fienberg says ...

As Mason asked, why would Rachel McAdams suddenly decide she wanted to do a Superman movie *now*? If she didn't want to do it before, when it was the hottest property in town, why would she want to sign on for a sequel to an underwhelming original in which she would be essentially stabbing a contemporary in the back to take the part? I know so very little about Rachel McAdams, but everything I know suggests that this would be just about the last thing she'd ever want to do.

comment #9

actionman says ...

granted the budget would still be high, but if I were running WB, I would have done what THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE...hire Michael Bay to make the film...he would have given us the ultimate Superman movie, rather than the annoyingly dull and average Singer version.

comment #10

vjp666 says ...

"I want singer's new version with the additional 30 mins he cut form the film. Don't know why he cut it in the first place."

I can't find... okay, I don't want to go looking, the AICN Singer Comic Con panel article. Anyway, I could have sworn he said he cut a lot of the material (or was that just the Krypton stuff?) because tonaly, it felt out of place with the majorty of the movie. We already know the Krypton sequence won't be on the DVD.

comment #11

MPNeeb says ...

Additional requirements:

No more references to the Richard Donner/Richard Lester Superman movies.

ie No ZOD. We like Zod. But it's time to move on.

And remember, have fun. SR was too reverential to its content. It wasn't so much a movie as it was a church service.

comment #12

allen says ...

this superman is pretty good really, the biggest fault is the bad idea to make a land mass out of the crystals. What tyranny - REAL ESTATE!

Other than that Singer was going for an elegant picture and it achieves a beauty sometimes.

comment #13

AlexStroup says ...

Assuming you are talking about the scene near the end of the movie you're wrong about the gravity.

He was still well within the range of significant gravitational pull from Earth. In fact, he wasn't that far outside of the atmosphere and nowhere near so far away as the moon which is only still in orbit around earth because of the significant pull of Earth's gravity on it.

The physical laws problem comes when he made the big push in that scene. Newton's Third Law of Motion would have shot him back towards earth so fast that he likely would have bore a hole straight through and come out the other side.

comment #14

OddDuck says ...

I'm not that surprised about Jeff's 180 on SR as well. I only saw it once, but apart from some yawns in between the set pieces, I found the movie to be very noble in almost old-fashioned sorta way. It took its characters seriously, almost too much so. My biggest gripe was, as shared by many, a sense that this Superman was a little too sullen and "emo". I think ultimately that's what killed the word of mouth on it -- it collapsed under the weight of its emotion when it should have, well, kicked a lot more ass. It's pretty clear that Singer gets that when he references Khan! I just hope they greenlight it and give him the chance to redeem himself.

Also, while Rachel McAdams would have been inspired casting, that boat's already sailed. Plus, I saw no real problems with Kate Bosworth's acting. It was more her character as written in the screenplay that made her a bore -- she showed plenty of pluck in Blue Crush (a movie I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit to having seen but was really kinda fun). Anyway, most of the people who've commented on -- and trashed -- SR on this board have it right when they complain that SR simply wasn't FUN enough.

comment #15

le corbeau says ...

"He was still well within the range of significant gravitational pull from Earth."

Yeah, whaddaya think keeps the moon attached, 250,000 miles away?

My problem-- and this is purely fictional physics-- was him doing super-lifting when he's two inches from a bunch of Kryptonite. To me that was violating the rules of the premise.

Actually my problem was, I liked it fine when I saw it, but could barely remember it the next day. I liked the kid who played Supe, though, I hope he gets a chance to be himself in something instead of a first-rate Christopher Reeve imitation. (You know, like Deathtrap 2.)

comment #16

Nate West says ...

I studied this issue very carefully at Cal Tech. Krypton was heavier than Earth, which provides Superman with extra buoyancy when he arrives on our planet. Superman's true gravity problem is why he doesn't float off the Earth at every available instance. As Clark Kent, for example, what keeps him grounded? Extra-rugged velcro shoes? And why don't we hear Superman breaking the sound barrier everytime that he, well, breaks the sound barrier?

Then, the fact that Superman's DNA is capable of mixing with the DNA of Lois Lane lends credence to the idea that there is, after all, a Grand Intelligent Designer. In Superman's world, I would expect evangelical leaders to grasp hold of this fact and to use the existence of a super/human hybrid to launch a powerful new religious movement. In due course, these same religious leaders would finger Superman as the Anti-Christ. Hey, maybe that's the Superman movie I'd want to see: The Rapture of Superman!

comment #17

Dixon Steele says ...

I say enough with this franchise and Singer, who, while talented, needs to be taken down a peg.

If they can find a young, unspoiled kickass director who can do it for a logical price...nah.

Time to move on. Supes' time has passed.

comment #18

lesterg says ...

Dixon, completely agree.

Everyone has been blasting at M. Night this summer, but read any recent interview with Bryan Singer and tell me you don't want to smack the guy.

comment #19

Liz says ...

I don't get the complaints about Kate Bosworth; sure, she's young, but I think she pulled it off admirably (considering that she *is* a little young for the part). Or, at least, she was a good match for Routh; I suspect McAdams might have been a little overpowering.

Plus, if they do get this sequel off the ground, isn't the proposed release date in 2009 (according to Comic Con reports)? That should give Bosworth plenty of time to grow into the role.

comment #20

Circumvrent says ...

Take this franchise away from Singer. Let him go off and make another USUAL SUSPECTS, something small to cleanse his (and our) palette.

And I liked Bosworth.

comment #21

Hallick says ...

Errm...didn't Rachel McAdams already do the love triangle thing with James Marsden as the nice guy schmuck doomed in a (true)loveless relationship? I'm already ready to bonk Marsden on the head for re-treading this bit (The Notebook, X-Men, Superman Returns). If she actually signed on for that (a cut-it-out-of-a-house-by-paramedics FAT chance), I guess someone on the set could just bonk their heads into each other to save some time.

What would be in it for McAdams? A second fiddle "girlfriend" part in a turgid franchise doing the love triangle thing she already did better years ago? Ryan Gosling is riding high with "Half Nelson". She needs a movie that belongs to no one else but her.

comment #22

Terry McCarty says ...

Actually, WB should consider raiding the ABC soap ALL MY CHILDREN for Alexa Havin (Haven?)who currently plays the role of Babe.

She looks a bit like Bosworth, but has more edge and personality-a perfect fit for Lois Lane.

And quite a bit cheaper in price than Rachel.

comment #23

Spacesheik says ...

I loved the credits of SUPERMAN RETURNS, loved the Brando stuff, loved the John Williams score, loved the 747 landing in the stadium sequence.

Hated the plot of Lane and the kid, hated Luthor's plan to grow a kryptonite continent, hated the lack of action and heroism and the fact that you never saw Superman slug attack anyone - even if getting shot in the eye - hated the genesis camera muddy brown look of the film, hated a climax that consisted of a hospital visit.

Now Singer took 250 million or whatever and made an angst-ridden romantic flick devoid of much action.

A sequel is necessary but please not with Singer.

comment #24

Spacesheik says ...

Jeff you mention marketing but honestly man what was there to market in SUPERMAN RETURNS?

One action scene with the airplane?
Parker Posey stuck in a runaway car?
Superman getting shot in the eye?
Superman getting the shit kicked out of him?
Superman lifting a krypto island to the sun?

There is nothing to market Jeff. There really isnt.

comment #25

Nicol D says ...

As someone who liked the film albeit with reservation I say, let this version of Superman die and bring him back in a decade.

Consider this the last of the Chris Reeve franchise. I love this character dearly. He is not dated. But Singer just does not get him.

Period.

Superman Returns had great visuals and Routh was very admirable but the decision to give Superman an illegitimate child was perhaps one of the worst creative decisions I have seen for a major franchise charater in modern Hollywood history. Right up there with having Captain Kirk be the supporting character in the film where he dies.

In our hearts, even those who like the film, know that Singer effed up big time.

I think he knows it too. I think Warners knows it. Michael Bay actually should have done this. Sad but true, he would have given us the Superman we wanted.

Wait a decade now an let the character come back in a new mythology that is based on the original comic, not Singer trying to get over his outsider/adoption issues.

What Singer botched cannot be fixed now. He can have more action but he cannot get rid of the kid...and that blows.

If I'm going to beg for a sequel to an underperforming summer blockbuster I'll beg for Miami Vice II. Saw it again last night in a theatre with phenomenal audio and the bullets seared through the soundscape. It truly is a fantastic film and the perceieved flaws are not there upon repeat viewings. It works.

comment #26

KAM2112 says ...

Wow I guess if you live long enough you'll see everything. Calling for Michel bay to direct a movie? Did anyone see the Island? Oh yeah apparently not.

I don't know why there is so much hate on this site for superman returns. IT WAS HONESTLY ONE OF THE BEST AND MOST WELL MADE MOVIES OF THE SUMMER.

Lets not hate on POTC, or Poseidon, or Tokyo drift, or what ever the fuck else came out this summer-which were not well made movies. I mean Poseidon is mediocre and done by an over the hill director, right no need to hate on him. Lets not say what everyone knows POTC SUCKED. My ass never itched so much in a movie before. I watch the entirety of scenes from a marriage the tv series in one sitting, so I know it wasn't a matter of length ( I am a firm believer in the film should be as long as it's needs to be. I saw fellowship with a pounding head ache, a film I wanted to hate but when it was over, I wanted to buy another ticket and I did). After Depp shot his way out of the casket, I was done, with it. The only laugh the only entertaining think in that movie. In terms of filmmaking? Jesus H Christ. Why did every character that had a line in that film get a Close UP?? It. like. Writing. With. a. Period. At. The. End. Of. Every. Word. I mean there are other ways to put emphasis on characters in a movie.

I know people are saying well it made 700 million dollars so what. I mean just because McDonalds ships 1 billion worth of happy meals a day don't mean it's the BEST eating in town!!

I think people are jealous of Singer. The guy is genuinely talented. He knows how to make a good movie, he made a good one while not being the one most of you wanted to see, his storytelling chops are FAR greater than that of Ratner, Petersen, Verbenski. It's far easier to achieve what these other directors have with their movies, I mean POTC isn't great because of the filmmaking and we all know that, so if you could get Johnny Deep to do his thing in one of you're movies then yeah maybe you'd be sitting pretty too? I mean how far does a filmmaker have to reach to get Poseidon??

I think that Superman was pretty fucking good minus one small problem that kept it from the reaches of the masses. Singer paid too much homage to Donner's films. It was a good idea but he needed to re-acclimate US to superman/ Clark (I would put more emphasis on Clark). But SR just jumped off as if the audience was familiar with Donner's films, like Superman had not been out of the public consciousness for twenty + years.

But all other things considered it was not bad I was entertained by it and the audience that I saw it with both times loved it and applauded at the end. And the second time I saw it, it wasn't just the excitement of being there opening night. It was a month after it had been on screen.

comment #27

rk says ...

The first Superman movie didnt work for one reason :

It was boring!

Bring in some new writers and let Singer try again.

comment #28

The Bandsaw Vigilante says ...

As far as the opening credits went...they started off great, retro-'70s-style, and then jumped into hyperactive-ADD-mode with all the planets rushing past. Singer should've slowed things *waaayyy* down, and not had us suddenly watching a 3rd ROCK FROM THE SUN episode.

(Swear to God -- I was having major French Stewart-flashbacks sitting there in the theater.)

comment #29

Clark Perry says ...

If Singer truly wants to get all "Wrath of Khan" on a sequel, I'd let him do it. Here's why.

Remember all the cool and amazing things "Khan" did that nobody -- not even Paramount -- was expecting (hell, the studio was planning to let this be a made-for-TV movie, check out its history on that excellent 2-disc set from a few years back).

"Khan" told an intelligent and action-packed story, it showed these formerly wooden characters actually suffering and getting pissed off, and every action had a very real and sometimes tragic consequence. It took at least one major plot risk (the climax) that had everybody talking. It looked so much better than the first TREK movie, and it did so on just a fraction of the budget. It's my fave of the entire TREK franchise.

So if that's what Singer means when he references "Khan," I'd give him another shot. And I'd make him sit and watch "Khan" with the entire cast and crew before production cranks up.

comment #30

Dave Polands Gut says ...

Who didnt think that Singer would make this a homosexual parable? Thats his MO.

comment #31

michguy says ...

Right on, KAM2112. Here's hoping the sequel is greenlit ASAP.

And if anyone thinks that Shyamalan is as talented as Singer, you really need some help.

comment #32

ArchiveGuy says ...

Replacing Bosworth but keeping Routh is absolutely pointless. They're both terribly miscast, but getting Lois wrong is recoverable; getting Supes wrong isn't, and Routh is W-R-ONG for the film.

It's time to put the character away for a good long while.

comment #33

KAM2112 says ...

Archive guy.

Why was routh worng.

What was it in his acting that you didn't like?

What part of the character do you feel he got wrong??

And finally what part of singer vision for the film revealed Routh's handicap?

comment #34

Spacesheik says ...

Nothing wrong with Brandon Routh; he was great.

If only they gave him more lines.