Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Superman 6.

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: Superman 6. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Superman 6. - 13/2/2010 5:33:55 AM   
KeithM


Posts: 862
Joined: 31/7/2008
What have some of you been drinking?

Superman Returns was a dreadful, dull, unintelligent, poorly scripted, boring, emo pile of rubbish.  Routh, regardless of script or direction, was charisma-free, uninspiring and utterly unconvincing as Superman (he did a good impression of Reeve doing an impression of Clark Kent, but brought nothing to it himself and lacked the same charm and subtlety Reeve brought to the role).

Lack of action was absolutely not  its only flaw.  If all else was well, it may have been forgiven that glaring, obvious oversight (but what with it being Superman and all, a certain degree of Superness should go without saying, you'd have thought...), but even the 'drama' was poor.  It was as dumb a film as any I've seen in recent years, with plot holes big enough to drive planets through.  I understand that opinions differ, but please, please don't claim it has any intelligence or convincing emotional depth because it just doesn't. 

But hey you might like a stupid, granny-knobbing, hammy, real-estate agent Lex Luthor who doesn't think things through at all; you might like a Superman that spends most of his time lying down, crying, stalking, or lifting stuff, and never once throwing a punch; you might really love the idea of seeing them imaginatively use kryptonite and only kryptonite as the only way to challenge Superman again; you might like a Lois Lane that writes a smear piece about the man she supposedly loves when he disappears without trace and who immediately sleeps with another guy when she can only assume that her lover is dead!; and you are presumably perfectly fine that once Lois realises that the kid is Superman's that she's absolutely ok about the fact that Superman must have raped her and got her pregnant and then wiped her mind because she would have no memory of ever having slept with the big guy...   I mean if you like all that - and campy gangster molls, henchmen, dialogue and a world that made no sense then I guess you could argue that it was a great film.  Yeah, just great...

It's the absolute worst case of style over substance.  Please.  Wake up.  No Routh.  Let's make like Returns never happened eh?

They need to do what they're doing.  All new.  The Real Thing this time.



(in reply to The Hooded Man)
Post #: 61
RE: Superman 6. - 13/2/2010 9:26:51 AM   
jobloffski

 

Posts: 1895
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere
If nolan is 'overseeing' the new Superman, hopefully he'll have noted some of what I believe is wrong with SR. Other posts have made similar noises, but I'll get specific, and would hope that Nolan is on my page, since I'm arrogant enough to say I don't hero worship anyone enough to assume I'll automatically love what's on his.

Firstly, Nolan is a story 'technician' obsessed with making details serve the themes and character in a story and so there's no need to worry about him trying to 'darkify' Supes a la Batman, because he would, if he has any influence as a mentor at all in this situation, be looking at ways to emphasise the superness of Superman, not impose darkness on him. There can be darkness in a Supes film, but as with Spidey, that should come from the baddies, and the challenge should be for the hero to maintain his status as a light in that darkness. Anyway...


The real problem with Superman Returns was it was way, way too in thrall to the first Reeve film. So much of the film was made of moments that were 'enlarged re-runs of' or 'ironic twists on' stuff from Superman: The Movie that it could never have had a chance of having any real spark of life all its own.

For example: Gene Hackman's Lex refers to his fathers advice to get into real estate because you're always safe investng in land..."It's the one thing they're not making any more of." Spacey's Lex, like, using Kryptonite, makes some more land, which will cause flooding, and raise the value of any land still above water (hardly that different from trying to open up the San Andreas fault for the same reason).

Superman, after an encounter with with Lex and some Kryptonite, almost drowns, in STM and SR. The former in an indoor pool, and the latter in the sea. But while bigger can be better in a superhero film, that doesn't work if its basically the SAME event, repeated.

Superman is drawn into Lex's plot via being tricked into preventing a car accident involving Lex's ditzy moll, who later shows she has a heart by betraying Lex after being upset at how Superman is poisoned by Kryptonite, in STM and SR

While exploring their relationship and seeing where it is going to go, Lois and Superman fly away into the night sky, after a conversation duting which Superman tells her she shouldn't smoke in STM and SR

When we are being introduced to supermans powers in Metropolis in STM, one of the key sequences involves superman not being harmed by bullets. SR basically reruns this with CGI slow mo of a bullet impact, and then what appears to be a gatling Gun, which is a 'bigger version' of the same 'gag. only this time its supposed to be more impresive because of the amount of bullets that bounce off him. This seems to ignore the possibility that if Superman had only been gone for five years, the baddie might have heard of him and legged it, instead of continuing to fire at SUPERMAN. But logic was ignored in favour of the 'bigger! better!' approach, rerunning old stuff.

Many of the shots of superman flying were direct lifts of shots from STM, right up to the closing shot of him smiling at the camera.

With so much basically being rejigged characters/incidents and visual elements from the first movie, there needed to be a solid plot driving the film forward, but that was impossible, because the antagonist plot was a riff on the antagonist plot of the first movie, instead of being a wholly new scheme. There was no reason not to use lex as the villain, but trying the same scam (contrive a way to make land in the USA more scarce in order to profit from it) was a useless way to go. No original threat/plot from Lex = no new feeling to exploit.

About the only thing that was radically different was the relationship between Superman and Lois, but by making it antagonistic, it tore the fun heart out of the tone of the earlier film and sought to replace it with a 'cute kid and a goody two shoes hubby' in order to try and complicate things for Superman emotionally. This shouldn't have come into play until perhaps Superman RE-Returns, when by then we might have given a shit about the 'emotional complexity' if it had just cropped up, and didn't dominate the tone of the movie completely.

And to cap it all, the over use of 'echoes' of the first movie was laid on so thick that we had Superman reciting the Brando lines from the first movie (as the son becomes the father, so the father becomes the son, prob not accurate quote but I'm doing all this from memory). This particular element had its pay off in superman 2, because in both versions of that film, the last of his father's 'life force' is what returned superman's powers. So, depsite the effrots to ape the elements of STM the movie, Singer APPARENTLY FAILED TO NOTICE that the thing he intended to make the emotional centre and emotional climax, the father/son dynamic did not flow from established details and was already concluded, and apparently failed to notice the long history of film sequels NOT being improved by the addition of a 'cute kid' factor.

Also, taking into account the theatrical cut of Superman II, that ended with Superman saying to the President 'I wont let you down again'. SR, by being presented as a Superman III v.2 totally ballses it up by having it appear that Supes simply fucked off for five years, to look for Krypton, without giving him much motivation beyond wanting to see his home. This could have been explained with meatier exposition such as he had to make sure there weren't more like Zod out there waiting to attack Earth again. But why bother with motivation when you can just riff on 'you will live among them, but you will not be one of them' (once again relying on a point that was already played out when Superman chose to fight his own people rather than let them take the earth, so he had already decided earth was his home BEFORE (according to SR flying off to look for pieces of a broken planet on the offchance some kryptonians might have clung to said pieces).


All of these issues could have been surmounted with a better handling of dramatic pacing. If the film had been out and out fun in its style, then took a massive plunge into the dark when the evil plot kicked in, there could have been a very dramatic progression from a 'Yay, Superman!' to an 'Oh my God...Superman..." tone. The kicking Routh's Superman takes is pretty brutal, and the 'evil of Lex' really works there. But because the film was downbeat from the start, there was no fun then, and the plot kicking in didn't grip enough because too much screen time had been wasted establishing antagonism between Superman and Lois and the 'emotional complication; of the child and the nice guy, creating a not very exciting (or emotional) dilemma...will Supes hurt the nice guy by moving in on Lois, whose as close to as human him Lois could have found? No of course he wont, he's an even nicer guy...And, finally, 'oh my god, is he dead?' is presumably what we were supposed to be asking ourselves, but of course not, Superman wasn't returning to die and such a plot point was simply tediousness in picture form.

Had the plot of SR been kick-ass, all the in jokery/riffing on elements of STM (plot, character, incident and visual wise) would have problably added to the experience. But all the effort seems to have been expended on 'honouring' Reeve's time in the 'franchise' and little time at all on making the SIII v.2 a logical progression from the second film (which didn't feel the need to copy/riff/homage its own predecessor at all and just got on with a story that had been planned for and set up in the first film).

It's harsh to blame the cast for the effect on their performances of script/director/direction style that so self consciously set out to exploit nostalgia for the Reeve era, because actors can only work with what they are given, and it is up to the director to give direction. Without any new spark of its own in its plot, and with so many 'homages' to work into the whole deal, it's hard to see how any actor playing Superman could have made any mark of his own on the role.

Bosworth didn't come out of the film well, but with what she was given to do: play a jaded Lois, totally robbed of the spark of almost every other incarnation she had no chance, especially as any character development leading to her being jaded just has to be asumed to have happened between SII and SR. And since that was the case, having her faint upon seeing Superman after the opening, misguidedly 911 seasoned opening sequence was a fatal thing for her performance.

How much more could have been achieved if, for example, she didn't faint, and when she saw supes, pleased to see her, she just gives a brief glare, truns and walks, leaving Supes (and us) wondering what's wrong and in a single moment setting the tone for her portrayal of Lois that the fainting just didn't do?

Sorry to go on and on, but I obviously have what I believe to be very solid views as to why the 'engine' of the film was misudged (too much homage to and saluting at ) at the expense of using the screentime on something better than a soap opera love triangle without any apparent love on display.


Spacey's delivery at times made it seem a better film than it was. But my experience of the film can be summed up as total nostalgic joy when seeing the titles, and hearing the score...followed by a film that, relied so much on nostalgia it had no personality of it's own and despite all the efforts to make things look super, they just didn't feel super, because it takes more to make a new movie than to distill the elements of an older one and just rework them.

Singer was way out of tune on this one. And he confirmed forever that action is not his strong suit, at least in any scene that doesn't have the undeniable selling point of Hugh Jackman, claws out, going apeshit. And even then, that's Hugh's presence rather than the orchestration of the the scenes.

< Message edited by jobloffski -- 13/2/2010 10:09:21 AM >


_____________________________

Yes, dreamers dream and doers do. But if dreamers DON'T dream, doers don't have anything TO do. Everything that is only here because people exist, only exists because someone thought of it., or in other words, dreamed it.

(in reply to KeithM)
Post #: 62
RE: Superman 6. - 13/2/2010 3:05:02 PM   
darth silas


Posts: 4949
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: My living room
I agree wholeheartedly with the last two posters.Superman Returns was a DISASTER of a film and should be cast aside and forgotten by any creative team making a new Superman film.They should make a straight reboot like they SHOULD have done in 2006.This does not mea they have to explain his origin all over again in great detail,they could use flashbacks at the right moments after they start the film with Clark Kents first day on the job at the daily planet and his subsequent first public appearance as Superman.

They should NOT include Lex Luthor and use a villain from the comics that has not been seen in a Superman movie so far.Save Luthor for a possible appearance in a sequel(as Nolan did with The Joker for Batman).NO Kryptonite,NO use of the John Williams theme(its a great theme but it belongs to Christopher Reeves Superman),NONE of the cast of Superman returns should be used.


_____________________________

Star Wars:Episodes 1,2,3,4,5,6.Taken together they are one giant movie and it is the greatest movie EVER.

(in reply to jobloffski)
Post #: 63
RE: Superman 6. - 13/2/2010 4:43:02 PM   
Sotto Voce

 

Posts: 808
Joined: 5/9/2009
I think having Superman come back from a long absence was a pretty good idea.

_____________________________

All things digested have a similar hue.

(in reply to darth silas)
Post #: 64
RE: Superman 6. - 13/2/2010 9:48:30 PM   
KeithM


Posts: 862
Joined: 31/7/2008
Turned out it wasn't - a good idea, that is.  It, in fact, sucked.  Hard.

What Singer didn't exactly spell out, but which follows on logically from that "pretty good idea" was that it meant that Superman left Earth after having just screwed Lois, getting her preggers and wiping her memory of the whole thing - without a single word that he might be "gone some time" and without so much as a heads up to the world's police and security forces - you know, a courtesy to let them know he won't be around to "help out".  The kind of loose ends we all have to deal with when we might be away for a year or five or forever...  But he didn't.  Not a word.  As far as the world was concerned, Superman just disappeared.  He maybe told his mam, but other than that, left everyone in the dark (he at least told the Planet that Clark wouldn't be in for a year, or 5, or forever, but Lois didn't give a rat's arse about Clark - it's Superman she (supposedly) loved).  As far as she's concerned, Superman, the love of her life, just disappeared off the face of the Earth (hoho, if only she knew! But she didn't! But she didn't care anyway!)

Does she worry?  Does she fret?  Hell no! She then immediately jumps into bed with Scott Richard.  Very close to when she unknowingly got impregnated by Clark (I had to force those words out they feel so wrong - like Clark wouldn't be like the most conscientious guy in the world about contraception or anything...), very close to when Superman skips town like, well, ;like a dude who just got his friend and workmate pregnant, wiped the whole thing from her memory and needed to get the fuck out of dodge before he had to take any responsibility for that shit!   She thought the kid was Richard's so she must have slept with them both within a week or two at most.

What a bitch.

It meant that Lois' smear piece on how Earth could get on just fine without him, the Bastard, could only have been written from the perspective of someone who has no idea where he's gone, who you would think would be worried sick about him and, as time goes, that she must surely fear the worst.  But no.  Straight in the sack with someone else before Supes has even made it to the moon, doesn't give a toss if he's alive or dead, just pissed that he ain't there to make her life more exciting, to fulfill her selfish desires, nastily and pettily undoing all the good work he did, all the sacrifice, sullying his name and ruining his image as the inspiration for millions.  Not a glowing eulogy, as you might expect, or a plaintive, emotional call to "come home, wherever you might be", or an investigative crusade to find him or his captors or murderers or whoever or whatever is behind this sudden and unexplained disappearance by someone who everyone just knows would never let them down like this deliberately.  He just wouldn't.  Would he?  Wrong!  Apparently he would and did.  And Lois knew it all along without ever being told.  She's good, real good (or the writers/director is bad, real bad and forgot to distinguish what he/they knew from what the characters are supposed to know).

And only when it (the kid - I refuse to genderise the abomination) throws a piano does she twig that it might be Superman's kid after all...  And her reaction isn't "WTF! I never slept with Superman.  Did he spike me, rape me, leave me pregnant and then just leave without a fucking word?!"  No, she's fine.  Not worth bringing up.  She must be used to passing out, getting fucked and not remembering it...

All this... mess because Singer had a "good idea" about explaining his absence from our screens by working in something which he just didn't think through logically, or with any great care or even 'due diligence', married with his complete lack of understanding of any of the characters, the dynamics of their relationships or how to make an interesting story with a character that has a greater storytelling heritage than most, if not any other fictional character in history..

It might have been a good idea if they'd thought it through a bit better, if they hadn't written the script in a toilet on some loo roll with some lipstick, if they gave a shit about such details in a 'stupid comic-book movie', or if they gave it some kind of sense of fun without camping it up even more than they already did, or didn't compound the error by screwing up basic characterisations so thoroughly.

But they didn't.  If there was a wrong turn to take, a bad move to make, a screw up to screw, they took it.  It was an almighty clusterfuck of a Bad Idea.  The whole misbegotten thing was, in fact. 

Forget Returns ever existed (I'm trying to, but you internet people keeping making me come back to break you out of the cult programming   It's a dirty job...). 


(in reply to Sotto Voce)
Post #: 65
RE: Superman 6. - 13/2/2010 10:18:25 PM   
Mr Terrific


Posts: 1639
Joined: 15/7/2006
Things they might possibly want to include in this new Superman film.

1. The Anti-Life Equation
2. Intergang
3. Darksied

All three are linked.
A brutal, long, fight between Darkseid and Superman? Yes please!!
Check this out!


_____________________________

..."lost like tears in the rain....."

"He claims he is a man. And one of the things about being a man is getting knocked on your ass and learning from it."

http://www.dccomics.com/heroes_and_villains/?hv=origin_stories/mr_terrific

(in reply to KeithM)
Post #: 66
RE: Superman 6. - 14/2/2010 3:12:44 AM   
Sotto Voce

 

Posts: 808
Joined: 5/9/2009
quote:

ORIGINAL: KeithM

Turned out it wasn't - a good idea, that is.  It, in fact, sucked.  Hard.



It was a good way of (re)introducing the character without going through the whole origin story.
Re: KeithM's other points- good point.
Although, you'd imagine when Supe first dissappears the world would be saying "Where are you Superman?! Come back Superman!" Some might resent him for leaving, some might think he's done enough and deserves is freedom.But after six years, people move on. Human civilisation continues as it did before Superman arrived.
Lois probably was worried, but after a while accepts that he might never come back.

As for the other man and the supersprog, well, Lois has needs, I suppose. She might have assumed that she couldn't get pregnant to Superman because they are different species. Or she assumed the kid wasn't Superman's because he didn't appear to have any of his abilities.

Come to think of it, I can't remember why he actually left. Was he trying to find some piece of Krypton or something?


_____________________________

All things digested have a similar hue.

(in reply to KeithM)
Post #: 67
RE: Superman 6. - 14/2/2010 1:41:15 PM   
Invader_Ace


Posts: 1586
Joined: 31/7/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sotto Voce
It was a good way of (re)introducing the character without going through the whole origin story.
...
Come to think of it, I can't remember why he actually left. Was he trying to find some piece of Krypton or something?


but it wasn't and it he didn't even need re-introducing.  He's freakin' Superman. Why couldn't the film have started the same way as the other films?  Although, maybe without the slapstick.  Opening Scene:  Sweet Jesus! There's a massive emergency!  Who will save us now?!  Thank fuck, it's Superman!  Done.

It's always annoyed me, as Jobloffski points out, Superman 2 finishes with Superman saying he's going nowhere. The opening screen of Returns is a crawl that reads "he went somewhere".

You're right, he went to find the remnants of Krypton.

I never even thought about the whole "rape" of Lois.  Yes, the film is balls.

(in reply to Sotto Voce)
Post #: 68
RE: Superman 6. - 15/2/2010 8:56:08 AM   
Sotto Voce

 

Posts: 808
Joined: 5/9/2009
quote:

ORIGINAL: Invader_Ace

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sotto Voce
It was a good way of (re)introducing the character without going through the whole origin story.
...
Come to think of it, I can't remember why he actually left. Was he trying to find some piece of Krypton or something?


but it wasn't and it he didn't even need re-introducing.  He's freakin' Superman. Why couldn't the film have started the same way as the other films?  Although, maybe without the slapstick.  Opening Scene:  Sweet Jesus! There's a massive emergency!  Who will save us now?!  Thank fuck, it's Superman!  Done.


Well, that could have been okay. Slightly predictable, maybe.
quote:


It's always annoyed me, as Jobloffski points out, Superman 2 finishes with Superman saying he's going nowhere. The opening screen of Returns is a crawl that reads "he went somewhere".


Maybe there's a bit of conflict between his personal life and his 'day job'. He needed some personal time.
I know the movie didn't make much of it though.

I never really knew if it was supposed to fit in with the old movies or not.


_____________________________

All things digested have a similar hue.

(in reply to Invader_Ace)
Post #: 69
RE: Superman 6. - 15/2/2010 12:11:40 PM   
jobloffski

 

Posts: 1895
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere
I earlier referred to Nolan as a 'story technician'. Here I go again, having my stab at such a role...

SR was intended to be an alternative Superman III, and even if it hadn't been, the choice to stick with the iconic music of old immediately creates the expectation that it should fit very well with the older movies.

Part of the problem with SR is Supes apparently buggering off without explanation after SII. Would it have been so terribly difficult to have a short prologue with Supes telling Lois he has to go away for a while, and asking her to wait for him, then her going to work expecting to see comforting Clark, only to find her friend has vacated too? Despondent Lois tone established...Then when Superman Returns, she has moved on, because she just simply believed he would never come back. Thenthere's tensiion between what could have been/could still be and the man she would have to hurt to make herself happy? And if she'd had a kid in the meantime (but not by siuperman), that's extra complication for the mix

Yes, it would have been impossible to do this because of the 'it''s superman's kid'story decision that doesn't make any sense at all, not least because Singer NEGLECTED to include a scene where the actual parents of the kid discuss this and Superman has to reveal his identity as Clark, admit they slept together, and admit that he wiped her memory of the event because her being with him put her in a position of danger previously and he couldn't bear it if anything happened to her because of . It HAD to come out that Clark is Superman's for the kid storyline to work, and completely neglecting any kind of discussion of this matter at all just made everything else about the story ring totally untrue. Even if the upshot would have been 'they still can't be together because of the hurt it would cause others' the truth should have come out, been discussed by the characters, and early enough in the film for the revelation to have settled the matter, create a still lingering sense of yearning between Clark/supes and Lois that has something new in its way.

Then the way would have been clear to get onto the adventure side of things, and perhaps it would have been far simpler to have Lex's plan go wrong by his having new continent keep growing and growing and growing until it threatens to destroy the planet (thus being a bigger threat for this alternative 'third' film in relation to the threat of the second film ...cue such stuff as half dead superman seeing the ever expanding land mass,,,

Superman: My God, Luthor...do you have any idea what you've done?

Lex: Well you're back now, aren't you, so you can tell me all the errors of my oh so evil ways...I've missed you so much...
Superman

Superman: You really hate this world so much that you want to destroy it?

Lex: You really love this world so much you want to save it? No, of course I don't want to destroy it...I

(the creaking, shrieking sound of the suddenly accelerating kryptyo-land mass growth cuts him off. He and supes watch it growing.

Lex: Do something...

(Superman is getting weakly to his feet)

Lex: DO SOMETHING...

Superman looks at Lex, slight smirk, puts an arm around him

Lex: No...no. Dont do that

Superman Rockets skywards...Lex screaming all the while...they're on the edge of space...Luthor is terrified...

Superman: (meaning the earth) Look at it Luthor...

Lex opens one cowardly eye...

Superman: LOOK AT IT!!!

Lex does as commanded. Looks at the earth. The expanding krypto continent can be seen

Superman: Take a closer look.

He releases Lex...Lex plummets towards the earth, superman does the 'regenerating in the sunlight' thing, main theme begins,very weakly, getting stronger as he does, kicking in properly as he returns to full strength and rockets back towards earth in time to stop lex hitting the ground...puts Lex somewhere totally inescapable...

Lex: You can't leave me here.

Superman: Can't I?

Lex: Well...you can't leave me here forever. Superman. SUPERMAN!!


And THEN have ending as the film portrays, with the 'relationship stuff' having been resolved early enough to have less of a detrimental effect on the clarity of the tone of the film, allowing more humour into it, and then ultimately, the payoff then has more power, because fun is replaced by superman nearly dying. And even then, it shouldn't be expected that WE think he might die, the focus on the reactions of the characters just has to convince the viewer that they think he might die. We get caught up in the possibility, even though we know it wont happen (just like with the 'bond is poisoned and about to die' scene from Casino Royale) and then share the relief of the characters when Superman's okay.

Job done, supermans returned, he's got a kid by lois, who knows he's Clark in tights, they could have each other, but a decent innocent man stands to get hurt if they do anything about it. If this was Singer's plan for the sequel, it just goes to show the danger of counting chickens before they've hatched and neglecting to make a film that stands on its own two feet. If this wasn't part of the plan for a sequel, it's hard to see whether Singer actually knew what he was doing storywise, because if nothing else, a 'Returns' movie should have flow more natrually from the film it was desgined to follow, the issues to complicate matters should have been dealt with quickly, and having been settled, be something that can be returned to later, when Lois, Clark and Superman would be keeping things secret from Lois' hubby and he would be wondering what the score is, and where he fits into the equation of Lois's life.



< Message edited by jobloffski -- 15/2/2010 1:35:44 PM >


_____________________________

Yes, dreamers dream and doers do. But if dreamers DON'T dream, doers don't have anything TO do. Everything that is only here because people exist, only exists because someone thought of it., or in other words, dreamed it.

(in reply to Sotto Voce)
Post #: 70
RE: Superman 6. - 17/2/2010 9:12:08 PM   
Herve

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 20/12/2005
Nolan should remember that Superman is just a man who can fly and is allergic to green rocks, rather than overdoing the angst and trauma. I agree with previous posters that the Singer film was tedious and fogettable, with the predictable super-child twist and a rehash of Luthor's real-estate disaster scam from the original film.

If they must make another Superman film, then perhaps leave Jon Peters out of it this time, as well as Luthor, who never seems particularly bright for a genius.

Better still, forget Superman and just make Powergirl in Tentacle Land.

< Message edited by Herve -- 17/2/2010 9:13:17 PM >

(in reply to jobloffski)
Post #: 71
RE: Superman 6. - 18/2/2010 11:39:35 AM   
The Hooded Man


Posts: 2777
Joined: 12/7/2006
Superman Returns was a sequel to the first Superman film not Superman 2, Singer said as much at the time adding that he didn't rate the second film very highly. This always struck me as a bizarre decision, considering Lois and Clark never got it on in the first film so where'd the kid come from?

< Message edited by The Hooded Man -- 18/2/2010 11:45:46 AM >


_____________________________

Counting the minutes until the over zealous mods lock this thread too.

(in reply to Herve)
Post #: 72
RE: Superman 6. - 18/2/2010 12:08:04 PM   
Invader_Ace


Posts: 1586
Joined: 31/7/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: The Hooded Man

Superman Returns was a sequel to the first Superman film not Superman 2, Singer said as much at the time adding that he didn't rate the second film very highly. This always struck me as a bizarre decision,


I'm pretty sure it's accepted as being a new Superman 3.  Both Wikipedia and IMDB say it has a "loose continuity" with these films.  The Script Writers themselves however are even more vague, which if you ask me is totally lame.  They should know for definate what they are creating.
http://www.superherohype.com/news/supermannews.php?id=4393
quote:

Q: Is this a sequel to the first two?

Dougherty: My philosophy is and I'm sure Dan and Bryan are probably sick of me saying this, but think of it closer to the Bond series in right now they're making "Casino Royale." Is it Bond 20? James Bond 19? I don't know. It's a new chapter in the story. Each James Bond film doesn't necessarily reference specific events that took place in the prior films.

Q: But, some of them do and this film does address some specific references like the Fortress of Solitude and the article that Lois Lane wrote just like some of the James Bond films reference his wife.

Dougherty: Right. In other words the comparison matches. What I'm saying is, don't get too caught up in specifics.

Q: What I'm saying is I think that makes it a sequel.

Dougherty: Sure.

Harris: I just don't know if it includes three of four. You don't want to be rude here, but I don't know if I thought of three and four when I was working on this.

Dougherty: It doesn't necessarily dismiss three and four, but it's not referencing Gus Gorman and Nuclear Man either. We're not saying they didn't happen.

Harris: We're not saying they did.



< Message edited by Invader_Ace -- 18/2/2010 12:09:57 PM >

(in reply to The Hooded Man)
Post #: 73
RE: Superman 6. - 18/2/2010 12:18:03 PM   
The Hooded Man


Posts: 2777
Joined: 12/7/2006
I agree it makes no sense for the second film not to be referenced, but the above post just shows how poorly the story for the film was conceived, I loved the cast (except Bosworth), production standards and spectacle but the script was strange to say the least. Singer said that Superman 2 was not as good a film as people remember. Watched it recently, don't agree with him.

_____________________________

Counting the minutes until the over zealous mods lock this thread too.

(in reply to Invader_Ace)
Post #: 74
RE: Superman 6. - 18/2/2010 4:51:20 PM   
blackduck


Posts: 1604
Joined: 1/10/2005
Another thing that bugged me (apart from all thats been mentioned), before heading off on a 5 year jaunt, would it have killed him to lock the door of the fortress of solitude. Given that all Kryptonion knowledge is stored there and all the damage the crystals could do in the wrong hands, probally shouldn't just leave them lying around. especally in a place thats only defence is being really far away.

_____________________________

I am but an egg.

(in reply to The Hooded Man)
Post #: 75
RE: Superman 6. - 23/2/2010 2:11:10 PM   
moogdroog

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 10/11/2006
quote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Dark Knight was a technically well made film, but was a very shit film in regard to narrative, which was Chris Nolan's job to get right...Time will prove this to be true.


Yeah, give it a million years.

Anyway....what I'd like to see is Jonah Nolan collaborate with Grant Morrison on the script (a bit like he does with Goyer on the Batman films) with Chris Nolan producing.

I doubt Singer would return as director as I doubt he'd be happy having to answer to Nolan after being the head-honcho on the previous film.

So the question is: who could direct this? My first thought was Zack Synder. Now I know a lot of people may object due to handling of Watchmen, but with a good script and Nolan there to reign in his excesses he might the perfect choice. But would he also take kindly to Nolan's authority? He may have no choice - if it's the case that Watchmen damaged his influence with Warners.

Who else is there?

Also, considering Nolan's involvement, is this gonna be in Imax? Or would Imax be appropriate for a film that would most likely have tonnes of CGI? What about 3D?


(in reply to blackduck)
Post #: 76
RE: Superman 6. - 23/2/2010 2:17:59 PM   
The Hooded Man


Posts: 2777
Joined: 12/7/2006
Given the Americana nature of Superman I think Spielberg would be perfect, but no chance in hell.

_____________________________

Counting the minutes until the over zealous mods lock this thread too.

(in reply to moogdroog)
Post #: 77
RE: Superman 6. - 23/2/2010 6:08:56 PM   
relativelyrelative


Posts: 226
Joined: 10/5/2009
From: Plymouth
quote:

ORIGINAL: The Hooded Man

Given the Americana nature of Superman I think Spielberg would be perfect, but no chance in hell.


No thanks. Lucas would get involved, then we'd really be fucked. Personally I liked the idea that the wachowski brothers were approached to produce - they're certainly a better fit than Nolan. Which, as it turns out, was dismissed as a rumour in itself.

(in reply to The Hooded Man)
Post #: 78
RE: Superman 6. - 25/2/2010 12:59:02 PM   
Invader_Ace


Posts: 1586
Joined: 31/7/2008
From CHUD
"One weird thing that had been floating around for years  now is the idea that Legendary Pictures was interested in creating a fully CGI Superman and hiring an actor to play only Clark Kent. I don't know if this news has already broken out there - everybody I know has heard this exact same story - and I don't know if that concept is still in play, but it would allow Legendary and Warner Bros to always have Superman in their stable and only have to worry about casting new Clarks, which is probably much easier.
Post-Avatar it seems more and more likely somebody would try a stunt like this. Again, I don't know if this concept is still on the table and Latino Review doesn't report on it, but it's something that's real and been bandied about."

Urgh.

(in reply to relativelyrelative)
Post #: 79
RE: Superman 6. - 25/2/2010 1:17:14 PM   
The Hooded Man


Posts: 2777
Joined: 12/7/2006
Invader that's an appalling idea but as usual where the studio can cut costs they will. I think the involvement of David Goyer on the script suggests Nolan's involvement as well, given their working relationship on Batman.

_____________________________

Counting the minutes until the over zealous mods lock this thread too.

(in reply to Invader_Ace)
Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: Superman 6. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.188