News: Singer talks 'Superman: The Man of...Unrelenting Terror'!?!

[chatback]

This discussion is for comments about the news article News: Singer talks 'Superman: The Man of...Unrelenting Terror'!?! (http://www.comics2film.com/index.php?a=story&b=31880).

[showcase22]

I don't know about unrelenting terror but a little more excitment in the sequel would be nice. The whole love triangle, kid story was a little weird for me but I guess Superman can't punch his way out of every problem.

[jeffverdejo]

What can I say. These "Superman" movies(Richard Donner & Bryan Singer versions) are not meant to be seen by someone who reads comics. I mean, I do read comics, especially "Superman & Action Comics". But I was able to see all the movies understanding that a direct to comic to film is not always possible. What's that saying? "Give the people what they want!" or what they think they want. Like Bryan Singer said "That movie made $400 million!" That there says everything. All I know is that I'm waiting for the next one that he makes. Oh I forgot, "Superman 3 % 4 sucked!

[Lazlo3341]

The first Superman, waaay back in 1978 was great for its time. It's sequel was better. We'll pretend, like Singer did, that Superman 3 & 4 never happened. Singer's Superman Returns was not a BAD movie, just slow paced.

The problem with these movies is that we rarely see Superman do what he can do. Writers always seem to focus on Superman vs. human threats, which have no real hope of ever defeating him. Even his genius arch-nemesis, Lex Luthor, is not truly a threat without Kryptonite.

Until we see Superman go up against a villian from his comics, someone like Doomsday who is actually a threat to him, it won't really be all that exciting for the audience.

[imported_Robbo]

Posted By: Lazlo3341...Until we see Superman go up against a villian from his comics, someone like Doomsday who is actually a threat to him, it won't really be all that exciting for the audience.
Perhaps Doomsday is the unrelenting terror Singer has in mind?

[binbynku]

Superman a hard sale? Please. Superman does not have to be so hard based in reality for it to be meaningful, it is a fantasy movie after all alah.. lord of the rings or star wars. The myth or legend of superman is firmly based in almost everyone's conscience that you can start from scratch and try some new things with superman for instance a fresh take on krypton, what really happen to clark when he went into the fortress, maybe the superman suit has been passed down from generations of el's.. why did jor- el choose earth.. the list goes on and on.. Singer should be honest, he really didnt know much about superman other than the fact that the guy can fly.. singer gambled by taking an xmen approach with the film(approaching superman as a mutant and not an alien).. the movie struggled to get to the 400 mil mark thxs to warner execs threatening to kill the franchise off for another 20 yrs and the fact that superman is a worldwide icon(people want to see this franchise succeed.. like myself)p.s. the bastard child creates realism but for all the wrong reasons.

[perplexigon]

"And now that the characters are established"?

Please... the characters are ingrained into our cultural psyche. You didn't need to re-establish 'em... just cut to the chase, and get to the good stuff!

[CaptQuirk]

"And now that the characters are established, there?s really an opportunity to up the threat levels..."

Keep in mind, he probably never read the comic, watched the show, or seen the cartoons, until well after he had done the movie.

[VIOlator]

This was Bryan Singer's best movie made. His X-Men movies sucked ass action-wise. They couldve been so much better. But I thought Superman was definitely alot more fluid and nostalgic. Made me feel like a kid again and reminded me of how much i used to love Superman,the O.G. Superhero. It's all about that theme song baby! I very excited to see what he's talking about for the next movie. I think we just might see those scary crazy ass villains, and see Dragonball like battle scenes. Siickkk...

[imported_billymatt]

Yep Singer, it made $400 million and had a creativity factor of
zero.
go away Singer, you had your chance, now just go away.

[Trybrow]

great, an action film for girls. wow. maybe he can make Superman Vs. Bratz; Requiem

[Timberwulf]

Christopher Reeve as Superman/Clark Kent was amazing! Brandon Routh as Christopher Reeve as Superman/Clark Kent was...difficult to watch. Not that Routh did a bad job, just that I wanted to see a new take on the man of steel, not an impersonation.
Singer can cite the magic four hundred million all he wants, but that does nothing to prove how good his movie was. All it proves is how many people were willing to pay good money in hope that Singer would give them what they had been waiting for. I can only speak for myself, but I didn't get what I wanted. Instead of an exciting new Superman movie that would take full advantage of current special effects tech to show us a Superman we could never get on film before. I expected villains actually capable of going head to head with Supes and the onscreen battles to be beyond spectacular!!!
What I got was...a poor story that plays havoc with the Superman mythos, a sad, meloncholy, heart broken Superman, and an unneeded role for Singer's boytoy, Marsden.
I could have probably overlooked some of the things singer did wrong, if he had done one simple thing: Make the movie FUN!!! Sadly, he didn't.

[imported_CX3]

They should completely erase Superman Returns from the records... Lets see, Superman's only weakness is Kryptonite and he lifted a whole ISLAND of it, lived and saved the day... Obviously nothing can kill him now unless maybe in the sequel the villain can be a whole continent of Kryptonite...

Stupidest writing move ever. DC lost points in my book on that movie. Hopefully The Dark Knight will raise that bar again.

[morett2112]

Ok, so it made $400 million, but that was worldwide. It barely made $200 million in the US, so did "300" with unknown actors and a lot more action. I would rather see a new director and star. When Superman starts crying like a baby because he's getting beat up by humans, that's when it's time to start over. If Brandon Routh was so great, why hasn't he made any movies since then? That was two years ago! Lex Luthor has been in four of five of the movies, enough already! He's the only comic book villian to appear in any of the movies! Superman has about a thousand enemies, get with the program! We've seen almost every major Batman villian on screen, for better or worse. Give the public a little credit.

[imported_billymatt]

TIMBERWULF hit the nail on the head...Superman Returns wasn't fun. We want action, we want fun and we sure as hell want a few punches thrown....Does anyone at WB read this stuff...maybe not, but if they do.,...they "should" have the brains to see the "Superman base" isn't too thrilled with this Singer guy. But if they insist on having that wimp Singer direct the Man of Steel, that kid that was stupidly brought into the last film better be at summer camp for this one...or it's just another reason this next Superman Film will Bomb. Thanks.

[jrod1019]

I agree with every opinionated person here! Some where Singer screwed up and dedicated SR to Richard Donner not a bad thing to do except he left the fans down.....HARD.
If he still wants to take a crack at it go ahead it's not my money his spending. But if he is going to reuse Lex then like someone said a while ago make him the dick in the background to bring up the threat level but not the major villan.
Have Brainiac, Metallo, and hey for shits & giggles throw in the clones Bizarro of course. And kill off the bastard child of Lois in a really dark way that we can feel like we can hate a villan. And there is always Mongo from War World that was used as a game I'm pretty sure he can have some payback on Earth. Nuff said!

[SuperSkeptic]

Synger is exactly right. Superman IS a hard sell because there is NO WAY he can win, no matter how brilliant a movie he makes. No matter what he did with 'Returns' people were going to want a resurrected Chris Reeve playing SUpes. Superman Returns was actually the best Superman film yet made. It was not 'slow paced' unless you are attention deficit and the type of movie-goer who thinks "The Fast and the Furious" is great cinema. 'Returns' was full of grand, iconic, awe-inspiring scenes that made one's heart swell if he was not predisposed to hating the non-Reeve film.

Get off the bandwagon "me too" line of thought guys. ANy moron can walk into a remake or a sequel and say "It's crap. The original was better." and have the popular consent of every other moron out there. They did that for Jackson's "King Kong", Zombie's "Halloween", the new "Casino Royale", etc. and they were wrong every time. "Original" does NOT always = "better". God I could go on for DAYS about all the flaws adn flubs in the first two Superman movies(spinning the earth in counter-rotation to reverse time?!? Give me a f*cking break!) so spare me.

[81artmonk]

the director fired back at critics who didn't like the first remake...er...movie or somehow try to paint it as a dud.

"That movie made $400 million!" Singer says incredulously. "I don’t know what constitutes under-performing these days."

Just becuase it made alot of money doesn't mean it was good. superman is loved by almost all as an american icon, so any type of superman movie will draw a huge crowd to see what is up.

As for setting stuff up, please. That's what the original supers did. according to the director himself this was a coninutation of those films, so what's with the setup.

I agree with the previous poster. Superman is super, and needs a villian to match his strength. Any hero who doesn't fight a villian who is as strong or stronger than him makes him only a wierd guy in a suit.

With the mythos, a hero is only as good as the villian, and if there is no belief that the hero can be defeated, than the victory over evil is hollow!

[SuperSkeptic]

Also, please stop with the "fun" crap. WE hear this nonsense from those guys who say that the "Fantastic Four" was better than "Batman Begins" all the time. They say Batman "Just wasn't FUN!" and that FF "Was FUN!". There are some C2Fs that CAN do the "fun" thing and get away with it(Superman probably being one). There are some that MUST take the "fun" angle because the characters cannot be taken seriously(Spiderman, Flash, most of the Justice League etc.) and some characters that should be as far removed from "fun" as possible in the movies(Batman, Hulk, Punisher etc.). All too often "fun" is just a buzzword for crappy, cliche' one-liners, boring fight scenes and absurd plot devices.

So Singer took the more serious route with Superman. He could have gone the "fun" route and had Gene Hackman and Warren Beatty bungling around and the movie would have been crap. I applaud him.

[81artmonk]

To remark on a previous poster about those of us who didn't like the remake of superman.

You are correct about those moments of iconic awe-inspiting scenes. a few no doubt, but that does not make up for the movie as whole. I will touch on 3 main points that ruined the movie for me personally.

1. the bastard child. It was lame, not needed and foolish.

2. Lex AGAIN as a villian. If you are going to update a film update the villian. Superman is super and needs a villian to make us believe how really powerful and how great a protector of this world superman really is.

3. The NUMEROUS mistakes with Kryptonite Singer made. being the self-proclaimed fanboy of superman (singer) how he could screw up on this issue so badly is just baffling.
You stated rotating the earth to reverse time as ridiculous. How's about lifting a continent above your head flinging it into outerspace with large jagged spikes of kryptonite in supes face!!

The remake was aweful, but it wasn't all that good either. It did have it's moments, but that couldn't make up for the rest of the film.

[The Xenos]

Hey, Bryan, buddy, fyi, "nostalgic film" doesn't mean completely rips off an earlier film. Really, if I wanted nostalgia, I'd go watch the Donner films again. Maybe even the Richard Pryor one. I wish I had done that instead of wasting time with this film. Stupid me, I expected a

Also, only $400 million for Superman? It didn't even beat that turd X-men 3. So that goes to tell you the box office isn't a mark of quality unless you want to argue that X3 was better than Superman Returns. Okay, neither did Batman Begins sadly. Then again, at least that started over. Plus at least it didn't start off in the hole and I think cost less, seems like $120 million less. Superman Returns had already reportedly lost 60 million to the defunct Burton production. Lord knows how much Warners spent on Singer's little pet project.

And what did we get instead of a Superman movie? A weepy story about an ex who's running around with your bastard child and a guy she refuses to marry. That is Superman? Who's the villain? Oh Lex Luthor going for another cash grab sceme with a ditzy lady sidekick just like the first Donner film. Really? This was what you spent hundreds of million of dollars on? This was the best you can do?

Oh and now for any sequel you have to deal with that reaaaaally awkward bit about Superman being a deadbeat dad to a bastard son stuck with Superpowers. Yeah, I remember all those comics with Superman having to raise the son with powers that he abandoned. Don't you? Yeah. Totally fits the character. -bah-

It's really sad because the actors could have played the characters well. Sadly, they were never given the actual characters. Spacey was given a knock off of Hackman's role. Hell, even Parker Posey got a knockoff role. Routh was good but given a weak script and nothing to do but mope. Really, did we need Pouty Emo Superman? I don't think so. Romantic and nostalgic? That would be the Donner films, not this dud.

[SuperSkeptic]

1. the bastard child. It was lame, not needed and foolish.

I would agree that Superman's son was not needed...but it was also not some unforgivable error either. As far as continuity with the comics, that was already ruined with the first Donner film(and in much worse ways IMO) so no harm there. It also adds a dynamic that the character lacked and IMO sorely needed.

2. Lex AGAIN as a villian. If you are going to update a film update the villian. Superman is super and needs a villian to make us believe how really powerful and how great a protector of this world superman really is.

Again, Spacey's Luthor was NOT Hackman's Luthor. Spacey's Luthor was darek adn threatening for the most part(aside from a few stupid nods to the Hackman version in the way of bad comic relief). If Singer had DARED make a new Superman movie WITHOUT Luthor being reintroduced along with Supes and Lois then he would have been crucified by everyone. Again, a no win situation for Singer. I am sure we will see someone ala Doomsday in the future but not in the first freaking movie guys. Returns was NOT a continuation of the previous Superman films. They completely started over but did so in a way that incorporates elements from the first two films.

3. The NUMEROUS mistakes with Kryptonite Singer made. being the self-proclaimed fanboy of superman (singer) how he could screw up on this issue so badly is just baffling.
You stated rotating the earth to reverse time as ridiculous. How's about lifting a continent above your head flinging it into outerspace with large jagged spikes of kryptonite in supes face!!

Lifting an island of Kryptonite in a dying effort to save the world was no where NEAR as ridiculous as the earth spinning time reversal crap! Yes the kryptonite thing could be seen as inconsistent but there are a 1000 rationalizations to explain that one and ultimately is not a big deal.

[The Xenos]

Spacey's Luthor was not Hackman's Luthor? WRONG! Okay, he wasn't exactly the same, but it wasn't different enough either. No one's saying Lex shouldn't have been in the movie. Then again, I wonder where Lex was in this movie. I all saw was a copy, improved a bit or not, of a kooky cheesy supervillian that should had been left in the 70s.

[CaptQuirk]

No, they weren't exactly the same, but they were both really cheesy 70's TV villains, so I can see how that might be confusing.

[imported_CX3]

null said:Lifting an island of Kryptonite in a dying effort to save the world was no where NEAR as ridiculous as the earth spinning time reversal crap! Yes the kryptonite thing could be seen as inconsistent but there are a 1000 rationalizations to explain that one and ultimately is not a big deal.

Not a big deal??? That was stupid as hell. How's the guy's main weakness not going to weaken him? Theres no way in hell he should have been able to lift an island of kryptonite AND live on top of that. If he can do that, then honestly, what could kill him? Nothing.

Stupidity

[Bat185]

Not a big deal??? That was stupid as hell. How's the guy's main weakness not going to weaken him? Theres no way in hell he should have been able to lift an island of kryptonite AND live on top of that. If he can do that, then honestly, what could kill him? Nothing.



If you noticed (which obviously you didn't), the island DID weaken him. His fingers were bloody, he was sweating, and after he threw the island he fell back to Earth unconscious. Superman was very close to death. When Lois went to the hospital he was in a coma. Had he held onto the island for any longer it most certainly would have killed him. I am definitely not a huge fan of Superman Returns but there were SOME good things about an otherwise poor movie, and that was a great scene. I just wish they hadn't gone with yet another land sheme. Lex shouldn't have been the main villian either. I think they should have used him in the background. He could have created Bizarro and had Bizarro as the main villian.

[imported_CX3]

[quote]Bat185 said:If you noticed (which obviously you didn't), the island DID weaken him. His fingers were bloody, he was sweating, and after he threw the island he fell back to Earth unconscious. Superman was very close to death. When Lois went to the hospital he was in a coma. Had he held onto the island for any longer it most certainly would have killed him. I am definitely not a huge fan of Superman Returns but there were SOME good things about an otherwise poor movie, and that was a great scene. I just wish they hadn't gone with yet another land scheme. Lex shouldn't have been the main villian either. I think they should have used him in the background. He could have created Bizarro and had Bizarro as the main villian.

Obviously I didn't huh... Smart ass anyone? ha Anyways, I guess thats my fault. I thought Kryptonite did more to Superman then make him sweat and his little fingers bloody haha. What kind of justification is that?? Are you Singer in disguise? If a small kryptonite rock can put him down on the ground, you'd think in island of Kryptonite (which is a pretty big sized rock, I'd say) would kill the guy in .0001 seconds. How that's debatable makes no sense to me...

[jrod1019]

Nuff said CX3......nuff said. All make good strong points. Well except for a few Singer lover's out there.
Honestly Lex was a threatening a baby house cat. I was actually more threaten with Clancy Brown animated voice a Lex Luther now that's threatening compared to Spacey he doesn't know what a real bad guy is, ala Highlander anyone?
If there going to use a villain at least get someone who knows how to play one and no I don't dislike Spacey his just not threatening.

[81artmonk]

Returns was NOT a continuation of the previous Superman films. They completely started over but did so in a way that incorporates elements from the first two films.

Yeah it was. According to director himself. It was years later after the final superman film. It was a do-over.

Yes the kryptonite thing could be seen as inconsistent but there are a 1000 rationalizations to explain that one and ultimately is not a big deal.

Kryptonite takes supe powers away, makes him human and weak. Shall we walk people through this. When he landed on the KRYPTONITE laiden island, he didn't even notice anything.....until Lex pointed it out. WHAT?? he would have been weakened and noticed it.

He is stabbed with it, and falls a distance that would kill a human, with kryptonite in his body, supes isn't supes and that fall would have killed him, no debate needed on that one.
given the way it affects him, he wouldn't have even been able to lift that island. Maybe, just maybe if there were some quarter sized piece, but given the WHOLE island was packed with it, no way. There is no explaining that away at all. Sure, I'll give you the earth spinning was out there, but at least it wasn't as unbelievable as the krptonite island scenerio.

We can argue over lex all day and I can see both sides on this arguement. However, being that superman is so powerful, to use such a lame/weak villian whoes only power is to outthink superman isn't really going to instill belief that superman can be defeated by him. His only weapon is kryptonite, take that away and what has lex got.
They really could have picked a better villian than to re-hash lex and a stupid premise to use him also!

here's my point. Sure the donner films were a little campy, but they were also truer to the comics than singer. They kept the spitit of what superman should be (limited to special effects) where as singer, kind of took his own liberties and in some parts it worked, in most it screwed it up and made it worse.

Don't get me wrong there were parts in Returns that were shear brilliance and captured superman. But a few minutes don't add up to a good film. It's unfortunete that singer couldn't trap those few moments and stretch them throughout the rest of the film.

Maybe he can with a second try.

[dadarkknight]

The best part of Superman Returns is the f/x and Brandon Routh in my opinion played a good superman. The things that sucked back was the story. The story did not make any since.

1. Why was it hard for superman to tell lois he had find out something about his home planet and that he was leaving for a while to find out some info. I could understand if he had a chick on krypton he did not want lois to find out about. lol

2. Lex Luther is suppose to be powerful, lex corp, anyone. Lex Luther is suppose to be a little bit of what batman would be if he was evil. He suppose to be rich and powerful, why is he taking money from an old lady? He might as well start snatching women pocketbooks. lol

3. Lex Luther whole plot is to destroy America to sell the rocky land to other countries.

4. Superman is a stalker

5. Lois was miscast, Rachel McAdams would have been perfect, see her in red eye. Lois is suppose to be tough and sweet like that.

6. Was it just me or did Lois care for superman more than her own kid by wanting her boy friend to go back for superman even though it was dangerous

7. Why did Lois not tell her kid to open the freezer door?

8. How can Superman be close to death from a little piece of kryptonite but he can lift a hold planet of it to space.

9. When superman was up in the sky listening to people problems the only place he chooses to go is back to metropolis to stop a speeding car with wars and crap was going on lol

9. Is it just me or was James madison character the only one in the movie that had any kind of common since lol.

[jrod1019]

Ooooohhhhh BURN! SuperSkeptic...no arguments from me dadarkknight.

[spiderbat1222]

bizzaro lobo or brainiac would be cool

[GrgurMG]

Well, just to add my 2 cents...

I sort of see both sides of the issue. I didn't think Superman Returns was an absolute travesty or anything, and I would defend it on that account. I like alot of things about it, including the nostalgia... even though it was almost like cheating ;).... but there were some things terribly wrong with it.

First are foremost, Superman's uder lack of responsibility in certain situations is a character trait better not carried over from the Donner movies. I believe Margot Kidder was once quoted in saying the one thing she'd change about Superman 2 was the "sleeping together" thing... because she felt it was a bit wrong. If you think about it, it was. Aside from having unprotected sex (tsk tsk Superman, setting a bad example) he goes ahead and erases her memory at the end of the movie... very moral. Then it turns out in the new movie, he irresponsibly leaves the planet for several years without telling everyone and without waiting for Lex's trial, and it turns out when he comes back that has a kid out of wedlock. Definately an extereme departure from Superman of the comics.

That's a huge askew from the established character of Superman. Aside from that, alot of the movie was okay I suppose. However, if you were going to use Lex, they shouldn't of added an extra element somewhere. I felt as though at the end of the movie, I was waiting for one more "big thing" to happen. I understand why they wouldn't have a movie simply based on "Superman fighting something"... but that doesn't mean you can't have it at all. My favorite thought is that the movie could of pratically benefited from a giant ass-spider (the Kevin Smith fans out there will know what I'm talking about).

I don't mind Spacey as Luthor that much... but I was suprised to see him as the same old pre-80s mad scientist/criminal Lex, rather then the newer evil business man. However, if you thinkg about it.. Superman Returns does setup for the possibility of him becoming that Luthor. Superman has no evidence to throw him in jail... and Lex should still be rich from that inheritence. If Singer uses Lex again and doesn't take advantage of that setup, I'll be pretty PO'd.

As I've stated before, the premise/casting was a little weak in the small sense that the actors were so young and young looking, yet it was supposed to take place so long after Superman 2. Routh did decently concidering though. Older casting may of been a bit more appropriate though... Tom Welling looks older and IS older for pete's sake.

But yeah.. I think that was a little more then 2 cents, but there it is. I'm remaining hopeful for the next movie because there's still the potentional to be pretty good. Singer is a decent director and I think he can get the job done, but at times, especially after watching various behind the scenes things, he seems practically TOO sure of himself and his "vision" for Superman.

[imported_oregondude]

WRONG, Superman Returns WAS a bad movie. Singer, please retire.....