Full story for Bryan Singer's planned SUPERMAN RETURNS sequel revealed

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

I dunno how one can say that Snyder is unlikely to do anything ambitious or clever when we don't know the plot of his movie yet really.

Because there's nothing in either his own past or in Warner Bros handling of this property up until now to suggest in any way that he will.

I say that as a big fan of Snyder's Watchmen movie, BTW; I got nothing against Zach Snyder.

[Admiral_Young]

Fair enough. I wasn't insinuating that you did have anything against Snyder, my point is that it is early in the process and we've only rumors to go on about what he is or isn't planning to do with this film. "Sucker Punch" hasn't come out yet and the trailers would indicate that for his first original film at least visually he is planning an ambitious film...as to the plot, we'll have to wait and see until the film comes out.

[SeerSGB]

Sounds like a classic Superman plot... though the whole kid angle, I just don't know

Presents Galore wrote:

---

I like it. It's a pretty solid story.

Making it Bainiac from the get-go would make it too predictable. We'd already know that he's is a bad guy who's up to no good.

Isn't a given that 99% of the time if another Kryptonian shows up in the movies that they're villains? the morale: Kryptonians are dicks.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The resolution of the kid storyline is problematic for this kind of film, period. He doesn't die, even more certainly than Lester Burnham doesn't sleep with Angela.

Adm. V'ates wrote:

---

Isn't a given that 99% of the time if another Kryptonian shows up in the movies that they're villains? the morale: Kryptonians are dicks.

Yeah, it's necessary to reinforce Clark's uniqueness as a character. This is the guy who's not corrupted by absolute power.

[Christopher]

Well, heck, since these movies were in the Donnerverse, if the kid died at the end, Supes would've just rewound the planet and made it all better.

[Admiral_Young]

I would have preferred a "Son of Superman" style resolution to the sub-plot with Jason. I think too I would have Clark reveal who he is to Lois. I do think the whole plot with Jason is the most interesting aspect of this synopsis though.

[Jax]

"Brainiac" - really, thats the name of the villian, a little pinky & the brain don't you think. It sounds just like something a comic book would do as a story and thats my problem with it because its so out of this world that the general movie audience probably wouldn't like it nor be interested in...Superman is such a costly film to make it needs find the right balance between pleasing the hardcore crowd and not scaring off the casual moviegoer.

Also the whole AI angle gives me bad Superman 3 feelings with a super computer.

[Shazam!]

So Brainiac uses Kryptonian technology and beams/download itself into Jason's body and this causes causes him to age and grow into a full adult but with Brainiac in complete control.

Oh, piss off.

[Saul]

Presents Galore wrote:

---

I like it. It's a pretty solid story.

Making it Bainiac from the get-go would make it too predictable. We'd already know that he's is a bad guy who's up to no good.

I'm pretty sure it would be well publicized that Brainiac would be the villain so it would be pointless to play this game.

[Agent Richard07]

^ Not necessarily. They probably would have tried to pull a Ra's/Ducard like they did with Batman Begins. Something might have gotten out, but I can see them trying to keep the twist under wraps.

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

Sounds kind of interesting, but frankly I want to get away from this mindset that making a mediocre movie is acceptable as some kind of setup for "my Wrath of Khan". IMO if you make a mediocre movie, you get booted from the franchise, as it should be.

[Christopher]

A JaxMas Carol wrote:

---

"Brainiac" - really, thats the name of the villian, a little pinky & the brain don't you think. It sounds just like something a comic book would do as a story...

Err, yeah, Brainiac has been a villain in Superman comics since 1958. He's pretty much Superman's primary archnemesis other than Luthor. If you've ever heard someone being called a "brainiac," it was a reference to that character (whose name was in turn a reference to the prototype computer ENIAC as well as a play on "maniac").

[Captaindemotion]

While not perfect, this does sound to have the potential to have been really good. Action, emotion, dilemna, sacrifice. And as Jackson Archer said, Singer has form on making sequels that really improve on the original.

[CorporalClegg]

So ... uh ... When did Brainiac become a Borg?

[JacksonArcher]

Stone_Cold_Sisko wrote:

---

Sounds kind of interesting, but frankly I want to get away from this mindset that making a mediocre movie is acceptable as some kind of setup for "my Wrath of Khan". IMO if you make a mediocre movie, you get booted from the franchise, as it should be.

Oh, really? Fantastic Four was mediocre but got a sequel. Ghost Rider was pretty mediocre but is getting a sequel. The Da Vinci Code was pretty mediocre, but that got a sequel. Those stupid Cats and Dogs and SuperBabies movies get sequels all the time.

There's no end to Hollywood greenlighting sequels to mediocre and even bad films. Superman Returns was lightyears better than any of those aforementioned films. Bryan Singer is a very talented director who has made some incredibly entertaining and good movies (The Usual Suspects, X-Men, X-Men 2, Valkyrie) and he deserved the chance to make a better film with the sequel. He proved he could do it with X2, and despite what most fanboys will tell you, Superman Returns wasn't that bad.

There's no justice in the world when mediocre trash like Fantastic Four and Ghost Rider get sequels but Superman Returns does not.