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

[Lookingglassman]

Sounds good.

[davejames]

Christopher wrote:

---

And that was a big part of my problem with the film. It was too half-hearted, stuck between paying homage and doing something new. It lacked a clear identity of its own. I'd rather have seen it commit wholeheartedly to creating a new, fresh take on Superman. That would've been a better tribute to Donner than just copying elements of Donner's films, because it would've instead been following in the footsteps of Donner's approach: reinventing Superman, bringing a fresh, modern take to it.

Personally, I thought Singer's radically different tone and visual style, as well as the poetic, reflective nature of the story, were MORE than enough to make SR feel like it's own thing.

Those elements all came across so strong in my mind that the Donner homages barely register at all in comparison.

They feel like nothing more than just small, respectful nods to me, and I'm always amazed that it's all other fans seem to notice. Maybe when you break it down on paper the comparison is there, but that's certainly not the experience I have when actually watching the movie.

[Snaploud]

Trent Roman wrote:

---

That's the only interesting thing about Superman, as far as I'm concerned. Here's an individual with essentially god-like powers in a world rife with exactly those things he claims to want to combat--suffering, injustice, etc.--at a massive scale. How much does he intervene? How far can he impose his vision of the world on others? Where does one find the balance between free will and suffering it causes? The central issue of Superman should always be the problem of theodicy; he is epic by his very existence. Instead, the character is mired in cornball Grant Wood shite, lovelorn brooding and chasing down Beagle Boys-level petty crooks. This outline, ironically, sounds like the best take on the character for the cinema I've yet to hear; shame that Singer didn't do this film when he had the chance, instead of the aggressively bad film he ultimately released.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

It's an interesting idea, but this outline indicates a severe lack of philosophical pay-off. The whole discussion gets thrown under the bus once it's revealed that it's all leading to a computer wiping out the planet.

[Anwar]

I think the pay-off would be that come people would finally realize WHY Superman doesn't just become their new God: He doesn't want some sort of spineless cult worshipers who will rely on him for everything and forget their own ability to do good and effect change in the world.

That in the end, he wants it to be for humans to realize that only they will be the ones to choose and achieve their own destinies.

[Christopher]

davejames wrote:

---

Personally, I thought Singer's radically different tone and visual style, as well as the poetic, reflective nature of the story, were MORE than enough to make SR feel like it's own thing.

Don't get me wrong; it definitely felt like its own thing, and it was a boring thing. It was just too subdued and languid and lacking in any real interest. I tend to imagine it's because Singer was just doing a fanboy homage, that if he'd really been fired up to create something original, he would've done better. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he's simply the wrong person to do Superman. Maybe it would've been languid and solemn and lacking in fun no matter what he did.

But I have to wonder -- could Singer, the man who created such a compelling Magneto, have given us a more interesting Luthor if he hadn't been emulating the Donner movies' lame version of the character, but had instead based it on the modern comics' corporate magnate or come up with his own original archvillain type? Would he have come up with a more satisfying Clark-Lois dynamic if he hadn't seen it as a continuation of their love affair in Superman 2? And would it have been easier to accept the new cast in their roles if the film hadn't been encouraging us to pretend they were the same people previously played by Reeve, Kidder, Hackman, et al.? All those things diminished the film for me. Maybe a Singer Superman film still wouldn't have been very good without them, but they were part of the problem.

[FPAlpha]

Up until the point where Superman realizes that Brainiac then destroys those worlds he helped improve i thought it was a good story but for what reason does Brainiac destroy these worlds?

It absolutely makes no sense other than "it's just evil and evil people do evil and illogical things just because..". Is Brainiac then trying to make himself the dictator of these worlds and they resist or what?
Huge plothole and it would have been potentially ruining the whole movie if it were made.

But the dumbest thing is that Brainiac somehow matures Jason in minutes (can't be longer for Superman to find out what happened after the destruction of the ship). Even if it were hours or days it still is a major, stupid decision just so the producers can avoid Superman beating up a kid (even if it's superpowered and possessed).

I know it's just a summary and some details may have been left out but it could have been a good story if they filled in the holes.

Now however we have one of the best current director/writer teamups doing a new Superman movie and if the Batman movies were any indication we're in for a hell of a ride. I have absolute faith in Nolan and to this date i have really liked every movie of his (though they give me headaches sometimes trying to figure them out.. especially The Prestige and Inception) so them making Superman is one of the best reason to see it next year (can't believe it'll be there in about exactly one year.. i'm right about Christmas '11 as a release date am i?)

[DarKush]

Just read the synopsis. I didn't think it was that bad. For a follow-on to SR at least they tried to make the events in the movie have lasting consequences. I'm not sure about a Kryptonite moon. I agree with one of the other posters that that might have an adverse affect on Superman, especially if he flies into space anywhere near it. It might've made more sense to just have the Brainiac ship encounter the floating island and trace the trajectory back to Earth.

I do like the inclusion of Brainiac and I also like the clash in approaches. That would be neat to see. Though Superman IV was horrid regarding production values, a good deal of the story, and even most of the acting, the basic idea I always liked. And this is similar. However I find it unrealistic that the world would just so easily agree with Brainiac or turn against Superman, though it would be neat if there was lingering doubts about Supes based on him leaving after Superman II. But I liked the idea of the cloned bodies.

I've heard something similar on this board and others about Jason's fate if Brainiac was involved. I would be shocked to see if they actually would've killed him off, though I wouldn't have minded tying up that loose end. I wonder how Lois and Clark's relationship was in the film? The synopsis doesn't touch on that, or how Lois would react to Clark killing their son? If Lois became his enemy in a SR III, that might've been an interesting storyline twist, minus the limp acting of Kate Bosworth.

[JacksonArcher]

davejames wrote:

---

Personally, I thought Singer's radically different tone and visual style, as well as the poetic, reflective nature of the story, were MORE than enough to make SR feel like it's own thing.

Those elements all came across so strong in my mind that the Donner homages barely register at all in comparison.

They feel like nothing more than just small, respectful nods to me, and I'm always amazed that it's all other fans seem to notice. Maybe when you break it down on paper the comparison is there, but that's certainly not the experience I have when actually watching the movie.

I agree completely. Superman Returns was much more thoughtful and meditative than Richard Donner's films ever were. They were more action/adventure movies, and Singer's film was decidedly more romantic.

Besides that, as has been mentioned before, the tone and visual style as you say is also radically different. Donner's films are a reflection of the times, very bright and bland and stylistically one-dimensional, but Singer's film had visual depth, with a darker, more complex and ultimately more expansive color platette.

Plus, when I watch Superman Returns it feels like I'm watching a movie that is more deeply about unrequited love, but when I watch Donner's films, as enjoyable and entertaining as they are, I kind of feel like I'm watching any sort of average, standard action/adventure film, admittedly one that is very well-made.

[Christopher]

FPAlpha wrote:

---

Up until the point where Superman realizes that Brainiac then destroys those worlds he helped improve i thought it was a good story but for what reason does Brainiac destroy these worlds?

It absolutely makes no sense other than "it's just evil and evil people do evil and illogical things just because..". Is Brainiac then trying to make himself the dictator of these worlds and they resist or what?
Huge plothole and it would have been potentially ruining the whole movie if it were made.

You're reacting to this as though it was the final, comprehensive story of the film. It's not. It's a secondhand summary of a preliminary story outline for a script that was never written. Obviously, if the project had gone forward, the outline would've been refined, more detail would've been worked out, plot holes would've been filled in, etc. Heck, the whole story would probably have changed greatly, since that's how it works in Hollywood. You can never assume that a development-stage outline like this would bear any significant resemblance to the finished film. This was just the seed.

Now however we have one of the best current director/writer teamups doing a new Superman movie and if the Batman movies were any indication we're in for a hell of a ride.

Personally I think Zack Snyder's a poor choice for Superman. He's too much about style over substance, and his stuff seems to emphasize violence and machismo. His imagery is too artificial, too detached from reality, and that's the wrong direction to go if you want to sell a fantasy character like Superman to a general audience. (Which is why I'm disappointed that Christopher Nolan isn't directing it himself.)

[Admiral_Young]

I'm willing to give Zack a chance based on my confidence of the script from the Nolan's and David Goyer. Synder's visual style is not for everyone (I happen to be a fan of his) and I can see why most fans would be hesitant over his directing a "Superman" movie but until I actually see footage I'm going to refrain from criticizing his work.

[JacksonArcher]

Christopher wrote:

---

Personally I think Zack Snyder's a poor choice for Superman. He's too much about style over substance, and his stuff seems to emphasize violence and machismo. His imagery is too artificial, too detached from reality, and that's the wrong direction to go if you want to sell a fantasy character like Superman to a general audience. (Which is why I'm disappointed that Christopher Nolan isn't directing it himself.)

I agree completely. However, he's going to make a considerably more mainstream film, with big, grandiose action sequences that will most likely visually excite regular audiences, so I see Snyder's film being embraced by erudite Superman and comic-book fans and regular audiences more openly.

History is probably repeating itself, in a less obvious way, and in different circumstances. Ang Lee made the very cerebral and thoughtful Hulk, which was deemed too intelligent by either audiences or studio executives (or both), and what came after as a result was a dumbed down version that relied more on action sequences and a relentless pacing than focusing on an actual story (The Incredible Hulk). Now, I actually liked The Incredible Hulk, but I think I would have liked it a lot more had it retained the 30 minutes of deleted footage that judging by the script would have focused more on characterization.

Going by Snyder's not-so-impressive litany of work, I see him going for something far more visual and stylistic than anything with a meaningful or insightful story. However, I would love to be proven wrong. Perhaps David Goyer's script and Christopher Nolan's input was substantial enough to affect the outcome of the story, but at this point I'm not convinced. Hopefully Snyder can make an entertaining film that balances story, character and action, but based on his previous works, I'm not exactly instilled with the utmost confidence.

Audiences wanted more of Superman punching things, just like they wanted the Hulk to smash things more, and that's exactly what they are going to get. Let's hope story and character, like it was with the Hulk, is not sacrificed with Superman.

[Myasishchev]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

How was Superman at all EMO in "Superman Returns"? I hate the phrase EMO tossed around as a term for emotional turmoil, just because a character is going through emotional turmoil doesn't mean he or she is EMO. Superman had returned from a five year hiatus in space searching for remnants of his home world (he had no idea that he was actually tricked by Luthor in this case) and was having difficultly dealing with all the change that had gone on during his absence.

That tool Odysseus sure was awful emo about getting home, right?

Anyway, Superman Returns is a flawed but pretty great movie. I mean, did you people see Spacey's Lex Luthor? Or does the rage about Superman daring to have premarital sex (and then daring to feel sad about how he's missed much of his kid's childhood) blind you to how awesome much of the film, especially Spacey, was?

And I say this even though the Evil Real Estate Developer is my least favorite Lex incarnation of them all, and in full recognition that a Byrne's Man of Steel-esque Spacey-portrayed Luthor was a missed opportunity of cosmic proportions.

Oh, and as for how "visually interesting" the Donner movies are, did Superman or Superman II have Clark getting shot in his invulnerable eye? No, they did not.

Re: Snyder. Snyder is the best comic book adaptation director there ever was, and likely ever will be. He's actually rather spectacular. Yes, he's a little too much in love with manipulating the flow of time, but that's okay, so are comics. But, actually, you know, he'd be God's own choice for a Flash film.

Snaploud wrote:

---

It's an interesting idea, but this outline indicates a severe lack of philosophical pay-off. The whole discussion gets thrown under the bus once it's revealed that it's all leading to a computer wiping out the planet.

Have to say I agree here. It's almost the exact plot from Alex Ross' entertaining but empty waste of time, Justice. I mean, it even shares the same master villain.

On the other hand, after Squadron Supreme, Infinite Crisis, and the five billion other stories that employ the trope, I'm tired of the superhero genre telling me that proactive superheroism is the most profound evil in the universe. Close the hibernacles? Man, fuck you, Nighthawk, what do you have against life extension?

[Anwar]

Didn't Singer actually say "What's LexCorp?" once? He wasn't even remotely aware of Lex as anything other than the Donner buffoon.

[Myasishchev]

I dunno. If so, I wish someone had told him.

That's the best Lex. And, it seems, the Lex they've been trying to move away from over the past few years, between President Crazy, a return to grace based on a frankly unbelievable framing of his alternate universe son, the thirty or so weeks Lex subsequently managed to get through before doing something really stupid and Sivana-esque once again, and then a bizarre turn as an Orange Lantern.

(However, I really, really need to get my hands on those Cornell-scribed Action Comics, and see what's going on.)

[Admiral_Young]

Cornell is a master at writing Lex...it really is a terrific character profile. I can't wait until Clark finds out about the robot