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

The only thing wrong with SR for me was the overall plot...a few changes and it would have been a better film. I had no problem with the casting even if some wouldn't have been my first choice. I didn't mind the look of the film.

[Othello]

Sounds like a good story to me....

[Mike Farley]

Hound of UIster wrote:

---

Grant Morrison not Joe Kelly.

Joe Kelly is the one who wrote all those shitty stories where everyone was a huge douchebag.

Wait...Joe Kelly writes Smallville?

[CaptJimboJones]

Wow, sounds really ... bad to me. Maybe the storyline would have been improved along the way, but it reads to me like a fanfic.

And I have to say, about halfway through SR I started actively rooting against Superman. I really wanted to see that annoying, whiny little emo stalker to get his ass handed to him. I couldn't believe that it was supposed to be a continuation of the magnificent portrayal of the character by Christopher Reeve.

[Admiral_Young]

The thing is the stuff with Brainiac feels kind of like left over plot attempts from the previous "Superman Lives" movie just retooled to fit in the "Superman Returns" world that Singer created. This plot sounds very much like what Warner Bros execs were wanting to do with the character. Remember one of the execs comments about wanting a "dark, angry Superman?" The tone of this plot would seem to reflect that comment. As much as it would be interesting to see Clark sacrifice his son in order to save the world (a similar thing happened at the conclusion of War of the Supermen where Clark had to let go of Chris Kent (Zod's son) whom he and Lois had adopted as their own back to the Phantom Zone and it was heartbroken. That was an example of how to do an emotional story without resorting to using dark overtones. I think Brian Peterson and Kelly Sounders would love this plot for being 'dark' and 'epic'!!!

[Saul]

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.

It's jsut the trend in movies these days. It's all a set up in the first film with the second film being balls to walls. Iron Man, Star Trek, Sherlock Holmes. The first movie of an expected franchise always holds back on the real goods till the next movie.

[Mr Light]

Iron Man 2 had only two action scenes in it

[Admiral Buzzkill]

CaptJimboJones wrote:

---

I really wanted to see that annoying, whiny little emo stalker to get his ass handed to him..

Yeah...I saw the movie a number of times, and I don't get this attitude at all. I guess I'm too old to be threatened; he just seemed like a young guy to me.

[Admiral_Young]

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.

[the G-man]

Jetfire wrote:

---

The only thing wrong with SR for me was the overall plot...

So...the only thing wrong with it was...pretty much the whole story?

That's a polite way of saying it sucked.

[the G-man]

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.

He's Superman. He's not supposed to be having difficulty dealing with change.

Furthermore, Singer couldn't have it both ways. He decided he wanted to do a sequel to Superman II. Okay, fair enough.

But Superman II ended with Superman, having tried to abandon his role as earth's protector [for personal reasons] and seeing the world almost destroyed, promising the president (standing in for pretty much everyone on earth) "I'll never leave you again." Cue the John Williams music.

So...what does Singer do for his sequel to the above film?

He has a backstory in which Superman almost immediately abandoned his role as earth's protector for personal reasons again!!!

And this time for five years.

Then, when he gets back, and sees Lois (who he abandoned after causing her to lose her memory [supposedly because of his job as earth's protector]) is in a mature relationship with a good man what does Superman--earth's greatest hero...a man who never thinks of himself but only of others--do?

Does he quickly realize that he abandoned her and accept she's moved on?

Does he immerse himself in his "work," trying to forget her by plunging head on into helping people (ie, what Superman does)?

No.

He uses his powers to spy on her and invade her privacy.

Basically, he acts like a cross between a petulant child and every "Superman is a dick" joke ever produced.

[Admiral_Young]

Superman leaving Earth thinking with HOPE that his world might still exist is not so far fetched and besides as I already stated that was part of a plot by Luthor to lure Superman away from the planet and it worked. As for Lois...I wouldn't go far as to lump her into a mature relationship with a good man so fast!!! Sure this must've been an attempt to move on from Superman who for his own personal reasons chose not to tell her why he was leaving but we all know that Lois was also rebounding and this is one of the reasons why she never fully committed to Richard...oh yeah and let's not forget that SHE LIED to Richard that he was the father of her child. She still had strong feelings for Superman. Clark obviously knew this or at least wanted to suspect this thus the spying. He was trying to come to a conclusion about their relationship and that was the only he decided to do it. Get over that already.

[Christopher]

the G-man wrote:

---

So...the only thing wrong with it was...pretty much the whole story?

That's a polite way of saying it sucked.

No, plot is just one aspect of telling a story. To get textbook about it, the basic elements of story are plot, character, theme, and setting. There's also writing style, and in dramatic media there's performance style and production values. Some stories have weak plot but are captivating due to their characters, their use of words, their ideas. A film can have a mediocre plot yet still have scintillating dialogue, fine performances, superb production values, or all of the above. So criticizing a film's plot is not at all the same thing as saying the whole film was bad. It's just saying that the underlying structure of the story was flawed.

[the G-man]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

Superman leaving Earth thinking with HOPE that his world might still exist is not so far fetched and besides as I already stated that was part of a plot by Luthor to lure Superman away from the planet and it worked.

Again, however, Singer's own conceit (that this was a direct sequel to S2 [and, therefore. S1]) contradicts that.

Superman knew that Krypton was destroyed. Jor-el showed him the destruction through the crystals. Jor-el also explained to him that Zod, et al, were from the Phantom Zone.

So, Luthor would have had to use a pretty damn good trick (though, of course, we weren't actually show what the trick was)(but that's a different problem).

As for Lois...I wouldn't go far as to lump her into a mature relationship with a good man so fast!!! Sure this must've been an attempt to move on from Superman who for his own personal reasons chose not to tell her why he was leaving but we all know that Lois was also rebounding and this is one of the reasons why she never fully committed to Richard

Even if that was the case (I admit my memory of this part of the movie is vague at this point) none of that would be known Superman except for the fact he was stalking her. So, that's just more evidence of his being creepy [or at least not the Superman we expect] in the film.

...oh yeah and let's not forget that SHE LIED to Richard that he was the father of her child.

Again, I don't remember her telling Richard the kid was his. I thought he knew she was a single mom and started dating her.

But I'll take your word for it that Richard thought the kid was his.

Two things about that, then.

First, it tends to indicate that she and Richard had been together for a long time. Again, that's a reason for Superman to back off, not a reason for him to start spying on her.

Second, getting back to Singer's whole "sequel to S2" setup, you can't hold that against Lois because, as noted above, Superman wiped her mind of their whole love affair. Which (again, as noted above) he did out of sense of duty to earth...the same earth he then turned around and abandoned.

Get over that already.

Look, you asked why people had a particular view of the movie. When people give you the explanation you asked for, even if you disagree with their opinion, it's silly to get dismissive and demand they change their mind.

Why did you ask if you didn't want to discuss the issue?

[Captaindemotion]

^ Singer never said it was a direct sequel. He said it was a loose sequel. Essentially, he picked and chose what he wanted to be consistent with the original movies. You can like that or lump it, but it means that it was quite reasonable for him to say that his Lex was all about the land and at the same time have Superman abandon earth for five years.