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

[Christopher]

There are a lot of great versions of Lex Luthor to choose from:

* The Lex from Elliott S! Maggin's novels Last Son of Krypton and Miracle Monday, a fascinatingly rich, almost heroic character, a supergenius who could've brought a technological utopia to humanity if his ego hadn't compelled him to devote himself to battling Superman. He saw Superman's power as a dangerous imbalance in human society and dedicated himself to being the restorer of balance.

* The Lex from the DC Animated Universe, an amalgam of the post-Crisis business mogul and the pre-Crisis scientific genius, with the personality of a cultured thug and the intelligence to be a master chessplayer.

* The Lex from Smallville, a fallen angel, a man of great potential for good but brought down by his fatal flaws. Like Maggin's, an enemy who could've been Superman's greatest friend.

* The Lex from All-Star Superman, so arrogant and self-absorbed that he can look right at Clark Kent without glasses and not recognize him as Superman because his sense of superiority won't let him contemplate that a lowly reporter could be in any way significant in comparison to him.

The movies to date have really dropped the ball when it comes to Lex Luthor.

JacksonArcher wrote:

---

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.

I've got nothing against seeing more action, but I'd prefer a naturalistic look to Snyder's hyperstylized approach. One thing I've always wanted to see was a Superman aerial action sequence executed by skydivers, with no visual effects beyond those necessary to erase their parachutes. With the right editing and camera angles, a skydiving sequence could convincingly look like a flying sequence. (There was an episode of The Greatest American Hero where they actually did this, and it was moderately convincing so long as you ignored the obvious ripcord and parachute-pack bulge on the "flying" hero.) Having the characters actually soaring through midair would give it a realism and excitement that you can't get from wire work in front of a greenscreen or CGI constructs. But Snyder's bound to take it in completely the opposite direction and make everything look totally fakey.

(The thing that disappointed me the most about his approach to Watchmen was the stylization. That story called for more of a cinema verite approach, a gritty naturalism in keeping with the tone of the story.)

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.

Why in the world are you spelling "emo" in capital letters? It's not an acronym. It's short for "emotional."

Myasishchev wrote:

---

Anyway, Superman Returns is a flawed but pretty great movie. I mean, did you people see Spacey's Lex Luthor?

Yes, and I was unimpressed by him. I don't get why people make such a fuss over Spacey in general, and in particular I didn't find his Luthor all that interesting, in part because he was saddled with such an inadequate version of the character.

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?

What a bizarre question. Why would you think people would have a problem with premarital sex? This isn't the 1950s.

And it's inappropriate to accuse people of being "blind" just because their tastes differ from yours. Different people with equal degrees of perception, taste, and judgment can arrive at mutually contradictory opinions about the same thing, because they're different people. There is no absolute right or wrong in matters of taste.

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.

You found that interesting, I found that self-indulgent and derivative of The Matrix. That said, there are plenty of things about the movie I found visually interesting. In particular, Kate Bosworth was utterly captivating to look at. However, she was profoundly, insanely wrong for the part of Lois Lane. Looks aren't everything.

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.

I would say that's a good idea, except that he'd pretty much do the same kind of super-slo-mo representations of superspeed that Smallville has made its bread and butter since the beginning. And thanks to Smallville, I've kind of gotten tired of seeing superspeed represented that way.

[Myasishchev]

Christopher wrote:

---

Yes, and I was unimpressed by him. I don't get why people make such a fuss over Spacey in general, and in particular I didn't find his Luthor all that interesting, in part because he was saddled with such an inadequate version of the character.

Spacey in general? The guy's a national treasure. American Beauty, Usual Suspects, LA Confidential, and the delightfully charming K-Pax? All meaningless?

I dunno about anybody else, but I liked his Luthor because of the mental instability and brutality he played him with, and the huge entertainment factor in every scene he was in.

I do feel there's a certain moral conservatism that bothers people about Superman Returns. Especially in Superman's context, where they might not care if it were another character. Or, maybe, more charitably, it's that some people feel that the insoluble family situation left at the end of SR betrays their assumption that all Superman stories should be unremittingly idealistic. In any event, I feel it is appropriate to point this out (and as glibly as possible), because it's not a criticism of the work. It's like saying you don't like Starry Night because you don't like the color blue--that's your bag, not van Gogh's.

[wamdue]

the G-man wrote:

---

I thought the point of the Krypton island was that it was made of (or at least contained significant amounts of) Kryptonite.

Kryptonite weakens and kills Superman regardless of how far he is or isn't from earth.

I make no claims to being a massive superman fan, but isnt Kryptonite at harmful at a certain distance to Superman? once Superman is a certain distance away from it, he is fine.

Same goes for the Krypton island, so as long as the moon is far enough way Superman should be ok.

[Admiral_Young]

@Christopher...ask the poster who used it the first time, if you read my post (which you must have because you quoted it) I stated how much I hate that term being used instead of emotional turmoil. I know it stands for emotional...I capitalized it for the basis of emphasizing my point which I guess you failed to see. EMO is like using the word "gay" to describe something that is stupid or "lame" now to describe someone with emotional problems. For some reason you are fascinated instead of my capitalization of it.

We also don't need a lesson on the variety of Lex's...I believe some of us have made quite clear the version that we would have liked to see. Kevin Smith used this version in his drafts of "Superman Lives" . For whatever reason Singer chose to use the real estate schemer version from the Donner films which is fine, but I don't think that is what fans were anticipating in "Superman Returns". The "Smallville" version you indicated happens to be based on the adult version of the corporate tycoon/super genius that is currently depicted in the comics.

[Agent Richard07]

Christopher wrote:

---

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.

I'm glad that Singer (and someone else in the production) pointed out that it wasn't a hard sequel to Superman II. That sort of comment should make it easy to imagine it as it's own thing and not the redone third installment that so many imagine it to be. And personally, I don't like the idea that you can just ignore events in an ongoing saga anyway. In fact, I don't know why so many people would be okay with that approach. A story loses meaning and integrity when you just ignore whatever you didn't like. I'm happy to see Superman Returns as what they say it is... a remake inspired by the Christopher Reeve movies as opposed to a "proper sequel" that ignores III and IV.

[davejames]

Christopher wrote:

---

(The thing that disappointed me the most about his approach to Watchmen was the stylization. That story called for more of a cinema verite approach, a gritty naturalism in keeping with the tone of the story.)

Yeah, agreed. I mean, I'm not going to lie, I DO love that slow-motion/speed-em-up style of his, and think that visually he comes up with a lot of damn cool stuff.

Unfortunately... that kind of style just does NOT belong in a Watchmen movie. And I really hope he dials it back for Superman too.

[Shazam!]

Myasishchev wrote:

---

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.

You can be 'visually interesting' without relying on what 14 year old kids think might be 'cool'.

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.

How do you figure that when both his attempts have missed the point of the source material by miles?

[Christopher]

Myasishchev wrote:

---

Spacey in general? The guy's a national treasure. American Beauty, Usual Suspects, LA Confidential, and the delightfully charming K-Pax? All meaningless?

I didn't say "meaningless," because I'm not so arrogant as to think my personal opinions are in any way representative of universal truth. If Spacey works for you as an actor, if his performances have meaning to you, I have no problem with that. But individuals have different tastes. I'm merely stating my own preferences as an individual. I'm not claiming they're better or more valid than anyone else's. And I'm certainly not going to call anyone else blind or deluded simply for having different tastes from my own.

As for the films you listed, I've only seen The Usual Suspects and LA Confidential, and neither of them did much for me. I don't get why people extol the twist ending of Suspects; I saw it coming a mile away (and no, I wasn't spoiled in advance, beyond knowing in general terms that there was a twist coming). And Confidential was an unpleasantly violent and nihilistic film in which the cops were no better than another group of mobsters, and I hate stories about mobsters. Heck, I didn't even remember Spacey was in that one; he just doesn't leave a particularly strong impression on me. If you like his work, great, good for you, but different people have different tastes.

I do feel there's a certain moral conservatism that bothers people about Superman Returns. Especially in Superman's context, where they might not care if it were another character. Or, maybe, more charitably, it's that some people feel that the insoluble family situation left at the end of SR betrays their assumption that all Superman stories should be unremittingly idealistic. In any event, I feel it is appropriate to point this out (and as glibly as possible), because it's not a criticism of the work. It's like saying you don't like Starry Night because you don't like the color blue--that's your bag, not van Gogh's.

Well, it's certainly not a factor in my dissatisfaction with the film, and I resent the assumption that everyone who dislikes a film must do so for only a single universal reason. I'm an individual, and I make my own choices for my own reasons. There are many different opinions of any given thing, and that means there are multiple reasons to like it and multiple reasons to dislike it. It's simpleminded and petty to try to lump everyone on the other side into a single, simplistic category. The mature thing to do is to ask people individually what their reasons were for not liking it, to let them speak for themselves rather than prejudging them as a group.

Presents Galore wrote:

---

I'm glad that Singer (and someone else in the production) pointed out that it wasn't a hard sequel to Superman II. That sort of comment should make it easy to imagine it as it's own thing and not the redone third installment that so many imagine it to be.

Beside the point. However "hard" or "soft" a sequel he intended it to be, he still deliberately made his takes on the characters and their relationships similar to what Donner did, and I don't think those choices worked out well. I'm not making some anal-retentive fanboy quibble about continuity. I'm saying that I wonder if fresher ideas for the characters would've worked better than what we got. (By the same token, I would've liked to see a new, original take on Kryptonian architecture rather than a rehash of the crystal stuff, and I would've liked to hear John Ottman's new take on a Superman theme rather than a mere recycling of Williams. Not that those elements of the old movies weren't good, but doing something new is better than copying something good that's already been done. Because copies are never as good as the originals.)

[Agent Richard07]

Christopher wrote:

---

I'm not making some anal-retentive fanboy quibble about continuity.

That's OK, I am. It's always been a pet peeve.

[Myasishchev]

Christopher wrote:

---

I didn't say "meaningless," because I'm not so arrogant as to think my personal opinions are in any way representative of universal truth. If Spacey works for you as an actor, if his performances have meaning to you, I have no problem with that. But individuals have different tastes. I'm merely stating my own preferences as an individual. I'm not claiming they're better or more valid than anyone else's. And I'm certainly not going to call anyone else blind or deluded simply for having different tastes from my own.

As for the films you listed, I've only seen The Usual Suspects and LA Confidential, and neither of them did much for me. I don't get why people extol the twist ending of Suspects; I saw it coming a mile away (and no, I wasn't spoiled in advance, beyond knowing in general terms that there was a twist coming). And Confidential was an unpleasantly violent and nihilistic film in which the cops were no better than another group of mobsters, and I hate stories about mobsters. Heck, I didn't even remember Spacey was in that one; he just doesn't leave a particularly strong impression on me. If you like his work, great, good for you, but different people have different tastes.

You know, for what it's worth, I actually think you (personally) would really like K-Pax.

I'd say that if you didn't it means you were born without a heart, but I strongly suspect you'd take that as a serious expression of my feelings.

Well, it's certainly not a factor in my dissatisfaction with the film, and I resent the assumption that everyone who dislikes a film must do so for only a single universal reason.

I'm not making an assumption about every single person who disliked the film. Like I said, I was being glib, but in doing so attacking what I saw as the general attitude, rather than an individual's opinion.

If one isn't permitted to make generalizations about people, one would be arguing till doomsday over a billion different interpretations of any given work.

Shazam! wrote:

---

You can be 'visually interesting' without relying on what 14 year old kids think might be 'cool'.

No, really?

Maybe if I said "it displays in the most visceral manner possible Superman's invulnerability," it would sound smarter, right?

[Agent Richard07]

Yeah, K-Pax is really good. It's one of my favorite movies.

[the G-man]

There are a lot of great versions of Lex Luthor to choose from:

* The Lex from Elliott S! Maggin's novels Last Son of Krypton and Miracle Monday, a fascinatingly rich, almost heroic character, a supergenius who could've brought a technological utopia to humanity if his ego hadn't compelled him to devote himself to battling Superman. He saw Superman's power as a dangerous imbalance in human society and dedicated himself to being the restorer of balance.

My absolute favorite version of the character, bar none.

[Christopher]

Myasishchev wrote:

---

If one isn't permitted to make generalizations about people, one would be arguing till doomsday over a billion different interpretations of any given work.

No, one would be soliciting other people's opinions and listening to what they have to say. The best way to find out about people is to ask them. It's as simple as that.

[Trent Roman]

Myasishchev wrote:

---

I mean, did you people see Spacey's Lex Luthor?

Unfortunately, yes. A hackneyed performance and general waste of talent. Honestly, for all that Spacey's Luthor was an obvious atavism of Hackman's Luthor, the villains in Superman Returns reminded me more of the old Adam West Batman series. You have your overblown, drama-queen lead bad guy. You have a piece of arm candy who doesn't act remotely vicious enough to be with him, and falls for the hero within ten seconds of meeting him. Then you have a handful of random thugs so that the hero has somebody to ZAM! and KAPOW! Luthor and his hangers-on had no sense of menace about them; petty thugs on a black-green island. I've liked Singer's work elsewhere, but I still cannot fathom somebody who manages to get Kevin Spacey and Parker Posey to fill out his rogues' gallery, then tells Spacey to ham it up and Posey to keep it mellow.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

[Saul]

Presents Galore wrote:

---

^ 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.

It worked for Begins because that was two different characters. But here it's just one character who turns out to be Brainiac. For people who don't know Brainiac such a reveal is meaningless.