Michael Dougherty talks "Superman Returns" sequel

[Saul]

Brainiac I like. Kryptonians not so much. Been there, done that with Zod and I don't want another rehash of a Superman movie. While I do like the connection to the Donner movies which is fantastic work. I think people call them boring because they aren't used to when movies didn't have an action scene inserted every 5 minutes to keep people awake. The Donner films have inspired the likes of the Spider-man Movies and Nolan's Batman.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I think what makes the Donner films work is the majesty with which Superman is portrayed as if that makes sense. They're almost fairy tales in their own way. Superman isn't really god like yet and still trying to establish himself in our world. I think I would have not have focused so much on the Lois and Clark aspect. It'd still be there but it wouldn't take up a big chunk of my movie. I've enjoyed aspects of the films but otherwise count me in as not much of a big fan.

 

[T'Baio]

The kid was an unnecessary plot contrivance and Bosworth sucked. If you had removed/changed those two things, I believe Superman Returns would be seen with more reverence.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I actually think the kid was interesting if unnecessary. Obviously they thought just Lois wasn't enough for Clark to deal with when he returned. The little actor who played him was great and wasn't annoying. In fact the only negative responses regarding Jason seem to be the fact that he's there in the first place, not his acting which normally is the problem.

 

[Warped9]

If Singer wanted to make a good movie, he should have done so with the movie he was actually given, instead of blowing his opportunity on dull, cornball nostalgia and saving the good stuff for some imagined entitlement to another movie.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

This essentially. Superman Returns was just flat and basically a retelling of the '78 Superman: The Movie. And hearing them talk of Zod I can't help but feel that what Singer would have done would have been to remake Superman II. No Thanks.

I'll stick with Nolan and company and I never want to see Brandon Routh ever again. For me Routh had zero screen presence. The fact is he barely uttered a word throughout the whole film as if they were terrified of him speaking. The whole thing was a rehash.

Superman Returns was nice to look at...except for the pleather additions to Supes costume.

I couldn't care less what Singer planned because I saw first hand what he actually did.

 

[Admiral_Young]

What do you mean Trent...the movie he was given? Singer wasn't given a movie, he pitched his own idea which became the movie we got.

 

[ALF]

I'd had enough of the darkness.
If I need more darkness I'll switch off the lights.

I firmly don't believe that everything in Hollywood can be repaired just by adding Seth Rogan and making everything darker.
Every time they reboot something they take something away from the original - I'm not saying they shouldn't reboot (because sometimes it works great) but seriously, give it 5 years or so.

My choice is neither.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I voted Singer sequel as I'm not especially keen on the choice of Snyder as director. It's also hard to call because we have some idea what the Singer sequel would have been about but we have none about what the Nolan/Snyder movie will be.

Singer directing a Nolan-guided reboot would be my preferred choice.

 

[Warped9]

I think some folks are assuming that Nolan and Snyder will do Superman as Batman was done. That's not a given. I'm taking it as they'll have a fresh approach and not necessarily a dark one.

 

[Reverend]

Has anyone read the Superman: Earth One graphic novel yet? I don't know about anyone else but that just screamed movie adaptation to me.

As for Singer's film...it was OK...but that's it really. The only really exciting part was the space plane sequence but after that there was nothing that could really top it, so they shot themselves in the foot a bit in that regard. I didn't mind all the links to the Donner films, but I felt it was a little too slavish and should have pushed a little harder to get out of it's shadow and try for something new. The result was neither one thing or the other and was, unfortunately rather mediocre. A real shame because I can't fault the casting or the performances, all were very good and I didn't notice any "bad" dialogue. Effects, set design, cinematography, score, all top flight material.

I suppose the biggest let down was Lex's "master plan" which made even less sense than in the old movie. I mean, OK, he breaks into the fortress, steals Kryptonian technology and uses it to...grow a barren continent thinking he'll hold onto it with three hired thugs and a helicopter? Riiiight.

The first part of that works fine for me, but I think a more logical and faithful approach should probably have gone along the lines of Lex stealing the tech soon after Supes disappears and reverse engineer enough of the surface tech to file some very lucrative patents that makes him a billionaire industrialist. Much better than scamming some old lady for her inheritance. When Supes got back Luthor should have owned half of Metropolis having bought his way into respectability.
And while I'm dreaming; the obvious villain then would be something along the lines of the version of Braniac from the DCAU. That is a Kryptonian AI that was on one of the crystals. Perhaps Lex "interrogating" it for more advanced technology and it somehow escaped. Perhaps infecting someone using the crystals? Either way it'd end with an actual supervillian fight, not some real-estate scam.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Yes and I quite enjoyed it and lots of fans who have read it have had the same thought it screams new adaption. It already was tons better than "Smallville" and definitely had a cinematic scope to it. The only thing that I didn't like about it was the villain but it was an interesting take on what happened to Krypton.