From slashfilm, Variety’s Anne Thompson posted another update on the status of the next Superman film. Basically, no one knows. Warner Bros wants to make another movie, but weren’t happy with the last film. Bryan Singer is still technically attached, and has promised to go “Wrath of Khan” with the sequel, but I don’t think Warner wants a sequel. And a unnamed executive admitted that “it might be better to start from scratch.” It seems to me that we’re looking at the equivalent of a game of chicken, with neither the studio or Singer willing to move out of the way. The interesting sentence in Thompson’s update is this one: “Today I was told that it is a priority at the studio to find the right direction and if Bryan Singer is willing to do that, fine, but if he gets in the way, he may not stay on the project.”
Some have told me that Singer’s deal is that if he wasn’t brought back for the sequel, he would be paid for the work he would have done. I’m not sure if that is the case or not, and even if so, I’m not sure why Warner Bros is hesitating. Comic Book movies are hot right now, and they need to strike before the enviable downward turn hits. I was one of the few who liked Singer’s Superman Returns despite the flaws. However, It seems clear to me that people don’t want a sequel to Superman Returns, but they do want a Superman movie. It seems to me like the best thing to do is to hire a new director, and let Singer save face by bringing him on board as a producer. The new director can’t be George Miller, but someone young who will have a new take on the classic superhero. Hire Jonathan Nolan to write a script. Try to recapture the magic of The Dark Knight. After all, what would Superman look like in the Nolanverse?
7 comments:
"However, It seems clear to me that people don’t want a sequel to Superman Returns, but they do want a Superman movie."
??????
Seems to me that adding Do Over to Sequel, Prequel and Remake has made people a little stupid. You CAN have a sequel to Superman Returns that isn't LIKE Superman Returns. Back before Casino Royale and Incredible Hulk this would happen all the time. Sheesh.
octo, respectfully, you don't have your head screwed on with this one.
The difference between "making a Superman movie" (i.e. any Superman movie that will come out in the next few years) vs. "making a sequel to Superman Returns" (no matter who directs it or anything else).
The given example is Wrath of Khan. That's a totally different movie from the one it follows sequentially, in almost every way. Nevertheless it is a sequel to Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Some time has passed between movies and things have changed, but there's no question that it's the next story; a sequel.
Notwithstanding Brandon Routh or the director or anything else, did that stuff happen (Superman vs. Lex; Super kid etc.) or didn't it? That's the question
I just don't want to see the Superman origin story ever again. Start the next film off with Superman pounding the shit over some bad guys.
Another thing: I don't understand the Horrorthon allergy to superhero origin stories. I like them! When we were kids, going back and reading the origin was the coolest thing to do.
One of the reasons Burton's Batman was so irritating to me is that it covered Batman's arrival in Gotham City without dealing with his origin. One day he was just...there...and apparently it's none of our business to ask why. Begins straightened this out wonderfully.
Iron Man was a great origin story and so was Spider-Man and the original 1978 Superman. Honestly, I don't understand why you guys don't like them. "Yeah; I can fly." Would you rather just skip all that good stuff? Apparently so. I don't get it; I must be the weirdo.
I don't mind the origin story, but I don't need to see it repeatedly retold. We know where Superman comes from for example, if they do yet another Superman reboot they can skip all the Krypton exploding stuff in my opinion. Iron Man was a terrific origin story movie, and now it's been told and it never needs to be covered again.
I am totally with JSP on the whole Superman story, period. I think he put it this way..."Bad guy does bad stuff, Superman tries to stop bad guy, bad guy gets kryptonite, Superman is in trouble, kryptonite goes away, Superman wins, yawn!"
Jordan, you are with everyone else, so I must be the weird one, but I though Ironman was one boring-ass movie.
You know, jpx, I suspect that the reason you don't want to see the Superman origin story again: It's silly.
It's the very first superhero "origin" ever, from the 1930s, before the concept of a superhero origin even existed. As such, it's really more like a fable or a storybook fairy tale than a modern comic book narrative. And there's just no way to put it on the big screen without it coming across as, you know, kind of dumb. I can't think of any other origin stories that have this problem (Batman's is totally solid). I think they got the template correct, right after they'd locked down Superman's "Last Son of Krypton" roots.
Post a Comment