Superman Sequel confirmed: Singer to Direct

[Felon]

A common flawed perspective that I'm seeing here is the notion that if a movie isn't a blockbuster, then it's a failure. Personally, I regard a movie as a failure if it stinks. I enjoyed Singer's vision of a movie that's a continuation of Donner's films.

In a commercial sense, a movie succeeds when it turns a profit, which Superman certainly will do when all is said and done. With action movies, a lot of profit comes from the secondary market, notably DVD sales and pay-per-view. The Punisher's box office take was scarcely more than Superman Returns' opening weekend total, yet a sequel is in the works.

As to a villain, Singer would do just as well to come up with his own. It's all good and well to talk about Brainiac, but really these days it's just a name without a coherent villain attached to it. Kinda hard to come up with an amalgam of the words "brain" and "mainiac" without getting a character that winds up as an eggheaded Lex Luthor knock-off. I liked it when the character was re-invented in the 1980's as a sort of cyber-monster flying around space in a giant version of its own head, with reticulated tendrils that gave it a vaguely lovecraftian quality. The nadir would be the green-skinned Snidely-Whiplash character, complete with ridiculous blonde handlebar moustache and van dyke.

Hell, give us Doomsday already...

 

[Ranger REG]

A common flawed perspective that I'm seeing here is the notion that if a movie isn't a blockbuster, then it's a failure. Personally, I regard a movie as a failure if it stinks.

You mean like Snakes on a Plane? Something (my gut instinct?) tells me this is a film I would never watch -- like Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of the Elemental Gods -- but it will get a sizable box office revenue for the studio to continue investing in sequels of that newborn franchise.

While movie studios would love the added credibility of praises from movie audience ... if only to repeat what they say in front of a promo trailer camera ... as well as having a film win some prestigious award, the bottom line is, "I invested in the film, now I want a return."

 

[Staffan]

One last point, I have NO IDEA how George Lucas made Revenge of the Sith for 113 million dollars.

He probably got a good deal on the CGI from ILM. I hear he's a buddy of the owner or something (or at least the owner at the time).

 

[Klaus]

A common flawed perspective that I'm seeing here is the notion that if a movie isn't a blockbuster, then it's a failure. Personally, I regard a movie as a failure if it stinks. I enjoyed Singer's vision of a movie that's a continuation of Donner's films.

In a commercial sense, a movie succeeds when it turns a profit, which Superman certainly will do when all is said and done. With action movies, a lot of profit comes from the secondary market, notably DVD sales and pay-per-view. The Punisher's box office take was scarcely more than Superman Returns' opening weekend total, yet a sequel is in the works.

As to a villain, Singer would do just as well to come up with his own. It's all good and well to talk about Brainiac, but really these days it's just a name without a coherent villain attached to it. Kinda hard to come up with an amalgam of the words "brain" and "mainiac" without getting a character that winds up as an eggheaded Lex Luthor knock-off. I liked it when the character was re-invented in the 1980's as a sort of cyber-monster flying around space in a giant version of its own head, with reticulated tendrils that gave it a vaguely lovecraftian quality. The nadir would be the green-skinned Snidely-Whiplash character, complete with ridiculous blonde handlebar moustache and van dyke.

Hell, give us Doomsday already...

Brainiac can be used if the tie him to Krypton, like they did for the animated series.

Personally, I'm rooting for a sequel that sows the seeds for a third movie with a big Darkseid showdown.

"Darkseid Is", indeed.

 

[Filby]

If Darkseid ever makes it into a movie, I'd rather it be in a New Gods film, and only then appearing in a Superman film if that does well. He's Orion's archenemy, not Superman's, despite how much he's been tied into Supes's mythos in the last 20-odd years (and, yes, first appearing in Jimmy Olsen's book). Actually, hell, I'd say he's the archenemy of the DC Universe as a whole.

I wish they'd use some of the "minor" villains, like Bizarro, Metallo, or the Parasite, as secondary villains or something.

And get the Hackman out of Luthor, dammit.

 

[Vigilance]

Just an off-handed comment: I think Bryan Singer screwed WB when he needed $250 mil to do the film, but WB bent backward even so far to give $50 mil more when Bryan Singer later needed more. Bryan Singer criticized WB for the way they promoted/hyped his film, but can you blame WB after having written $300 mil check?

Well, in the first place the total budget for the movie listed on Boc Office Mojo is 260 mill. In the second place, I don't think Singer spent all that money. I think the 50 million WB blew on development of the various Superman movies that never were is included in that figure.

It isn't uncommon for movies with cutting edge CGI to have budgets of 200 million or higher these days (unless they're made by George Lucas). Whether that's a good development is a different discussion, but Im not sure it's avoidable.

Getting that "wow" factor tends to be expensive.

Chuck

 

[Klaus]

If Darkseid ever makes it into a movie, I'd rather it be in a New Gods film, and only then appearing in a Superman film if that does well. He's Orion's archenemy, not Superman's, despite how much he's been tied into Supes's mythos in the last 20-odd years (and, yes, first appearing in Jimmy Olsen's book). Actually, hell, I'd say he's the archenemy of the DC Universe as a whole.

I wish they'd use some of the "minor" villains, like Bizarro, Metallo, or the Parasite, as secondary villains or something.

And get the Hackman out of Luthor, dammit.

Metallo is certainly an interesting proposition, as is Parasite.

I'd only take Bizarro if he's done like John Byrne portrayed him, not as "Me Am Bizarro" mode. And there's also Mongul, Live Wire, Toyman, Prankster, Intergang, and then Doomsday.

And there's, of course, the possiblity of teaming up Joker and Luthor against Batman and Superman...

 

[Lord Pendragon]

A common flawed perspective that I'm seeing here is the notion that if a movie isn't a blockbuster, then it's a failure. Personally, I regard a movie as a failure if it stinks. I enjoyed Singer's vision of a movie that's a continuation of Donner's films.

I'm not sure I'd call it a flawed perspective, so much as a pragmatic, industry-insider perspective. Studios are risking huge amounts of money on movies these days. If you risk 260 million dollars of venture capital, and only get back 6% on your investment, that's a failure. In the same time you could have done something else that earned you far, far more. When you're risking that kind of money, a slight profit simply does not balance out the potential catastrophe.

In a commercial sense, a movie succeeds when it turns a profit, which Superman certainly will do when all is said and done.

I'm not an expert, but I believe, again, that this is mistaken. To be successful a movie's profit must justify the amount of risk and opportunity cost invested in the film.

With action movies, a lot of profit comes from the secondary market, notably DVD sales and pay-per-view. The Punisher's box office take was scarcely more than Superman Returns' opening weekend total, yet a sequel is in the works.

This is true. And Batman Begins' numbers weren't astronomical, but we'll be getting a sequel there, too. But these movies cost significantly less than Superman Returns to make. That means the studio isn't risking as much potential loss, and aren't tying up as large a chunk of their working capital on a single project.

As to a villain, Singer would do just as well to come up with his own.

Not me. I want to see a legendary Superman villain brought to life. Though for me, I would hope he chose one of the grander, more epic villains, such as Brainiac, Darkseid, or Doomsday.

It's all good and well to talk about Brainiac, but really these days it's just a name without a coherent villain attached to it. Kinda hard to come up with an amalgam of the words "brain" and "mainiac" without getting a character that winds up as an eggheaded Lex Luthor knock-off.

Perhaps. But I doubt anyone but hard-core Batman fans knew the name Ra'as Al-Ghul before Batman Begins either. A good writer/director can take a little-known villain and create something memorable with the source material. I don't think it'd be hard to create a compelling Brainiac.

 

[satori01]

I do not want to see Lex Luthor again. Frankly that was the weakest part of Superman Returns, the idiotic plan and the constant homage to the Donner films. The Donner films were lovingly self mocking. They showed the ridiculousness, the dated tropes of Superman, and the Lex Luthor of those movies, played brillantly by Gene Hackman works.

Singer tries to bring a realism to the film, in terms of visual effects, and the menance of the portrayal by Spacey, but ties it to a goofy juevenille comic book "dastardly plan". If Luthor is a villain in the next movie I will honestly consider not seeing it. He is done and tired, Singer made his bed, and I do not want to sleep in it.

Brainiac sounds like it would be brillant. In the old WB cartoon did Brainiac not tempt Superman with his supposed absolute knowledge of Krypton? Seems like the perfect hook, as Singer has already established Superman as longing to know more of his origins.

Brainiac, Yes, Lex Lethor NO!

 

[Sir Brennen]

Here's an interesting perspective on whether or not this year's "Superman" was a hit or not, comparing it to X3. Here's the Hollywood Reporter link.