Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Fun with Polls Superman Returns Two?

I was just looking at the Wikipedia entry for Superman Returns and noticed this:

"The working title for the sequel has been reported, and neither confirmed nor denied, as Superman: The Man of Steel. The focus will be on a tighter story with more villains and bigger action sequences.

Superman: The Man of Steel does have precedent - it was the title of the 6-comic miniseries which relaunched Superman in 1986 (and the main inspiration for our favourite TV show, since it introduced many of the themes in L&C). But "More villains and bigger action sequences" sounds like they are trying to make the story more like the comics, and less like L&C, though hopefully they will resolve some of the issues of their relationship such as Jason.

So... two questions, one about the title and one about the plot.

Personally, I think this trailer looks promising.

(If you have any trouble with that link, you can try the WMV version . It's also available on YouTube . Just ignore the clip title.)

In any case... I'm not surprised they're looking to do a sequel. The movie rocked, and there's a clear market for good superhero movies these days.

There are some things I'd like to see, but, really, when you get down to it... as long as they do as good a job this time as last (hopefully better, since the last one wasn't exactly perfect), I'll be happy.

I do hope that we get to see more of Clark in the next one. It seemed like he got about five minutes of screentime in SR.

Paul

Were TPTB originally looking to do three movies total? Or did I make that up?

I personally voted for Lex returning to wreak a horrible revenge since I love villians. <g> But ultimately, I'll watch almost anything they put together. I don't look for life-changing experiences in the theatre. It would be nice to se some more of Clark and maybe the Daily Planet hustle...

JD

And they aren't joking. There's a Wikipedia entry on that film here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdog

Then click on the link to the 2007 film. I actually have a very vague memory of seeing a clip from the original show in a "50 years of Superman" retrospective in the late eighties. Sounds like it might be fun...

Oooooh? Really? Underdog?

I would say *woot*, but *woof* seems more appropriate. (and silly!!)


I almost picked Jason's Revenge 'cause that's just plain hilarious. I picked another amusing title instead. Would have gone with "something else" but felt I had nothing to elaborate on... I don't really care what they'll call it - I'll be going to see it on opening day anyhow.

As for the contents of the movie... erm... ya know... I just hope they make Clark seem less indifferent to Lois. I mean, obviously for half a second you could tell he was crushed and jealous and all that... but come on!!! Fight for her, Clark!!!! (even Movie-Clark the First was more of a man than that dude... maybe it's being in space for 5 years, I dunno... *sigh*)

I went with NO SEQUEL, NO SEQUEL...at least not until they get a MANLIER man to play him; Brandon Routh was a waste of the suit and the suit was a complete piece of crap as well. Kevin Spacey certainly deserves kudo's for his mean Lex, but it's pointless if he doesn't have a good hero to go up against.

I'll watch a new movie regardless on how they name it and what it's about . But personally I wish that they'll explain some things they left open in SR: Everyone presumes Jason is Clarks son, but is he? If he is, Lois really must have been shocked once she found out she's pregnant (by whom?!?). And it would be sooooo nice when she might find her memory back

Just rewatched SR last night. I don't remember them saying how old Jason is but they talk about his A in science and F in gym. SO I HAVE SEVERAL PROBLEMS. It seemed obvious to me when she whispered to him in the hospital that she told him Jason was his son. That was obvious by his reaction to the kryptonite and shoving the piano across the room. Also her lack of surprise at him visiting Jason or her lack of asking him what the hell he was doing in her son's room without asking her. So since it is obvious that Jason is Superman's son. Then:

1. Richard must know that Jason is Superman's son because she was not dating him in any of the movies. He wasn't even a character. So unless she met him and bed him in pretty much the same night, which would have to be right at the end of Superman 2 after Zod is banished then DUH he knows he ain't the father. Plus it would be a large part of the reason for his wanting to know if she loved Superman in the kitchen scene. (Which we all noted she never answered.)

2. For Jason to be Superman's son then obviously movies 3 & 4 never happened. Fine by me I hated them. Especially the one with Richard Pryor. It wasn't a Superman movie it was a Richard Pryor movie.

3. Also for this to work - his being Superman's son movies 3 & r couldn't have happened because time doesn't work. They said in the scene between Clark and his mother that he was gone 5 years. We know they only slept together once in the ice fortress (because Jor-El said he had to give up his powers for them to sleep together). So obviously he had to leave right after movie 2 or he would have to have known about Lois being pregnant and at least suspected he was the father. But this all means that Jason can only be a little over 4 years old and the kid in the movie was obviously older than 4.

So a large sub-plot of the movie should at least address some of this. I understand that they need to have action and villians but lets get some one other than Lex Luthor - between LnC and the movies he's been done to death and I didn't care for this latest incarnation of Lex either. So lets get a new villian. Your in the movie making business use SOME IMAGINATION.

The title Superman - Man of Steel is trite and all action and villians doesn't call for much of a script or dialog. As expensive as movies are to go to I want some story substance not just all action and special effects. It seems to me that most movies rely more on the effects than having an ACTUAL STORY. And for my above reasons I want some things explained.

So for all of these reasons I said other to both questions. Forgive me for rambling on but I just had to get these points off my chest. Though I enjoyed SR I want the next one better and some answers.

I don't remember where at this hour, but I read an interview with the director, and I think...someone...either him or the interviewer said something about ignoring movies 3 and 4 in writing SR's script...

Talk about your vague recollections LOL. But I'd like to say they kind of ignored the last two movies so they could run their own show with SR and the following sequels...

JD

Yeah, Bryan Singer pretty much ignored the existence of Superman III and IV. Good riddance to them anyway. If they weren't in the Ultimate Edition, I wouldn't even bother to own them.

As for Lois knowing about Jason's father, Singer essentially contradicted canon from Superman II saying that Lois clearly remembers sleeping with Superman but didn't know Clark was Superman. Huh? He didn't bother to explain how one could happen without the other. So Lois knows who the father is without question, but remains totally clueless about the secret identity.

The movie went further than the book did. The book never had Jason do anything that couldn't be explained by a kid with really good eye sight. He was able to find Superman in the water from an airplane. Lois wondered how, but did not come to a conclusion. In the book, Jason never killed anybody by throwing a piano at him, the only really overt act of super powers he used in the movie. At the end of the book, it was left ambiguous as to who Jason's dad is while the movie left no doubts whatsoever.

Singer also said that he looked forward to doing the sequel even before the movie made a ton of money. So he acknowledged there would be at least one.

It's nice that a true Superman fan is at the helm. He gave up directing the final X-Men movie to do Superman because he loved the character. I doubt he regretted his decision even in passing even though X-Men ended up being even more successful than Superman Returns.

Book? What book? There's a book???

Kmar: A wizard did it. Really, tho, you make a good point. I personally suspected that Lois got Richard on purpose, as soon as she found out she was pregnant. As for the age---*shrug* Time travel? Gaping plot hole? Really advanced school and a kid that just *looks* older than he really is? At least it could possibly provide fic fodder. Plot holes serve a valuable purpose in this life!

Okay, I may end up seeing it anyway, just because it's Superman and so forth. :rolleyes:
But I would really prefer something more character-driven. In fact, at this point I prolly wouldn't notice if the villains were completely absent!

...Except to kill Richard. I voted Richard off the island. He may be a nice guy, but he has gotten in the way and therefore must go. Y'all don't want to know my opinions on Lana.

Here it is on Amazon:

Superman Returns by Marv Wolfman

Marv's a guy who knows his comics as he used to work for both DC Comics and Marvel, and I think used to be the editor of one of them (Marvel, I think).

And you're right, L&C doesn't really fit in the movieverse, as the movie was a continuation of pre-Crisis Superman where Clark Kent was the disguise. That's why there's so little of Clark in it. I still can't quite figure out why Jimmy idolizes him.

I voted that I wanted a sequel to Superman Returns, but I'm really not sure. Me the Lois fan can so easily picture all kinds of bad things that a new movie might do to Lois. Lois's relationship with Richard White in SR doesn't bode well for any sort of Lois and Clark relationship in a sequel. And many of the most diehard Superman fanboys absolutely hated Lois in SR. The official reviewer of SR for www.supermanhomepage.com was Neal Bailey, who insisted that Lois was a terrible bitch in this moive, cruelly playing with men's hearts (well, because she seemed to be romancing Superman even though she was supposedly committed to Richard). Bailey also said that Lois was a horrible mother in SR, and that she was a feminazi! Come on, people! As if Lois was some sort of ultra-rabid man-hater bent on killing all men in Nazi-like concentration camps... come on! But that was the kind of hatred that SR's Lois inspired in some fanboys. What if the movie industry decides it will appease those fanboys by killing off or otherwise destroying Lois and giving the fanboys something to cheer about? And then they can please the fangirls by giving Superman a new love interest. All I can say is that if they make a movie like that, believe me, I won't see it.

Over at Zoomway's site, Georgia Walden wrote that it would perhaps have been better if there had been no sequels to the first Christopher Reeve movie, Superman the movie. The original movie was upbeat, optimistic and open-ended, and it was possible to imagine that Superman and Lois would get together afterwards. The second movie brutally dashed any hopes for a Lois and Superman relationship. So maybe I'm saying like Georgia Walden... yes, perhaps it would be better if there were no sequels to Superman Returns.

Ann

Well, not that I don't *love* character-driven movies, and not that I *want* to be bashed for this buuut...

I really want a Superman Returns sequel with more action!

Yes, you heard me. More Action. Slander, I know. (I've been a FoLC for a looong time.)

This is NOT to say I DON'T want a character-driven film: as a FoLC at all, it should be clear that I do. But I also want an A-PLOT! And a good one too!

Yes, of course I want to see Lois & Clark end up together. (Yes, of course they *eventually* will.) Yes, the Richard thing will work itself out conveniently (this is the movies after all, let's not forget that). YES, I want Lex Luthor in the sequel(s)--Kevin Spacey was the best part about SR, plus, it's classic, you gotta have LL in the picture. (Reasoning: consider L&C. What's the best season? Not necessarily your favorite; the best *written*? Yes of course it's season one. Why? There's some variety as to the threats Superman faces, but who's behind almost every single evil plot? None other than Lex Luthor. Even if Lex isn't involved directly in L&C or in the SR sequel(s), then he should be involved "behind-the-scenes" to some extent. They managed to pull that off in Superman II, so they should definitely go for it in this flick too.)

As to why I want more action in general? Hello? Duh? I love comics! Yes, I'm a fangirl, and I want to see some superheroic *** -kicking! I mean he's SUPERMAN after all! Let's see him being super.

Why I think they can pull of a good balance of character-driven story and A-plot? The Spider-Man movies (but mostly the second and third ones...especially the third one for action sequences). If Bryan Singer & Co. don't screw up too much in writing the main plot, then I think they can do it.

My only mega-beef? NO. ZOD.

He's only cool in the comics; he's been done before in the movies--let's see something new!

Okay well, that's my mega rant. Thanks for reading, if you did!

PS: Lois was not a b**ch, that's just male insecurity. This world is still mega-backwards in terms of prejudice. Lois' character, admittedly, was not perfectly written. But I can think of a *lot* worse scenarios; at least she stood up to Superman! Lois is supposed to be a feminist-type character (or at least, she has been for years now), so they wrote that aspect of her pretty well in SR. I hope they don't turn her into some sort of mushy push-over in the sequel just because of the negative reactions of some bad-apple "fan"boys.

Hrm, you raise good points, Ultragirl. Some action would be nice, and perhaps necessary---I just don't want it to be 100% explosions and fist-fights. If they can find a good balance, I think I'll be happy.

Lois seemed kind of weak to me. I don't know how else to describe it. Maybe it was the acting, or the writing, or both. I just felt like something was missing. She didn't *fill*.

What bothers me about Richard is that
a) Movie/Precrisis continuity has established that Superman *must* remain single for many lame reasons.*
*rant pending.
b) According to the Look Up In the Sky! documentary, there are *still fights* in DC HQ about whether Lois and Clark getting hitched was a good move.
c) I wouldn't put it past Hollywood to try to do something sensationalist, shocking, and/or "ground breaking".

OTOH, *surely* the fans would riot? Since word of SR came out, I've been reassuring myself by saying "They can't do 'blah blah blah' because the fans would riot!" However, I've been growing less and less certain about what the other fans do/don't approve of...

I do not agree that season 1 was good because of Lex. It was good because of DEBORAH JOY LEVINE. She left after season 1 to do other projects. It was her vision for Lois and Clark that drove season 1. I will admitted that the Lex character got on my nerve in LnC. I mean come on he jumps off the top of a very high highrise and they bring him back from the dead. Then he shows up to break up the wedding. Then when they can't think of a way to bring Lex back they bring in his sons. I will it admitted it worked in Dean's script with X but when they brought in a second son who was grossly disfigured and he had a good looking double. Give me a break. Crappy writers who couldn't come up with anything so lets rehash Lex Luthor et al again. To me that is part of what made the other seasons bad, obviously poor writers who had no freaking imagination.

The episodes I really enjoyed in the seasons other than 1 were episodes Dean or Teri wrote. They used some imagination, although Teri's shrinkng was reaching a little far. It was a fun episode.

So bring back Lex in the sequel would really pi.. me off because it would be so unrealistic and unimaginative. The guy is on a tiny, tiny and I do me microscopic island with no food, no fresh water and no way to get off. So to me that means the END of Lex Luthor. To bring him back would mean that the writers and director are losers and can't come up with any other villian to do battle with our hero Superman. If that is the case then they shouldn't be involved in the sequel. Just my opinion.

As for Lois in the movie - I didn't find her to be a feminist or a decent mother.

1. She has a child with asthma - obviously bad asthma and SHE SMOKES. First it is very bad to smoke when you are pregnant, so is she so uncaring about her child that she smoked then. If she didn't smoke for the 9 months then why does she have to smoke now. She would be over the physical and pyschological cravings. I know I smoked at one time.

2. What nut case mother would take her child with her to investigate something that she knows is possibly dangerous. And she knew what she was doing was possibly dangerous - it was so apparent in the movie.

3. No where in that movie did I see Lois doing anything that struck me as feminist or gutsy. Just stupid. I also didn't see her do anything against Richard. The roof scene was the confrontation you would expect. She had to confront Superman about leaving. She went flying with him, so. She almost kissed him so. But she didn't she remained true to Richard.

My problem with this Lois is the actress. I found her miscast. I can't even remember her name. But she just didn't work for me. I was spoiled by Teri. She could be soft, feminine even weak when needed, but she could also be tough as nails and gunho go get them in a way that worked for what I think most people picture Lois Lane being. Face it SR's Lois Lane will never be that. She will always come off as pathically out of charactier.

All of this is of course just my humble opinion.

I agree. Kate Bosworth was horribly miscast and the Lois Lane character suffered from weak writing and characterization. I would like to see these issues addressed in the sequel. Since KB was not well received at all by the majority of the audience, I still hold out hope for a recast, although I expect my hopes to be cruelly crushed.

I thought Jimmy finally did get a decent picture in Superman Returns? He was standing right in front of Superman, taking pictures of him with the Daily Planet globe thing held above his head....

Har! No, you're not alone. I love creepy plots, whodunits, the race to well, whatever it is that's either going to end the world, or kill the city of whatsits, and yes the occasional death. Kevin Spacey did just fine for me in SR. And yes, I'll still admit it would be nice to acknowledge Clark Kent's presence in the next movie. <g> He was a character after all. <g> But if I want to see him and Lois finally hook up, I've got an entire tv series and a fandom full of stories here. That's not really my personal priority on the big screen. I want a killer A-plot for the next movie. And you do bring up a good point, ultragirl. I'll keep a little hope because I did like the Spider-Man series. So let's see what happens...

JD

You know another problem I had with the movie was where Lois and Richard lived. She works as a reporter, her family does not have money. I don't remember any where that says the Whites have money. So how are Richard and Lois living in a probably several million dollar house, water front that is wide enough to have a sea plane parked in front. Plus how can he own a sea plane, they are expensive and require upkeep. Unless it turns out they own the paper. I'm confused where the money comes from for this wealthy lifestype.