infamous_emijayne said:

I have said this many times.....

I would have waited until Smallville had run it's course with Clark finally becoming Superman. Then I would have moved it onto the big screen much like they did with Star Trek.

If that were not an option, I would have started from the very beginning exploring more about Krypton and his parents prior to what was shown in the original film and Clark would have become Superman for the first time much more towards the end of the film.

I would also have changed the cast entirely. Bosworth is unworthy of playing Lois Lane. Routh, while toned, lacks the physical definition depicted throughout the history of Superman. Even if only his chest were more defined I could probably accept the rest of his appearance. And though I am a longtime fan of Kevin Spacey, I kept picturing Gene Hackman's portrayal as well as Jack's Joker from Batman.

There would be no need to try and cover my *** with excuses of why this happened or why I didn't do something else. The mere term "loose sequel" boils my blood because he changed his mind and his words from interview to interview over the course of a year. What is really bothering me is someone else is now doing that very same thing of flip-flopping statements. His name is Michael Bay. I would be a hypocrit if I said I wasn't getting worried about Transformers but that's for another thread....

Back to this one....Lex would be emotionless, cruel, and maniacal in any story I would put together. No campy crap making him seem like a goofy nutjob at any point in time. There would be plenty of realistic action as well as the use of all Superman's powers making it impossible to walk out thinking "Was that a love story or an action movie?".

I could sit here and ponder more, but it would never happen so I see no point in getting myself worked up further over nothing. I look forward to reading BatSTUD's comments though....

The_Star_Treker said:

Show mostly Krypton and his parents of the movie and Clark become Superman at the end? Hmm, I think a lot of the fans would hate it and I don't see much a love story or no action in it and looks like that it just about the same story from the original film. I think your movie would die on the spot. I prefer Clark become Superman at the middle or something, have a love story, and of course a lot of action in the movie. I also think it should be about an all new story not same story as the original one. Let see who else and BatSTUD thinks.

infamous_emijayne said:

The_Star_Treker said:

Show mostly Krypton and his parents of the movie and Clark become Superman at the end? Hmm, I think a lot of the fans would hate it and I don't see much a love story or no action in it and looks like that it just about the same story from the original film. I think your movie would die on the spot. I prefer Clark become Superman at the middle or something, have a love story, and of course a lot of action in the movie. I also think it should be about an all new story not same story as the original one. Let see who else and BatSTUD thinks.

I didn't say I'd show mostly Krypton. I said I would show more of it and of his parents adding to the backstory. My version would be a return to the origin and done in a way similiar to Batman Begins as well as how they did Spider-Man. The franchise needed to start over in my opinion. Not continue. People talk about not wanting another origin film but it's been how many years since it was done?? A lot longer than it was between Batman and Batman Begins.

And comic fans don't want a love story chick flick about a superhero. They want action. They want explosions, people dying, etc....I would make a movie very tightly in line with the comic book because as myself and BatSTUD have said before, if you're after NEW fans who don't know the story, why change the story? Leave it be and satisfy the comic fans and give new fans something that might make them walk out thinking "Wow!!" and pick up a comic book the next day to see what they've been missing.

MARTIANCAVEMAN said:

Another way I would have done Superman Returns would be to have a supervillian that Superman could fight hand to hand combat with.

Somebody said this before. After Clark comes back from the remaining pieces of Krypton. Brainic follows clark back to earth.

Just like the cartoons I would like to see Superman fighting someone that's just as powerful as him.

Nightwing said:

If SR isn't suppose to be love story or a chick flick with not much action, what you call Smallville or Lois & Clark (which has their name, meaning a love story!)? They don't have much action as well & both are love story. In fact, Smallville is Dawson's Creek with superheroes as icing on the cake. Teeny booper show, if you will.

But anyway, I would add more action, get rid of the "S" on the belt (that the only one I hate of the costume) & maybe make the "S" a little bigger but not too big like Reeve, & lower the collar as well. And just like Star Trekker, I would make it a restart. I do love the homage to the original films, but I think it better to do a restart instead. And you don't need to do the origins, since we already seen it done well.

Nightwing said:

If SR isn't suppose to be love story or a chick flick with not much action, what you call Smallville or Lois & Clark (which has their name, meaning a love story!)? They don't have much action as well & both are love story. In fact, Smallville is Dawson's Creek with superheroes as icing on the cake. Teeny booper show, if you will.

But anyway, I would add more action, get rid of the "S" on the belt (that the only one I hate of the costume) & maybe make the "S" a little bigger but not too big like Reeve, & lower the collar as well. And just like Star Trekker, I would make it a restart. I do love the homage to the original films, but I think it better to do a restart instead. And you don't need to do the origins, since we already seen it done well.

The_Star_Treker said:

To me, Superman Returns is the restart of the franchise without the origin story in it. Get it now?

infamous_emijayne said:

The_Star_Treker said:

To me, Superman Returns is the restart of the franchise without the origin story in it. Get it now?

It could have been that way but Singer in his infinite stupidity, I mean wisdom, blew that chance. He copied word for word several lines out of the original film (go watch it again) and pieced together others that were clearly meant to be viewed as a continuation from Superman 2. You can't have it both ways but he really tried and that's why it failed to draw the numbers they hoped for and that it should have gotten. He had the opportunity of a lifetime and wasted it.

Because WB execs were very pissed about the results and have said the sequel will have a much lower budget and "tons more action", I will go see it. And I truly hope for the sake of his career he doesn't screw up again because I guarantee you Singer won't get a third chance from WB if the sequel fails to turn profit while in its theatrical run.

infamous_emijayne said:

The_Star_Treker said:

To me, Superman Returns is the restart of the franchise without the origin story in it. Get it now?

It could have been that way but Singer in his infinite stupidity, I mean wisdom, blew that chance. He copied word for word several lines out of the original film (go watch it again) and pieced together others that were clearly meant to be viewed as a continuation from Superman 2. You can't have it both ways but he really tried and that's why it failed to draw the numbers they hoped for and that it should have gotten. He had the opportunity of a lifetime and wasted it.

Because WB execs were very pissed about the results and have said the sequel will have a much lower budget and "tons more action", I will go see it. And I truly hope for the sake of his career he doesn't screw up again because I guarantee you Singer won't get a third chance from WB if the sequel fails to turn profit while in its theatrical run.

MARTIANCAVEMAN said:



I mean he could done something like took away Supermans flying ability.
But he didn't.

MARTIANCAVEMAN said:

I wouldn't call Singer stupid.
I mean he could done something like took away Supermans flying ability.
But he didn't.

The_Star_Treker said:

I see it as the restart of the franchise because the first 2 films were took place in 1978 & 1980 and SR takes place in 2006. SR can't completely be a sequel. It is just more as the restart.

infamous_emijayne said:

The_Star_Treker said:

I see it as the restart of the franchise because the first 2 films were took place in 1978 & 1980 and SR takes place in 2006. SR can't completely be a sequel. It is just more as the restart.

Um...a restart after 20+ years IS A SEQUEL...It needed to be a "remake" or "new start" like Batman Begins.

forrest52 said:

infamous_emijayne said:

The_Star_Treker said:

I see it as the restart of the franchise because the first 2 films were took place in 1978 & 1980 and SR takes place in 2006. SR can't completely be a sequel. It is just more as the restart.

Um...a restart after 20+ years IS A SEQUEL...It needed to be a "remake" or "new start" like Batman Begins.

I understand the idea behind a restart but I kind of agree with Singer on the idea that mostly everyone knows where Superman came from. I think, had it been me in charge (one can only dream) I woul d have done a death of Superman and worked in a return or rehash of Superman. When I first heard about another Superman and it maybe being the Death of Superman I pictured a Matrixesque fight scene climax between Doomsday and Superman where they do that bullet time full circle of the last punch and the shock waves are flying off the two from the punch breaking windows and throwing cars and people back and they both fall defeated. I still think people would come in flipping crowds if there was a trailer of the death of Superman and it ended with a real life shot of Supermans ripped cape blowing in the wind. Thats just me.

infamous_emijayne said:

The_Star_Treker said:

I see it as the restart of the franchise because the first 2 films were took place in 1978 & 1980 and SR takes place in 2006. SR can't completely be a sequel. It is just more as the restart.

Um...a restart after 20+ years IS A SEQUEL...It needed to be a "remake" or "new start" like Batman Begins.

The_Star_Treker said:

infamous_emijayne said:

The_Star_Treker said:

I see it as the restart of the franchise because the first 2 films were took place in 1978 & 1980 and SR takes place in 2006. SR can't completely be a sequel. It is just more as the restart.

Um...a restart after 20+ years IS A SEQUEL...It needed to be a "remake" or "new start" like Batman Begins.

Um... what can you called Batman (1989) then? It is a beginning without the origin and not a continuation. Both versions of Superman and Batman are opposites. Superman The Movie with the origin and Superman Returns without the origin. Batman (1989) without the origin and Batman Begins with the origin. See the differents?

infamous_emijayne said:

The_Star_Treker said:

infamous_emijayne said:

The_Star_Treker said:

I see it as the restart of the franchise because the first 2 films were took place in 1978 & 1980 and SR takes place in 2006. SR can't completely be a sequel. It is just more as the restart.

Um...a restart after 20+ years IS A SEQUEL...It needed to be a "remake" or "new start" like Batman Begins.

Um... what can you called Batman (1989) then? It is a beginning without the origin and not a continuation. Both versions of Superman and Batman are opposites. Superman The Movie with the origin and Superman Returns without the origin. Batman (1989) without the origin and Batman Begins with the origin. See the differents?

I'm getting really close to taking back my apology....Trying to make a logical point to you is as hard as trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. I give up....

Tokey said:

I would have added a monkey.


The idea of the Smallville cast is pretty good... but the idea of tv to movie doesnt sit well with me for some reason. Maybe because it would just be Smallville: The Movie and not an actual new franchise.

Theres a lot you could change to make better, I didn't really like WHEN the movie was taking place. Or the super baby.

I would have just started from scratch and had Superman die (Doomsday). That is pretty much a cant miss movie right there although I think it may be difficult to make Doomsday on the big screen? I think comic fans would be obligated to see that one, while the general public would just be eager for a new Supes film (and be shocked to see him die at the end) it would definitely generate a response. Then a few years later... his return as a sequel? Even better.

I can understand how people feel the SR is wasted potential but it is what it is. We all have our ideas of what it should have been, Singer choked a little.

The_Star_Treker said:

You can call it the continuation (loose sequel) to the original films in your book. In my book, it is still restart of the franchise even if Singer used Superman and Superman II as a backup story for the beginning (loose sequel). Superman/Superman II and Superman Returns can't fully fit each other because they are both different time periods and one of them is more modern than the other. Are you getting what I'm making out or you still think I'm not being logical enough?

Tokey said:

I would have just started from scratch and had Superman die (Doomsday). That is pretty much a cant miss movie right there although I think it may be difficult to make Doomsday on the big screen? I think comic fans would be obligated to see that one, while the general public would just be eager for a new Supes film (and be shocked to see him die at the end) it would definitely generate a response. Then a few years later... his return as a sequel? Even better.

I can understand how people feel the SR is wasted potential but it is what it is. We all have our ideas of what it should have been, Singer choked a little.

infamous_emijayne said:

The_Star_Treker said:

You can call it the continuation (loose sequel) to the original films in your book. In my book, it is still restart of the franchise even if Singer used Superman and Superman II as a backup story for the beginning (loose sequel). Superman/Superman II and Superman Returns can't fully fit each other because they are both different time periods and one of them is more modern than the other. Are you getting what I'm making out or you still think I'm not being logical enough?

Okay...I'm gonna try this one final time. A restart IS a sequel when done 20 years later. And Singer called it a half-sequel so that can't be ignored. My point is it SHOULD have been a new beginning and NOT a restart as it was made. My point is Singer wasted the opportunity to make a MUCH better film. Do you understand what I am saying yet or should I type slower??